[Space Flow]

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

The length of a rope is the distance it spans when outstretched. The distance a rope spans is always its length.
Likewise the distance between the top and bottom of a cliff should never be longer than the length of the rope you plan to use to abseil down the same cliff.
Yes you are right that distance defines space and length defines matter, but you can not take matter out of space. That is not the way the universe works. You can not have the Universe with either of those physicality's missing.
Even our understanding of something material is that it is composed of 99.9999999.......% space.
Also while I'm raving on about this, define a planck "length" of space or time (spacetime) for me. This is not matter yet can be defined by its length.

We can play at this till the cows come home.
It doesn't depend on what sounds right to you. The two terms are interchangeable in that one can always be used to define the other.

[guest39538]

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?

''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.''

Is this an alternative to blackmail?

Accept or be blacklisted?

You want me to accept

1. Either something I do not understand
2. or something I deem incorrect


In either case it would not be smart to just accept something.

I observe this, we discovered a time dilation so in accordance to that like I have mentioned about length contraction they would need to explain a length contraction to make the time dilation viable.  i.e produce some maths that seems reasonable logic.

However in my years of science, I also observe that for some strange reason, people think that  time is a frequency rate.  They also think that if this frequency rate slows down, that time slows down also.

So ok I will be just clueless and accept all this mumbo jumbo, but I will leave you with one question,


What is the frequency rate of time of a void?

How can distance of the  infinite nothing contract if the void is emptiness of material structure?


L=0∞0

t=0∞0


To me , you are saying that a change in the rate of something we use to record time changes what it is recording. Please tell me how a camcorder can record at half the speed?

(I am using a camcorder to record time, would anyone agree and say this was not an accurate recording in real time?)

Do you understand FPS?  (frames per second)

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


People ignored my doodles in the chat section, they tell a story. I will say it straight, relativity is a piece of cake for my brain, I can think easily about anything, I know 100% that science history got it wrong and created illusion for fame. Parlour tricks like it or not, Now people either want to listen and want to try to understand me or not, it is called trust, I am asking you to show your trust in me, I am being honest, I wish I could explain better , I try my best, but to no avail.

I do not care about prizes or fame, I am not an attention seeker, I am not suffering from any Dunning affects,  I am just a poor explainer.

I have the answers to everything, it all starts with negative is attractive to negative, please go over to the new theories thread, light is anti-matter.

Anti-matter is evil, dark is the good, the battle of good and evil.

If only you could see my hand actions and expressions with my hands when I am explaining.

[guest39538]

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

I totally agree with you, that is why my question says distance in the title.

[guest39538]

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...

Well yes, normally when there is a piece of maths it suppose to represent something physically observed. I observe no contraction personally so it is a bit fairy tale like.

[Colin2B]

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.

But relativity does offer a reasonable explanation and it is close to yours.
If the speeds of light is the same for everyone who measures it then the only way you can think this is true for someone moving relative to you is if their measuring system (clocks and length) is distorted relative to you. So when you try to measure either their clocks or rulers you see a different value to the one they measure. Their coordinate system is distorted relative to you and you need to use a conversion factor.
An analogy, poor one but maybe it helps. Imagine looking straight on at the side of a building, both you and the person next to the building measure the side to be the same length. If you now move off so you are looking at an angle, you see the side foreshortened, but the person next to the building will still measures the same length. With time it is different because one person is walking along the 'true' length and the other along the foreshortened length, however they are travelling the same piece of space and there is no true length, it is all relative.

[timey]

Actually your analogy is s good one, because it illuminates exactly the difficulty and incompleteness of GR...

Your analogy describes a situation whereby a length is shortened or lengthened by the 'angle' of our viewpoint.  As we move around the building, the dimensions of the building's length and width are distorted... But...we are quite clear that the building itself is not distorted and that it is the circumstances of our viewpoint that are distorting the view.

General Relativity makes no such distinction.  It cannot make this distinction, because unlike the reference frame of the building, which has an 'absolute' reference frame that the building can be defined against, General Relativity does not.  General Relativity concerns itself with 'lengths' of matter 'moving' relative to each other.  It does not account for the 'space' or 'distances' in between these 'lengths' or 'bodies' of matter.  The geometry of these spaces between bodies of matter is then determined via considerations of velocity, velocity related time dilation, shrinking lengths and expanding distances, in relation to the constant speed of light combined with the notions a gravity related acceleration causing curvature, all timed from a 'far away' clock, and measured from infinity.

