0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

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.

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???

If you define b as being a fixed distance from a, then obviously. added by me - (it is an axiom)

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?

Quote from: Thebox on 30/01/2016 03:18:23Anything 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!QuoteThe 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. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN 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?

Maybe you have had enough of being a moderator and explaining to people like me?

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

if these said facts can be discoursed, and questioned, then they are not definite facts

I am sorry but science offers very little evidence of truths to people like me,

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

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?

Quote from: Thebox on 30/01/2016 12:52:30Between 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 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 Bany measurement you can think ofthis is now a set quantity constant.I will use the distance of 299 792 458 mA→299 792 458 m→BIf I was to measure the speed of light p=cI 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→BNow 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 →BNow the problem isd=A→→→→→299 792 458 m→BThe 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.

Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!

Edit: Otherwise, logically speaking, 'distance' has been rendered as a variable!

Quote from: timey on 31/01/2016 02:00:37Edit: 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.

my understanding of SR, it is garbage. ........... Galilean relativity? never heard of it ,

ipsi dixit.

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

I_{r} = I_{0}/r^{2} in my universe. What happens in yours?

Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 07:14:53Firstly 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.

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.

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...

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

Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 10:22:10Hmm, 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=sYou have to end up with the same units on each side of the equationYou 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

so how is 299 792 458 m/ 9,192,631,770 Hz an inequality?I get 0.03261225571 something.

Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 14:23:20 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.

9,192,631,770 Hz an inequality?I get 0.03261225571 something.

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 /s299 792 458 m/sare both speeds.

Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 15:15:08But 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 /s299 792 458 m/sare 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?

Quote from: alancalverd on 31/01/2016 09:07:28I_{r} = I_{0}/r^{2} in my universe. What happens in yours?I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?

Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 09:38:04Quote from: alancalverd on 31/01/2016 09:07:28I_{r} = I_{0}/r^{2} 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.

Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 15:24:53and 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.

Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 15:24:53and 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?

Quote from: Thebox on 31/01/2016 15:48:21The 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.