Is distance an absolute invariant?

  • 297 Replies
  • 17338 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #200 on: 10/02/2016 19:51:53 »
I think if the observer spun  with an orbiting object there would be no contraction.

[attachment=20933]

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #201 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?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #202 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #203 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.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #204 on: 10/02/2016 21:36:01 »
.  Changes in the gravitational field, change the 'rate' of time. 

Change the rate of time of what?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #205 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!
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #206 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

[attachment=20935]

Or vice versus and the front would have to slow down





« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 21:47:39 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #207 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.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #208 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.)
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #209 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.


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #210 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?


Answer the question please

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #211 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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #212 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #213 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?''

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #214 on: 10/02/2016 22:02:07 »
Yes! change of time of what?


Answer the question please
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.)

We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #215 on: 10/02/2016 22:04:26 »
Yes! change of time of what?


Answer the question please
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
« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 22:07:06 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #216 on: 10/02/2016 22:06:38 »
You have not read what Ethos asked.
Thebox I am trying to directly answer your questions not everyone's.
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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #217 on: 10/02/2016 22:09:02 »
You have not read what Ethos asked.
Thebox I am trying to directly answer your questions not everyone's.
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 .

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #218 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #219 on: 10/02/2016 22:19:22 »
You have not read what Ethos asked.
Thebox I am trying to directly answer your questions not everyone's.
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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #220 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

 
« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 22:30:55 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #221 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.





*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #222 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.





*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #223 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)
« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 22:42:17 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #224 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 .


*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #225 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.
So having got that out, lets answer your question.
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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #226 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..
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #227 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.
So having got that out, lets answer your question.
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.

« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 23:00:02 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #228 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?


*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #229 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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #230 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.

« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 23:10:13 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #231 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?
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #232 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 .



« Last Edit: 10/02/2016 23:29:02 by Thebox »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #233 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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #234 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.


*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #235 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #236 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.





*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #237 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #238 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #239 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #240 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.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 00:21:52 by Space Flow »
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #241 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?
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4893
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #242 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.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #243 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.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 00:44:11 by timey »
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #244 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #245 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.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1493
  • Self educated since age 11 at "University of Life"
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #246 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.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #247 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.
If you want to learn more about this theory that directly answers your question, re read spaceflow and associated ideas here; https://www.facebook.com/SpaceTime-Flow-595088680534432/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #248 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.



« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 09:49:02 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3249
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #249 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.