Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 29/01/2016 05:29:09

Title: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2016 05:29:09
1.a.............................b
2.a.............................b

As title, is distance an absolute invariant between two imaginary points of space?

Ignoring the properties in/of space.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/01/2016 08:20:49
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2016 09:04:58
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

Something sounds contradictory there, do you mean the distance decreases if the stick approaches an object?

Or are you trying to suggest the stick ''shrinks'' in length?

''If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously.''

So we both agree a fixed distance is a constant, (relatively the only universal constant)

so if we was to measure a frequency, between point A and B of the constant distance, and our first measurement of  the frequency was one frequency amount, the second measurement  a variate in frequency, what would be the cause of the variation?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/01/2016 11:32:18
Physics is very logical and explicable if you use the same words as everyone else, and appreciate dimensional analysis.

Since you use words arbitrarily, and have no respect for dimensional analysis, you are wasting your time here.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/01/2016 11:49:38
Physics is very logical and explicable if you use the same words as everyone else, and appreciate dimensional analysis.

Since you use words arbitrarily, and have no respect for dimensional analysis, you are wasting your time here.

I sense a change of attitude when again I apply some moderate pressure on science about science, definite an avoidance to the question .  You are correct I am wasting my time with religion, or was it science, I forget now which book is the greater fairy tale. I will not bother any more you continue to live your fallacy life where time travelling mad hatters can shrink and all sorts of wonderful bs.

delete the post like normal you are good at something., yes I am pushing for a ban, I no longer want to play in this fairground illusion house that pretends to be a cool place of conversation but is just the same as the rest deep down.

I wish you good day .

p.s bet we see these ideas by somebody else from your circle within time. Fame junkies

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: puppypower on 29/01/2016 12:28:29
Say we had a meter stick that is made of platinum with density 21.08 gm/cc. Say from our reference we see distance contraction due to relativity, so the meter sticks appears to be 90 cm . Does the stick's platinum density increase by 10% to 23.18, since the volume of the meter stick has contracted by 10%? Or is only the energy, reflecting off the stick, changing due to relativity?

An analogy is refraction, where we can see a stick appear to bend, when placed in a glass of water. The matter of the stick does not bend, but rather only the reflected light appears to bend.

(https://d2gne97vdumgn3.cloudfront.net/api/file/1saAWhjQlW07Sn22DVAg)

If we see energy output from a quasar that is highly red shifted, nobody says the mass went down or up whether it comes of goes from us. It always goes up; relativistic mass.

If we modified the twin paradox, where younger twin was in motion, but he was moving away, so he appears red shifted therefore  space-time appears to expand, he will still age slower, even though energy shows red shift and this implies space-time expansion, that should make him older???

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2016 03:12:11
Say we had a meter stick that is made of platinum with density 21.08 gm/cc. Say from our reference we see distance contraction due to relativity, so the meter sticks appears to be 90 cm . Does the stick's platinum density increase by 10% to 23.18, since the volume of the meter stick has contracted by 10%? Or is only the energy, reflecting off the stick, changing due to relativity?

An analogy is refraction, where we can see a stick appear to bend, when placed in a glass of water. The matter of the stick does not bend, but rather only the reflected light appears to bend.

(https://d2gne97vdumgn3.cloudfront.net/api/file/1saAWhjQlW07Sn22DVAg)

If we see energy output from a quasar that is highly red shifted, nobody says the mass went down or up whether it comes of goes from us. It always goes up; relativistic mass.

If we modified the twin paradox, where younger twin was in motion, but he was moving away, so he appears red shifted therefore  space-time appears to expand, he will still age slower, even though energy shows red shift and this implies space-time expansion, that should make him older???

I thank you Puppy for at least trying to answer the question and trying to have a discussion.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2016 03:15:38
Physics is very logical and explicable if you use the same words as everyone else, and appreciate dimensional analysis.

Since you use words arbitrarily, and have no respect for dimensional analysis, you are wasting your time here.

Sorry for the abrupt outburst but this does not answer my question, people tell me to learn then tell me to go away when I ask.

I did my poker theory on my own , XYZ with no Einstein. You think I can't make an analysis on  a bit of space, direction which I can see, shapes which I can see, shapes in space which I can see.

I am wasting my time here?  Maybe you have had enough of being a moderator and explaining to people like me?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2016 03:18:23
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously.                   added by me -  (it is an axiom)

''If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.''

The above  bit was not needed and only makes confusion.

Anything measured between these two constant points other than distance is a rate of something, ( a speed)?

The distance of space between A and B can not be destroyed, bent , stretched, curved?

There is no proof that this distance was not there before the big bang?

The space is relatively immortal and always existed and will continue to always exist?

XYZ needs n-dimensional space to exist in?

all axioms IMO

[ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/01/2016 07:03:31

Anything measured between these two constant points other than distance is a rate of something, ( a speed)?

Quote
The distance of space between A and B can not be destroyed, bent , stretched, curved?

Once you have appreciated dimensional analysis you might begin to understand relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction) is an excellent summary of this part.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2016 08:51:48

Anything measured between these two constant points other than distance is a rate of something, ( a speed)?

Quote
The distance of space between A and B can not be destroyed, bent , stretched, curved?

Once you have appreciated dimensional analysis you might begin to understand relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction) is an excellent summary of this part.

I have not even mentioned objects, why do you keep bringing objects into the question I am asking?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 30/01/2016 09:41:16
I have not even mentioned objects, why do you keep bringing objects into the question I am asking?
See your post #2, first line.
I don't see where Alan has mentioned objects.

Maybe you have had enough of being a moderator and explaining to people like me?
It isn't the role of a moderator to explain science, I think Alan does it because he cares about the truth and thinks people should understand science.

Are you wasting your time? That's for you to judge, but I have seen you learn some things eg gravity is not atmospheric pressure.
I don't answer all your posts, only the ones where I think there might be a chance you could understand, or if others might be misled by your posts. Remember we get a lot of schoolfolks looking at this forum, which is why your posts are sometimes moved to new theories.
If we don't respond to a post it doesn't mean we agree with what is being said.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alysdexia on 30/01/2016 09:42:41
You cannot divorce properties and objects.

Lorentzian corrections are the result of the Doppler effect under finite celerity, so there should be contraction in front, expansion in back, and Terrell rotation in between.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2016 12:52:30

only the ones where I think there might be a chance you could understand,

The point is I already understand, what I think you really mean there,  is there is a chance I may accept your information? There is every chance I will accept the information if the information is factually true, has evidence and is based on strict definition with no fairy tales. I am sorry but science offers very little evidence of truths to people like me, so we will always question science until it gives us the proof we ask for.
If science says something is fact, then science should be able to provide these accurate true facts, if these said facts can be discoursed, and questioned, then they are not definite facts.

Between set points A and B is a constant and an invariant, fact.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 30/01/2016 15:05:15
if these said facts can be discoursed, and questioned, then they are not definite facts
Even facts can be discoursed and questioned, but it doesn't prove they are not facts.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 30/01/2016 15:21:24
I am sorry but science offers very little evidence of truths to people like me,

I've tried several times to navigate through your torturous thoughts Mr. Box and have even spent time and effort to help you understand that science is more about experiment and observation and very much less about proving one's point of view. Taking into consideration how you feel about "science", maybe you're wasting your time and effort at a "Science Forum".
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/01/2016 15:25:32
Between set points A and B is a constant and an invariant, fact.

I think we are approaching your definition of a fact: any collection of words you utter, however illogical, lacking in dimensional balance, or simply untrue.

This is not to be confused with other people's deductions, measurements and observations, which are mere science and thus not a valid starting point from which to learn.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 30/01/2016 18:19:19
Thebox...

A distance is a distance, is a distance, no matter if it is a yard, meter, mile, or light year...

A speed is a speed, is a speed, no matter what type of distance it is measured against.

And... a speed can only be measured in relation to the amount of 'time' that it takes a particular 'speed' to cover a given 'distance'...

I think the phenomenon that you 'may' be attempting to illuminate is this:

It happens that the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, takes exactly 1 second, as measured by a 'stationary clock', to travel 1 meter...

Under the remit of GR, and also proven in experiment, a stationary clock placed 1 meter higher in elevation to another stationary clock situated at ground level, will run a fraction of a second 'faster'!  (see NIST ground level relativity experiments 2010)
This is given as further proof of GR, and of GR's remit of a gravitational field 'slowing' the rate that a clock will run at...

Therefore, by definition, a light source that radiates away from Earth by 1 meter 'distance' at the 'speed' of light, will take this, 'observed by experiment', small fraction of a second (as measured by the clock at ground level) less 'time' to cover the next elevated distance of a meter, and so on...
This rendering the measuring of space by the means of light years, in terms of the speed of light in relation to the distance of a meter, perhaps just a tad complicated, maybe, :) ...and is a contributing factor in GR's description of the curvature of space.

However, if we were to measure the distance of an elevation from Earth,  of 2 meters, via a 2 meter meter stick with a mark exactly in the middle, and we were then to measure this distance via the speed of light per second, this being a second as measured by the clock on the ground, we would then find that our 1st meter would be of the normal meter length, but from the halfway mark, our second meter would measure up a fraction shorter than the entirety of our 2 meter meter stick.... Without including the fact of the fraction of a second that the clock elevated at 1 meter is running faster than the ground level clock at, within the equation, the second meter of distance will appear to be shorter...

Is this along the lines of what you are talking about box?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2016 21:02:54
Thebox...

A distance is a distance, is a distance, no matter if it is a yard, meter, mile, or light year...

A speed is a speed, is a speed, no matter what type of distance it is measured against.

And... a speed can only be measured in relation to the amount of 'time' that it takes a particular 'speed' to cover a given 'distance'...

I think the phenomenon that you 'may' be attempting to illuminate is this:

It happens that the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, takes exactly 1 second, as measured by a 'stationary clock', to travel 1 meter...

Under the remit of GR, and also proven in experiment, a stationary clock placed 1 meter higher in elevation to another stationary clock situated at ground level, will run a fraction of a second 'faster'!  (see NIST ground level relativity experiments 2010)
This is given as further proof of GR, and of GR's remit of a gravitational field 'slowing' the rate that a clock will run at...

Therefore, by definition, a light source that radiates away from Earth by 1 meter 'distance' at the 'speed' of light, will take this, 'observed by experiment', small fraction of a second (as measured by the clock at ground level) less 'time' to cover the next elevated distance of a meter, and so on...
This rendering the measuring of space by the means of light years, in terms of the speed of light in relation to the distance of a meter, perhaps just a tad complicated, maybe, :) ...and is a contributing factor in GR's description of the curvature of space.

However, if we were to measure the distance of an elevation from Earth,  of 2 meters, via a 2 meter meter stick with a mark exactly in the middle, and we were then to measure this distance via the speed of light per second, this being a second as measured by the clock on the ground, we would then find that our 1st meter would be of the normal meter length, but from the halfway mark, our second meter would measure up a fraction shorter than the entirety of our 2 meter meter stick.... Without including the fact of the fraction of a second that the clock elevated at 1 meter is running faster than the ground level clock at, within the equation, the second meter of distance will appear to be shorter...

Is this along the lines of what you are talking about box?

I think you  have got it sort of, maybe!

I will try to explain, it hurts my brain trying to think really deep.

Consider a length from A to B

any measurement you can think  of

this is now a set quantity constant.

I will  use the distance of 299 792 458 m

A→299 792 458 m→B

If I was to measure the speed of light p=c

I will record 1 second of time for the light from A to reach B and exactly 1 second to light from B to reach point A.

to give the result 299 792 458 m/s in either direction.

Do you agree thus far?

299 792 458 m/s is equal to 1 second=9,192, 631,770 cycles

So we can show

d=A→9,192, 631,770 cycles →B   =
d=A→→→→→299 792 458 m→B

Now if there was to be less cycles, there would be less distance. if there isn't less distance then that means there is a lesser speed of rate,

we can show the comparison like this

d=A→9,192, 631,770 cycles →B

d=A→ 631,770 cycles →B

Now the problem is

d=A→→→→→299 792 458 m→B

The distance remains the same which shows a rate change does not change the constant of time.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2016 21:10:37
Between set points A and B is a constant and an invariant, fact.

I think we are approaching your definition of a fact: any collection of words you utter, however illogical, lacking in dimensional balance, or simply untrue.

I think you already agreed with this fact  once in your first post.

''If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously.''

I use an ECG monitor and use my pulse rate to record time, my pulse slows down, do you think this changes time?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 31/01/2016 00:39:51

I think you  have got it sort of, maybe!

I will try to explain, it hurts my brain trying to think really deep.

Consider a length from A to B

any measurement you can think  of

this is now a set quantity constant.

I will  use the distance of 299 792 458 m

A→299 792 458 m→B

If I was to measure the speed of light p=c

I will record 1 second of time for the light from A to reach B and exactly 1 second to light from B to reach point A.

to give the result 299 792 458 m/s in either direction.

Do you agree thus far?

299 792 458 m/s is equal to 1 second=9,192, 631,770 cycles

So we can show

d=A→9,192, 631,770 cycles →B   =
d=A→→→→→299 792 458 m→B

Now if there was to be less cycles, there would be less distance. if there isn't less distance then that means there is a lesser speed of rate,

we can show the comparison like this

d=A→9,192, 631,770 cycles →B

d=A→ 631,770 cycles →B

Now the problem is

d=A→→→→→299 792 458 m→B

The distance remains the same which shows a rate change does not change the constant of time.

Ok, after some head scratching and chin rubbing here,  (chuckle) I think I can see where you are going wrong...

The 'cycles' you refer to are the cycles of a caesium atom, and the caesium atom, inclusive of it's frequency, does not radiate at the speed of light, as photons do.

When a change in the frequency of the cycles of a caesium atom is registered on an atomic clock, this causes the clock to run faster, or indeed slower, and the phenomenon of the change in the frequency of the caesium atom is dependant on the gravitational field.

You are of course aware that the GPS system works on the basis that there are changes in the rate of time?  It's kind of been proved beyond all shadow of a doubt tbh...

Quite 'why' it does it like that though isn't fully realised as of yet...
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 31/01/2016 01:16:25
Ok, after some head scratching and chin rubbing here,  (chuckle) I think I can see where you are going wrong...

The 'cycles' you refer to are the cycles of a caesium atom, and the caesium atom, inclusive of it's frequency, does not radiate at the speed of light, as photons do.
The Cesium atom frequency is in the microwave region so it radiates at light speed.

You will need to do a lot more scratching and rubbing before you get anywhere near understanding where he is going wrong. Even then he won't believe you!

?lesser speed of rate?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 31/01/2016 02:00:37
Ah Colin, trust you to get to the crux of the matter straight away...

You say the caesium atom's frequency radiates at the speed of light...

But when the caesium atom is subject to changes in a gravitational field, the frequency of its cycles is subject to change.  Either we have a speed of light that is constant, and a rate of time that is faster, or indeed slower... that this constant speed of light then takes a shorter, or longer amount of 'time' to cover the same unit of 'distance' in...  Or the speed of light is not constant... or... is only constant to the ratio of the length of a second, as determined by a caesium atomic clock, whereby the rate of the frequency of the cycles of the caesium atom, is determined by the gravitational field.

Edit:  Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 31/01/2016 05:14:38
Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!
That was a very roundabout route but it would seem that now everyone finally agrees that "The Box" will never understand this simple fact.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 31/01/2016 06:26:21

Edit:  Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!
Yes, you understand distance and time are variable under SR for a non local observer, and you understand that light only has constant speed for a local observer in a gravitational field under GR. however, if you read The Box's other posts you will realise that he claims that the speed of light is variable under SR, that is it follows Galilean Relativity not SR. This is why he thinks distance is constant for all observers.
This is an instance where learning requires a pupil willing to learn. Despite that, do try, maybe you will succeed.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 07:14:53

Edit:  Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!
Yes, you understand distance and time are variable under SR for a non local observer, and you understand that light only has constant speed for a local observer in a gravitational field under GR. however, if you read The Box's other posts you will realise that he claims that the speed of light is variable under SR, that is it follows Galilean Relativity not SR. This is why he thinks distance is constant for all observers.
This is an instance where learning requires a pupil willing to learn. Despite that, do try, maybe you will succeed.

Any of you please try to explain that distance is a variable, you would be talking out your backsides.  Nothing to do with my understanding of SR, it is garbage. Length does not change of space. 1Ly is 1Ly, and Galilean relativity?  never heard of it , it is my relativity .  A caesium atom is not time, it is a rate and like you put a ?

?lesser speed of rate/d?

go on let us all here the evidence of how?

Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2016 07:26:54
my understanding of SR, it is garbage. ........... Galilean relativity?  never heard of it ,

ipsi dixit.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 07:29:19
ipsi dixit.
Never heard of it honestly, I thought Galileo was something to do with star charts?

I use my own ideas for my ideas, I do not even consider your science at times, my science seems more reality.  My reality revolves around the clarity of space. The invariant of clarity is an absolute, the invariant of distance is an absolute.

Spectral colours are individual invariants that are a variate of the invariant of clarity. I have told you before that I thought Einstein meant ,

I am sure ze answer is within ze optics, ze optics are ze constant, we observe optic variation of ze constant moving within ze invariant clarity of ze constant, relatively ze constant clarity is ze stationary invariant reference frame for all ze observers.

Understand this -

equipment - 1 candle , 1 lighter, 1 dark warehouse, several various objects, a marker pen to draw a circle.

Method -
1.place candle in a central position in the warehouse,
2. draw several circles on the floor isotropic to the candle, at different radius's
3. On each circle circumference line place an object
4. turn the lights off
5. light the candle
6. observe how many objects you can see, from the candle reference point, observe no walls , just darkness,

candle.....A.....B.....C.....D......E.....F

The intensity relatively defining how big your observed space is.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2016 09:07:28
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 31/01/2016 09:35:18
Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.
It is not the purpose of this forum to provided a full course of science, you have to do some work yourself.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 09:38:04
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 09:39:52
Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.
It is not the purpose of this forum to provided a full course of science, you have to do some work yourself.

I looked at Alan's link, it says some maths about length contraction, it does not provide any proof's of length contradiction, now if one stated that length contraction was just a Hypothesis, then maybe I could conceive the possibility.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 31/01/2016 10:07:32
Everything in science is hypothesis, so why should I state the obvious.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

In this section of the forum we discuss those theories considered to be reasonably consistent with observations and other theories. If you have an alternative theory you are welcome to discuss it in New Theories.

You still need to do a lot of homework before you get near the starting block. Start by understanding dimensional analysis; then to be understood you need to use standard scientific terminology to describe your ideas rather than inventing you own language and interpretations.
Practice in New Theories until you get it right.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 10:22:10
Everything in science is hypothesis, so why should I state the obvious.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

In this section of the forum we discuss those theories considered to be reasonably consistent with observations and other theories. If you have an alternative theory you are welcome to discuss it in New Theories.

You still need to do a lot of homework before you get near the starting block. Start by understanding dimensional analysis; then to be understood you need to use standard scientific terminology to describe your ideas rather than inventing you own language and interpretations.
Practice in New Theories until you get it right.

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''

ok I want to analyse time and distance relationship,

I will set a quantity distance  of 299 792 458 m and a time of the distance is equal to 1 second of time.

Both fundamental quantities

I will compare this to the measurement dimension of time

299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second

So far using your fundamental quantities.

So for  9,192,631,770 Hz to change, 1 second  would have to change, which time dilation says it does,

but 299 792 458 m does not change,

So if we take two equal lengths of 1 second

0..............................1
0..............................1

and we measure a rate of something between 0 and 1

the 1 st result
0..................1
9,192,631,770

the second result

0..................1
9,192,631,760

How exactly does this contract the length of 1 second?

relatively

0..................1
9,192,631,770

0............(.9)
9,192,631,760

My distance is not synchronous, so what is going wrong with my understanding?

[ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 31/01/2016 13:00:58
Ok, so first thing, your maths are wrong.

If you want to get 0.9 of a second, you need to divide your caesium atoms number of cycles by 10 and then subtract the answer from the original figure.  You will see that this amounts to a lot more than you have allowed for.

Next, you need to understand that the caesium atom's cycles are subject to a change in their frequency due to changes in a gravitational field.

Should be all plain sailing from there... I reckon... :)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 13:13:21
Ok, so first thing, your maths are wrong.

If you want to get 0.9 of a second, you need to divide your caesium atoms number of cycles by 10 and then subtract the answer from the original figure.  You will see that this amounts to a lot more than you have allowed for.

Next, you need to understand that the caesium atom's cycles are subject to a change in their frequency due to changes in a gravitational field.

Should be all plain sailing from there... I reckon... :)

I know the representation of .9 is wrong , it was just a rough example,

and yes I know the frequency changes due to gravitational field.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 31/01/2016 14:07:49

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''
.....

299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second
No, before you go any further your dimensional analysis is wrong.
It means the dimensions on each side of the equals sign must be the same.
You cannot have m=Hz=s
You have to end up with the same units on each side of the equation
You have to start here before trying to go on.
if you have Hz on one side you must have Hz on the other which are also cycles/s
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 14:23:20

''analysis using the fact that physical quantities added to or equated with each other must be expressed in terms of the same fundamental quantities''
.....

299 792 458 m =  9,192,631,770 Hz. =1 second
No, before you go any further your dimensional analysis is wrong.
It means the dimensions on each side of the equals sign must be the same.
You cannot have m=Hz=s
You have to end up with the same units on each side of the equation
You have to start here before trying to go on.
if you have Hz on one side you must have Hz on the other which are also cycles/s

Huh?  if something is representative of the same quantity I do not see how this matters?

it says on google 1sec=   9,192,631,770 Hz.

it also says the speed of light is  299 792 458 m/s

so how is  299 792 458 m/ 9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 14:54:04

so how is  299 792 458 m/ 9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.
One apple is not equal to one orange Mr. Box and neither is a meter equal to a Hertz. You can't divide an apple by a orange and a meter can't be divided by a Hertz. Simple......................
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 15:15:08

9,192,631,770 Hz   an inequality?

I get 0.03261225571 something.
One apple is not equal to one orange Mr. Box and neither is a meter equal to a Hertz.

But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s

299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 15:19:14

But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s

299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.
Not true, m/s is the velocity of light but Hz is a frequency. Two different things my friend.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 15:24:53

But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s

299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.
Not true, m/s is the velocity of light but Hz is a frequency. Two different things my friend.

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

Just like the clock speed of my CPU in my computer or my memory clock speed

a CPU I can over-clock if I wished to and make 'time'' run faster

Like if my cpu ran at 100 hrtz a second I could over clock it to lets say 150 hrtz a second making time and a half

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 15:37:00

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?
Speed can be defined as an object covering a distance in a set amount of time. Enter the second in our calculations. However, the Hertz is defined as a cycle of events over a set amount of time. Where speed is reckoned using distance divided by time, the Hertz is reckoned by a number of events divided by time. Time is the only thing these two have in common.

Distances and cycles of events are as different as apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2016 15:38:33
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?
Since your post asked about the intensity of light, a reasonable man would have concluded that I  in the answer was intensity. Conventionally we use lower case i or j to indicate an imaginary number.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2016 15:41:53

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

No. Speed is distance/time. Frequency is number of occurrences/time. PLEASE STUDY DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS  lest others think you foolish.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 15:44:13
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?
Since your post asked about the intensity of light, a reasonable man would have concluded that I  in the answer was intensity. Conventionally we use lower case i or j to indicate an imaginary number.

I nearly said intensity as well but I thought that was far to obvious and remembered i has imaginary number so said that . I will try to work out what you are saying now with that piece of maths.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 15:46:49

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

No. Speed is distance/time. Frequency is number of occurrences/time. PLEASE STUDY DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS  lest others think you foolish.

Ok, so at what point in time do these occurrences start from?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 15:48:21

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?
Speed can be defined as an object covering a distance in a set amount of time. Enter the second in our calculations. However, the Hertz is defined as a cycle of events over a set amount of time. Where speed is reckoned using distance divided by time, the Hertz is reckoned by a number of events divided by time. Time is the only thing these two have in common.

Distances and cycles of events are as different as apples and oranges.

The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 16:21:03

The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?
No,.......cycles don't travel.

Example: In alternating current, the reversal of current from positive to negative occurs 60 time a second. What you are confusing is; It's not the frequency that travels, it's the current. And current is a flow of electrons through a wire. While the current does travel a distance, the cycle of Hertz only defines the alternation of that direction.

You can't apply a value of distance to frequency because frequency only defines a change in direction, as in current flow, or some other change in a physical quality.

Until you finally accept the current definitions for these physical qualities, your confusion will only grow Mr. Box.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 16:59:00

The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?
No,.......cycles don't travel.

Example: In alternating current, the reversal of current from positive to negative occurs 60 time a second. What you are confusing is; It's not the frequency that travels, it's the current. And current is a flow of electrons through a wire. While the current does travel a distance, the cycle of Hertz only defines the alternation of that direction.

You can't apply a value of distance to frequency because frequency only defines a change in direction, as in current flow, or some other change in a physical quality.

Until you finally accept the current definitions for these physical qualities, your confusion will only grow Mr. Box.

I never said I did not accept present definitions, of some things anyway, But I will certainly question everything to look for an answer to everything.

I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

added - hang on a nitting picking moment, I thought a frequency had a wave-length?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 19:50:44

I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 19:56:25

added - hang on a nitting picking moment, I thought a frequency had a wave-length?
True,................but a frequency is not a wave length. Same relationship that matter has to mass. Matter is not mass, matter has mass. If you don't yet see your error's, I think you're in danger of qualifying for that position that Alan previously warned you about.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 19:58:12

I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

I have already had that link provided and obviously I must not understand it because to me it is saying when an object moves it shrinks in length, so obviously I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 20:10:11
I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.
Not preposterous at all Mr. Box, it's a fact. For an observer of that event, length contraction is a reality. However, for anyone on that moving object, no noticeable change would be evident. That's why it's called "Relativity", every reference frame distinguishes it's self differently from all others when velocities and gravitational influences are also different.

If you contend that Wikipedia and all other scientific source material is preposterous fiction, you then categorize yourself as the only authority. I prefer to stick with well acknowledged and accredited sources.

You're wasting our time here Mr. Box.

There is an old saying: "A word to the wise is sufficient."

How many thoughtful words will we have to expend for you to fall into that category?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2016 20:16:16
I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.
Not preposterous at all Mr. Box, it's a fact. For an observer of that event, length contraction is a reality. However, for the moving object, no noticeable change would be evident.

If you contend that Wikipedia and all other scientific source material is preposterous fiction, you then categorize yourself as the only authority. I prefer to stick with well acknowledged and accredited sources.

You're wasting our time here Mr. Box.

There is an old saying: "A word to the wise is sufficient."

How many thoughtful words will we have to expend for you to fall into that category?

You want me to accept something that I either do not understand or something that goes against normal logic and observation.

Since when do we observe an object shrinking in length when in motion relative to an observer?  give me one example please. I am trying to get my head around it.

Now if you had said a height contraction and a length expansion , relative to a rotating body, I would of got that one, but trying to explain that a spring flying through space with no opposing force will compress is not something I can  buy into at this time.

The front of the object would have to be moving slower than the rear of the object to compress.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 31/01/2016 20:40:41

You want me to accept something that I either do not understand or something that goes against normal logic and observation.

The key here is that you evidently don't "understand". And BTW, relativity is and was never "normal logic", it took Einstein thinking well out of "the proverbial box", to coin a term we are all well aware of by now.

Relativity is not a logical conclusion our minds find acceptable or easily understood. It has taken many experiments and defined observations for science to have defined reality in terms of this theory. If you truly want to learn and understand relativity, you'll need to accept what these experiments have taught us. If you're not willing to accept these findings, you'll never understand relativity. Something tells me you really don't want to understand, you would really prefer that we simply accept your position. Please explain to me why in the world we would ever do that when we have the evidence given to us from great men of science telling us otherwise?

Unless you're willing to forget your logical assumptions for a while and listen to these great men of science, and begin learning what their experiments have shown us, I'll be unwilling to discuss this topic with you any further.

So,.................what will it be Mr. Box?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 31/01/2016 21:54:26
There is an old saying: "A word to the wise is sufficient."
There is another saying that; "A word to the wise is unnecessary"
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 31/01/2016 22:56:17
It is a weird one box, relativity explains length contraction mathematically, but offers no reasonable explanation as to the causation of this phenomenon.

Therefore, actually, the way is clear for a speculation... I personally speculate that because the rate of time for the contracted length is slowed via its velocity, an observer is viewing the length moving in a slower rate of time relative to their own.  An observer viewing an event from their faster rate of time, will not have 'the time' in which to view the entirety of the length as it moves within it's slower rate of time, causing the length to appear contracted to the observer.

However, a length and a distance are 2 different things.  A length is a measurement of matter, and a distance is a measurement of space. The stretching of the fabric of outer space also affects distances according to GR.

It is true that science has had the benefit of many great minds, but on the other hand, logically speaking, it is in fact an act of sheer stupidity to consider our knowledge of the universe as wise...  Our 2 best working theories cannot be fully united.  If they could, discussions such as this would be redundant...
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 31/01/2016 23:38:31
However, a length and a distance are 2 different things.  A length is a measurement of matter, and a distance is a measurement of space.
Where I agree with your level of skepticism, I am not sure how you count a length as different to a distance.
If a train that has a length of 1Km, it then takes up 1km distance at rest. As the train can at all times consider itself to be at rest, then it will always occupy a distance of 1 Km.
If from your perspective that train is traveling at relativistic velocity, and you accept that a distance can be considered to be contracted, then the train that exactly occupies that distance by having the same length, logically has to also be considered to be contracted.
I don't think that logically length and distance can in any way be considered separate or different.
Any Matter that occupies a certain amount of space has to change if that space can be considered to have changed. That is the entire principle behind the hunt for Gravitational waves.
Again it is good to be skeptical about anything that is only predicted mathematically, at least until it has been confirmed experimentally or by direct observation, but I don't think you can logically separate distance from length. Both of those qualities apply equally to anything with a physical existence. That has to include both matter and spacetime.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 01/02/2016 00:05:02
Ok, back to definitions I see...(chuckle)

So... we describe the length of something as a measurement.  The defining word here being 'something'.  A length is the description of a measurement of something...

We describe the distance between 2 somethings as a measurement.  The defining word here being 'between'.  A distance is the description of a measurement of space between 2 somethings.

We can say that the length of the train takes up a distance in space.  The length being defined by the matter of the train, and the distance being defined by the space that this length occupies.

The length of the train can also be defined by the distance it occupies, but the distance that the train occupies cannot be defined by the length of the train.  The distance that the train occupies can only be defined by the 'space' on either side of the train that the train is not occupying.

Clearly there 'is' a difference between a length and a distance.

Edit: Obviously one may describe the length of a distance as being such and such, not so much the distance of a length though, just don't sound right ;)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 01/02/2016 01:53:29
Edit: Obviously one may describe the length of a distance as being such and such, not so much the distance of a length though, just don't sound right ;)
The length of a rope is the distance it spans when outstretched. The distance a rope spans is always its length.
Likewise the distance between the top and bottom of a cliff should never be longer than the length of the rope you plan to use to abseil down the same cliff.
Yes you are right that distance defines space and length defines matter, but you can not take matter out of space. That is not the way the universe works. You can not have the Universe with either of those physicality's missing.
Even our understanding of something material is that it is composed of 99.9999999.......% space.
Also while I'm raving on about this, define a planck "length" of space or time (spacetime) for me. This is not matter yet can be defined by its length.

We can play at this till the cows come home.
It doesn't depend on what sounds right to you. The two terms are interchangeable in that one can always be used to define the other.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/02/2016 06:06:24

You want me to accept something that I either do not understand or something that goes against normal logic and observation.

The key here is that you evidently don't "understand". And BTW, relativity is and was never "normal logic", it took Einstein thinking well out of "the proverbial box", to coin a term we are all well aware of by now.

Relativity is not a logical conclusion our minds find acceptable or easily understood. It has taken many experiments and defined observations for science to have defined reality in terms of this theory. If you truly want to learn and understand relativity, you'll need to accept what these experiments have taught us. If you're not willing to accept these findings, you'll never understand relativity. Something tells me you really don't want to understand, you would really prefer that we simply accept your position. Please explain to me why in the world we would ever do that when we have the evidence given to us from great men of science telling us otherwise?

Unless you're willing to forget your logical assumptions for a while and listen to these great men of science, and begin learning what their experiments have shown us, I'll be unwilling to discuss this topic with you any further.

So,.................what will it be Mr. Box?

''Unless you're willing to forget your logical assumptions for a while and listen to these great men of science, and begin learning what their experiments have shown us, I'll be unwilling to discuss this topic with you any further.''

Is this an alternative to blackmail?

Accept or be blacklisted?

You want me to accept

1. Either something I do not understand
2. or something I deem incorrect

In either case it would not be smart to just accept something.

I observe this, we discovered a time dilation so in accordance to that like I have mentioned about length contraction they would need to explain a length contraction to make the time dilation viable.  i.e produce some maths that seems reasonable logic.

However in my years of science, I also observe that for some strange reason, people think that  time is a frequency rate.  They also think that if this frequency rate slows down, that time slows down also.

So ok I will be just clueless and accept all this mumbo jumbo, but I will leave you with one question,

What is the frequency rate of time of a void?

How can distance of the  infinite nothing contract if the void is emptiness of material structure?

L=0∞0

t=0∞0

To me , you are saying that a change in the rate of something we use to record time changes what it is recording. Please tell me how a camcorder can record at half the speed?

(I am using a camcorder to record time, would anyone agree and say this was not an accurate recording in real time?)

Do you understand FPS?  (frames per second)

[ Invalid Attachment ]

People ignored my doodles in the chat section, they tell a story. I will say it straight, relativity is a piece of cake for my brain, I can think easily about anything, I know 100% that science history got it wrong and created illusion for fame. Parlour tricks like it or not, Now people either want to listen and want to try to understand me or not, it is called trust, I am asking you to show your trust in me, I am being honest, I wish I could explain better , I try my best, but to no avail.

I do not care about prizes or fame, I am not an attention seeker, I am not suffering from any Dunning affects,  I am just a poor explainer.

I have the answers to everything, it all starts with negative is attractive to negative, please go over to the new theories thread, light is anti-matter.

Anti-matter is evil, dark is the good, the battle of good and evil.

If only you could see my hand actions and expressions with my hands when I am explaining.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/02/2016 06:10:41
Ok, back to definitions I see...(chuckle)

So... we describe the length of something as a measurement.  The defining word here being 'something'.  A length is the description of a measurement of something...

We describe the distance between 2 somethings as a measurement.  The defining word here being 'between'.  A distance is the description of a measurement of space between 2 somethings.

We can say that the length of the train takes up a distance in space.  The length being defined by the matter of the train, and the distance being defined by the space that this length occupies.

The length of the train can also be defined by the distance it occupies, but the distance that the train occupies cannot be defined by the length of the train.  The distance that the train occupies can only be defined by the 'space' on either side of the train that the train is not occupying.

Clearly there 'is' a difference between a length and a distance.

Edit: Obviously one may describe the length of a distance as being such and such, not so much the distance of a length though, just don't sound right ;)

I totally agree with you, that is why my question says distance in the title.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/02/2016 06:52:49
It is a weird one box, relativity explains length contraction mathematically, but offers no reasonable explanation as to the causation of this phenomenon.

Therefore, actually, the way is clear for a speculation... I personally speculate that because the rate of time for the contracted length is slowed via its velocity, an observer is viewing the length moving in a slower rate of time relative to their own.  An observer viewing an event from their faster rate of time, will not have 'the time' in which to view the entirety of the length as it moves within it's slower rate of time, causing the length to appear contracted to the observer.

However, a length and a distance are 2 different things.  A length is a measurement of matter, and a distance is a measurement of space. The stretching of the fabric of outer space also affects distances according to GR.

It is true that science has had the benefit of many great minds, but on the other hand, logically speaking, it is in fact an act of sheer stupidity to consider our knowledge of the universe as wise...  Our 2 best working theories cannot be fully united.  If they could, discussions such as this would be redundant...

Well yes, normally when there is a piece of maths it suppose to represent something physically observed. I observe no contraction personally so it is a bit fairy tale like.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 01/02/2016 08:35:39
It is a weird one box, relativity explains length contraction mathematically, but offers no reasonable explanation as to the causation of this phenomenon.

Therefore, actually, the way is clear for a speculation... I personally speculate that because the rate of time for the contracted length is slowed via its velocity, an observer is viewing the length moving in a slower rate of time relative to their own.  An observer viewing an event from their faster rate of time, will not have 'the time' in which to view the entirety of the length as it moves within it's slower rate of time, causing the length to appear contracted to the observer.

But relativity does offer a reasonable explanation and it is close to yours.
If the speeds of light is the same for everyone who measures it then the only way you can think this is true for someone moving relative to you is if their measuring system (clocks and length) is distorted relative to you. So when you try to measure either their clocks or rulers you see a different value to the one they measure. Their coordinate system is distorted relative to you and you need to use a conversion factor.
An analogy, poor one but maybe it helps. Imagine looking straight on at the side of a building, both you and the person next to the building measure the side to be the same length. If you now move off so you are looking at an angle, you see the side foreshortened, but the person next to the building will still measures the same length. With time it is different because one person is walking along the 'true' length and the other along the foreshortened length, however they are travelling the same piece of space and there is no true length, it is all relative.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 01/02/2016 14:25:39
Actually your analogy is s good one, because it illuminates exactly the difficulty and incompleteness of GR...

Your analogy describes a situation whereby a length is shortened or lengthened by the 'angle' of our viewpoint.  As we move around the building, the dimensions of the building's length and width are distorted... But...we are quite clear that the building itself is not distorted and that it is the circumstances of our viewpoint that are distorting the view.

General Relativity makes no such distinction.  It cannot make this distinction, because unlike the reference frame of the building, which has an 'absolute' reference frame that the building can be defined against, General Relativity does not.  General Relativity concerns itself with 'lengths' of matter 'moving' relative to each other.  It does not account for the 'space' or 'distances' in between these 'lengths' or 'bodies' of matter.  The geometry of these spaces between bodies of matter is then determined via considerations of velocity, velocity related time dilation, shrinking lengths and expanding distances, in relation to the constant speed of light combined with the notions a gravity related acceleration causing curvature, all timed from a 'far away' clock, and measured from infinity.

GR mathematically describes the distortion of space time, but it really does not make it clear if these distortions are a factor of our viewpoint, and gives the impression that the actual 'geometry' of space is distorted by time and gravity.  And, although it does igive us a mechanism by which time is distorted, time itself is not given a mechanism of causation.

Clearly if 'infinity' is a component within the maths, then infinities will then emerge as constants found within the mathematical results...

General Relativity is a valid theory, but it is incomplete, this being a fact commented upon vociferously by its very creator, no less, and therefore does not, and cannot give reasonable explanation of causation for the phenomenon it attempts to describe.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 01/02/2016 14:35:25

I have the answers to everything, it all starts with negative is attractive to negative, please go over to the new theories thread, light is anti-matter.
Nope.............negative attracts positive.

