Is distance an absolute invariant?

  • 297 Replies
  • 16791 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #250 on: 11/02/2016 09:52:49 »
k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.
Almost!

We are nearly back to Reply #1. An observer moving with the stick (i.e. stationary in relation to the stick) sees the stick at its "proper" length, any other observer sees it contracted.

But "faster" is meaningless here because there is no universal reference frame. You can treat any constant velocity as zero, and the relativistic contraction is completely symmetric (you shrink in my eyes, I shrink in yours) if the relative velocity is constant.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #251 on: 11/02/2016 09:56:40 »
k, my terminology is lacking.  I am talking about a reference frame that is moving relative to the observers reference frame at a constant velocity. Edit: that is faster relative to the observers reference frames constant velocity.
Almost!

We are nearly back to Reply #1. An observer moving with the stick (i.e. stationary in relation to the stick) sees the stick at its "proper" length, any other observer sees it contracted.

But "faster" is meaningless here because there is no universal reference frame. You can treat any constant velocity as zero, and the relativistic contraction is completely symmetric (you shrink in my eyes, I shrink in yours) if the relative velocity is constant.

If you are both travelling at the same speed relatively the objects cancel each other out.



*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #252 on: 11/02/2016 09:57:44 »
What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #253 on: 11/02/2016 09:58:25 »
Space Flow, if you take on board my scenario of an observer on a railway station platform, standing on a gravity machine that is reducing the observers gravitational field by the inverse square law with each train carriage that is passing at a constant velocity,  this is why I said the observed reference frame is moving faster than the observers reference frame.

No matter, I'm getting the info I want, I think (chuckle)

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are used to describe the effects of time dilation and distance contraction in relation to velocity for matter.

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are also used to describe the stretching of the fabric of space.  Is this correct?

I think you just confirmed this, right?  (Scratches head...(chuckle))

I get exactly where you are coming from about the equivalence principle.

Yes, established physics states that gravitational time dilation is apparent in a gravitational field.  If the field decreases, the rate of time increases.  Just to check, it is not the Lorentz transformations that describes this gravitational time dilation?  Right?

I'm going somewhere with this, but let me first check that I'm correct so far please...

I'll certainly have a read of the link.  Thanks!

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #254 on: 11/02/2016 09:59:41 »
What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.

I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #255 on: 11/02/2016 10:00:20 »


If you are both travelling at the same speed relatively the objects cancel each other out.




Almost there! Same speed relative to what? I think you mean "stationary with respect to each other"
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #256 on: 11/02/2016 10:02:20 »
I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?


The fairy tales are in your head, friend, but you are beginning to replace them with common sense and observation.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #257 on: 11/02/2016 10:05:18 »
Space Flow, if you take on board my scenario of an observer on a railway station platform, standing on a gravity machine that is reducing the observers gravitational field by the inverse square law with each train carriage that is passing at a constant velocity,  this is why I said the observed reference frame is moving faster than the observers reference frame.

No matter, I'm getting the info I want, I think (chuckle)

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are used to describe the effects of time dilation and distance contraction in relation to velocity for matter.

Susskind lectures tell me (I think) that the Lorentz transformations are also used to describe the stretching of the fabric of space.  Is this correct?

I think you just confirmed this, right?  (Scratches head...(chuckle))

I get exactly where you are coming from about the equivalence principle.

Yes, established physics states that gravitational time dilation is apparent in a gravitational field.  If the field decreases, the rate of time increases.  Just to check, it is not the Lorentz transformations that describes this gravitational time dilation?  Right?

I'm going somewhere with this, but let me first check that I'm correct so far please...

I'll certainly have a read of the link.  Thanks!

correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #258 on: 11/02/2016 10:07:01 »
I thought Einstein had to make GR with maths to justify the fairy tale like SR?


The fairy tales are in your head, friend, but you are beginning to replace them with common sense and observation.

I have no fairy tales in my head, I never had or have, it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself, and this is exactly what science is saying, you are all saying that the caesium rate is time itself, when I observe the caesium atom and its rate, I observe it is in time.

« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 10:09:35 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #259 on: 11/02/2016 10:14:00 »
I have not once denied the results of the experiments, I am saying the results are not what you think they mean.  i.e the clock and clocks rate can not affect what it is measuring.
At least we are still in agreement. You see I understand that is what you are saying.
What I am asking is what "in the way you think things are", causes those experiments carried out multiple times by multiple different unconnected and dedicated experimenters with multiple different methods to all produce the same results. Results that are perfectly predicted by GR.
See I am not arguing with your statement that these results are not caused by what I think causes them. I am asking you to explain to me how you explain why they are so. What causes these professionally perfectly calibrated systems of measurement to all show the same differences in what they are measuring.
Don't keep saying what I think is wrong, show me a better reason for the observations, and convince me that what you say causes these results is closer to the truth than what others say.
This is your chance to prove to everyone that your stories are worth listening to.
The stage is yours. Dazzle us with your explanation of why the Universe is showing us these misleading data.
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
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #260 on: 11/02/2016 10:21:41 »
What I do not understand is how come the Lorentz transformations form part of the GR field equations.  How are these concepts of special relativity and general relativity considerations being intertwined?

Because by definition GR must simplify to SR if there is no acceleration or gravitational field. SR is, as it says, a special case of R.

...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #261 on: 11/02/2016 10:26:01 »
correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.
Off topic but timey had it right. As you get further from a centre of gravity time runs faster.
Example; time runs faster on the surface of the moon than on the surface of the Earth. Lower gravity dilation.
The difference just as a back of envelope calculation is only about 1 in a billion, but it is there just the same.
That means that the surface of the Moon has aged about four and a half years more over the life of the solar system, But the effect would still be there.
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
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #262 on: 11/02/2016 10:28:53 »
correction  -  If the field decreases, the rate of emittance of the caesium atom decreases.
Off topic but timey had it right. As you get further from a centre of gravity time runs faster.
Example; time runs faster on the surface of the moon than on the surface of the Earth. Lower gravity dilation.
The difference just as a back of envelope calculation is only about 1 in a billion, but it is there just the same.
That means that the surface of the Moon has aged about four and a half years more over the life of the solar system, But the effect would still be there.

So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?


You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?



You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 10:33:36 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #263 on: 11/02/2016 10:39:49 »
...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?
In theory, the gravitational effect of spacetime by matter never disappears. It just weakens by the inverse square law as you state, but at some level it still exists as you approach infinity.
Of course practically if there was such a thing as a completely empty Void and you somehow placed yourself in the middle of it, and also arranged you angular momentum so you were equidistant from all concentrations of matter surrounding this void you would by curved space interpretation be in almost totally flat spacetime and your clock rate would be running close to as fast as is possible.
Again that constitutes a very special case and reality complicates things a bit.
There is no such thing as a totally empty Void that we have been able to find.
Such may not exist.
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
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #264 on: 11/02/2016 10:45:49 »
...and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.  This having been ascertained as being a verabatum via the ascertation of paralax distances in relation to a gravitational field reducing by the inverse square law, and the constancy of the speed of light.  Correct?
In theory, the gravitational effect of spacetime by matter never disappears. It just weakens by the inverse square law as you state, but at some level it still exists as you approach infinity.
Of course practically if there was such a thing as a completely empty Void and you somehow placed yourself in the middle of it, and also arranged you angular momentum so you were equidistant from all concentrations of matter surrounding this void you would by curved space interpretation be in almost totally flat spacetime and your clock rate would be running close to as fast as is possible.
Again that constitutes a very special case and reality complicates things a bit.
There is no such thing as a totally empty Void that we have been able to find.
Such may not exist.


You can't find the empty void because there is already things filling it.   Remove the matter,EMR and CBMR from the Universe, what do you  have remaining?


Remove the outer galaxies the minimal universe is the milky way. Space would relatively contract.




« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 10:48:13 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #265 on: 11/02/2016 10:48:26 »
So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?


You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?



