[Ethos_]

But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s


299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.

Not true, m/s is the velocity of light but Hz is a frequency. Two different things my friend.

[guest39538]

But if an apple has a 1 kg mass and an orange has a 1 kg mass, I seem to be missing any difference.

9,192,631,770 Hz /s


299 792 458 m/s

are both speeds.

Not true, m/s is the velocity of light but Hz is a frequency. Two different things my friend.

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

Just like the clock speed of my CPU in my computer or my memory clock speed

a CPU I can over-clock if I wished to and make 'time'' run faster

Like if my cpu ran at 100 hrtz a second I could over clock it to lets say 150 hrtz a second making time and a half

[Ethos_]

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

Speed can be defined as an object covering a distance in a set amount of time. Enter the second in our calculations. However, the Hertz is defined as a cycle of events over a set amount of time. Where speed is reckoned using distance divided by time, the Hertz is reckoned by a number of events divided by time. Time is the only thing these two have in common.

Distances and cycles of events are as different as apples and oranges.

[alancalverd]

I_r = I₀/r² in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?

Since your post asked about the intensity of light, a reasonable man would have concluded that I  in the answer was intensity. Conventionally we use lower case i or j to indicate an imaginary number. 

[alancalverd]

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

No. Speed is distance/time. Frequency is number of occurrences/time. PLEASE STUDY DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS  lest others think you foolish.

[guest39538]

I_r = I₀/r² in my universe. What happens in yours?

I can't read your equation, I presume (I ) is imaginary number?

Since your post asked about the intensity of light, a reasonable man would have concluded that I  in the answer was intensity. Conventionally we use lower case i or j to indicate an imaginary number.

I nearly said intensity as well but I thought that was far to obvious and remembered i has imaginary number so said that . I will try to work out what you are saying now with that piece of maths.

[guest39538]

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

No. Speed is distance/time. Frequency is number of occurrences/time. PLEASE STUDY DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS  lest others think you foolish.

Ok, so at what point in time do these occurrences start from? 

[guest39538]

and the base unit of 1 second is the same, a rate is repeat occurrence over 1 second, so it is a speed is it not?

Speed can be defined as an object covering a distance in a set amount of time. Enter the second in our calculations. However, the Hertz is defined as a cycle of events over a set amount of time. Where speed is reckoned using distance divided by time, the Hertz is reckoned by a number of events divided by time. Time is the only thing these two have in common.

Distances and cycles of events are as different as apples and oranges.

The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?

[Ethos_]

The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?

No,.......cycles don't travel.

Example: In alternating current, the reversal of current from positive to negative occurs 60 time a second. What you are confusing is; It's not the frequency that travels, it's the current. And current is a flow of electrons through a wire. While the current does travel a distance, the cycle of Hertz only defines the alternation of that direction.

You can't apply a value of distance to frequency because frequency only defines a change in direction, as in current flow, or some other change in a physical quality.

Until you finally accept the current definitions for these physical qualities, your confusion will only grow Mr. Box.

[guest39538]

The cycles still travel a distance from A to B?

No,.......cycles don't travel.

Example: In alternating current, the reversal of current from positive to negative occurs 60 time a second. What you are confusing is; It's not the frequency that travels, it's the current. And current is a flow of electrons through a wire. While the current does travel a distance, the cycle of Hertz only defines the alternation of that direction.

You can't apply a value of distance to frequency because frequency only defines a change in direction, as in current flow, or some other change in a physical quality.

Until you finally accept the current definitions for these physical qualities, your confusion will only grow Mr. Box.

I never said I did not accept present definitions, of some things anyway, But I will certainly question everything to look for an answer to everything.


I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

added - hang on a nitting picking moment, I thought a frequency had a wave-length?

[Ethos_]

I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

Try this link: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

[Ethos_]

added - hang on a nitting picking moment, I thought a frequency had a wave-length?

True,................but a frequency is not a wave length. Same relationship that matter has to mass. Matter is not mass, matter has mass. If you don't yet see your error's, I think you're in danger of qualifying for that position that Alan previously warned you about.

[guest39538]

I have still not had a direct answer to my question, is distance an invariant?

Try this link: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

I have already had that link provided and obviously I must not understand it because to me it is saying when an object moves it shrinks in length, so obviously I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.

[Ethos_]

I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.

Not preposterous at all Mr. Box, it's a fact. For an observer of that event, length contraction is a reality. However, for anyone on that moving object, no noticeable change would be evident. That's why it's called "Relativity", every reference frame distinguishes it's self differently from all others when velocities and gravitational influences are also different.

If you contend that Wikipedia and all other scientific source material is preposterous fiction, you then categorize yourself as the only authority. I prefer to stick with well acknowledged and accredited sources.

You're wasting our time here Mr. Box.