Quote from: Thebox
Anti-matter is evil, dark is the good, the battle of good and evil.
Nope.............good and evil are rationalizations determined within our minds.
Quote from: Thebox
If only you could see my hand actions and expressions with my hands when I am explaining.
What on earth do your "hand actions" have to do with anything? I'm truly beginning to worry about you sir. I think you need some help and I'm not talking about the technical sciences kind of help.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 01/02/2016 15:23:43
As we move around the building, the dimensions of the building's length and width are distorted... But...we are quite clear that the building itself is not distorted and that it is the circumstances of our viewpoint that are distorting the view.
That's because we are so familar with perspective and solid objects.
Say you had been constrained all your life in front of the wall, only being able to move 1mm each side of your position, if someone said that if you moved 20m left the wall distance would shrink, you would find it hard to believe.
However, like all analogies this one can't be extended. However, I like it because if you think about it the building is rotated relative to your viewpoint, just like the Minkowski diagrams.
One way I view it is like a mountain, you can go round or through a tunnel, both go to the same point but you travel different distances. In relativity the different 'distance' is time. Again you can't extend the analogy because time is not a distance.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 01/02/2016 16:20:05
Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing.  Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.

My commentary is based purely on the fact that GR is not giving a full explanation of the phenomenon it describes, coupled with the fact that quantum has yet to be linked to gravity.  Box, within his many, many, posts, sometimes touches upon the inconsistencies within GR.  I think of him as fairly perceptive at times.

Ok, so... In relativity, as well as seeing under certain circumstances a direct interchange between mass and energy, we also see an interchange between time and distance, an interchange between distance and velocity, and an interchange between velocity and time.

You say that relativity states distance as time, but that the analogy cannot be extended because time is not distance...
Yes it can.  Anything moving with a constant velocity, experiencing changes in the rate of time locally... not to be confused with the SR velocity related time dilation experienced only by the 'traveller' travelling at that constant velocity... that thing travelling at a constant velocity will take a shorter or longer amount of time to cover the same unit of distance.

Therefore, if GR can state distance as time under the remit of the constancy of the speed of light, then, under the remit of GR, time does indeed actually 'become' distance.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/02/2016 18:43:34

I have the answers to everything, it all starts with negative is attractive to negative, please go over to the new theories thread, light is anti-matter.
Nope.............negative attracts positive.

Yes negative ''holds'' positive in place but negative is attracted to negative.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 02/02/2016 15:44:43
Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing.  Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.
that was not my intention.
I was confining my comments to SR because I was looking for a way to explain length contraction to The Box. He is obviously struggling with the link given to him hence the title he gave to this topic.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2016 10:39:33
Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing.  Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.
that was not my intention.
I was confining my comments to SR because I was looking for a way to explain length contraction to The Box. He is obviously struggling with the link given to him hence the title he gave to this topic.

Maybe I should explain my maths,

I sort of describe something using maths, the maths does not really give a result although sometimes it gives a result.

i.e

4/3 pi r³  -   4/3  pi r³ =

I am not adding any values , even pi does not exist in the above calculation, all's this says is take a volume of a sphere, take an identical sphere, take the volume away from the identical volume which  leaves the answer of nothing.  Explaining one part of nothing.

The second part to nothing would be

0^∞ =4/3 pi r³ ∞=

added - I call it IQ maths, because it is just like an IQ test.

Try this one

F=→←

E=→←

W=→←

T=→←

U=→←

r=→←

e=→←

and the answer is simple, I will leave you all to ponder over this one, I gave you the key to decoding the maths, what is the above saying?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 03/02/2016 13:28:44
and the answer is simple, I will leave you all to ponder over this one, I gave you the key to decoding the maths, what is the above saying?
What is the above saying?
That your Maths is quite obviously well beyond the scope of poor human understanding and you are quite obviously wasting your time presenting it to a bunch of dumb asses like us.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: puppypower on 03/02/2016 14:13:37

I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

I have already had that link provided and obviously I must not understand it because to me it is saying when an object moves it shrinks in length, so obviously I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.

There are two things going on. We have the object and we have the light that reflects off the object. Our tools measure the energy that comes off the object. We don't measure the actual physical object. An analogy is we can take a picture of a lion. This picture is a representation of the lion and may look exactly like it. But the picture is limited to only the energy that is reflected off the lion. It does not contain all possible physical properties such as his smell. With the picture we can do motion blur, but the lion does not do have the ability to blur himself. The motion blur is an artifact of the picture and not the matter of the lion.

If we see an object distance contracted, this is the happening to light; in the picture. Common sense says, if the actual object was physically contracted, like in the picture, its density would need to increase. Higher density will require a phase change in the matter of the object. A phase change will then mean one should see others things, beyond the red or blue shift. One should see a totally new spectrum of emissions to reflect the denser phase. If you don't see that, There is only something happening in the photo. There is a special affect.

Here is an interesting related observation, in the twin paradox, the twin in motion returns to earth younger than his stationary brother. However, I have never heard anyone say that their twin in motion also returns shorter and thinner. If space-time works as team, shouldn't time dilation and distance contraction both occur?  How is it possible for only age to permanently change, in we assume space-time is integrated? The actual object does not do the same thing as the picture; distances.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2016 14:39:11

I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

I have already had that link provided and obviously I must not understand it because to me it is saying when an object moves it shrinks in length, so obviously I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.

There are two things going on. We have the object and we have the light that reflects off the object. Our tools measure the energy that comes off the object. We don't measure the actual physical object. An analogy is we can take a picture of a lion. This picture is a representation of the lion and may look exactly like it. But the picture is limited to only the energy that is reflected off the lion. It does not contain all possible physical properties such as his smell. With the picture we can do motion blur, but the lion does not do have the ability to blur himself. The motion blur is an artifact of the picture and not the matter of the lion.

If we see an object distance contracted, this is the happening to light; in the picture. Common sense says, if the actual object was physically contracted, like in the picture, its density would need to increase. Higher density will require a phase change in the matter of the object. A phase change will then mean one should see others things, beyond the red or blue shift. One should see a totally new spectrum of emissions to reflect the denser phase. If you don't see that, There is only something happening in the photo. There is a special affect.

Here is an interesting related observation, in the twin paradox, the twin in motion returns to earth younger than his stationary brother. However, I have never heard anyone say that their twin in motion also returns shorter and thinner. If space-time works as team, shouldn't time dilation and distance contraction both occur?  How is it possible for only age to permanently change, in we assume space-time is integrated? The actual object does not do the same thing as the picture; distances.

You said it better than I have being saying it.  For a time dilation to happen, there would also have to be a physical length contraction, i.e we would a distance contract.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 03/02/2016 20:32:52
Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing.  Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.
that was not my intention.
I was confining my comments to SR because I was looking for a way to explain length contraction to The Box. He is obviously struggling with the link given to him hence the title he gave to this topic.

Colin.  No problem, in fact I think my post was just a symptom of my frustration at my inability to find anyone willing to undertake a 'progressive' discussion with me regarding GR.

When taking on board the difference between a length and a distance, by the remit of SR, a length in a reference frame that is accelerated relative to another, will appear contracted to the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame.  The observer on the length in the accelerated reference frame does not experience a contraction of his crafts length, and will instead experience a contracting of the distance he is travelling relative to what the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame observes of the lengths accelerated reference frames journey.
Finally, the lengths accelerated reference frames rate of time is running slower relative to the non accelerated frames rate of time.

Dispensing with the SR considerations for a moment, the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length and its accelerated reference frame travelling through changes in the gravitational field.  These changes in the gravitational field also elicit changes in the rate of time that a clock runs at.  We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level.  (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)... Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.

***Therefore, and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down.  And that the rate of time runs faster out in space.***

So the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame, observing the accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length in the accelerated reference frame travelling through a gravitationally induced change, or changes, in the rate of time of its locality.

According to GR, if light travels at the speed of light across units of distance experiencing local changes in the gravitational field, and therefore is experiencing changes in the rate of time over these units of distance experiencing changes in the gravitational field, and GR does not take these local changes in the rate of time into account, then distance does indeed become a variable.  It stretches!

Clearly the GR field equation's do also include these changes in the local rate of time into the mix to account for this stretching of distance that would otherwise occur.

Space Flow:  I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint.  I agree!  If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 03/02/2016 21:02:39
Space Flow:  I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint.  I agree!  If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.
Timey, I'm in limbo as to what I think about the entire situation.
I have always felt reasonably comfortable with my Understanding of Relativity and its effects.
And yet I can not now shake this doubt, as I can not see a way of disproving that most of the effect we are attributing to Time Dilation and Length Contraction is illusionary, because of the limited speed of information transfer.
At the same time I fully acknowledge that time dilation has been locally fully proven to exist and behaves as the mathematics predicts.
Given all that, I have to conclude that the problem is in fact in my head and probably not real.
I would just like to either see or be shown where my thinking is being derailed.
I hate these doubts.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2016 21:15:11

At the same time I fully acknowledge that time dilation has been locally fully proven to exist and behaves as the mathematics predicts.
Given all that, I have to conclude that the problem is in fact in my head and probably not real.
I would just like to either see or be shown where my thinking is being derailed.
I hate these doubts.

That is because timing is not time. There is a timing dilation which behaves as predicted, but not a time dilation.

An observer on Volcan times your journey, he times you had a faster speed and arrived faster than your own time that was recording your speed.

Clock A - 1000 mph

Clock B - 999 mph

added - just in case you don't get that , imagine a 1000 mile distance

your clock records one hour to travel the distance , 1000 mph

the clock at the destination records 1 hour and 10 mins for your arrival

so the destination records a slower speed of your spaceship

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 03/02/2016 21:21:23
Yes Space Flow, (chuckle)  I truly know the feeling!  Have you read 'The Trouble with Physics' Lee Smolin?

You say about the speed of information transfer... If distance does not shrink or stretch, and the speed of light stays constant, but the rate of time that light travels through is quicker or slower, there lies the possibility that information transfer is 'not' reliant upon the speed of light, but the rate of time light travels through, as well as the possibility that as a result of frames of time being longer or shorter than our own, perhaps being unable to view a percentage of that frames light.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 03/02/2016 21:53:19
That is because timing is not time. There is a timing dilation which behaves as predicted, but not a time dilation.
Please understand that I have heard you make this claim countless times now, and I still don't see it as any kind of logic I can follow.
Timing is just a way to measure the flow rate of time.
The flow rate of time itself is what changes. What you use to measure the flow rate of time is just a way of tracking what the flow rate is doing compared with a different reference frame.
Timing as you say is not time. It is our only means of observing what time does.
If an atomic process has a certain half life, and by changing its environmental parameters we can show that this half life can be changed, then time is shown to have changed its rate within and because of the changes.
So unless you can logically make your point of view agree with the observations obtained experimentally or otherwise, or you can offer another logical explanation as to why these observations are consistently made, you can not expect to be taken seriously.

Timey, I have an appointment with my surgeon today but will delve further into your comment later.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2016 22:00:52
That is because timing is not time. There is a timing dilation which behaves as predicted, but not a time dilation.
Please understand that I have heard you make this claim countless times now, and I still don't see it as any kind of logic I can follow.
Timing is just a way to measure the flow rate of time.
The flow rate of time itself is what changes. What you use to measure the flow rate of time is just a way of tracking what the flow rate is doing compared with a different reference frame.
Timing as you say is not time. It is our only means of observing what time does.
If an atomic process has a certain half life, and by changing its environmental parameters we can show that this half life can be changed, then time is shown to have changed its rate within and because of the changes.
So unless you can logically make your point of view agree with the observations obtained experimentally or otherwise, or you can offer another logical explanation as to why these observations are consistently made, you can not expect to be taken seriously.

Timey, I have an appointment with my surgeon today but will delve further into your comment later.

''The flow rate of time itself is what changes. ''

Time has no flow rate , ligth has a flow rate, a caesium clock has a flow rate, but time has no flow rate because time does not move , the value is zero, anything after zero is history, you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero  of space , everything else including light moves relativetly to this,

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 04/02/2016 03:38:12
Time has no flow rate , ligth has a flow rate, a caesium clock has a flow rate, but time has no flow rate because time does not move , the value is zero, anything after zero is history, you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero  of space , everything else including light moves relativetly to this,
Thebox, for all I know you could well be the modern day Einstein. I have no way of judging.
But when you make an extraordinary statement like that, to be given any credibility in any circle you have to back it up with extraordinary evidence. You see what you state is not only not supported by observational and experimental evidence, it is in fact diametrically opposed by it.
That does not automatically disqualify a new perspective, if that perspective can give adequate explanation for the data so far collected.
You just saying that this is the way it is, is neither extraordinary evidence in support of your point of view, or an adequate alternative explanation for observational and experimental evidence that clearly says you are wrong.
To agree with you in any way whatsoever under those conditions is not only a denial of the scientific method, but is totally illogical on any level.
You, believe it or not, have not earned the right to tell science how things work and have it taken as fact just on your word alone.
So unless you can do all of the above, your ideas are something worth dissection in a beer garden after a large number of beers. After several such sessions you may start to have something that would form the beginnings of a hypothesis, if you can meet the above mentioned criteria.
If you can ever get that far, you could then look at producing a testable prediction that would support your view and not support the current one. Then you could call it a theory.
As it stands it is illogical drivel.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 04/02/2016 04:06:04
If distance does not shrink or stretch, and the speed of light stays constant, but the rate of time that light travels through is quicker or slower, there lies the possibility that information transfer is 'not' reliant upon the speed of light, but the rate of time light travels through, as well as the possibility that as a result of frames of time being longer or shorter than our own, perhaps being unable to view a percentage of that frames light.
Again an interesting speculation. Yet again another non testable idea. With all our information coming to us by light, and light no matter how we measure it always displaying the one speed, there is no way to know if it has gone through regions that this speed was different. For whatever reasons. We think we understand how some things work, but can we be sure?
For example we talk about what will be seen by someone on Earth watching a spaceship accelerate to almost the speed of light in terms of time dilation and length contraction. What about the fact that the redshift of such an image will tell us that the ship we are watching is moving through to billions of years into the past. Is that not how we measure distance to the extremes of our observable Universe, by redshift?
When that ship approaches light speed it will also be observed by redshift to be 13+ billion light years away. How come no one talks about that?
We are a long way from a proper understanding of everything.
We have some very elegant equations that seem to make part sense of things close to us (with a bit of normalisation here and there), and we are clever enough to make some projections from this knowledge into the rest of the observable Universe and beyond.
We always have to remember that any projection we make that we can't directly test, is open to being wrong no matter how high the probability that it's right.
Therefore the door remains open for us to speculate. You, Me, Thebox, and anyone else that wants to have a go, could well turn out to be right. It's not likely, but it's not impossible either.
History says that a lot of human advancement has come from unexpected places.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 04/02/2016 04:21:34
Yes Space Flow, (chuckle)  I truly know the feeling!  Have you read 'The Trouble with Physics' Lee Smolin?
No I have not read his book and to tell you the truth I have no intention to.
I 110% agree with his views and basically have learned to avoid the subjects of "String theory", "M theory", "God", Multiverse, or any other religion you want to name.
There is a definition of what can be classed as a theory within the confines of the scientific method and none of those qualify.
Therefore I have no interest in reading or hearing any more about them.
If your idea can not make a testable prediction, it is not a "scientific" theory.
At best it is a hypothesis.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2016 09:29:38
spaceflow-
I do honestly understand what you are saying, especially beer garden conversation, you do however miss the axioms, A Caesium clock is not time, the rate of the caesium clock is not time, a clock is not time, these are things for recording history, Predictions are not time.  Name one observation that reveals time ?

Axioms are the strongest evidence, history and future just is, we just make a diary .

P.s I think some of Einstein's work is of stupidity.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/02/2016 09:40:40
Wrong. Axioms are not evidence: they are definitions or assumptions.

You will get a more sympathetic hearing if you use the same language as everyone else.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2016 09:53:35
Wrong. Axioms are not evidence: they are definitions or assumptions.

You will get a more sympathetic hearing if you use the same language as everyone else.

What ? an axiom is something that is self evidently true, things that are true are true, you can not change or twist things that are true.

True things are real facts and real science, make believe is for religion.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 05/02/2016 18:26:33

What ? an axiom is something that is self evidently true, things that are true are true, you can not change or twist things that are true.

True things are real facts and real science, make believe is for religion.
You're confusing a presumed truth with evidence. The production of evidence through a repeatable observation results in an assumption or presumed truth.

Truth: The assumption of a reality.
Evidence: The tested observations which lead to an assumption.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 05/02/2016 18:49:20
you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero  of space
There exists absolutely no "zero of space", as you are so fond of defining it. No point in space can be considered as motionless, all frames are in motion.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/02/2016 20:49:04
you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero  of space
There exists absolutely no "zero of space", as you are so fond of defining it. No point in space can be considered as motionless, all frames are in motion.

Well I beg to differ. Every point in space could be considered motionless if an observer is there. To each observer every other point in space may be considered to be either in motion or stationary. The problem in relativity is exactly that we do not have a fixed background. No one knows exactly how fast any object is actually moving with respect to themselves since they cannot be sure that everything they see is not moving at the same rate in some preferred direction. This could include rotational motion. GR is so complex that even if we find solutions to the vacuum field equations are we certain that we would actually recognize them?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/02/2016 20:58:31
Considerations of length such as contraction or the dilation of time can be examined with the use of quadric surfaces. An examination of how energy changes when those other properties change may give some new insights. This is rather circumventing Einstein and starting again.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 05/02/2016 21:24:16

Well I beg to differ. Every point in space could be considered motionless if an observer is there.

I think you know that I'm aware of this Jeff, I was referring to Mr. Box's definition of "zero of space". He seems to think that one can be motionless to the essence of space itself.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 05/02/2016 21:47:35
My apologies. There seem to be a lot fewer people to have a sensible conversation with these days.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 06/02/2016 03:48:51
My apologies. There seem to be a lot fewer people to have a sensible conversation with these days.
No apologies necessary my friend, I do understand why you might have taken exception to my remarks. In my attempt to convey to Mr. Box where he's going wrong, I cut a few proverbial corners when I said; "all frames are in motion." Technically, we can only classify our particular frame as in motion when relative to another or while under acceleration or due to centrifugal forces resulting from rotation. There may be other issues that I'm unaware of but these are the few cases I could recall off hand. I know you're aware of these scientific facts Jeff, I just listed them in case Mr. Box is taking notice.

From what I've gathered from his posts, I think he assumes we can gage our motion relative to nothing more than empty space itself. And we both know that's not possible.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/02/2016 08:59:06

What ? an axiom is something that is self evidently true, things that are true are true, you can not change or twist things that are true.

Aether, phlogiston, the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight, and the geocentric universe, were all held to be axiomatic in the past. Axioms are human creations.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/02/2016 10:04:17
you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero  of space
There exists absolutely no "zero of space", as you are so fond of defining it. No point in space can be considered as motionless, all frames are in motion.

All frames are not in motion, relative to the observer space is a stationary reference frame,

defining space  has empty space, not defining space has the whole containing bodies and light, A void is timeless, lengths of distance do not contract or expand, there is no substance to do this,

the stationary reference frame is space, we see bodies moving through a stationary reference frame. FACT
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/02/2016 10:05:52
you are all deeply confused , seriously . The stationary reference frame is the zero  of space
There exists absolutely no "zero of space", as you are so fond of defining it. No point in space can be considered as motionless, all frames are in motion.

Well I beg to differ. Every point in space could be considered motionless if an observer is there. To each observer every other point in space may be considered to be either in motion or stationary. The problem in relativity is exactly that we do not have a fixed background. No one knows exactly how fast any object is actually moving with respect to themselves since they cannot be sure that everything they see is not moving at the same rate in some preferred direction. This could include rotational motion. GR is so complex that even if we find solutions to the vacuum field equations are we certain that we would actually recognize them?