You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.
No that appears to be what you are reading even though it is not what I am writing.
I have said none of those things.
I am not talking about Caesium or any clock.
Those are your words not mine.
I was talking about time. Not a measure of time, but time itself. Cause and effect.
And as far as what I mean by off topic, I am not a multitasker.
I was asking you a question that you appear to be avoiding answering. That is the topic in the discussion between you and me.
One step at a time mr Box.
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
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #266 on: 11/02/2016 10:52:49 »
So you are insisting that the Caesium atom and the Caesium's atoms rate is time itself and controls the whole Universe?


You are saying the four dimensions of mass, XYZ and t is the interwoven single state and space-time does not exist?



You are saying space-time is the 5th n-dimensional quality?

And a time contraction is not off topic.
No that appears to be what you are reading even though it is not what I am writing.
I have said none of those things.
I am not talking about Caesium or any clock.
Those are your words not mine.
I was talking about time. Not a measure of time, but time itself. Cause and effect.
And as far as what I mean by off topic, I am not a multitasker.
I was asking you a question that you appear to be avoiding answering. That is the topic in the discussion between you and me.
One step at a time mr Box.


Sorry for my impatience,  what is your next question.

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #267 on: 11/02/2016 11:10:09 »
Sorry for my impatience,  what is your next question.
I can not formulate a next question until my previous one is answered.
Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 10:41:45
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 10:19:28
I attribute the change of rate of the caesium atom being relative to motion relative to another body and bodies motion, and the cause of behaviour is the motion of accleration , an object at rest in a constant gravity inertial reference frame, i..e an object on earth Fn=a9.82m/s=N , this is constant, you are changing the constant of a9.82m/s to create an off-set

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

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

I am not sure, something to with calibration maybe.

Quote from: Thebox on Today at 10:54:21
I have not heard of that fact, and that would affect my reasoning. If indeed two stationary clocks, in the same building , one on the ground floor and the second on a upper floor, and the effect is observed, then I can only conclude that difference is because gravity is weaker at a distance and the upper clock is experienced less strength.  However they both would experience the same constant of Newtons and Fn unless things weigh slightly less at altitude,

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

EDIT: It has nothing to do with bad calibration. The experiment is not a one off. It has been repeatedly confirmed by different researchers and exactly matches the result predicted by General relativity every single time.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #268 on: 11/02/2016 11:21:19 »
it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself

Nor does anyone else. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. Nothing more, nothing less, no other words. We measure time by various means, the best of which is the cesium clock.

A yardstick or a statute chain is not "length itself": it is the means by which we measure length in a nonaccelerating reference frame.

Don't accuse other people of talking nonsense until you have acquired the knowledge to distinguish it, and the humility to use their language correctly.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #269 on: 11/02/2016 11:25:49 »
and in the voids between galaxies there is no gravitational field.
Not quite true. GM/r2 is never zero except at some very special, infinitesimal, evanescent, lagrange points where the field vectors of all galaxies cancel.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #270 on: 11/02/2016 11:32:20 »
it is not me who persists that the caesium atoms rate is time itself

Nor does anyone else. Time is the dimension that separates sequential events. Nothing more, nothing less, no other words. We measure time by various means, the best of which is the cesium clock.

A yardstick or a statute chain is not "length itself": it is the means by which we measure length in a nonaccelerating reference frame.

Don't accuse other people of talking nonsense until you have acquired the knowledge to distinguish it, and the humility to use their language correctly.


You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #271 on: 11/02/2016 12:01:35 »
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?
Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.

Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #272 on: 11/02/2016 13:14:19 »
Gravity is not defined by GR. Length contraction is a very tricky subject. More on this when I have time.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #273 on: 11/02/2016 13:32:20 »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
"Length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as measured by an observer which is traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the object."

Note decrease in length of an object and not spacetime. However an object in motion, normally it is stated as accelerating, will radiate gravitational waves which will in turn affect other objects in the vicinity. One does need to bear in mind that convention says it is only accelerating objects that radiate gravitational waves. Correct me if I am wrong.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2016 13:35:46 by jeffreyH »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #274 on: 11/02/2016 14:37:00 »
You measure time by various means, so how do you conceive that the rate of the clock affects what you are measuring?
Thebox please just stop it. You have repeatably been told by a large number of people that it is only you that claims that this is what everyone else is saying.
WE consistently write one thing and you consistently read another.
That is not good communication skills.

