[guest39538]

Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?

That statement is, without question, the most "unenlightened" response I have ever seen posted on this forum. I felt the need to post a quote for posterities sake out of fear the author might realize the shear ineptitude of it and edit it out before someone else was able to view it. 

Just saying...............................................

  You are welcome to say, I can only presume you read it wrongly. Are you suggesting we do not see light leaving/interacting at the surface of the object at the same time we receive light to our eyes?


Are you contesting the constant-'constant?

Are you contesting observation of distant red-shift?

May I remind of the axiom

Part One - Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.

Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant.   Space  is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed.  Ourselves,  observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object  is not opaque, it is relatively ''see through''.  This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in shadow/night.

[Ethos_]

Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?

You can't "consciously observe a distant planet" unless the light from that planet reaches your eye. To claim that; "I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?" is bogus and I'm confident that you are smart enough to know that. Why you would make such a claim is beyond reason Mr. Box!

[guest39538]

Really ? if consciousness is slower than light , then how come I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?

You can't "consciously observe a distant planet" unless the light from that planet reaches your eye. To claim that; "I can consciously observe a distant planet before the light even arrives at my eyes?" is bogus and I'm confident that you are smart enough to know that. Why you would make such a claim is beyond reason Mr. Box!

consciousness
ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/Submit

''unless the light from that planet reaches your eye.''


Unless your eye is within the reach ,

are you saying you do not perceive distance?

added - are you saying that light   magnitude and radius in conjunction with the inverse square law does not affect visual distance of the observer?

[Ethos_]

are you saying you do not perceive distance?

What I perceive Mr. Box, is you going in circles like that proverbial dog I spoke of earlier. Always going in circles before he finally sits down. Eventually, when it finally comes to you, you may take a needed rest and sit down for a while.

[guest39538]

are you saying you do not perceive distance?

What I perceive Mr. Box, is you going in circles like that proverbial dog I spoke of earlier. Always going in circles before he finally sits down. Eventually, when it finally comes to you, you may take a needed rest and sit down for a while.

What i perceive is you side stepping a direct question again.


I ask again, are you saying you do not observe distance ?


added - are you saying that light   magnitude and radius in conjunction with the inverse square law does not affect visual distance of the observer?

[timey]

Box, this is a very simple visual experiment that you can conduct yourself, presuming you have access to a railway station...

But.. before I start, I want to make it absolutely clear that the visual result of this experiment is NOT a length contraction.  So... so long as we are clear on that...

Ok, stand on the right hand side end of a railway platform, as far away from the edge as you are able, or up to about 20 ft or so, and fix your vision directly across the track upon the platform opposite.  It is important that your vision remain fixed to this spot.  As a train pulls into the station, you will see the trains carriages zipping past your fixed position of vision.  You will notice that the train has carriages because of the gaps between the carriages.  As the train reduces in speed, from your visually fixed position, you will notice that the train carriages appear to be getting longer, and longer, until the train comes to a stop.

Now then box, because you are also interested in time, but let me be very clear, this is NOT an example of time dilation...  I suggest you quickly run to the left hand end of the platform and assume the visually fixed position of fixing your vision directly across at the opposite platform.  As the train leaves the station, start counting as soon as you see the front end of a carriage go past... one, one thousand, two, one thousand, and so on, until the end of the carriage passes your vision.  Then start counting from one again when the front of the next carriage passes your vision, and so on.  As the train picks up speed leaving the railway station, you will notice that the carriages takes less and less 'time' to pass you, as well as looking shorter.

Although both of these examples are NOT relativistic effects, they are about as close a representation that you will find as a visual experience in earth's reference frame.

[guest39538]

Box, this is a very simple visual experiment that you can conduct yourself, presuming you have access to a railway station...

But.. before I start, I want to make it absolutely clear that the visual result of this experiment is NOT a length contraction.  So... so long as we are clear on that...