SENSE FROM SOMEBODY AT LAST, THUMBS U TO jEFF
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/02/2016 14:32:55
No one knows exactly how fast any object is actually moving with respect to themselves since they cannot be sure that everything they see is not moving at the same rate in some preferred direction.

No! The starting point for relativity is the commonsense position that we can measure motion with respect to ourselves (and we do it all the time). Experimentally we find that there is no "preferred direction" in space. Now read on.....
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/02/2016 14:47:27
No one knows exactly how fast any object is actually moving with respect to themselves since they cannot be sure that everything they see is not moving at the same rate in some preferred direction.

No! The starting point for relativity is the commonsense position that we can measure motion with respect to ourselves (and we do it all the time). Experimentally we find that there is no "preferred direction" in space. Now read on.....

I do realize all that. What I was discussing was the absence of a fixed background in relativity. If you don't appreciate the deeper problems associated with the absence of a fixed background it isn't my problem.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/02/2016 17:02:21
I am unaware of any problem arising from the absence of a fixed background, that is not attributable to human vanity!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/02/2016 17:10:33
I am unaware of any problem arising from the absence of a fixed background, that is not attributable to human vanity!

Then I propose that we agree to disagree. I do appreciate that you don't want readers to get the wrong impression of scientific theories from posts made by amateurs. This is a problem I also wish to avoid.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 06/02/2016 17:59:18
I am unaware of any problem arising from the absence of a fixed background, that is not attributable to human vanity!

Does this mean that it is an act of human vanity to suppose that one might truly understand the universe as an entirety, and be able to chart the universe, as we do our earth, in full detail of knowledge, via a theory of everything?

Because this is indeed what some, around 300, or so I've read, hardcore theoretical physicists are doing where quantum gravity is concerned.  By linking quantum to gravity, mass and gravitational field considerations would then indeed give both quantum and relativity an absolute reference frame from which to be equated.

Seems a reasonable enough quest to me Alan... You've surprise me with this comment really... I didn't think that you of all people would be paying any such blind homage to anything at all, let alone the 'church' of relativity....
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 06/02/2016 19:46:01

Then I propose that we agree to disagree. I do appreciate that you don't want readers to get the wrong impression of scientific theories from posts made by amateurs. This is a problem I also wish to avoid.
This forum has a number of intelligent members of which I consider both Jeff and Alan to be a couple of the brightest. But I'm also sure that a majority here also realize, with proper humility, that humanity has by now means learned it all. Case in point; When anyone comes here to our forum and positions themselves as the only authority intelligent enough to understand when everyone else is somehow stupid, they should expect to suffer a great deal of grief from us. I think everyone knows who I'm talking about and it's certainly not Alan nor Jeff.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 06/02/2016 21:00:12
I really can't think for the life of me why anyone here should be given grief for anything at-all, or why anyone should wish to waste their valuable time ie: life, here on earth dishing out such measures.  I have visited forums that seem to purposefully extrapolate this type of X factor psychology in what I consider to be a most disturbing display of bad character from all parties.

Why participate if it's not questioning, informative, or funny...?

If box isn't outright taking the piss here at times, which is the most likely scenario in my book, then he is in fact a bit challenged, or disturbed.  Does someone who is challenged or disturbed need grief Ethos?  And also...you talk about 'our' forum here...  Can I have a list of 'us', please, just so I'm in the know, like...?

Oh, and while your at it, sorry to put you on the spot, but who do reckon is more intelligent?  Alan?  Or Jeff?  :D
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 06/02/2016 21:26:10
Does someone who is challenged or disturbed need grief Ethos?
Whether he is challenged or disturbed is beyond my reckoning. What he is however is mistaken and continues to insist he's not. If he wants to act like the only authority, he should be up to the criticism.

Quote from: timey
And also...you talk about 'our' forum here...  Can I have a list of 'us', please, just so I'm in the know, like...?
If you'll look at the top of the page, there is a section called "Members".

Quote from: timey
Oh, and while your at it, sorry to put you on the spot, but who do reckon is more intelligent?  Alan?  Or Jeff?  :D
I'll not fall into that trap timey, BTW both are much more intelligent than a few we have collected here lately.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 06/02/2016 22:09:20
Well, I'll not disagree with you in relation to the criticism, but I must say I have a degree of curiosity as to what leads you to the desire to dish it out...

Ah yes... Top of page 'members', I'm somewhat relieved to find my name is there...oh, and lo and behold...so is Thebox...'s

What's 'trappy' about asking who you think is more intelligent?  It's entirely unlikely that either gives a hoot what you, or I, think.  I not sure that I've yet made up my mind personally.  Alan's more fun, that's for sure, and more experienced, don't need to be Einstein to work that one out.  Jeff is pretty sharp on his toes though, I'll give him that, and have never said otherwise...

Clearly you are referring to box as being one of the few who are less intelligent than both, but the fact of the word 'few' within the sentence indicates that you believe others are also less intelligent.  Can you tell me who these others are please?  It's just that I'm now making an assessment of your intelligence, and I'm quite sure I'll find that your own assessment of a persons intelligence will help me... ;)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 06/02/2016 22:30:14
Can you tell me who these others are please?  It's just that I'm now making an assessment of your intelligence, and I'm quite sure I'll find that your own assessment of a persons intelligence will help me... ;)
I'll let you make up your own mind on that one my friend. Here is a key that will help you make the informed decision: Read through their posts, when you find contradictions and errors, their intelligence becomes quite evident.

And as far as your assessment of my intelligence, if I may be so blunt; The honest search for reality is more important than intelligence. One can be quite intelligent, but if they are dishonest enough to dismiss evidence offhand just to preserve their own vision of reality, they will never achieve any thing of significance. It takes both timey, intelligence and an honest assessment of experimental observation, whether those observations fit in neatly with ones biased predisposed positions or not.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/02/2016 23:08:24
Well we have all been busy discussing me and not discussing science, I take it , this assumption that I am stupid is the last resort for your own lack of understanding.

I do not have to justify myself to anybody, so all new theories or anybody who wishes to question present information and discourse that information is stupid hey?

Grow up....this is not a school yard.

What  rude and arrogant people, a good lesson to the young or anyone wishing to study science, just don't bother, because if you question anything, you will be insulted , if you have a new idea, they will claim it garbage.

May as well just read it on wiki, say nothing even when you know they are proper wrong.

So what do you think your right is to call people stupid ?

Because you can remember Wiki?

oh dear the hilariousness of this  people thinking they are clever because they have a good memory,

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 06/02/2016 23:33:29
I am unaware of any problem arising from the absence of a fixed background, that is not attributable to human vanity!

Then I propose that we agree to disagree. I do appreciate that you don't want readers to get the wrong impression of scientific theories from posts made by amateurs. This is a problem I also wish to avoid.
And this is the reason I appreciate you both Jeff. Both Alan and yourself are honest enough and studious enough to search out realities and defend the standard model against those who would disassemble it. While the standard model may need some tweaking, it is by far the best standard by which we judge natures realities.

Those who would do away with it completely are only interested in grandstanding and not the least interested in preserving the results from tested and tried experiment. These people represent the highest degree of selfishness common to man and should be confronted when they attempt to spread their garbage. Civil discussion is quite acceptable but for those whos agenda is only about spreading their point of view at the expense of everyone else, the burden of proof will fall upon them.
\
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/02/2016 23:49:53
If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/02/2016 23:50:30
There is a big difference in discussing somebodies idea, and ''preaching'' back present information.

There is nothing to be so defensive about, surely people can decide for themselves what they consider gibberish?

There is no need to keep quoting back time is this, or this is this, how many times must I tell these forums I can read and do have google search to look up these things.

The conversation would be rather boring in a new theory section if the theory was an old theory .

What is time ?

Time is blah, blah,

end of conversation

what sort of discussion would that be?   what sort of discussion would it be if I didn't apply any logical pressure about things and just said, ''yes sir, I accept that'' do I pass now?

Nobody seems to even know what a discussion is.

Nobody ever proves my idea wrong. So yes I am stuck trying until science proves me wrong on things.

Distance is an invariant yes?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 06/02/2016 23:56:03

Nobody ever proves my idea wrong. So yes I am stuck trying until science proves me wrong on things.

It's not incumbent upon us to prove you wrong, the burden of proof lies squarely upon you Mr. Box. As yet, you have shown us nothing but poor math and "your logical" speculation.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 00:01:46

Nobody ever proves my idea wrong. So yes I am stuck trying until science proves me wrong on things.

It's not incumbent upon us to prove you wrong, the burden of proof lies squarely upon you Mr. Box. As yet, you have shown us nothing but poor math and "your logical" speculation.

Most of the time I ask direct question, I do not get a direct answer, mostly I am left confused why my questions are hard to answer.

Is distance an invariant, is a length of a distance invariant?

(notice no mass mentioned, no objects, no time, no light waves etc, so you can presume I mean space.)

I will draw a little diagram

d=0∞.......................L=A-----------------------B..............................0∞

My question in diagram form

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 07/02/2016 00:24:20

Is distance an invariant, is a length of a distance invariant?

You have stated time and time again that you don't believe in time dilation. And several members have answered you in the negative. And I believe the question of length contraction has already been answered as well.

If one views space and time as a single entity, as most scientists do, time dilation and length contraction are the standard view when considering the effect of near light speed upon the observed object. This has been pointed out to you many times so don't tell us we never answer your questions.

Space/time must be viewed as a continuum and trying to separate the two will not receive much consideration in scientific circles.

Caution Mr. Box, I'm at this point very unwilling to argue the point with you. You have my answer as well as many others. And you have constantly argued that we are wrong and you are right. Believe that if you must, but you're views are in the vast minority so convincing us of them falls squarely upon your shoulders. Problem is, you've already tried and have gotten little if any results. You have spent more time and bandwidth spelling out your position compared to the total contribution of other members so maybe it's time to give it a break.

As for myself, I'm tired of listening to your gibberish.

Over and OUT.................................
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 00:33:16

Does this mean that it is an act of human vanity to suppose that one might truly understand the universe as an entirety, and be able to chart the universe, as we do our earth, in full detail of knowledge, via a theory of everything?
Yes. But it's not a reason for not trying.

Quote
Because this is indeed what some, around 300, or so I've read, hardcore theoretical physicists are doing where quantum gravity is concerned.  By linking quantum to gravity, mass and gravitational field considerations would then indeed give both quantum and relativity an absolute reference frame from which to be equated.
Not quite the same thing as a fixed background through which all things move with absolute velocities.

Quote
Seems a reasonable enough quest to me Alan... You've surprise me with this comment really... I didn't think that you of all people would be paying any such blind homage to anything at all, let alone the 'church' of relativity....
Not a blind homage, but a realisation that with the successive abolition of anthrocentrism, geocentrism, heliocentrism and the universal aether, our theories have approximated ever closer to observation and our models of the universe have become ever simpler. If your goal is to provide the simplest, most selfconsistent and most accurately predictive hypothesis, it's probably a good idea to start from a relativist rather than an absolutist axiom.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 00:36:25
Is distance an invariant, is a length of a distance invariant?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/02/2016 00:38:02
Imagine two large masses a distance S apart. Now remove those two objects. What is the value of S? Has it changed since the masses were removed? Does it even have the same meaning with no masses to reference?

If we consider that gravity is said to curve the spacetime more prominently around large masses then can we say S has in fact changed? For an object traveling along the path described by S, now as a vector, could we determine a difference with and without the masses present? We then need to consider frames of reference. Without the masses present these frames may or may not describe a flat spacetime.

Lastly we can consider minima and maxima. Particularly of length contraction. Where would you find the minimum or maximum length contraction within the universe? Are there multiple minima and maxima?

Now, Thebox, do not claim that this is what you meant all along. I won't stand for it.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 07/02/2016 00:39:51
If your goal is to provide the simplest, most selfconsistent and most accurately predictive hypothesis, it's probably a good idea to start from a relativist rather than an absolutist axiom.
Amen Alan...................

Woops, Mr. Box will probably accuse me of pushing religion because I wrote the word: "Amen"
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 04:35:41

Does this mean that it is an act of human vanity to suppose that one might truly understand the universe as an entirety, and be able to chart the universe, as we do our earth, in full detail of knowledge, via a theory of everything?
Yes. But it's not a reason for not trying.

Quote
Because this is indeed what some, around 300, or so I've read, hardcore theoretical physicists are doing where quantum gravity is concerned.  By linking quantum to gravity, mass and gravitational field considerations would then indeed give both quantum and relativity an absolute reference frame from which to be equated.
Not quite the same thing as a fixed background through which all things move with absolute velocities.

Quote
Seems a reasonable enough quest to me Alan... You've surprise me with this comment really... I didn't think that you of all people would be paying any such blind homage to anything at all, let alone the 'church' of relativity....
Not a blind homage, but a realisation that with the successive abolition of anthrocentrism, geocentrism, heliocentrism and the universal aether, our theories have approximated ever closer to observation and our models of the universe have become ever simpler. If your goal is to provide the simplest, most selfconsistent and most accurately predictive hypothesis, it's probably a good idea to start from a relativist rather than an absolutist axiom.

1) agreed
2) 'fixed background' not my choice of terminology,, but...och, trust a physicist to be pernickity
3)  nice use of wording there (chuckle), very subtle!  And yes, it is true that relativity and quantum would have to form the basis of any new theory, as these are our best working hypothesis.

BTW, Alan, it hasn't surprised me in the slightest that nobody has asked if I think I'm more intelligent than you or Jeff.  Considering the personal circumstances, no fault of your own I conclude, but I really hadn't expected any of you to make this realisation..  The fact that no one has just being further proof to myself of my superior intelligence. Lol, lol!  Righto - back to bed smartish would be smartish.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/02/2016 09:26:41
BTW, Alan, it hasn't surprised me in the slightest that nobody has asked if I think I'm more intelligent than you or Jeff.
We were taking that as an axiom   [:)]

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 09:44:20
Imagine two large masses a distance S apart. Now remove those two objects. What is the value of S? Has it changed since the masses were removed? Does it even have the same meaning with no masses to reference?

That part is what I have asked, I have this feeling you know what I am saying with my asking, I have this feeling you back down under pressure and dare not defend my idea in fear of ridicule.

Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''

In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 10:03:15
Intelligence is best defined as the ability to surprise the observer - every other definition seems to reduce to an ability to deduce and follow rules devised by the observer, which is pretty much the antithesis of science.

So far, I've been informed, amused and confused by a lot of what I have read in this forum, but the kiss of scientific approval ("Bloody hell, that's clever") has rarely passed my lips since reading Einstein on Relativity whilst listening to the Beatles. It was the use of Bbmajor instead of the expected minor in "I saw her standing there" that, like the opening augmented 7th in "Margie" a generation earlier, raised the entire oeuvre    from the quondam to the inspiriert. Of course one would never make the soi-tromperie of confusing sixth-form pretentiousness with  νοῦς.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 10:05:20

Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''

In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.

No, I said

Quote
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 10:09:43

Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''

In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.

Relative to  the observer a stationary reference frame, an invariant, a constant.
The sum of all values = 0

∑=0
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 10:11:09

Alan -'' This was answered way back on 29 January, Reply #1.''

In which you said there was no contraction of space distance or length.

No, I said

Quote
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

I read the answer then tried to discuss the answer, then it got confusing because people said I was wrong etc, that is the impression I got,
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 10:13:27
So by length contraction you actually mean length compression of a moving body?

And in saying that a moving body must also have a height expansion/decompression?

L=x

x+v=<x

<x=>y

So in vacuum a spring travels at the near speed of light, what force makes the spring compress?  acceleration?  can't be speed
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/02/2016 11:32:20
So by length contraction you actually mean length compression of a moving body?
No, it is called length contraction so it doesnt get confused with compression. Compression implies pressure or pushing inwards. This is space changing, imagine a stretched rubber band, draw a line on it, now let the band contract and the line is shorter. Gravity and speed affect the stretch of spacetime.
And in saying that a moving body must also have a height expansion/decompression?
No, just length in the direction of movement.

So in vacuum a spring travels at the near speed of light, what force makes the spring compress?  acceleration?  can't be speed
Explain why it can't be speed.
Remember there is no force compressing the spring
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 11:52:41
As Colin says, contraction, as observed by a second party moving relative to the stick, not compression, which would be observed by a traveller on the stick.

You can avoid a lot of confusion by using the same words as everyone else.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 11:59:33
As Colin says, contraction, as observed by a second party moving relative to the stick, not compression, which would be observed by a traveller on the stick.

You can avoid a lot of confusion by using the same words as everyone else.

So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?

length contraction you are on about the angles of an object relative to light?

[ Invalid Attachment ]

You  mean light contracts relative to the observer?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/02/2016 14:41:14
So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?
No, we said spacetime we meant spacetime, not light
length contraction you are on about the angles of an object relative to light?

You  mean light contracts relative to the observer?
No, light remains the same speed for all observers when we consider movement in special relativity.
We are not talking about the angles of light relative to an object, but sometimes that can be used as an analogy.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 14:53:57
So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?
No, we said spacetime we meant spacetime, not light
length contraction you are on about the angles of an object relative to light?

You  mean light contracts relative to the observer?
No, light remains the same speed for all observers when we consider movement in special relativity.
We are not talking about the angles of light relative to an object, but sometimes that can be used as an analogy.

Huh?  now I am back to square one, what do you mean by ''This is space changing'',  ?

How exactly can space change when space is not made of anything ?  What are you suggesting changes?

There is no proven ether, there is no solidity, the values are zero, so how can zero change?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 07/02/2016 15:10:37

There is no proven ether, there is no solidity, the values are zero, so how can zero change?
Think for a moment about what you just said; "there is no solidity". This example is not the reason for length contraction but may help you understand how it could happen.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/02/2016 15:12:29
space is not made of anything ....... the values are zero, so how can zero change?

And also you didnt answer my queston

Explain why it can't be speed
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2016 16:23:00
So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?

No. If I had meant light, I would have written light. And I haven't mentioned space-time at all.

Just read the words on the bloody card!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 19:08:45
So let me get this right, space-time you really mean light?

No. If I had meant light, I would have written light. And I haven't mentioned space-time at all.

Just read the words on the bloody card!

My apologies, it was Colin who mentioned stretching of space-time.

As Colin says, contraction, as observed by a second party moving relative to the stick, not compression, which would be observed by a traveller on the stick.

You can avoid a lot of confusion by using the same words as everyone else.
I have read this about 3 times and still observe no contraction.

Let us use a surfer on a surfboard surfing in space, and parallel to the surfer is another surfer travelling the same speed and direction.

s1→→→→→

s2→→→→→

So what am I looking at in this scenario that contracts?

a. the length of the surf board?

b. the distance?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/02/2016 19:44:46

No, I said

Quote
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

Thebox please read Alan's answer above through as many times as necessary. It tells you ALL you need to know. You can even come back and ask questions if it is not exactly clear. There is a subtle distinction in what Alan has said that you might miss.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 19:58:48

No, I said

Quote
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

Thebox please read Alan's answer above through as many times as necessary. It tells you ALL you need to know. You can even come back and ask questions if it is not exactly clear. There is a subtle distinction in what Alan has said that you might miss.

Yes I have read that too, several times now, it sounds like Alan is saying space is an invariant but a stick if it moves shrinks in length.

Without an opposing force to the direction of the stick I do not see how this is possible.

Where can I view the observation evidence of this?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 20:22:38
Yes Space Flow, (chuckle)  I truly know the feeling!  Have you read 'The Trouble with Physics' Lee Smolin?
No I have not read his book and to tell you the truth I have no intention to.
I 110% agree with his views and basically have learned to avoid the subjects of "String theory", "M theory", "God", Multiverse, or any other religion you want to name.
There is a definition of what can be classed as a theory within the confines of the scientific method and none of those qualify.
Therefore I have no interest in reading or hearing any more about them.
If your idea can not make a testable prediction, it is not a "scientific" theory.
At best it is a hypothesis.