Now take out some paper and write 100 times;
"Nobody conceives that the rate of the clock affects what is being measured".

I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.


*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #275 on: 11/02/2016 18:04:27 »
I will stop it when you stop calling it a time dilation.[/b]?
So it is clear as you just stated that you are intentionally and deliberately intending to misquote anything I say.
I have tried to communicate with you mr Box.
But this is it. No more communication attempts from me.
It is one thing to be misunderstood for whatever reasons. When you make a statement like above, you declare yourself as a deliberate liar.
I can not stand liars.

Good bye.
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
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #276 on: 11/02/2016 18:44:11 »

Box, this is a great question, but I've moved my quest for a deeper understanding to another thread, and apologise for high jacking your thread to my purpose... All the best.

Alan, Space Flow and Jeff,  I've furthered your posts here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65776.0

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #277 on: 12/02/2016 08:59:32 »

Box, this is a great question, but I've moved my quest for a deeper understanding to another thread, and apologise for high jacking your thread to my purpose... All the best.

Alan, Space Flow and Jeff,  I've furthered your posts here:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65776.0

You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

''To explain: my interest is in 'distance' rather than length.  Distance being the space between things, and length being the distance occupied by matter.  Clearly 'a' distance between things that are moving at different speeds relative to each other is variable.  But... are we saying that distance itself, empty space between 'things', can be stretched or contracted?''

You are asking the same question as I asked, I understand it well. Yes science says that the space itself behind the light and matter and CBMR, is made of a like substance and they called it space-time, they say this space-time can bend and stretch and curve and contract and expand.(and even wave now apparently)

However I totally disagree with this, it is an absolute invariant stationary reference frame in my honest and rational reasoned opinion. It is a void, and all things in motion, are in motion relative to the void.


However, although the constant-'constant makes the stationary reference frame available to vision, If I am correct the space-time does have some physical presence but not in the form of solidity.

I think space-time is mass, I think the space-time is negative energy, I think space-time  is infinite and timeless, I think space-time always wants to invert time, I think space-time is attracted to space- time and always centripetally to any point of space-time, time wants to expand, time is positive, time stops space-time ending time.


Distance is absolute, an invariant, a constant, lengths occupy space-time, space-time wants mass dimensions to compress, but time wants mass dimensions to expand into space-time.

Space-time and matter time are the combination of time, the unification of space-time and time allow existence for an amount of time, and the battle continues within us all.


added - this will sound wacked out even for me, the Egyptian's were correct, the Sun is technically ''God'', only the positive of the Stars prevents time ending and a Universal collapse.


ts+tm=t


Relative to the length between any two observers of one another, space-time is always horizontal relative to the space-time stationary reference frame.






« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 09:45:03 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #278 on: 12/02/2016 16:30:37 »
Please yourself! If you use both hands, you won't be able to type drivel at the same time.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #279 on: 12/02/2016 20:09:41 »


You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #280 on: 12/02/2016 20:39:55 »


You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #281 on: 12/02/2016 21:18:52 »


You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.
Now why on earth would anyone think I was being sarcastic? 

"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #282 on: 12/02/2016 21:58:34 »


You could have asked me, I have a deep deep understanding,

Allow me to hold your coat sir, they need you up front to accept your Noble Prize.

Nice sarcasm.
Now why on earth would anyone think I was being sarcastic?

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #283 on: 12/02/2016 22:32:12 »


Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.
Dear Sir, the honest scientist will always be just as eager to question his own views with the same degree of scrutiny he applies to those of others. Until you begin to take all pertinent evidence into consideration and learn to set aside your personal prejudice, few other individuals will be willing to reciprocate.

Hear me out Mr. Box, no one here wishes you to fail. But unless you learn to consider the views of others with the same credibility that you offer your personal views, your success with others will suffer. We've all tried to communicate with you many times over. But your unwillingness to give our comments any credibility frustrates us to no end. For this reason, any success you wish to achieve with us will be very limited indeed.