Ok, stand on the right hand side end of a railway platform, as far away from the edge as you are able, or up to about 20 ft or so, and fix your vision directly across the track upon the platform opposite.  It is important that your vision remain fixed to this spot.  As a train pulls into the station, you will see the trains carriages zipping past your fixed position of vision.  You will notice that the train has carriages because of the gaps between the carriages.  As the train reduces in speed, from your visually fixed position, you will notice that the train carriages appear to be getting longer, and longer, until the train comes to a stop.

Now then box, because you are also interested in time, but let me be very clear, this is NOT an example of time dilation...  I suggest you quickly run to the left hand end of the platform and assume the visually fixed position of fixing your vision directly across at the opposite platform.  As the train leaves the station, start counting as soon as you see the front end of a carriage go past... one, one thousand, two, one thousand, and so on, until the end of the carriage passes your vision.  Then start counting from one again when the front of the next carriage passes your vision, and so on.  As the train picks up speed leaving the railway station, you will notice that the carriages takes less and less 'time' to pass you, as well as looking shorter.

Although both of these examples are NOT relativistic effects, they are about as close a representation that you will find as a visual experience in earth's reference frame.

Well you  have just explained acceleration and deceleration in a very complex way. Why on Earth would anyone add anything to the scenario you just said.   No length contraction, just acceleration and deceleration. I think science tries to make mountains out of mole hills.


p.s do the same train observation when the train is travelling a constant speed, you will observe no difference, just like light propagating through space.

I understand relativity now, it is parlour tricks , I may write a theory of realistic.

Cause aeroplanes accelerate to take off see, and while things accelerate gravity is not constant see, satellites have to be accelerated once in a while see?


If only I could accelerate faster than the speed of time , I could cover  distance in no time.

[timey]

Ah box... now we are getting somewhere, because yes I am describing acceleration, and you are correct in your notions of a constant speed... at least .

By switching the polarities and keeping the speed of the train at a constant speed, let's say 3mph... and counting off one, one thousand, 2 one thousand, and so on, from front of carriages to back of carriages at faster or slower 'rates', then the possibility of a length contraction/expansion effect will become apparent to you, in consideration of the trains constant speed.

If you can grasp this concept, then you are further along your path of understanding relativity.

As to the rest, I'll leave you there, and seriously, I wish you well in your further explorations of physics...

All the best!

[guest39538]

Ah box... now we are getting somewhere, because yes I am describing acceleration, and you are correct in your notions of a constant speed... at least .

By switching the polarities and keeping the speed of the train at a constant speed, let's say 3mph... and counting off one, one thousand, 2 one thousand, and so on, from front of carriages to back of carriages at faster or slower 'rates', then the possibility of a length contraction/expansion effect will become apparent to you, in consideration of the trains constant speed.

If you can grasp this concept, then you are further along your path of understanding relativity.

As to the rest, I'll leave you there, and seriously, I wish you well in your further explorations of physics...

All the best!

I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.  It is relatively really poor science or poor definition. I would call it an observation contraction due to the relative velocity of the observed.

[alancalverd]

You have taken the first step towards understanding relativity, and indeed towards accepting exactly what I said 7 pages ago in reply #1.

But far from a "meaningless parlour trick", special relativity explains and predicts pretty much everything we observe in space travel and particle physics.

[Ethos_]

I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.  It is relatively really poor science or poor definition. I would call it an observation contraction due to the relative velocity of the observed.

It is interesting that you have consistently denied the validity of The Lorentz transformation but now agree with it and attempt to explain your change of heart by waving it off as our misunderstanding of what you previously meant.



One's character is revealed in their personal mirror of reflection, whether honest or dishonest.

[guest39538]

I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.  It is relatively really poor science or poor definition. I would call it an observation contraction due to the relative velocity of the observed.

It is interesting that you have consistently denied the validity of The Lorentz transformation but now agree with it and attempt to explain your change of heart by waving it off as our misunderstanding of what you previously meant.

I seem to remember someone bringing up the question of honesty.

One's character is revealed in their personal mirror of reflection, whether honest or dishonest.