I don't know why you wouldn't be interested in Lee Smolin's book.  It basically echoes your sentiments here exactly, and illustrates each part of everything within physics that does not match up.

Hope all went well with surgeon.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 20:28:11
Can you tell me who these others are please?  It's just that I'm now making an assessment of your intelligence, and I'm quite sure I'll find that your own assessment of a persons intelligence will help me... ;)
I'll let you make up your own mind on that one my friend. Here is a key that will help you make the informed decision: Read through their posts, when you find contradictions and errors, their intelligence becomes quite evident.

And as far as your assessment of my intelligence, if I may be so blunt; The honest search for reality is more important than intelligence. One can be quite intelligent, but if they are dishonest enough to dismiss evidence offhand just to preserve their own vision of reality, they will never achieve any thing of significance. It takes both timey, intelligence and an honest assessment of experimental observation, whether those observations fit in neatly with ones biased predisposed positions or not.

Ah... Hmmmm, OK, Lol,  I can see that I might have to start reading your posts...

(Don't mind me too much, just having myself a mild troll)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 20:33:49
BTW, Alan, it hasn't surprised me in the slightest that nobody has asked if I think I'm more intelligent than you or Jeff.
We were taking that as an axiom   [:)]

Oh, goodly, good Colin, I'm sooooo glad that I'm a member!  ...But could we please make that an 'absolute axiom'?  S'got a better ring to it!

But...even though I hesitate to over complicate the matter, in the interests of honesty I fear it must be done!  So...having established the fact that 'we' think that I think I am more intelligent than both Alan and Jeff - on the basis that because I come from a socially outer space non schooled and self taught perspective, I have come from a place where I bring no absolute meter stick with which you may measure us against each other...therefore perhaps my intelligence cannot be considered an invariant and 'is' actually relative.

Congrats on becoming a moderator, btw!  It's cleared something up for me, as I was wondering if the mods got a cut on all this new advertising on the forum, but I think it pretty much goes without saying that the inclusion of a fresh one at this point rules this thought out... (chuckle)
Now I was thinking of mentioning that I remember a post where Alan said he used to be a trade unionist, but it occurs that I might need to ask Chris a favour one of these days, so I'll just stick a sock in it :D
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 20:41:18
It is a weird one box, relativity explains length contraction mathematically, but offers no reasonable explanation as to the causation of this phenomenon.

Therefore, actually, the way is clear for a speculation... I personally speculate that because the rate of time for the contracted length is slowed via its velocity, an observer is viewing the length moving in a slower rate of time relative to their own.  An observer viewing an event from their faster rate of time, will not have 'the time' in which to view the entirety of the length as it moves within it's slower rate of time, causing the length to appear contracted to the observer.

However, a length and a distance are 2 different things.  A length is a measurement of matter, and a distance is a measurement of space. The stretching of the fabric of outer space also affects distances according to GR.

It is true that science has had the benefit of many great minds, but on the other hand, logically speaking, it is in fact an act of sheer stupidity to consider our knowledge of the universe as wise...  Our 2 best working theories cannot be fully united.  If they could, discussions such as this would be redundant...

Well yes, normally when there is a piece of maths it suppose to represent something physically observed. I observe no contraction personally so it is a bit fairy tale like.

This being, box, because space time within our macro environment is only distorted to a very, very small fraction, of a fraction, of a second.

I think, after much reflection, that the answer to your question under the remit of established physics is:

"Is distance an invariant?"

... yes, and, no!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 21:02:05
If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye :D
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 21:18:08
If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye :D

I have not got a theory called the box.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2016 21:19:20
It is a weird one box, relativity explains length contraction mathematically, but offers no reasonable explanation as to the causation of this phenomenon.

Therefore, actually, the way is clear for a speculation... I personally speculate that because the rate of time for the contracted length is slowed via its velocity, an observer is viewing the length moving in a slower rate of time relative to their own.  An observer viewing an event from their faster rate of time, will not have 'the time' in which to view the entirety of the length as it moves within it's slower rate of time, causing the length to appear contracted to the observer.

However, a length and a distance are 2 different things.  A length is a measurement of matter, and a distance is a measurement of space. The stretching of the fabric of outer space also affects distances according to GR.

It is true that science has had the benefit of many great minds, but on the other hand, logically speaking, it is in fact an act of sheer stupidity to consider our knowledge of the universe as wise...  Our 2 best working theories cannot be fully united.  If they could, discussions such as this would be redundant...

Well yes, normally when there is a piece of maths it suppose to represent something physically observed. I observe no contraction personally so it is a bit fairy tale like.

This being, box, because space time within our macro environment is only distorted to a very, very small fraction, of a fraction, of a second.

I think, after much reflection, that the answer to your question under the remit of established physics is:

"Is distance an invariant?"

... yes, and, no!

You should realise now you please need to explain why no?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 07/02/2016 21:28:23

Ah... Hmmmm, OK, Lol,  I can see that I might have to start reading your posts...

(Don't mind me too much, just having myself a mild troll)
Be my guest timey, I'm sure you'll find a few contradictions and errors along the way. Like many people searching for the truth, I've had to change my mind several times when confronted with evidence. It's called "growth", something a few of us have resisted since their initial membership began.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 22:16:58
If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye :D

I have not got a theory called the box.

Aww, how cute is that?

Tbh, box, I did in fact already know this.  Try thinking it through a little bit further... :)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 22:19:51

Ah... Hmmmm, OK, Lol,  I can see that I might have to start reading your posts...

(Don't mind me too much, just having myself a mild troll)
Be my guest timey, I'm sure you'll find a few contradictions and errors along the way. Like many people searching for the truth, I've had to change my mind several times when confronted with evidence. It's called "growth", something a few of us have resisted since their initial membership began.

Thanks, I will.  And speaking for myself, I'm all up for growth, progression, and a good measure of humour wherever possible.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 22:27:09

You should realise now you please need to explain why no?

Really, do I have to?  Cos' from what I've seen everyone has had a go at explaining that a length contracts for an observer, that a distance contracts for a traveller, and that space time stretches distance.

Can't I explain why distance is an invariant instead?  It's the only angle that hadn't been so thoroughly covered!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/02/2016 22:52:14
Can't I explain why distance is an invariant instead?
No, because the question is "is distance an absolute invariant"

The floor is your's.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 07/02/2016 23:12:46
Can't I explain why distance is an invariant instead?
No, because the question is "is distance an absolute invariant"

The floor is your's.

Check out the brain on Colin here, lol, lol, lol!!!

Is distance an 'absolute' invariant?

Is: As set out by established physics.  No!

If you ask me 'why' now, I'm going to scream!!!

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 08/02/2016 00:18:26

Is distance an 'absolute' invariant?

Is: As set out by established physics.  No!

If you ask me 'why' now, I'm going to scream!!!
Simple and concise answer my man, Mr. Box should appreciate that a great deal even though this has been the umpteenth time that question has been answered.

If Mr. Box wants an answer to why we know this, let it suffice to say: "Because that result is what relativistic math and experiment reveal."

Now as to the singular question "why"; Maybe a similar answer as to; "why does a dog circle itself twice before setting down?"

Only the dog knows for sure!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 10:19:17

Is distance an 'absolute' invariant?

Is: As set out by established physics.  No!

If you ask me 'why' now, I'm going to scream!!!
Simple and concise answer my man, Mr. Box should appreciate that a great deal even though this has been the umpteenth time that question has been answered.

If Mr. Box wants an answer to why we know this, let it suffice to say: "Because that result is what relativistic math and experiment reveal."

Now as to the singular question "why"; Maybe a similar answer as to; "why does a dog circle itself twice before setting down?"

Only the dog knows for sure!

What experiment shows a length contraction, I do not believe this experiment exists?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 10:22:22
If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye :D

I have not got a theory called the box.

Aww, how cute is that?

Tbh, box, I did in fact already know this.  Try thinking it through a little bit further... :)

Well I did think further and google the box theory to find a facebook page, green box, red box, yellow box, nothing I have not said in the past in a different way.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 08/02/2016 14:46:38
If anyone needs a definitive answer to a scientific question then Alan, Evan_au, ChiralSPO, Colin2B and others I may have forgotten will provide it. They are all prepared to stand corrected by others when they are shown to be wrong in their understanding. To effectively challenge mainstream ideas requires an understanding that you can't get from pop science books. Also adopting a user name based on a pet theory should sound alarm bells.

An understanding of the universe cannot be attained by a school education either, no matter how much your parents paid, and paid for or not, a school education is no guarantee of a persons personal intellect.

A full understanding of the universe is yet to exist.

P.S.  I hadn't realised Thebox... had a theory called Thebox...  I'll have to do a search, aye :D

I have not got a theory called the box.

Aww, how cute is that?

Tbh, box, I did in fact already know this.  Try thinking it through a little bit further... :)

Well I did think further and google the box theory to find a facebook page, green box, red box, yellow box, nothing I have not said in the past in a different way.

Box, :). I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 08/02/2016 14:48:06
Meanwhile...  in a much long forgotten relics room, at an as yet to be disclosed museum somewhere... geologists have been called in to conduct carbon dating of the stratum of dust layers obscuring the contours of an artefact that scientists, and historians alike, are now convinced might just be Occam's Razor...
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 08/02/2016 15:13:02

What experiment shows a length contraction, I do not believe this experiment exists?
There have been several experiments that suggest verification for length contraction at near light speed. One such experiment using heavy ions has shown that the increase in nucleon density do to length contraction is the most logical conclusion. Heavy ions are spherical at rest but assume a flattened or pancake like shape at near light speeds. This experiment has been observed and verified at cyclotrons, commonly referred to as atom smashers.

Maybe you should start looking up the material for yourself, the web or a good physics weekly would be a good start.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 15:15:39

Box, :). I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?

Sorry you lost me, what time theory?

are you the time cube guy?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 15:19:17

What experiment shows a length contraction, I do not believe this experiment exists?
There have been several experiments that suggest verification for length contraction at near light speed. One such experiment using heavy ions has shown that the increase in nucleon density do to length contraction is the most logical conclusion. Heavy ions are spherical at rest but assume a flattened or pancake like shape at near light speeds. This experiment has been observed and verified at cyclotrons, commonly referred to as atom smashers.

Maybe you should start looking up the material for yourself, the web or a good physics weekly would be a good start.

huh?  I have no idea what you just said, what on Earth is an heavy ion suppose to be?

I looked it up, how does charged particles grouping while travelling through  collider prove contraction of a stick?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 08/02/2016 15:39:33

huh?  I have no idea what you just said, what on Earth is an heavy ion suppose to be?
Look it up, you have shown no interest in what any of us have offered you freely to date. Unless you're willing to learn from reputable sources like most of the members here at TNS frequent, how can you honestly expect to learn or form accurate views about current scientific information?

How are you ever going to learn anything Mr. Box if you won't trust the professionals that have the equipment and knowledge to preform these experiments? I'm sure you don't have a cyclotron at your residence and neither do any of us. We get our information from the facilities that do.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 15:50:46

huh?  I have no idea what you just said, what on Earth is an heavy ion suppose to be?
Look it up, you have shown no interest in what any of us have offered you freely to date. Unless you're willing to learn from reputable sources like most of the members here at TNS frequent, how can you honestly expect to learn or form accurate views about current scientific information?

How are you ever going to learn anything Mr. Box if you won't trust the professionals that have the equipment and knowledge to preform these experiments? I'm sure you don't have a cyclotron at your residence and neither do any of us. We get our information from the facilities that do.

I do not know the exact details of the experiment, therefore I hold judgement, I have not observed the experimental procedure and method to discourse and look for human error or observer effect.

It is not that I don't ''trust'', I do not take things at face value.   The title of a book tells what the story is about, only if you read the full book doe's one know the full story.

In my question I do not ask about any of your book, I ask about something that I observe. I observe space itself without radiation or mass is an empty void, I observe there is no concrete existence such as an ether, I observe that for something to stretch, bend, contract, expand, it has to me made of something and have elastic or flexible properties. I do not observe objects of solidity in motion contracting in length. I do observe objects in rotation contacting in height and expanding in length.

The Earth and empty space of  a vacuum testament to the statement above's truthfulness.

How could the Earth's circumference at the equator ever contract when the expansion is caused by rotation velocity?

If the rotation slowed down there would be a diameter length contraction or circumference contraction if you like, but how can relative velocity of orbit contract a length?

How can the nothing of space contract ?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 08/02/2016 16:42:06

Box, :). I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?

Sorry you lost me, what time theory?

are you the time cube guy?

G,grief!  Ok, look...Jeff said, amongst other implications, that a user who's basis of theory is reflected in a pet user name should sound alarm bells... I illustrated that it was not you he is side swiping with that comment, as you do not have a box theory!  Reason why I illustrated this fact is because it was me who he was having a sideways dig at.  Do you get it now?

No... I'm not the time cube guy, I'm the inverted time theory woman.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 16:50:06

Box, :). I am the one with the time theory and the user name timey, OK?

Sorry you lost me, what time theory?

are you the time cube guy?

G,grief!  Ok, look...Jeff said, amongst other implications, that a user who's basis of theory is reflected in a pet user name should sound alarm bells... I illustrated that it was not you he is side swiping with that comment, as you do not have a box theory!  Reason why I illustrated this fact is because it was me who he was having a sideways dig at.  Do you get it now?

No... I'm not the time cube guy, I'm the inverted time theory woman.

Arghh yes I get it now , my mistake sorry. Pleased to meet you inverted time theory lady.  Are you the same person who has made a new time theory but have not quite published the article yet?

A theory something to do with mirrored time running backwards in a parallel universe?

arrows of time ?

added - I found your thread , that must of been time consuming, how exactly does 0 invert?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 08/02/2016 17:57:06

I do not know the exact details of the experiment, therefore I hold judgement, I have not observed the experimental procedure and method to discourse and look for human error or observer effect.
Evidently then, you have only one recourse Mr. Box, purchase your own collider and preform the experiment yourself. Then, which I totally doubt, you'll be able to argue with the professionals at places like CERN. You somehow think you're arguing with us here at TNS when in reality, it is those accomplished scientists at places like CERN that you have your disagreement with. Now really, why should we trust you instead of them when you don't even know what a heavy ion is?

Believe what you wish sir, I'm done offering you examples in an effort to help you grow.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 08/02/2016 18:52:58
added - I found your thread , that must of been time consuming, how exactly does 0 invert?

Well, what-da-ya-know!!!  Look at that will ya!!!

Cuts straight to the chase or what?

Truth is box, that's about the only one tiny part of my whole theory that I cannot quite get a visual on.  In my defence, the theory does take the universe all the way back to zero, no other theory does this, but I cannot get a precise mechanism for inverting nothing into something...  Not even the tinsiest, tiniest of somethings...  Not yet anyway!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 19:46:16
added - I found your thread , that must of been time consuming, how exactly does 0 invert?

Well, what-da-ya-know!!!  Look at that will ya!!!

Cuts straight to the chase or what?

Truth is box, that's about the only one tiny part of my whole theory that I cannot quite get a visual on.  In my defence, the theory does take the universe all the way back to zero, no other theory does this, but I cannot get a precise mechanism for inverting nothing into something...  Not even the tinsiest, tiniest of somethings...  Not yet anyway!

Your theory needs to take the Universe back to 0 but also it needs to take the universe forward to 0∞.

Applicable from any reference point.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 08/02/2016 19:55:08
Well box, the implications of a cyclic universe that increases in size each cycle does indeed extend to infinity, and does describe the universe from any reference point...  I know...I know... It's a bloody long read ;)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 20:01:02
Well box, the implications of a cyclic universe that increases in size each cycle does indeed extend to infinity, and does describe the universe from any reference point...  I know...I know... It's a bloody long read ;)

Don't fall into trap of thinking shapes or cycle's just think infinite in any direction from any point, and not think space is expanding or has shape, red-shift is light reflecting from matter, space does not reflect light.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 08/02/2016 20:17:11
LOL!  Got to hand it to ya!  Indeed... space does not reflect light!

So, you're all sorted then?  Questions answered to satisfaction?  Time dilation does exist, and both lengths and distances subsequently distort?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 08/02/2016 20:27:56
LOL!  Got to hand it to ya!  Indeed... space does not reflect light!

So, you're all sorted then?  Questions answered to satisfaction?  Time dilation does exist, and both lengths and distances subsequently distort?

No time dilation exists but does not exist, lengths of space do not contract but objects and energies  might contract.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 08/02/2016 20:53:25
I daresay the answer must lie within, grasshopper... :)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 08/02/2016 22:32:40
I do not know the exact details of the experiment, therefore I hold judgement, I have not observed the experimental procedure and method to discourse and look for human error or observer effect.
Then why don't you take the trouble to find and read the details.
I agree with Ethos, little point in discussing things with you if you can't be bothered to make the effort.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/02/2016 00:22:49
I do not know the exact details of the experiment, therefore I hold judgement, I have not observed the experimental procedure and method to discourse and look for human error or observer effect.
Then why don't you take the trouble to find and read the details.
I agree with Ethos, little point in discussing things with you if you can't be bothered to make the effort.
I have spent time looking to find nothing , I found a few things on testing light but nothing to with testing lengths.   Also I now have some thoughts on distance contraction,  does a telescope contract distance visually?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/02/2016 06:47:50

No, I said

Quote
If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously [distance is invariant]. If you define b as being the other end of a stick, relativistic contraction will apply if the stick moves relative to an observer.

Thebox please read Alan's answer above through as many times as necessary. It tells you ALL you need to know. You can even come back and ask questions if it is not exactly clear. There is a subtle distinction in what Alan has said that you might miss.

Yes I have read that too, several times now, it sounds like Alan is saying space is an invariant but a stick if it moves shrinks in length.

If I had meant that , I would have said it. I meant exactly what I said, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote
Let us use a surfer on a surfboard surfing in space, and parallel to the surfer is another surfer travelling the same speed and direction.

s1→→→→→

s2→→→→→

So what am I looking at in this scenario that contracts?

a. the length of the surf board?

b. the distance?

Since they are not moving relative to each other, each sees the other's board as the same length as his own. Which is exactly what I wrote in the first place: contraction is only observed if the stick moves relative to the observer.

Nature is too dumb to cheat: physics only gets complicated if you add unnecessary complications and pointless preconceptions.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 09/02/2016 07:11:20
I have spent time looking to find nothing , I found a few things on testing light but nothing to with testing lengths.
Ethos found it, you didn't look hard enough. Sounds like you are forming your own religion and ignoring contrary evidence.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/02/2016 10:13:55
I have spent time looking to find nothing , I found a few things on testing light but nothing to with testing lengths.
Ethos found it, you didn't look hard enough. Sounds like you are forming your own religion and ignoring contrary evidence.

How am I ignoring when I am searching for it?

I can't find it, I can find plenty of stuff that says length contraction can not be tested and has never been tested.

Looks like another parlour trick to me using light.

[ Invalid Attachment ]

And I have seen some  demo's using plus and neg, the distance does not change just the pattern in these type examples.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/02/2016 10:41:11
Parlour tricks

[ Invalid Attachment ]

XYZ is not different directions, XYZ is actually 4/3 pi X³

X=Y=Z=t0

Golden rule 1 - Relative to our consciousness, there is 0t and 0d to ourselves.

Everything  else is relative to this fundamental principle.