I would like to offer you some friendly advice, please don't feel that I'm being condescending because that is not my wish. I would truly like for us all to grow together and that includes yourself as well.

So here is my advice:

Place the same degree of value on what others have to say as the degree you place upon your own views. The truth will stand when nothing else will. Have a little faith in that process. When you disagree with someone else, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence in a tactful manner. If you simply reject their views offhand, you'll only sacrifice any further growth either of you will have opportunity to gain.

Take my advice into consideration my friend, I think we will all profit as a result.

Sincerely................................Ethos
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #284 on: 12/02/2016 23:15:41 »


Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad, so I do not think I will have so much as a pop science following , let alone any awards.  However, the world as not really ever heard me say anything, maybe deep down I do not want them to listen.
Dear Sir, the honest scientist will always be just as eager to question his own views with the same degree of scrutiny he applies to those of others. Until you begin to take all pertinent evidence into consideration and learn to set aside your personal prejudice, few other individuals will be willing to reciprocate.

Hear me out Mr. Box, no one here wishes you to fail. But unless you learn to consider the views of others with the same credibility that you offer your personal views, your success with others will suffer. We've all tried to communicate with you many times over. But your unwillingness to give our comments any credibility frustrates us to no end. For this reason, any success you wish to achieve with us will be very limited indeed.

I would like to offer you some friendly advice, please don't feel that I'm being condescending because that is not my wish. I would truly like for us all to grow together and that includes yourself as well.

So here is my advice:

Place the same degree of value on what others have to say as the degree you place upon your own views. The truth will stand when nothing else will. Have a little faith in that process. When you disagree with someone else, it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence in a tactful manner. If you simply reject their views offhand, you'll only sacrifice any further growth either of you will have opportunity to gain.

Take my advice into consideration my friend, I think we will all profit as a result.

Sincerely................................Ethos

 I thank you Ethos for the virtue, I am glad you are not totally dissuaded by my often gibberish and aim to get straight to the point by-passing present information totally.

I do not reject views off hand, but often I know the views already and my views are not really discussed, although partly my fault by my poor wording that people fail to understand.


One think is certain, I know what an axiom is, so when people argue an axiom I have to defend it because it is not just relative , it is reality.

So please let me start again, is distance an absolute invariant?

 I personally think that distance is an invariant being different to a length which can be variant.

 I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?

 






« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 23:18:13 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #285 on: 12/02/2016 23:21:08 »

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad,

The symptom of madness is your disagreeing with the world.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #286 on: 12/02/2016 23:27:46 »

Mostly the world disagrees with me, a logical assumption would be that the world thinks I am quite mad,

The symptom of madness is your disagreeing with the world.


Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors? 


There is no madness in sanity and realisation Alan, I challenge not your intelligence, but maybe the world simply does not use it . I observe no logic or rational thinking.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #287 on: 12/02/2016 23:41:15 »
''Distance is a scalar quantity that refers to "how much ground an object has covered" during its motion. Displacement is a vector quantity that refers to "how far out of place an object is"; it is the object's overall change in position.''


Distance is presently defined as the above, I read that to be an expanding length rather than a distance definition?

My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 23:43:45 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #288 on: 12/02/2016 23:45:39 »

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors? 

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

Quote
My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.

From which I deduce that your native language is Chinese. There is a famous line from a phonetic Chinese to English dictionary: "Chew" - to stand still, to gallop at full speed. Apparently the meaning depends on the context, but what if the context is "I saw a horse...."? Now we are talking Zen.

« Last Edit: 12/02/2016 23:51:31 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #289 on: 12/02/2016 23:56:50 »

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors? 

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

The observable world and even the  unobservable as been my world for several years now.  Things what I have learnt do not equal to my observations, my observations are axioms based on observation.   The things beyond observation I have logically thought about and rationally put things together based on science present information that  lead me to my conclusions.  My conclusions also being axioms by logical reasoning that often give  only one definite conclusion.   There is no uncertainty in some of my thoughts. 


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #290 on: 12/02/2016 23:59:20 »

Ask yourself this Alan, am I questioning the world and what they were taught and taught to believe and forced to accept in fear of low grades, or am I questioning the original authors? 

