[guest39538]

1.a.............................b
2.a.............................b


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

Ignoring the properties in/of space.

[alancalverd]

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.

[guest39538]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[alancalverd]

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.

[guest39538]

Physics is very logical and explicable if you use the same words as everyone else, and appreciate dimensional analysis.

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

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


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

I wish you good day .

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

[puppypower]

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???
 

[guest39538]

Say we had a meter stick that is made of platinum with density 21.08 gm/cc. Say from our reference we see distance contraction due to relativity, so the meter sticks appears to be 90 cm . Does the stick's platinum density increase by 10% to 23.18, since the volume of the meter stick has contracted by 10%? Or is only the energy, reflecting off the stick, changing due to relativity?

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



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

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

I thank you Puppy for at least trying to answer the question and trying to have a discussion.

[guest39538]

Physics is very logical and explicable if you use the same words as everyone else, and appreciate dimensional analysis.

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

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


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

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

[guest39538]

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

You answered my question, then added

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


The above  bit was not needed and only makes confusion.



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


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

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

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

XYZ needs n-dimensional space to exist in?

all axioms IMO

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[alancalverd]

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

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

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

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

[guest39538]

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

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

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

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

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

[Colin2B]

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

See your post #2, first line.
I don't see where Alan has mentioned objects.

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

It isn't the role of a moderator to explain science, I think Alan does it because he cares about the truth and thinks people should understand science.

Are you wasting your time? That's for you to judge, but I have seen you learn some things eg gravity is not atmospheric pressure.
I don't answer all your posts, only the ones where I think there might be a chance you could understand, or if others might be misled by your posts. Remember we get a lot of schoolfolks looking at this forum, which is why your posts are sometimes moved to new theories.
If we don't respond to a post it doesn't mean we agree with what is being said.

[alysdexia]

You cannot divorce properties and objects.

Lorentzian corrections are the result of the Doppler effect under finite celerity, so there should be contraction in front, expansion in back, and Terrell rotation in between.

[guest39538]

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

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

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

[Colin2B]

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

Even facts can be discoursed and questioned, but it doesn't prove they are not facts.

[Ethos_]

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

I've tried several times to navigate through your torturous thoughts Mr. Box and have even spent time and effort to help you understand that science is more about experiment and observation and very much less about proving one's point of view. Taking into consideration how you feel about "science", maybe you're wasting your time and effort at a "Science Forum".

[alancalverd]

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

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

This is not to be confused with other people's deductions, measurements and observations, which are mere science and thus not a valid starting point from which to learn.

[timey]

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?

[guest39538]

Thebox...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you  have got it sort of, maybe!

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

Consider a length from A to B

any measurement you can think  of

this is now a set quantity constant.

I will  use the distance of 299 792 458 m


A→299 792 458 m→B


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

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

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

Do you agree thus far?


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

So we can show

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


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

we can show the comparison like this

d=A→9,192, 631,770 cycles →B 

d=A→ 631,770 cycles →B

Now the problem is

d=A→→→→→299 792 458 m→B


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

[guest39538]

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

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

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

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

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