Golden rule 2 - Our consciousness expands relative to light magnitude, light magnitude relative to the simultaneous observation of distance. (needs improvement)

Golden rule 3 - Our consciousness is the fastest thing that exists, faster than light(needs improvement)

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Colin2B on 09/02/2016 11:16:14
XYZ is not different directions, XYZ is actually 4/3 pi X³

X=Y=Z=t0

Golden rule 1 - Relative to our consciousness, there is 0t and 0d to ourselves.

Everything  else is relative to this fundamental principle.

Golden rule 2 - Our consciousness expands relative to light magnitude, light magnitude relative to the simultaneous observation of distance. (needs improvement)

Golden rule 3 - Our consciousness is the fastest thing that exists, faster than light(needs improvement)
I was going to give you a few references and engage in sensible discussion, but I see you are just interested in going down another rabbit hole.
Discussion is pointless. I can see you are not really interested.
I'm out.

PS consciousness is actually quite slow and nowhere near light speed.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/02/2016 13:05:31

PS consciousness is actually quite slow and nowhere near light speed.

Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/02/2016 13:37:21
Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?

Interesting theory. I believe consciousness is affected by spacetime. However, the power of imagination may create the illusion of the observer, as the speed of consciousness cannot be measured quantitatively.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 09/02/2016 15:26:06

Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?
That statement is, without question, the most "unenlightened" response I have ever seen posted on this forum. I felt the need to post a quote for posterities sake out of fear the author might realize the shear ineptitude of it and edit it out before someone else was able to view it.

Just saying...............................................
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/02/2016 18:22:57

Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?
That statement is, without question, the most "unenlightened" response I have ever seen posted on this forum. I felt the need to post a quote for posterities sake out of fear the author might realize the shear ineptitude of it and edit it out before someone else was able to view it.

Just saying...............................................
You are welcome to say, I can only presume you read it wrongly. Are you suggesting we do not see light leaving/interacting at the surface of the object at the same time we receive light to our eyes?

Are you contesting the constant-'constant?

Are you contesting observation of distant red-shift?

May I remind of the axiom

Part One - Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.

Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant.   Space  is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed.  Ourselves,  observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object  is not opaque, it is relatively ''see through''.  This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in shadow/night.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 09/02/2016 18:44:16

Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?
You can't "consciously observe a distant planet" unless the light from that planet reaches your eye. To claim that; "I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?" is bogus and I'm confident that you are smart enough to know that. Why you would make such a claim is beyond reason Mr. Box!

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/02/2016 19:01:13

Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?
You can't "consciously observe a distant planet" unless the light from that planet reaches your eye. To claim that; "I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?" is bogus and I'm confident that you are smart enough to know that. Why you would make such a claim is beyond reason Mr. Box!

consciousness
ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/Submit

''unless the light from that planet reaches your eye.''

Unless your eye is within the reach ,

are you saying you do not perceive distance?

added - are you saying that light   magnitude and radius in conjunction with the inverse square law does not affect visual distance of the observer?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 09/02/2016 19:19:55

are you saying you do not perceive distance?
What I perceive Mr. Box, is you going in circles like that proverbial dog I spoke of earlier. Always going in circles before he finally sits down. Eventually, when it finally comes to you, you may take a needed rest and sit down for a while.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 09/02/2016 22:34:20

are you saying you do not perceive distance?
What I perceive Mr. Box, is you going in circles like that proverbial dog I spoke of earlier. Always going in circles before he finally sits down. Eventually, when it finally comes to you, you may take a needed rest and sit down for a while.
What i perceive is you side stepping a direct question again.

I ask again, are you saying you do not observe distance ?

added - are you saying that light   magnitude and radius in conjunction with the inverse square law does not affect visual distance of the observer?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 00:25:23
Box, this is a very simple visual experiment that you can conduct yourself, presuming you have access to a railway station...

But.. before I start, I want to make it absolutely clear that the visual result of this experiment is NOT a length contraction.  So... so long as we are clear on that...

Ok, stand on the right hand side end of a railway platform, as far away from the edge as you are able, or up to about 20 ft or so, and fix your vision directly across the track upon the platform opposite.  It is important that your vision remain fixed to this spot.  As a train pulls into the station, you will see the trains carriages zipping past your fixed position of vision.  You will notice that the train has carriages because of the gaps between the carriages.  As the train reduces in speed, from your visually fixed position, you will notice that the train carriages appear to be getting longer, and longer, until the train comes to a stop.

Now then box, because you are also interested in time, but let me be very clear, this is NOT an example of time dilation...  I suggest you quickly run to the left hand end of the platform and assume the visually fixed position of fixing your vision directly across at the opposite platform.  As the train leaves the station, start counting as soon as you see the front end of a carriage go past... one, one thousand, two, one thousand, and so on, until the end of the carriage passes your vision.  Then start counting from one again when the front of the next carriage passes your vision, and so on.  As the train picks up speed leaving the railway station, you will notice that the carriages takes less and less 'time' to pass you, as well as looking shorter.

Although both of these examples are NOT relativistic effects, they are about as close a representation that you will find as a visual experience in earth's reference frame.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 07:44:47
Box, this is a very simple visual experiment that you can conduct yourself, presuming you have access to a railway station...

But.. before I start, I want to make it absolutely clear that the visual result of this experiment is NOT a length contraction.  So... so long as we are clear on that...

Ok, stand on the right hand side end of a railway platform, as far away from the edge as you are able, or up to about 20 ft or so, and fix your vision directly across the track upon the platform opposite.  It is important that your vision remain fixed to this spot.  As a train pulls into the station, you will see the trains carriages zipping past your fixed position of vision.  You will notice that the train has carriages because of the gaps between the carriages.  As the train reduces in speed, from your visually fixed position, you will notice that the train carriages appear to be getting longer, and longer, until the train comes to a stop.

Now then box, because you are also interested in time, but let me be very clear, this is NOT an example of time dilation...  I suggest you quickly run to the left hand end of the platform and assume the visually fixed position of fixing your vision directly across at the opposite platform.  As the train leaves the station, start counting as soon as you see the front end of a carriage go past... one, one thousand, two, one thousand, and so on, until the end of the carriage passes your vision.  Then start counting from one again when the front of the next carriage passes your vision, and so on.  As the train picks up speed leaving the railway station, you will notice that the carriages takes less and less 'time' to pass you, as well as looking shorter.

Although both of these examples are NOT relativistic effects, they are about as close a representation that you will find as a visual experience in earth's reference frame.

Well you  have just explained acceleration and deceleration in a very complex way. Why on Earth would anyone add anything to the scenario you just said.   No length contraction, just acceleration and deceleration. I think science tries to make mountains out of mole hills.

p.s do the same train observation when the train is travelling a constant speed, you will observe no difference, just like light propagating through space.

I understand relativity now, it is parlour tricks , I may write a theory of realistic.

Cause aeroplanes accelerate to take off see, and while things accelerate gravity is not constant see, satellites have to be accelerated once in a while see?

If only I could accelerate faster than the speed of time , I could cover  distance in no time.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 14:30:25
Ah box... now we are getting somewhere, because yes I am describing acceleration, and you are correct in your notions of a constant speed... at least :) .

By switching the polarities and keeping the speed of the train at a constant speed, let's say 3mph... and counting off one, one thousand, 2 one thousand, and so on, from front of carriages to back of carriages at faster or slower 'rates', then the possibility of a length contraction/expansion effect will become apparent to you, in consideration of the trains constant speed.

If you can grasp this concept, then you are further along your path of understanding relativity.

As to the rest, I'll leave you there, and seriously, I wish you well in your further explorations of physics...

All the best!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 17:02:46
Ah box... now we are getting somewhere, because yes I am describing acceleration, and you are correct in your notions of a constant speed... at least :) .

By switching the polarities and keeping the speed of the train at a constant speed, let's say 3mph... and counting off one, one thousand, 2 one thousand, and so on, from front of carriages to back of carriages at faster or slower 'rates', then the possibility of a length contraction/expansion effect will become apparent to you, in consideration of the trains constant speed.

If you can grasp this concept, then you are further along your path of understanding relativity.

As to the rest, I'll leave you there, and seriously, I wish you well in your further explorations of physics...

All the best!

I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.  It is relatively really poor science or poor definition. I would call it an observation contraction due to the relative velocity of the observed.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2016 17:49:54
You have taken the first step towards understanding relativity, and indeed towards accepting exactly what I said 7 pages ago in reply #1.

But far from a "meaningless parlour trick", special relativity explains and predicts pretty much everything we observe in space travel and particle physics.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/02/2016 18:26:44

I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.  It is relatively really poor science or poor definition. I would call it an observation contraction due to the relative velocity of the observed.
It is interesting that you have consistently denied the validity of The Lorentz transformation but now agree with it and attempt to explain your change of heart by waving it off as our misunderstanding of what you previously meant.

One's character is revealed in their personal mirror of reflection, whether honest or dishonest.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 19:03:48

I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.  It is relatively really poor science or poor definition. I would call it an observation contraction due to the relative velocity of the observed.
It is interesting that you have consistently denied the validity of The Lorentz transformation but now agree with it and attempt to explain your change of heart by waving it off as our misunderstanding of what you previously meant.

I seem to remember someone bringing up the question of honesty.

One's character is revealed in their personal mirror of reflection, whether honest or dishonest.

Originally I thought you meant that an object actually shrinks, and I thought I was explaining that an object does not shrink it is just a perspective view change, I though I was being told something else, sorry it got confusing,

Yes a Lorentz perspective view change happens, but relatively it means bugger all.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/02/2016 19:11:15

Originally I thought you meant that an object actually shrinks, and I thought I was explaining that an object does not shrink it is just a perspective view change, I though I was being told something else, sorry it got confusing,

Yes a Lorentz perspective view change happens, but relatively it means bugger all.
We all make mistakes Mr. Box, don't let it quench your enthusiasm.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 19:13:31

Originally I thought you meant that an object actually shrinks, and I thought I was explaining that an object does not shrink it is just a perspective view change, I though I was being told something else, sorry it got confusing,

Yes a Lorentz perspective view change happens, but relatively it means bugger all.
We all make mistakes Mr. Box, don't let it quench your enthusiasm.

Well nothing will quench my thirst until I exist.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/02/2016 19:16:46

Well nothing will quench my thirst until I exist.
Not sure what you mean there? Did you mean to say "exit" instead of "exist"?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 19:21:04

Well nothing will quench my thirst until I exist.
Not sure what you mean there? Did you mean to say "exit" instead of "exist"?

No, I meant exist, someone does not exist in body alone, I want to be timeless , a part of history before I exit.  In simple terms I would love my name in Wiki.

I am proud of my children I would love them to be proud of me.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 19:21:58
You have taken the first step towards understanding relativity, and indeed towards accepting exactly what I said 7 pages ago in reply #1.

But far from a "meaningless parlour trick", special relativity explains and predicts pretty much everything we observe in space travel and particle physics.

That is interesting Alan, but for my benefit of understanding could we define the effects of special relativity in relation to the effects of general relativity more clearly.

For instance, in the scenario whereby the train is travelling at a constant speed of 3mph, and the observer is increasing his 'rate' of counting every time a carriage passes his fixed point of vision... In fact let's give this a relevant context and say that the observer is standing on a gravity machine that is reducing the observers gravitational field by the inverse square law as each carriage passes the observers fixed point of vision, and that the observer is experiencing the subsequent increase of time experienced in a decreased gravitational field as each carriage passes...  Even at this very moderate constant speed of 3mph, the train carriages will be imperceptibly to the human eye, a fraction shorter.  However, if you translate the time it took the carriage to pass the observers fixed point of vision back into mph without equating that an hour is this fraction shorter, the distance that the train carriage covered becomes stretched.
The train, travelling at 3mph is not experiencing any significant special relativity effects of a slowing of its time, or a contracting of its journey distance - BUT, if it were, how indeed does this effect the observation of the observer?

If the train were to uptake a constant speed of say 1 quarter the speed of light, the observer on the platform would be unable to distinguish one carriage from another, but mathematically, the carriages would only appear shorter as per the fraction of a second that the observers time is running faster.

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/02/2016 19:26:48

No, I meant exist, someone does not exist in body alone, I want to be timeless , a part of history before I exit.  In simple terms I would love my name in Wiki.

I am proud of my children I would love them to be proud of me.
But I thought you placed no confidence in Wiki?

BTW, wanting your children to be proud of you is admirable Mr. Box. That gives me some faith in you Sir!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 19:29:36
imperceptibly

If the speed is a constant 3 mph, and the observer is relatively stationary, all the carriages will look the same length to the observer. If the train accelerates, there will be a variation length of the carriages, they will get ''shorter'' the faster the acceleration the more carriages going past at a faster rate.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 19:33:01

No, I meant exist, someone does not exist in body alone, I want to be timeless , a part of history before I exit.  In simple terms I would love my name in Wiki.

I am proud of my children I would love them to be proud of me.
But I thought you placed no confidence in Wiki?

BTW, wanting your children to be proud of you is admirable Mr. Box. That gives me some faith in you Sir!

Thank you, I have faith in Wiki is starting basis, it is something that is hopefully always moving forward. My ideas come from Wiki ideas, it is a starting point, although often I only read the definition of something, and that is often enough to think about that something.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 19:51:53
I think if the observer spun  with an orbiting object there would be no contraction.

[ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 20:01:48
imperceptibly

If the speed is a constant 3 mph, and the observer is relatively stationary, all the carriages will look the same length to the observer. If the train accelerates, there will be a variation length of the carriages, they will get ''shorter'' the faster the acceleration the more carriages going past at a faster rate.

No box, read the post again.  Changes in the gravitational field, change the 'rate' of time.  (Look up NIST ground level general relativity experiments 2010). This is synonymous to counting as a means of timing an event, one, one thousand, two, one thousand, etc, at a faster, or slower rate, ie: speaking the words faster or slower.  Do you get it?  Therefore a constant speed will take a longer or shorter amount of 'time' to cover the same unit of distance.

This having nothing to do with an acceleration of speed, and my question to Alan is:
How do the effects of special relativity have an effect on the general relativity observations of the observer?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 21:25:13
Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?
Timey, SR does not in any way address or describe any accelerated frame.
SR is only about constant relative speed between observers. It is a good way of describing relativistic time dilation and length contraction "principles" but does not actually apply to any known real situation in the Universe.
That is the reason that Einstein kept on working on and finally brought out GR as a way of applying the concepts that SR introduced to real world scenarios.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/02/2016 21:30:03

I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.
OK, now that we can agree in part, we should examine how we can determine whether or not the object actually shrinks as it appears to. One thing we should also agree upon Mr. Box, is all the evidence we have to consider this question comes to us through observation and mathematical constructs.

You believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the object doesn't actually shrink, it only appears to shrink. What observational evidence or mathematical evidence do we have to support that conclusion?

Bare in mind, I'm not attacking you with this question, I am only presenting you with a thought experiment for us to think about.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 21:36:01
.  Changes in the gravitational field, change the 'rate' of time.

Change the rate of time of what?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 21:38:49
.  Changes in the gravitational field, change the 'rate' of time.

Change the rate of time of what?

LOL!
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 21:38:54

I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.
OK, now that we can agree in part, we should examine how we can determine whether or not the object actually shrinks as it appears to. One thing we should also agree upon Mr. Box, is all the evidence we have to consider this question comes to us through observation and mathematical constructs.

You believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the object doesn't actually shrink, it only appears to shrink. What observational evidence or mathematical evidence do we have to support that conclusion?

Bare in mind, I'm not attacking you with this question, I am only presenting you with a thought experiment for us to think about.

We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.
i,e cars contract in length when they hit  a wall fast

i.e for something to contract the rear would have to be travelling faster than the front

[ Invalid Attachment ]

Or vice versus and the front would have to slow down

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/02/2016 21:47:28

We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.

I understand your point Mr. Box and that would be the logical assumption. But remember, reality is not always logical and we need to look for evidence other than just logical assumption.

Leaving this question for a moment, how about time dilation. Can we agree that time dilation actually takes place? Taking into consideration that our GPS system must account for this factor to accurately map our earth and account for the time differences.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 21:49:38
I think if the observer spun  with an orbiting object there would be no contraction.

Thebox, your eyes when you turn with the satellite are describing a circle that has a radius, circumference and speed. Those qualities when compared with the satellite's radius, circumference and speed, are not the same.
Whenever there is an observed difference in speed there will be an observed difference in time and length.
Whether you want to call that real or just illusionary is at this stage up to you. But the effect is there and it is measurable.
Maybe the reason you have not understood what we are saying so far is this "observation".
You see and I think you are finally taking the first steps to understanding, "Relativity" is about what is observed and measured from one reference frame to another. It does not claim that any change can ever be seen to one's own frame. No matter what you believe is causing those observations to be what they are, if you don't acknowledge them and make corrections for them, then two different frames could never coherently communicate.

Having said all that I better add for precision's sake that in your picture there are two effects in play and they are working against each other to give you the observations that you will measure and have to correct for.
One is the difference in observed speed and the other is the difference in the speed of the flowing spacetime, due to the inverse square law and the satellite being further from the centre of the system (Gravity).
Change the rate of time of what?
Not of what.
Change of rate of time. (See that character after the word time? That is a full stop.)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 21:52:09

We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.

I understand your point Mr. Box and that would be the logical assumption. But remember, reality is not always logical and we need to look for evidence other than just logical assumption.

Leaving this question for a moment, how about time dilation. Can we agree that time dilation actually takes place? Taking into consideration that our GPS system must account for this factor to accurately map our earth and account for the time differences.

I can agree that there is a dilation of the timing mechanism synchronisation to gravity of mass that is situated in a timeless 5th dimension of space-time.

Taking into consideration that anything after 0 is history  and all mass including the satellites are travelling through simultaneous time that is timeless.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 21:54:50

Not of what.
Change of rate of time. (See that character after the word time? That is a full stop.)

Yes! change of time of what?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 21:57:07
Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?
Timey, SR does not in any way address or describe any accelerated frame.
SR is only about constant relative speed between observers. It is a good way of describing relativistic time dilation and length contraction "principles" but does not actually apply to any known real situation in the Universe.
That is the reason that Einstein kept on working on and finally brought out GR as a way of applying the concepts that SR introduced to real world scenarios.

OK, I'm following you.  But... what I am trying to understand is 'how' the maths from the concepts of SR: ie: length contraction for the observer, and distance contraction, plus velocity related time dilation for the accelerated frame, mesh with the general relativity time dilation considerations and the stretching of spacetime.  They appear to be entwined indistinguishably within the GR field equations amongst some very complex geometrical considerations.  I'd like to understand.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 21:59:31
We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.
i,e cars contract in length when they hit  a wall fast

i.e for something to contract the rear would have to be travelling faster than the front
Here you are making the classic mistake of visualising the length contraction as something that matter might do within the space it occupies, therefore occupying less space.
That is not the effect we observe or describe.
It is the contraction of the spacetime itself. Matter just keeps occupying the same amount of space it always has. It appears to contract because the space it occupies appears to contract.
Remember to focus on the word "Appears".
It is always how something behaves relatively when viewed from a reference frame other than its own.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 22:00:53
We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.
i,e cars contract in length when they hit  a wall fast

i.e for something to contract the rear would have to be travelling faster than the front
Here you are making the classic mistake of visualising the length contraction as something that matter might do within the space it occupies, therefore occupying less space.
That is not the effect we observe or describe.
It is the contraction of the spacetime itself. Matter just keeps occupying the same amount of space it always has. It appears to contract because the space it occupies appears to contract.
Remember to focus on the word "Appears".
It is always how something behaves relatively when viewed from a reference frame other than its own.

You have not read what Ethos asked.  quote ethos - ''You believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the object doesn't actually shrink, it only appears to shrink. What observational evidence or mathematical evidence do we have to support that conclusion?''
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 22:02:07
Yes! change of time of what?