This isn't about people, whose beliefs and opinions are of no great interest to either of us, but the observable world, which interests me a great deal but seems to have no impact on you at all.

Quote
My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.

From which I deduce that your native language is Chinese. There is a famous line from a phonetic Chinese to English dictionary: "Chew" - to stand still, to gallop at full speed. Apparently the meaning depends on the context, but what if the context is "I saw a horse...."? Now we are talking Zen.

Why not reply with , can you please explain better. Why are so biased towards me of late, I apologise if I offended you in any way personally. I live with a Narcissist, understand that.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #291 on: 13/02/2016 00:02:16 »
''My reasoning is because if the object remains stationary, the distance remains there whether or not the object moves.''


This is plain English, but for those who read it differently,

Distance is apparent without motion or a further away observation point.


Distance is the unmeasured space expanding from an observer.


A length is the measured space expanding from an observer to a separate point.
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 00:05:00 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #292 on: 13/02/2016 00:13:03 »



 I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?
Actually, Webster's defines distance as; "a gap, space, or interval between two points in space or time."

And length as; "the distance from end to end of a thing".

And because language is the interpretive expression of what the minds imagination understands as reality, and that interpretation is rendered by majority consent, it appears to me that distance and length are quite similar.

The only difference one might suggest is Webster's associates a length of something with "a thing". And most scientists agree that space is "a thing" as well.

I realize you prefer to define space as nothing Mr. Box. The problem with that interpretation of reality is we've proved that space is filled with fields of many different sorts, and can not be considered as nothingness. In fact, if we remove the substance of space, you and I would probably not survive the change.

It also troubles me to hear you suggest that there is somehow a conspiracy abreast. For that to be true, 99.9% of the scientific community would have to be involved. And considering how many different views are afloat out there, total collaboration would never be possible.
« Last Edit: 13/02/2016 00:16:51 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4054
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #293 on: 13/02/2016 00:54:40 »
At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #294 on: 13/02/2016 01:21:21 »
At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.
  yes a congrats , but that does not mean  not discuss other things,

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #295 on: 13/02/2016 01:32:53 »



 I define distance as the observed space from an observer without knowing a measurement or having a reference point B, where as length I define between two points.  Would you agree with the way I define distance and length, is this a generalised description?
Actually, Webster's defines distance as; "a gap, space, or interval between two points in space or time."

And length as; "the distance from end to end of a thing".

And because language is the interpretive expression of what the minds imagination understands as reality, and that interpretation is rendered by majority consent, it appears to me that distance and length are quite similar.

The only difference one might suggest is Webster's associates a length of something with "a thing". And most scientists agree that space is "a thing" as well.

I realize you prefer to define space as nothing Mr. Box. The problem with that interpretation of reality is we've proved that space is filled with fields of many different sorts, and can not be considered as nothingness. In fact, if we remove the substance of space, you and I would probably not survive the change.

It also troubles me to hear you suggest that there is somehow a conspiracy abreast. For that to be true, 99.9% of the scientific community would have to be involved. And considering how many different views are afloat out there, total collaboration would never be possible.
hmm, yes those definitions sound like like they are not explaining different things ,  I always considered the length of an object, the length of space between objects, and distance being the word to describe a unmeasured length.   Consider your own words , we have proved space is filled with fields, now to fill something , does it not have to be empty to start offrom with.?
NOTHING IS NEGATIVE ,

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #296 on: 13/02/2016 03:47:18 »
At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.
I agree Jeff, it is becoming quite tiresome to rehash over and over with no progress in sight.................
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3204
    • View Profile
Re: Is distance an absolute invariant?
« Reply #297 on: 13/02/2016 13:27:46 »
At a time when gravitational waves have likely been detected I think there has been enough piffle discussed. This opens up new avenues that I personally can't wait to start learning about. All other idle musings are inconsequential. Why don't we all just agree a congratulations to all the contributors.
I agree Jeff, it is becoming quite tiresome to rehash over and over with no progress in sight.................

I can do new..

time and distance expansion, not dilation.

[attachment=20943]