Originally I thought you meant that an object actually shrinks, and I thought I was explaining that an object does not shrink it is just a perspective view change, I though I was being told something else, sorry it got confusing,

Yes a Lorentz perspective view change happens, but relatively it means bugger all.

[Ethos_]

Originally I thought you meant that an object actually shrinks, and I thought I was explaining that an object does not shrink it is just a perspective view change, I though I was being told something else, sorry it got confusing,

Yes a Lorentz perspective view change happens, but relatively it means bugger all.

We all make mistakes Mr. Box, don't let it quench your enthusiasm.

[guest39538]

Originally I thought you meant that an object actually shrinks, and I thought I was explaining that an object does not shrink it is just a perspective view change, I though I was being told something else, sorry it got confusing,

Yes a Lorentz perspective view change happens, but relatively it means bugger all.

We all make mistakes Mr. Box, don't let it quench your enthusiasm.

Well nothing will quench my thirst until I exist.

[Ethos_]

Well nothing will quench my thirst until I exist.

Not sure what you mean there? Did you mean to say "exit" instead of "exist"?

[guest39538]

Well nothing will quench my thirst until I exist.

Not sure what you mean there? Did you mean to say "exit" instead of "exist"?

No, I meant exist, someone does not exist in body alone, I want to be timeless , a part of history before I exit.  In simple terms I would love my name in Wiki.

I am proud of my children I would love them to be proud of me.

[timey]

You have taken the first step towards understanding relativity, and indeed towards accepting exactly what I said 7 pages ago in reply #1.

But far from a "meaningless parlour trick", special relativity explains and predicts pretty much everything we observe in space travel and particle physics.

That is interesting Alan, but for my benefit of understanding could we define the effects of special relativity in relation to the effects of general relativity more clearly.

For instance, in the scenario whereby the train is travelling at a constant speed of 3mph, and the observer is increasing his 'rate' of counting every time a carriage passes his fixed point of vision... In fact let's give this a relevant context and say that the observer is standing on a gravity machine that is reducing the observers gravitational field by the inverse square law as each carriage passes the observers fixed point of vision, and that the observer is experiencing the subsequent increase of time experienced in a decreased gravitational field as each carriage passes...  Even at this very moderate constant speed of 3mph, the train carriages will be imperceptibly to the human eye, a fraction shorter.  However, if you translate the time it took the carriage to pass the observers fixed point of vision back into mph without equating that an hour is this fraction shorter, the distance that the train carriage covered becomes stretched.
The train, travelling at 3mph is not experiencing any significant special relativity effects of a slowing of its time, or a contracting of its journey distance - BUT, if it were, how indeed does this effect the observation of the observer?

If the train were to uptake a constant speed of say 1 quarter the speed of light, the observer on the platform would be unable to distinguish one carriage from another, but mathematically, the carriages would only appear shorter as per the fraction of a second that the observers time is running faster.

Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?

[Ethos_]

No, I meant exist, someone does not exist in body alone, I want to be timeless , a part of history before I exit.  In simple terms I would love my name in Wiki.

I am proud of my children I would love them to be proud of me.

But I thought you placed no confidence in Wiki?

BTW, wanting your children to be proud of you is admirable Mr. Box. That gives me some faith in you Sir!

[guest39538]

imperceptibly

If the speed is a constant 3 mph, and the observer is relatively stationary, all the carriages will look the same length to the observer. If the train accelerates, there will be a variation length of the carriages, they will get ''shorter'' the faster the acceleration the more carriages going past at a faster rate.

[guest39538]

No, I meant exist, someone does not exist in body alone, I want to be timeless , a part of history before I exit.  In simple terms I would love my name in Wiki.

I am proud of my children I would love them to be proud of me.

But I thought you placed no confidence in Wiki?

BTW, wanting your children to be proud of you is admirable Mr. Box. That gives me some faith in you Sir!

Thank you, I have faith in Wiki is starting basis, it is something that is hopefully always moving forward. My ideas come from Wiki ideas, it is a starting point, although often I only read the definition of something, and that is often enough to think about that something.