GR mathematically describes the distortion of space time, but it really does not make it clear if these distortions are a factor of our viewpoint, and gives the impression that the actual 'geometry' of space is distorted by time and gravity.  And, although it does igive us a mechanism by which time is distorted, time itself is not given a mechanism of causation.

Clearly if 'infinity' is a component within the maths, then infinities will then emerge as constants found within the mathematical results...

General Relativity is a valid theory, but it is incomplete, this being a fact commented upon vociferously by its very creator, no less, and therefore does not, and cannot give reasonable explanation of causation for the phenomenon it attempts to describe.

[Ethos_]

I have the answers to everything, it all starts with negative is attractive to negative, please go over to the new theories thread, light is anti-matter.

Nope.............negative attracts positive.

Anti-matter is evil, dark is the good, the battle of good and evil.

Nope.............good and evil are rationalizations determined within our minds.

If only you could see my hand actions and expressions with my hands when I am explaining.

What on earth do your "hand actions" have to do with anything? I'm truly beginning to worry about you sir. I think you need some help and I'm not talking about the technical sciences kind of help.

[Colin2B]

As we move around the building, the dimensions of the building's length and width are distorted... But...we are quite clear that the building itself is not distorted and that it is the circumstances of our viewpoint that are distorting the view.

That's because we are so familar with perspective and solid objects.
Say you had been constrained all your life in front of the wall, only being able to move 1mm each side of your position, if someone said that if you moved 20m left the wall distance would shrink, you would find it hard to believe.
However, like all analogies this one can't be extended. However, I like it because if you think about it the building is rotated relative to your viewpoint, just like the Minkowski diagrams.
One way I view it is like a mountain, you can go round or through a tunnel, both go to the same point but you travel different distances. In relativity the different 'distance' is time. Again you can't extend the analogy because time is not a distance.

[timey]

Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing.  Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.

My commentary is based purely on the fact that GR is not giving a full explanation of the phenomenon it describes, coupled with the fact that quantum has yet to be linked to gravity.  Box, within his many, many, posts, sometimes touches upon the inconsistencies within GR.  I think of him as fairly perceptive at times.

Ok, so... In relativity, as well as seeing under certain circumstances a direct interchange between mass and energy, we also see an interchange between time and distance, an interchange between distance and velocity, and an interchange between velocity and time.

You say that relativity states distance as time, but that the analogy cannot be extended because time is not distance...
Yes it can.  Anything moving with a constant velocity, experiencing changes in the rate of time locally... not to be confused with the SR velocity related time dilation experienced only by the 'traveller' travelling at that constant velocity... that thing travelling at a constant velocity will take a shorter or longer amount of time to cover the same unit of distance.

Therefore, if GR can state distance as time under the remit of the constancy of the speed of light, then, under the remit of GR, time does indeed actually 'become' distance. 

[guest39538]

I have the answers to everything, it all starts with negative is attractive to negative, please go over to the new theories thread, light is anti-matter.

Nope.............negative attracts positive.

Yes negative ''holds'' positive in place but negative is attracted to negative.

[Colin2B]

Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing.  Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.

that was not my intention.
I was confining my comments to SR because I was looking for a way to explain length contraction to The Box. He is obviously struggling with the link given to him hence the title he gave to this topic.

[guest39538]

Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing.  Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.

that was not my intention.
I was confining my comments to SR because I was looking for a way to explain length contraction to The Box. He is obviously struggling with the link given to him hence the title he gave to this topic.

Maybe I should explain my maths,
 
I sort of describe something using maths, the maths does not really give a result although sometimes it gives a result.
 
i.e
 
4/3 pi r³  -   4/3  pi r³ =
 
 
I am not adding any values , even pi does not exist in the above calculation, all's this says is take a volume of a sphere, take an identical sphere, take the volume away from the identical volume which  leaves the answer of nothing.  Explaining one part of nothing.
 