Hang on I did answer the question.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 08:36:01
Change the rate of time of what?
Not of what.
Change of rate of time. (See that character after the word time? That is a full stop.)

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 22:04:26
Yes! change of time of what?

Hang on I did answer the question.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 08:36:01
Change the rate of time of what?
Not of what.
Change of rate of time. (See that character after the word time? That is a full stop.)

that is an incompleteness answer, I may have to quote Gobel.

Are you sure the answer is not  - a change in the rate of time of the caesium atom?

and should time not be timing or synchronisation?

a change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 22:06:38
Is that not what you keep asking for?
As far as anyone else's understanding if I address them I will do so by quoting them.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 22:09:02
Is that not what you keep asking for?
As far as anyone else's understanding if I address them I will do so by quoting them.

Yes I understand, But Ethos asked me a question about an actual object and asked how we could disprove the actual object shrank, which I answered.  You read it wrong and presumed I was saying an object shrunk .
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 22:13:07
that is an incompleteness answer, I may have to quote Gobel.

Are you sure the answer is not  - a change in the rate of time of the caesium atom?

and should time not say timing or synchronisation?
As you may have noticed and are obviously choosing to ignore the fact, I did not mention caesium atom or any matter based anything neither did I mention timing or synchronisation.
If that was what I meant, than that is what I would have said.
I am answering your direct question with a direct and complete answer and would appreciate it if you did not try to assume I ever mean anything other than what I say. I have a wife who has that kind of thing more than adequately covered.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 22:19:22
Is that not what you keep asking for?
As far as anyone else's understanding if I address them I will do so by quoting them.

Yes I understand, But Ethos asked me a question about an actual object and asked how we could disprove the actual object shrank, which I answered.  You read it wrong and presumed I was saying an object shrunk .
If I took an answer of yours to someone else out of context, I apologize.
I am concentrating on you and the subject matter of this post.
Therefore any reference to contraction I took to be a reference to contraction as described by relativity.
I will check out what others have said at a more leisurely time and address any issues I perceive in their comments then. Right now it's about you.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 10/02/2016 22:21:54

I can agree that there is a dilation of the timing mechanism synchronisation to gravity of mass that is situated in a timeless 5th dimension of space-time.

As I understand your terminology, you're saying you agree that there is a time dilation of the timing device relative to the observer.

I'm going to bow out for a while, things are getting a little too congested with so many interested parties weighing in. One thought before I go however:

If the pace of time on that time dilated clock records a slowing down,  can't one also visualize the compression of length due to Lorentz contraction?

And the reason for that connection comes from how science views space and time. The current understanding regarding these two identities is; They can not be totally separated one from the other. It's the reason you'll see the term "space/time" spoken of so often. Today, science views space/time as more or less a single entity.

More on this later.......................................Ethos

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 22:22:58
that is an incompleteness answer, I may have to quote Gobel.

Are you sure the answer is not  - a change in the rate of time of the caesium atom?

and should time not say timing or synchronisation?
As you may have noticed and are obviously choosing to ignore the fact, I did not mention caesium atom or any matter based anything neither did I mention timing or synchronisation.
If that was what I meant, than that is what I would have said.
I am answering your direct question with a direct and complete answer and would appreciate it if you did not try to assume I ever mean anything other than what I say. I have a wife who has that kind of thing more than adequately covered.

Lol good answer , but you know and I know very well what we refer to when talking time dilation, and relative motion to a gravitational field.

I will rephrase, how do you know that there is a change in time?

By what method ?

A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field, notice I have no need to mention time or even consider time with this one statement?

I would have to consider timing and timing synchronisation for sure, But I  am certain anything after 0 is history, and I  can not alter the rate of 0 with any thought experiment.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 22:33:59

I can agree that there is a dilation of the timing mechanism synchronisation to gravity of mass that is situated in a timeless 5th dimension of space-time.

As I understand your terminology, you're saying you agree that there is a time dilation of the timing device relative to the observer.

I'm going to bow out for a while, things are getting a little too congested with so many interested parties weighing in. One thought before I go however:

If the pace of time on that time dilated clock records a slowing down,  can't one also visualize the compression of length due to Lorentz contraction. And the reason for that connection comes from how science views space and time. The current understanding regarding these two identities is; They can not be totally separated one from the other. It's the reason you'll see the term "space/time" spoken of so often. Today, science views space/time as more or less a single entity.

More on this later.......................................Ethos

Thank you for the conversation, and yes one  has to compare length contraction with time dilation, and yes the way science view space-time is weird imo, I observe people sort of have two views, some people seem to explain it as light, and others explain it as minkowski space-time, the interwoven manifold, but people miss the fact that space-time meaning the space between masses, is a virtual representation of time and for vector use.

The actual time in space is not existing until the space is occupied by something that needs, a need for time. i.e us

Consider this, the past , the now, the future all move with the earth and leave no trace of history in the path behind it.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 22:36:18
I would have to consider timing and timing synchronisation for sure, But I  am certain anything after 0 is history, and I  can not alter the rate of 0 with any thought experiment.

Box, you are talking about the here and now.  You cannot measure the here and now.

Space Flow... I also like the wife comment (chuckle)
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 22:38:29
Box, you are talking about the here and now.  You cannot measure the here and now.

Space Flow... I also like the wife comment (chuckle)

So you must agree that any effect of a measurement can not affect the here and now?

You can not measure the future either, you can only record the past .

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 22:47:06
Lol good answer , but you know and I know very well what we refer to when talking time dilation, and relative motion to a gravitational field.
I have to strongly disagree with this statement.
I know very well what I refer to when talking time dilation.
I do not know what you refer to when talking time dilation.
I will rephrase, how do you know that there is a change in time?
I do not actually know anything, about anything except for the one thing I can not deny, that is that I am conscience. I exist. That is the only thing I know. Every thing else outside of that one fact is only an approximation to a truth composed of available evidence that has in some way made itself aware to my consciousness.
I do not either know or believe anything outside my own conscious being.
I have enough evidence accumulated over a lifetime of learning and experience to think that the closest approximation to the truth that will fit nicely with minimum discord into the jigsaw puzzle that is my internal view of reality is; that time itself is seen to dilate in any frame I observe to be in relative motion compared to me.
No other view that I have come across yet makes my reality work the way that I see it working.

You see I do not for an instant suggest that this is the way reality actually is. Tomorrow I may gain data, that explains things better and fits into my overall picture better than the current model. At such a time this present model will get dumped like a hot potato. And I still will not consider that I know the truth of it. Just a closer approximation that gives my internal view better definition.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 22:51:56
A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field, notice I have no need to mention time or even consider time with this one statement?

I would have to consider timing and timing synchronisation for sure, But I  am certain anything after 0 is history, and I  can not alter the rate of 0 with any thought experiment.

Without clear and concise explanations of what these incoherent attempts at communication are, I have to say that to me this is just gibberish..
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 22:56:59
Lol good answer , but you know and I know very well what we refer to when talking time dilation, and relative motion to a gravitational field.
I have to strongly disagree with this statement.
I know very well what I refer to when talking time dilation.
I do not know what you refer to when talking time dilation.
I will rephrase, how do you know that there is a change in time?
I do not actually know anything, about anything except for the one thing I can not deny, that is that I am conscience. I exist. That is the only thing I know. Every thing else outside of that one fact is only an approximation to a truth composed of available evidence that has in some way made itself aware to my consciousness.
I do not either know or believe anything outside my own conscious being.
I have enough evidence accumulated over a lifetime of learning and experience to think that the closest approximation to the truth that will fit nicely with minimum discord into the jigsaw puzzle that is my internal view of reality is; that time itself is seen to dilate in any frame I observe to be in relative motion compared to me.
No other view that I have come across yet makes my reality work the way that I see it working.

You see I do not for an instant suggest that this is the way reality actually is. Tomorrow I may gain data, that explains things better and fits into my overall picture better than the current model. At such a time this present model will get dumped like a hot potato. And I still will not consider that I know the truth of it. Just a closer approximation that gives my internal view better definition.

Interesting views, however ,

space and distance exist , therefore I am.

I do not know about you , but if somebody punched me in the face, I am sure my senses shows me I am real, and the fact I can move freely and can change my own path being different to a rock, makes me believe we are quite real.  But I certainly understood your views and could certainly argue a ''matrix'' type state myself.

I understand you believe the knowledge provided of time dilation, but the thing is in no experiment do we show a change in time, we just show a change in rate of something compared to something.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 22:58:55
A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field, notice I have no need to mention time or even consider time with this one statement?

I would have to consider timing and timing synchronisation for sure, But I  am certain anything after 0 is history, and I  can not alter the rate of 0 with any thought experiment.

Without clear and concise explanations of what these incoherent attempts at communication are, I have to say that to me this is just gibberish..

What does science observe in the Keating experiment!

A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field,

Ok?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 22:59:09
So you must agree that any effect of a measurement can not affect the here and now?

You can not measure the future either, you can only record the past

A measurement of time is to record sequential events.  We can measure events happening in the here and now, at which point they become history, and we can anticipate, based on the history of events, what may happen in the future.

However, in the world of quantum it is observed that to measure an event does indeed seem to have an effect on the here and now.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 23:05:06
So you must agree that any effect of a measurement can not affect the here and now?

You can not measure the future either, you can only record the past

A measurement of time is to record sequential events.  We can measure events happening in the here and now, at which point they become history, and we can anticipate, based on the history of events, what may happen in the future.

However, in the world of quantum it is observed that to measure an event does indeed seem to have an effect on the here and now.

The here and now is zero/naught/0

In ten minutes time the here and now will still be 0.

The rate of here and now is 0

Let me prove this to you

Count to 5

12345

count to 5 again but re-moving 1 and replacing it with 0

02345

remove 2 and replace

00345

remove 3 and replace

00045

remove 4 and replace

00005

remove 5 and replace

00000

Can you see that 0 is always equal to the position of 1?
11111
12345
00000

added - just consider, you can't measure time, you can only observe time.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 23:13:34
What does science observe in the Keating experiment!

A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field,

Ok?
And what do you attribute such an observed change to?
What is the cause of this observed behavior according to you?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 23:19:28
What does science observe in the Keating experiment!

A change in the rate of synchronisation of the caesium atom relative to a gravitational field,

Ok?
And what do you attribute such an observed change to?
What is the cause of this observed behavior according to you?

I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set

added - Hard explain, when an object accelerates away from the ground , the force decreases the masses gravity acceleration. Your making mass acceleration invert .

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 10/02/2016 23:32:27
A measurement of time is to record sequential events.  We can measure events happening in the here and now, at which point they become history, and we can anticipate, based on the history of events, what may happen in the future.

However, in the world of quantum it is observed that to measure an event does indeed seem to have an effect on the here and now.

The here and now is zero/naught/0

In ten minutes time the here and now will still be 0.

The rate of here and now is 0

Let me prove this to you

Count to 5

12345

count to 5 again but re-moving 1 and replacing it with 0

02345

remove 2 and replace

00345

remove 3 and replace

00045

remove 4 and replace

00005

remove 5 and replace

00000

Can you see that 0 is always equal to the position of 1?
11111
12345
00000

added - just consider, you can't measure time, you can only observe time.

Erm, nope!  You can observe the here and now, 'this instant', and a measurement of time is a record of here and nows, which become history as you record them.  The future is an anticipation of here and nows to come.

A change in the rate of time is a dilation or contraction of the rate that sequential events occur at, but the here and now remains the here and now within those dilations or contractions.

I do not know why you describe this here and now as being zero.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 23:37:07
A measurement of time is to record sequential events.  We can measure events happening in the here and now, at which point they become history, and we can anticipate, based on the history of events, what may happen in the future.

However, in the world of quantum it is observed that to measure an event does indeed seem to have an effect on the here and now.

The here and now is zero/naught/0

In ten minutes time the here and now will still be 0.

The rate of here and now is 0

Let me prove this to you

Count to 5

12345

count to 5 again but re-moving 1 and replacing it with 0

02345

remove 2 and replace

00345

remove 3 and replace

00045

remove 4 and replace

00005

remove 5 and replace

00000

Can you see that 0 is always equal to the position of 1?
11111
12345
00000

added - just consider, you can't measure time, you can only observe time.

Erm, nope!  You can observe the here and now, 'this instant', and a measurement of time is a record of here and nows, which become history as you record them.  The future is an anticipation of here and nows to come.

A change in the rate of time is a dilation or contraction of the rate that sequential events occur at, but the here and now remains the here and now within those dilations or contractions.

I do not know why you describe this here and now as being zero.

You must have missed the why thread, most members agreed with me .   Consider that anything after 0 is history, try it, try to do any measurement after zero with out it being instant history.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 23:41:45
I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set

I would ask you to expand on that please. And in expanding that explanation reference the fact that the effect has been shown to be measurable with one clock stationary on the Ground floor of a building, with the other clock stationary on the top floor of the same building.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2016 23:54:21
I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set

I would ask you to expand on that please. And in expanding that explanation reference the fact that the effect has been shown to be measurable with one clock stationary on the Ground floor of a building, with the other clock stationary on the top floor of the same building.

I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 00:00:22

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?

Exactly the opposite. SR concerns only the special case of constant velocity. The more general case of nonzero acceleration or position in a graviational field is called general relativity.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 00:02:17
then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.

The light is beginning to dawn! Welcome to the rational world, friend.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 00:15:25
Quote from: timey on Today at 06:21:58

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?

Exactly the opposite. SR concerns only the special case of constant velocity. The more general case of nonzero acceleration or position in a graviational field is called general relativity.
Thank you for answering timey Alan. I am trying to concentrate on Thebox.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 00:17:46
I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.
Well have a think about that, maybe do some research to convince yourself that I am talking real data and not making sh1t up, and then get back to me.

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 00:18:19

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?

Exactly the opposite. SR concerns only the special case of constant velocity. The more general case of nonzero acceleration or position in a graviational field is called general relativity.

I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

I understand that general relativity concerns itself with gravitational acceleration and position in the gravitational field.

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 00:29:34
I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

Some clarity seems to have been lost in translation! SR deals with constant velocity. Acceleration is a change in velocity. An object is either moving with constant velocity or it is accelerating.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 00:34:34
I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

Some clarity seems to have been lost in translation! SR deals with constant velocity. Acceleration is a change in velocity. An object is either moving with constant velocity or it is accelerating.

k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.

P.S.  the translation was quite clearly set out in posts 185, 187, and 196, but lost in the pages.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 00:56:12
I mean the reference frame that is accelerated relative to the observer's reference frame, with the moving reference frame moving at a constant velocity.

I understand that general relativity concerns itself with gravitational acceleration and position in the gravitational field.

What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?
timey, yours is a common misconception that GR is a theory about Gravity.
GR is "the" theory of relativity.
SR is as Alan put it a very special case.
I would go so far as to even say it is a metaphor for part of GR.
SR is a great way to describe the time and space effects of speed. Just for conceptual understanding. To extend that Understanding to real world situations you have to use GR.

It helps to think of GR as the movie and SR as the advertising poster. The still image.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 01:12:57
k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.
timey, am I reading it wrong or are you trying to say that there is a preferred reference frame within SR?
You seem to be saying that one of the reference frames is accelerated.
SR in not dealing with acceleration can not have a preferred frame. Both frames can rightfully say that they are at rest and it is the other one moving.
As I said SR is a teaching aid. If you want to refer to real world situations, then you are looking at a dynamic and changing Universe, not a still frame, and you have to use GR.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 02:16:54
k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.
timey, am I reading it wrong or are you trying to say that there is a preferred reference frame within SR?
You seem to be saying that one of the reference frames is accelerated.
SR in not dealing with acceleration can not have a preferred frame. Both frames can rightfully say that they are at rest and it is the other one moving.
As I said SR is a teaching aid. If you want to refer to real world situations, then you are looking at a dynamic and changing Universe, not a still frame, and you have to use GR.

I have set out some thought experiments in posts 185, 187, and 196 that clearly show my line of questioning.  I have used the wrong terminology in describing the reference frame as accelerated.  What I mean is that the observer is observing a reference frame that is moving at a constant velocity that is faster relative to his own.

In this instance the reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers frame will be experiencing a slowing of its time relative to the observers frame due to its greater velocity.  This is correct right?

The reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers reference frame will experience a contracting of its experience of distance relative to the observers reference frame.  This is correct right?

These considerations describe the experience of time and distance for 'things', 'mass', 'matter'... This is correct right?

Velocity related slowing of time is a proven fact.  Is this correct?

The Lorentz transformations are a description of these considerations.  This is correct right?

General relativity describes the acceleration of gravity and position within a gravitational field and is a description of the space in between things.  Is this correct?

And general relativity also decribes that 'things', 'mass', 'matter', will experience an increase in their rate of time in a decreased gravitational field, because time in a decreased gravitational field runs at a faster rate relative to the rate of time in an increased gravitational field.  This is correct right?

The Lorentz transformations play a role in the general relativity field equations.  Is this correct?

What I wish to understand is how the general relativity field equations have incorporated the concepts of special relativity that are, if I am correct in my thinking, concerning themselves with 'things', 'mass', 'matter', into describing the space between 'things', 'mass', 'matter', and how gravitational acceleration and general relativity time dilation fits into the GR field equations in relation to the Lorentz transformations.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 03:07:58
What I mean is that the observer is observing a reference frame that is moving at a constant velocity that is faster relative to his own.
This is the part that I find confusing. The use of the word "faster" in that sentence does not denote one frame stationary relative to another. Instead it reads like you are trying to compare one moving frame from the reference of another moving frame. That is not a SR situation.
In this instance the reference frame that is moving faster relative to the observers frame will be experiencing a slowing of its time relative to the observers frame due to its greater velocity.  This is correct right?
If you omit the word faster, than that sentence would be correct.
These considerations describe the experience of time and distance for 'things', 'mass', 'matter'... This is correct right?

Velocity related slowing of time is a proven fact.  Is this correct?

The Lorentz transformations are a description of these considerations.  This is correct right?
These things are correct within GR, and can be said to be correct within SR with the above-mentioned modification of removal of the word faster. SR only deals with reference frames that can consider themselves to be at rest.
General relativity describes the acceleration of gravity and position within a gravitational field and is a description of the space in between things.  Is this correct?
Yes that is correct. that is part of what GR describes.
GR is the theory of relativity of all things relative in the Universe.
And general relativity also decribes that 'things', 'mass', 'matter', will experience an increase in their rate of time in a decreased gravitational field, because time in a decreased gravitational field runs at a faster rate relative to the rate of time in an increased gravitational field.  This is correct right?
Totally correct. Time runs faster in the middle of a Void than it does in the suburbs of a galaxy.
The Lorentz transformations play a role in the general relativity field equations.  Is this correct?
Correct.
What I wish to understand is how the general relativity field equations have incorporated the concepts of special relativity that are, if I am correct in my thinking, concerning themselves with 'things', 'mass', 'matter', into describing the space between 'things', 'mass', 'matter', and how gravitational acceleration and general relativity time dilation fits into the GR field equations in relation to the Lorentz transformations.
OK. This is where currently accepted views and my own differ.
You see by my views there is no difference between the two scenarios.
The equivalence principle is there to tie the two together in the Einsteinian accepted curved space definition of the lorenz transformations.
Where acceleration in free space, which leeds to increased speed, is equivalent to being in a gravity field through the curvature of spacetime.

I on the other hand can demonstrate that the equivalence principle applies because the two situations are actually equivalent. They are exactly the same situation.  Relative Acceleration between matter and spacetime. Acceleration can always be felt by the material object being accelerated. There is only one reference frame that feeling can come from and it isn't relative to any other object.
So in the case of gravity it is space that is accelerating past the surface of a planet and anything in contact with that surface.
Accelerating in free space it is matter that does the accelerating past space. Either way it is relative movement between those two that gives us a Universe.
Anything not accelerating in respect to the spacetime that contains it is said to be Geodesic and will remain in free fall. No mater what an outside observer may see it doing.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 09:38:38
I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.
Well have a think about that, maybe do some research to convince yourself that I am talking real data and not making sh1t up, and then get back to me.

