Is distance an absolute invariant?

  • 297 Replies
  • 16817 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Is distance an absolute invariant?
« 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.

« Last Edit: 29/01/2016 05:31:53 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #1 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #2 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?






« Last Edit: 29/01/2016 10:26:35 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #3 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #4 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




*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #5 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.



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???
 
« Last Edit: 29/01/2016 12:43:51 by puppypower »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #6 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.



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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #7 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?






*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #8 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)

You answered my question, then added

''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

[attachment=20867]











« Last Edit: 30/01/2016 03:53:32 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #9 on: 30/01/2016 07:03:31 »

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

No. Distance is distance. Speed is distance/time. PLEASE read about dimensional analysis, if only to keep your driving licence!

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 is an excellent summary of this part.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #10 on: 30/01/2016 08:51:48 »

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

No. Distance is distance. Speed is distance/time. PLEASE read about dimensional analysis, if only to keep your driving licence!

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 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?


*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #11 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.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 121
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #12 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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #13 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.





*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #14 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.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #15 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".
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #16 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.
« Last Edit: 30/01/2016 15:28:32 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #17 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?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #18 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.











« Last Edit: 30/01/2016 21:09:01 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #19 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?


*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #20 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...

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #21 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?
« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 01:23:45 by Colin2B »
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #22 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!
« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 02:21:06 by timey »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #23 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #24 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.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #25 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.

« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 07:20:25 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #26 on: 31/01/2016 07:26:54 »
my understanding of SR, it is garbage. ........... Galilean relativity?  never heard of it ,

ipsi dixit.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #27 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.

« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 08:31:34 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #28 on: 31/01/2016 09:07:28 »
Ir = I0/r2 in my universe. What happens in yours?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #29 on: 31/01/2016 09:35:18 »
Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.
Please follow Alan's suggestions in post #9.
It is not the purpose of this forum to provided a full course of science, you have to do some work yourself.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #30 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?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #31 on: 31/01/2016 09:39:52 »
Firstly you can point me to the observation experiment and proof.
Please follow Alan's suggestions in post #9.
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.


*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #32 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.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #33 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.

Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''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? 

[attachment=20877]





« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 10:51:06 by Thebox »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #34 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... :)

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #35 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.


*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #36 on: 31/01/2016 14:07:49 »
Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''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.
Read what you quoted.
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
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #37 on: 31/01/2016 14:23:20 »
Hmm, OK let me play along and ask about dimensional analysis,

''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.
Read what you quoted.
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.







« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 14:26:38 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #38 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......................
« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 15:15:22 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #39 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.



*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #40 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.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #41 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

« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 15:36:36 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #42 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.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #43 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. 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4814
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #44 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #45 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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #46 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? 

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #47 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?

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #48 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.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #49 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?



« Last Edit: 31/01/2016 19:45:31 by Thebox »