The second part to nothing would be
 
0^∞ =4/3 pi r³ ∞=

added - I call it IQ maths, because it is just like an IQ test.

Try this one

F=→←

E=→←

W=→←

T=→←

U=→←

r=→←

e=→←

and the answer is simple, I will leave you all to ponder over this one, I gave you the key to decoding the maths, what is the above saying?

[Space Flow]

and the answer is simple, I will leave you all to ponder over this one, I gave you the key to decoding the maths, what is the above saying?

What is the above saying?
That your Maths is quite obviously well beyond the scope of poor human understanding and you are quite obviously wasting your time presenting it to a bunch of dumb asses like us.

[puppypower]

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.

There are two things going on. We have the object and we have the light that reflects off the object. Our tools measure the energy that comes off the object. We don't measure the actual physical object. An analogy is we can take a picture of a lion. This picture is a representation of the lion and may look exactly like it. But the picture is limited to only the energy that is reflected off the lion. It does not contain all possible physical properties such as his smell. With the picture we can do motion blur, but the lion does not do have the ability to blur himself. The motion blur is an artifact of the picture and not the matter of the lion.

If we see an object distance contracted, this is the happening to light; in the picture. Common sense says, if the actual object was physically contracted, like in the picture, its density would need to increase. Higher density will require a phase change in the matter of the object. A phase change will then mean one should see others things, beyond the red or blue shift. One should see a totally new spectrum of emissions to reflect the denser phase. If you don't see that, There is only something happening in the photo. There is a special affect.

Here is an interesting related observation, in the twin paradox, the twin in motion returns to earth younger than his stationary brother. However, I have never heard anyone say that their twin in motion also returns shorter and thinner. If space-time works as team, shouldn't time dilation and distance contraction both occur?  How is it possible for only age to permanently change, in we assume space-time is integrated? The actual object does not do the same thing as the picture; distances.

[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.

There are two things going on. We have the object and we have the light that reflects off the object. Our tools measure the energy that comes off the object. We don't measure the actual physical object. An analogy is we can take a picture of a lion. This picture is a representation of the lion and may look exactly like it. But the picture is limited to only the energy that is reflected off the lion. It does not contain all possible physical properties such as his smell. With the picture we can do motion blur, but the lion does not do have the ability to blur himself. The motion blur is an artifact of the picture and not the matter of the lion.

If we see an object distance contracted, this is the happening to light; in the picture. Common sense says, if the actual object was physically contracted, like in the picture, its density would need to increase. Higher density will require a phase change in the matter of the object. A phase change will then mean one should see others things, beyond the red or blue shift. One should see a totally new spectrum of emissions to reflect the denser phase. If you don't see that, There is only something happening in the photo. There is a special affect.

Here is an interesting related observation, in the twin paradox, the twin in motion returns to earth younger than his stationary brother. However, I have never heard anyone say that their twin in motion also returns shorter and thinner. If space-time works as team, shouldn't time dilation and distance contraction both occur?  How is it possible for only age to permanently change, in we assume space-time is integrated? The actual object does not do the same thing as the picture; distances.

You said it better than I have being saying it.  For a time dilation to happen, there would also have to be a physical length contraction, i.e we would a distance contract.

[timey]

Please do not misunderstand me and think that I cannot perceive or visualise what General Relativity is describing.  Or that I have not understood how General Relativity fits to experiment and observation.

that was not my intention.
I was confining my comments to SR because I was looking for a way to explain length contraction to The Box. He is obviously struggling with the link given to him hence the title he gave to this topic.

Colin.  No problem, in fact I think my post was just a symptom of my frustration at my inability to find anyone willing to undertake a 'progressive' discussion with me regarding GR.

When taking on board the difference between a length and a distance, by the remit of SR, a length in a reference frame that is accelerated relative to another, will appear contracted to the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame.  The observer on the length in the accelerated reference frame does not experience a contraction of his crafts length, and will instead experience a contracting of the distance he is travelling relative to what the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame observes of the lengths accelerated reference frames journey.
Finally, the lengths accelerated reference frames rate of time is running slower relative to the non accelerated frames rate of time. 