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.

I have not once denied the results of the experiments, I am saying the results are not what you think they mean.  i.e the clock and clocks rate can not affect what it is measuring.
I have a tape measure, I have a shorter tape measurer, wow distance contracts if I use the smaller tape  measure. (sarcasm)

in comparison

.
I have a clock measure, I have a shorter clock measurer, wow time contracts if I use the smaller clock  measure.

Can you not see what you are doing?

and there is gravitational time dilation and relativistic time dilation, I believe your scenario was gravitational time dilation..  what science fails to consider is if you move a set of scales a distance, they have to be recalibrated.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 09:40:31
then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.

The light is beginning to dawn! Welcome to the rational world, friend.

And in the real world, both clocks, both clocks rates, and the observer are all in time and do not affect the time they are in.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 09:52:49
k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.
Almost!

We are nearly back to Reply #1. An observer moving with the stick (i.e. stationary in relation to the stick) sees the stick at its "proper" length, any other observer sees it contracted.

But "faster" is meaningless here because there is no universal reference frame. You can treat any constant velocity as zero, and the relativistic contraction is completely symmetric (you shrink in my eyes, I shrink in yours) if the relative velocity is constant.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 09:56:40
k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.
Almost!

We are nearly back to Reply #1. An observer moving with the stick (i.e. stationary in relation to the stick) sees the stick at its "proper" length, any other observer sees it contracted.

But "faster" is meaningless here because there is no universal reference frame. You can treat any constant velocity as zero, and the relativistic contraction is completely symmetric (you shrink in my eyes, I shrink in yours) if the relative velocity is constant.

If you are both travelling at the same speed relatively the objects cancel each other out.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 09:57:44
What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 09:58:25
Space Flow, if you take on board my scenario of an observer on a railway station platform, standing on a gravity machine that is reducing the observers gravitational field by the inverse square law with each train carriage that is passing at a constant velocity,  this is why I said the observed reference frame is moving faster than the observers reference frame.

No matter, I'm getting the info I want, I think (chuckle)

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are used to describe the effects of time dilation and distance contraction in relation to velocity for matter.

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are also used to describe the stretching of the fabric of space.  Is this correct?

I think you just confirmed this, right?  (Scratches head...(chuckle))

I get exactly where you are coming from about the equivalence principle.

Yes, established physics states that gravitational time dilation is apparent in a gravitational field.  If the field decreases, the rate of time increases.  Just to check, it is not the Lorentz transformations that describes this gravitational time dilation?  Right?

I'm going somewhere with this, but let me first check that I'm correct so far please...

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 09:59:41
What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.

I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 10:00:20

If you are both travelling at the same speed relatively the objects cancel each other out.

Almost there! Same speed relative to what? I think you mean "stationary with respect to each other"
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 10:02:20
I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?

The fairy tales are in your head, friend, but you are beginning to replace them with common sense and observation.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 10:05:18
Space Flow, if you take on board my scenario of an observer on a railway station platform, standing on a gravity machine that is reducing the observers gravitational field by the inverse square law with each train carriage that is passing at a constant velocity,  this is why I said the observed reference frame is moving faster than the observers reference frame.

No matter, I'm getting the info I want, I think (chuckle)

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are used to describe the effects of time dilation and distance contraction in relation to velocity for matter.

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are also used to describe the stretching of the fabric of space.  Is this correct?

I think you just confirmed this, right?  (Scratches head...(chuckle))

I get exactly where you are coming from about the equivalence principle.

Yes, established physics states that gravitational time dilation is apparent in a gravitational field.  If the field decreases, the rate of time increases.  Just to check, it is not the Lorentz transformations that describes this gravitational time dilation?  Right?

I'm going somewhere with this, but let me first check that I'm correct so far please...

correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 10:07:01
I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?

The fairy tales are in your head, friend, but you are beginning to replace them with common sense and observation.

I have no fairy tales in my head, I never had or have, it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself, and this is exactly what science is saying, you are all saying that the caesium rate is time itself, when I observe the caesium atom and its rate, I observe it is in time.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 10:14:00
I have not once denied the results of the experiments, I am saying the results are not what you think they mean.  i.e the clock and clocks rate can not affect what it is measuring.
At least we are still in agreement. You see I understand that is what you are saying.
What I am asking is what "in the way you think things are", causes those experiments carried out multiple times by multiple different unconnected and dedicated experimenters with multiple different methods to all produce the same results. Results that are perfectly predicted by GR.
See I am not arguing with your statement that these results are not caused by what I think causes them. I am asking you to explain to me how you explain why they are so. What causes these professionally perfectly calibrated systems of measurement to all show the same differences in what they are measuring.
Don't keep saying what I think is wrong, show me a better reason for the observations, and convince me that what you say causes these results is closer to the truth than what others say.
This is your chance to prove to everyone that your stories are worth listening to.
The stage is yours. Dazzle us with your explanation of why the Universe is showing us these misleading data.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 10:21:41
What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.

...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 10:26:01
correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.
Off topic but timey had it right. As you get further from a centre of gravity time runs faster.
Example; time runs faster on the surface of the moon than on the surface of the Earth. Lower gravity dilation.
The difference just as a back of envelope calculation is only about 1 in a billion, but it is there just the same.
That means that the surface of the Moon has aged about four and a half years more over the life of the solar system, But the effect would still be there.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 10:28:53
correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.
Off topic but timey had it right. As you get further from a centre of gravity time runs faster.
Example; time runs faster on the surface of the moon than on the surface of the Earth. Lower gravity dilation.
The difference just as a back of envelope calculation is only about 1 in a billion, but it is there just the same.
That means that the surface of the Moon has aged about four and a half years more over the life of the solar system, But the effect would still be there.

So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?

You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?

You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 10:39:49
...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?
In theory, the gravitational effect of spacetime by matter never disappears. It just weakens by the inverse square law as you state, but at some level it still exists as you approach infinity.
Of course practically if there was such a thing as a completely empty Void and you somehow placed yourself in the middle of it, and also arranged you angular momentum so you were equidistant from all concentrations of matter surrounding this void you would by curved space interpretation be in almost totally flat spacetime and your clock rate would be running close to as fast as is possible.
Again that constitutes a very special case and reality complicates things a bit.
There is no such thing as a totally empty Void that we have been able to find.
Such may not exist.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 10:45:49
...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?
In theory, the gravitational effect of spacetime by matter never disappears. It just weakens by the inverse square law as you state, but at some level it still exists as you approach infinity.
Of course practically if there was such a thing as a completely empty Void and you somehow placed yourself in the middle of it, and also arranged you angular momentum so you were equidistant from all concentrations of matter surrounding this void you would by curved space interpretation be in almost totally flat spacetime and your clock rate would be running close to as fast as is possible.
Again that constitutes a very special case and reality complicates things a bit.
There is no such thing as a totally empty Void that we have been able to find.
Such may not exist.

You can't find the empty void because there is already things filling it.   Remove the matter,EMR and CBMR from the Universe, what do you  have remaining?

Remove the outer galaxies the minimal universe is the milky way. Space would relatively contract.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 10:48:26
So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?

You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?

You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.
No that appears to be what you are reading even though it is not what I am writing.
I have said none of those things.
I am not talking about Caesium or any clock.
Those are your words not mine.
I was talking about time. Not a measure of time, but time itself. Cause and effect.
And as far as what I mean by off topic, I am not a multitasker.
I was asking you a question that you appear to be avoiding answering. That is the topic in the discussion between you and me.
One step at a time mr Box.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 10:52:49
So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?

You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?

You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.
No that appears to be what you are reading even though it is not what I am writing.
I have said none of those things.
I am not talking about Caesium or any clock.
Those are your words not mine.
I was talking about time. Not a measure of time, but time itself. Cause and effect.
And as far as what I mean by off topic, I am not a multitasker.
I was asking you a question that you appear to be avoiding answering. That is the topic in the discussion between you and me.
One step at a time mr Box.

Sorry for my impatience,  what is your next question.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 11:10:09
Sorry for my impatience,  what is your next question.
I can not formulate a next question until my previous one is answered.
Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 10:41:45
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 10:19:28
I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set

I would ask you to expand on that please. And in expanding that explanation reference the fact that the effect has been shown to be measurable with one clock stationary on the Ground floor of a building, with the other clock stationary on the top floor of the same building.

I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.

Quote from: Thebox on Today at 10:54:21
I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.
Well have a think about that, maybe do some research to convince yourself that I am talking real data and not making sh1t up, and then get back to me.

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 11:21:19
it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself

Nor does anyone else. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. Nothing more, nothing less, no other words. We measure time by various means, the best of which is the cesium clock.

A yardstick or a statute chain is not "length itself": it is the means by which we measure length in a nonaccelerating reference frame.

Don't accuse other people of talking nonsense until you have acquired the knowledge to distinguish it, and the humility to use their language correctly.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2016 11:25:49
and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.
Not quite true. GM/r2 is never zero except at some very special, infinitesimal, evanescent, lagrange points where the field vectors of all galaxies cancel.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 11:32:20
it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself

Nor does anyone else. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. Nothing more, nothing less, no other words. We measure time by various means, the best of which is the cesium clock.

A yardstick or a statute chain is not "length itself": it is the means by which we measure length in a nonaccelerating reference frame.

Don't accuse other people of talking nonsense until you have acquired the knowledge to distinguish it, and the humility to use their language correctly.

You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 12:01:35
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?
Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.

Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/02/2016 13:14:19
Gravity is not defined by GR. Length contraction is a very tricky subject. More on this when I have time.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/02/2016 13:32:20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
"Length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as measured by an observer which is traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the object."

Note decrease in length of an object and not spacetime. However an object in motion, normally it is stated as accelerating, will radiate gravitational waves which will in turn affect other objects in the vicinity. One does need to bear in mind that convention says it is only accelerating objects that radiate gravitational waves. Correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 14:37:00
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?
Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.

Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".

I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Space Flow on 11/02/2016 18:04:27
I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.[/b]?
So it is clear as you just stated that you are intentionally and deliberately intending to misquote anything I say.
I have tried to communicate with you mr Box.
But this is it. No more communication attempts from me.
It is one thing to be misunderstood for whatever reasons. When you make a statement like above, you declare yourself as a deliberate liar.
I can not stand liars.

Good bye.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: timey on 11/02/2016 18:44:11

Box, this is a great question, but I've moved my quest for a deeper understanding to another thread, and apologise for high jacking your thread to my purpose... All the best.

Alan, Space Flow and Jeff,  I've furthered your posts here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65776.0
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 08:59:32

Box, this is a great question, but I've moved my quest for a deeper understanding to another thread, and apologise for high jacking your thread to my purpose... All the best.

Alan, Space Flow and Jeff,  I've furthered your posts here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65776.0

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

''To explain: my interest is in 'distance' rather than length.  Distance being the space between things, and length being the distance occupied by matter.  Clearly 'a' distance between things that are moving at different speeds relative to each other is variable.  But... are we saying that distance itself, empty space between 'things', can be stretched or contracted?''

You are asking the same question as I asked, I understand it well. Yes science says that the space itself behind the light and matter and CBMR, is made of a like substance and they called it space-time, they say this space-time can bend and stretch and curve and contract and expand.(and even wave now apparently)

However I totally disagree with this, it is an absolute invariant stationary reference frame in my honest and rational reasoned opinion. It is a void, and all things in motion, are in motion relative to the void.

However, although the constant-'constant makes the stationary reference frame available to vision, If I am correct the space-time does have some physical presence but not in the form of solidity.

I think space-time is mass, I think the space-time is negative energy, I think space-time  is infinite and timeless, I think space-time always wants to invert time, I think space-time is attracted to space- time and always centripetally to any point of space-time, time wants to expand, time is positive, time stops space-time ending time.

Distance is absolute, an invariant, a constant, lengths occupy space-time, space-time wants mass dimensions to compress, but time wants mass dimensions to expand into space-time.

Space-time and matter time are the combination of time, the unification of space-time and time allow existence for an amount of time, and the battle continues within us all.

added - this will sound wacked out even for me, the Egyptian's were correct, the Sun is technically ''God'', only the positive of the Stars prevents time ending and a Universal collapse.

ts+tm=t

Relative to the length between any two observers of one another, space-time is always horizontal relative to the space-time stationary reference frame.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2016 16:30:37
Please yourself! If you use both hands, you won't be able to type drivel at the same time.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 12/02/2016 20:09:41

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 20:39:55

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 12/02/2016 21:18:52

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.
Now why on earth would anyone think I was being sarcastic?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 21:58:34

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.
Now why on earth would anyone think I was being sarcastic?

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 12/02/2016 22:32:12

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.
Dear Sir, the honest scientist will always be just as eager to question his own views with the same degree of scrutiny he applies to those of others. Until you begin to take all pertinent evidence into consideration and learn to set aside your personal prejudice, few other individuals will be willing to reciprocate.

Hear me out Mr. Box, no one here wishes you to fail. But unless you learn to consider the views of others with the same credibility that you offer your personal views, your success with others will suffer. We've all tried to communicate with you many times over. But your unwillingness to give our comments any credibility frustrates us to no end. For this reason, any success you wish to achieve with us will be very limited indeed.

I would like to offer you some friendly advice, please don't feel that I'm being condescending because that is not my wish. I would truly like for us all to grow together and that includes yourself as well.

Place the same degree of value on what others have to say as the degree you place upon your own views. The truth will stand when nothing else will. Have a little faith in that process. When you disagree with someone else, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence in a tactful manner. If you simply reject their views offhand, you'll only sacrifice any further growth either of you will have opportunity to gain.

Take my advice into consideration my friend, I think we will all profit as a result.

Sincerely................................Ethos
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 23:15:41

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.
Dear Sir, the honest scientist will always be just as eager to question his own views with the same degree of scrutiny he applies to those of others. Until you begin to take all pertinent evidence into consideration and learn to set aside your personal prejudice, few other individuals will be willing to reciprocate.

Hear me out Mr. Box, no one here wishes you to fail. But unless you learn to consider the views of others with the same credibility that you offer your personal views, your success with others will suffer. We've all tried to communicate with you many times over. But your unwillingness to give our comments any credibility frustrates us to no end. For this reason, any success you wish to achieve with us will be very limited indeed.

I would like to offer you some friendly advice, please don't feel that I'm being condescending because that is not my wish. I would truly like for us all to grow together and that includes yourself as well.

Place the same degree of value on what others have to say as the degree you place upon your own views. The truth will stand when nothing else will. Have a little faith in that process. When you disagree with someone else, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence in a tactful manner. If you simply reject their views offhand, you'll only sacrifice any further growth either of you will have opportunity to gain.

Take my advice into consideration my friend, I think we will all profit as a result.

Sincerely................................Ethos

I thank you Ethos for the virtue, I am glad you are not totally dissuaded by my often gibberish and aim to get straight to the point by-passing present information totally.

I do not reject views off hand, but often I know the views already and my views are not really discussed, although partly my fault by my poor wording that people fail to understand.

One think is certain, I know what an axiom is, so when people argue an axiom I have to defend it because it is not just relative , it is reality.

So please let me start again, is distance an absolute invariant?

I personally think that distance is an invariant being different to a length which can be variant.

I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2016 23:21:08

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad,

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 23:27:46

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad,

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors?

There is no madness in sanity and realisation Alan, I challenge not your intelligence, but maybe the world simply does not use it . I observe no logic or rational thinking.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 23:41:15
''Distance is a scalar quantity that refers to "how much ground an object has covered" during its motion. Displacement is a vector quantity that refers to "how far out of place an object is"; it is the object's overall change in position.''

Distance is presently defined as the above, I read that to be an expanding length rather than a distance definition?

My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2016 23:45:39

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors?

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

Quote
My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.

From which I deduce that your native language is Chinese. There is a famous line from a phonetic Chinese to English dictionary: "Chew" - to stand still, to gallop at full speed. Apparently the meaning depends on the context, but what if the context is "I saw a horse...."? Now we are talking Zen.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 23:56:50

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors?

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

The observable world and even the  unobservable as been my world for several years now.  Things what I have learnt do not equal to my observations, my observations are axioms based on observation.   The things beyond observation I have logically thought about and rationally put things together based on science present information that  lead me to my conclusions.  My conclusions also being axioms by logical reasoning that often give  only one definite conclusion.   There is no uncertainty in some of my thoughts.

Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2016 23:59:20

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors?

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

Quote
My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.

From which I deduce that your native language is Chinese. There is a famous line from a phonetic Chinese to English dictionary: "Chew" - to stand still, to gallop at full speed. Apparently the meaning depends on the context, but what if the context is "I saw a horse...."? Now we are talking Zen.

Why not reply with , can you please explain better. Why are so biased towards me of late, I apologise if I offended you in any way personally. I live with a Narcissist, understand that.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/02/2016 00:02:16
''My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.''

This is plain English, but for those who read it differently,

Distance is apparent without motion or a further away observation point.

Distance is the unmeasured space expanding from an observer.

A length is the measured space expanding from an observer to a separate point.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 13/02/2016 00:13:03

I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?
Actually, Webster's defines distance as; "a gap, space, or interval between two points in space or time."

And length as; "the distance from end to end of a thing".

And because language is the interpretive expression of what the minds imagination understands as reality, and that interpretation is rendered by majority consent, it appears to me that distance and length are quite similar.

The only difference one might suggest is Webster's associates a length of something with "a thing". And most scientists agree that space is "a thing" as well.

I realize you prefer to define space as nothing Mr. Box. The problem with that interpretation of reality is we've proved that space is filled with fields of many different sorts, and can not be considered as nothingness. In fact, if we remove the substance of space, you and I would probably not survive the change.

It also troubles me to hear you suggest that there is somehow a conspiracy abreast. For that to be true, 99.9% of the scientific community would have to be involved. And considering how many different views are afloat out there, total collaboration would never be possible.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/02/2016 00:54:40
At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/02/2016 01:21:21
At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.
yes a congrats , but that does not mean  not discuss other things,
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/02/2016 01:32:53

I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?
Actually, Webster's defines distance as; "a gap, space, or interval between two points in space or time."

And length as; "the distance from end to end of a thing".

And because language is the interpretive expression of what the minds imagination understands as reality, and that interpretation is rendered by majority consent, it appears to me that distance and length are quite similar.

The only difference one might suggest is Webster's associates a length of something with "a thing". And most scientists agree that space is "a thing" as well.

I realize you prefer to define space as nothing Mr. Box. The problem with that interpretation of reality is we've proved that space is filled with fields of many different sorts, and can not be considered as nothingness. In fact, if we remove the substance of space, you and I would probably not survive the change.

It also troubles me to hear you suggest that there is somehow a conspiracy abreast. For that to be true, 99.9% of the scientific community would have to be involved. And considering how many different views are afloat out there, total collaboration would never be possible.
hmm, yes those definitions sound like like they are not explaining different things ,  I always considered the length of an object, the length of space between objects, and distance being the word to describe a unmeasured length.   Consider your own words , we have proved space is filled with fields, now to fill something , does it not have to be empty to start offrom with.?
NOTHING IS NEGATIVE ,
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: Ethos_ on 13/02/2016 03:47:18
At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.
I agree Jeff, it is becoming quite tiresome to rehash over and over with no progress in sight.................
Title: Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/02/2016 13:27:46
At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.
I agree Jeff, it is becoming quite tiresome to rehash over and over with no progress in sight.................

I can do new..

time and distance expansion, not dilation.

[ Invalid Attachment ]