There is an old saying: "A word to the wise is sufficient."

How many thoughtful words will we have to expend for you to fall into that category?

[guest39538]

I must be reading this link wrongly that would be so preposterous.

Not preposterous at all Mr. Box, it's a fact. For an observer of that event, length contraction is a reality. However, for the moving object, no noticeable change would be evident.

If you contend that Wikipedia and all other scientific source material is preposterous fiction, you then categorize yourself as the only authority. I prefer to stick with well acknowledged and accredited sources.

You're wasting our time here Mr. Box.

There is an old saying: "A word to the wise is sufficient."

How many thoughtful words will we have to expend for you to fall into that category?

You want me to accept something that I either do not understand or something that goes against normal logic and observation.

Since when do we observe an object shrinking in length when in motion relative to an observer?  give me one example please. I am trying to get my head around it.

Now if you had said a height contraction and a length expansion , relative to a rotating body, I would of got that one, but trying to explain that a spring flying through space with no opposing force will compress is not something I can  buy into at this time.

The front of the object would have to be moving slower than the rear of the object to compress.

[Ethos_]

You want me to accept something that I either do not understand or something that goes against normal logic and observation.

The key here is that you evidently don't "understand". And BTW, relativity is and was never "normal logic", it took Einstein thinking well out of "the proverbial box", to coin a term we are all well aware of by now.

Relativity is not a logical conclusion our minds find acceptable or easily understood. It has taken many experiments and defined observations for science to have defined reality in terms of this theory. If you truly want to learn and understand relativity, you'll need to accept what these experiments have taught us. If you're not willing to accept these findings, you'll never understand relativity. Something tells me you really don't want to understand, you would really prefer that we simply accept your position. Please explain to me why in the world we would ever do that when we have the evidence given to us from great men of science telling us otherwise?

Unless you're willing to forget your logical assumptions for a while and listen to these great men of science, and begin learning what their experiments have shown us, I'll be unwilling to discuss this topic with you any further.

So,.................what will it be Mr. Box?

[Space Flow]

There is an old saying: "A word to the wise is sufficient."

There is another saying that; "A word to the wise is unnecessary"

[timey]

It is a weird one box, relativity explains length contraction mathematically, but offers no reasonable explanation as to the causation of this phenomenon.

Therefore, actually, the way is clear for a speculation... I personally speculate that because the rate of time for the contracted length is slowed via its velocity, an observer is viewing the length moving in a slower rate of time relative to their own.  An observer viewing an event from their faster rate of time, will not have 'the time' in which to view the entirety of the length as it moves within it's slower rate of time, causing the length to appear contracted to the observer.

However, a length and a distance are 2 different things.  A length is a measurement of matter, and a distance is a measurement of space. The stretching of the fabric of outer space also affects distances according to GR.

It is true that science has had the benefit of many great minds, but on the other hand, logically speaking, it is in fact an act of sheer stupidity to consider our knowledge of the universe as wise...  Our 2 best working theories cannot be fully united.  If they could, discussions such as this would be redundant...

[Space Flow]

However, a length and a distance are 2 different things.  A length is a measurement of matter, and a distance is a measurement of space.

Where I agree with your level of skepticism, I am not sure how you count a length as different to a distance.
If a train that has a length of 1Km, it then takes up 1km distance at rest. As the train can at all times consider itself to be at rest, then it will always occupy a distance of 1 Km.
If from your perspective that train is traveling at relativistic velocity, and you accept that a distance can be considered to be contracted, then the train that exactly occupies that distance by having the same length, logically has to also be considered to be contracted.
I don't think that logically length and distance can in any way be considered separate or different.
Any Matter that occupies a certain amount of space has to change if that space can be considered to have changed. That is the entire principle behind the hunt for Gravitational waves.
Again it is good to be skeptical about anything that is only predicted mathematically, at least until it has been confirmed experimentally or by direct observation, but I don't think you can logically separate distance from length. Both of those qualities apply equally to anything with a physical existence. That has to include both matter and spacetime.

[timey]

Ok, back to definitions I see...(chuckle)

So... we describe the length of something as a measurement.  The defining word here being 'something'.  A length is the description of a measurement of something...

We describe the distance between 2 somethings as a measurement.  The defining word here being 'between'.  A distance is the description of a measurement of space between 2 somethings.

We can say that the length of the train takes up a distance in space.  The length being defined by the matter of the train, and the distance being defined by the space that this length occupies.

The length of the train can also be defined by the distance it occupies, but the distance that the train occupies cannot be defined by the length of the train.  The distance that the train occupies can only be defined by the 'space' on either side of the train that the train is not occupying.

Clearly there 'is' a difference between a length and a distance.

Edit: Obviously one may describe the length of a distance as being such and such, not so much the distance of a length though, just don't sound right