Dispensing with the SR considerations for a moment, the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length and its accelerated reference frame travelling through changes in the gravitational field.  These changes in the gravitational field also elicit changes in the rate of time that a clock runs at.  We have tested this theory by placing clocks in all manner of elevation, and measuring by how much faster they run relative to a clock at ground level.  (NIST atomic clock ground level relativity experiments 2010)... Even back in Einstein's day, it was known that a pendulum has a shorter swing up a mountain, than in the valley.

***Therefore, and based upon this sole observation I do believe, it has been decided that a gravity field slows time down.  And that the rate of time runs faster out in space.***

So the observer in the non-accelerated reference frame, observing the accelerated reference frame is also viewing the length in the accelerated reference frame travelling through a gravitationally induced change, or changes, in the rate of time of its locality.

According to GR, if light travels at the speed of light across units of distance experiencing local changes in the gravitational field, and therefore is experiencing changes in the rate of time over these units of distance experiencing changes in the gravitational field, and GR does not take these local changes in the rate of time into account, then distance does indeed become a variable.  It stretches!

Clearly the GR field equation's do also include these changes in the local rate of time into the mix to account for this stretching of distance that would otherwise occur.

Space Flow:  I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint.  I agree!  If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.

[Space Flow]

Space Flow:  I notice that you have a notion that these distortions 'may' be a factor of our viewpoint.  I agree!  If you think about rates of time that are occurring faster, or slower, relative to our own, it could be that we quite simply are observing a lesser percentage of the light from the local of that reference frame as a result.

Timey, I'm in limbo as to what I think about the entire situation.
I have always felt reasonably comfortable with my Understanding of Relativity and its effects.
And yet I can not now shake this doubt, as I can not see a way of disproving that most of the effect we are attributing to Time Dilation and Length Contraction is illusionary, because of the limited speed of information transfer.
At the same time I fully acknowledge that time dilation has been locally fully proven to exist and behaves as the mathematics predicts.
Given all that, I have to conclude that the problem is in fact in my head and probably not real.
I would just like to either see or be shown where my thinking is being derailed.
I hate these doubts.

[guest39538]

At the same time I fully acknowledge that time dilation has been locally fully proven to exist and behaves as the mathematics predicts.
Given all that, I have to conclude that the problem is in fact in my head and probably not real.
I would just like to either see or be shown where my thinking is being derailed.
I hate these doubts.

That is because timing is not time. There is a timing dilation which behaves as predicted, but not a time dilation.

 An observer on Volcan times your journey, he times you had a faster speed and arrived faster than your own time that was recording your speed.

Clock A - 1000 mph

Clock B - 999 mph


added - just in case you don't get that , imagine a 1000 mile distance


your clock records one hour to travel the distance , 1000 mph

the clock at the destination records 1 hour and 10 mins for your arrival

so the destination records a slower speed of your spaceship

[timey]

Yes Space Flow, (chuckle)  I truly know the feeling!  Have you read 'The Trouble with Physics' Lee Smolin?

You say about the speed of information transfer... If distance does not shrink or stretch, and the speed of light stays constant, but the rate of time that light travels through is quicker or slower, there lies the possibility that information transfer is 'not' reliant upon the speed of light, but the rate of time light travels through, as well as the possibility that as a result of frames of time being longer or shorter than our own, perhaps being unable to view a percentage of that frames light.

[Space Flow]

That is because timing is not time. There is a timing dilation which behaves as predicted, but not a time dilation.

Please understand that I have heard you make this claim countless times now, and I still don't see it as any kind of logic I can follow.
Timing is just a way to measure the flow rate of time.
The flow rate of time itself is what changes. What you use to measure the flow rate of time is just a way of tracking what the flow rate is doing compared with a different reference frame.
Timing as you say is not time. It is our only means of observing what time does.
If an atomic process has a certain half life, and by changing its environmental parameters we can show that this half life can be changed, then time is shown to have changed its rate within and because of the changes.
So unless you can logically make your point of view agree with the observations obtained experimentally or otherwise, or you can offer another logical explanation as to why these observations are consistently made, you can not expect to be taken seriously.

Timey, I have an appointment with my surgeon today but will delve further into your comment later.