Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

dimazin

T^2 = t^2 + t'^2

T - general time
t - time of expectation
t' - time of absolute motion
rpenner
It doesn't seem to be a very general law, meaning that it does not seem to apply to any number of physical situations I have imagined. How is it used?
Robittybob1
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 13 2012, 12:39 PM)
T^2 = t^2 + t'^2

T - general time
t - time of expectation
t' - time of absolute motion

Why are the attributes squared?
Maxila
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 13 2012, 11:45 AM)
It doesn't seem to be a very general law, meaning that it does not seem to apply to any number of physical situations I have imagined. How is it used?

Hi repnner:

Are you back moderating or just making a posts? Anyway it's good to see you back here. I know you probably aren't thrilled with some of the thoughts I post about, but I respect the knowledge you bring to this forum.

Maxila
dimazin
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 13 2012, 04:45 PM)
It doesn't seem to be a very general law, meaning that it does not seem to apply to any number of physical situations I have imagined. How is it used?

Any cases.Time is quantity of motion and quantity of expectation.Earth has motion and expectation.Photons have only quantity of motion(overcome distance/c).Overcome distance/c is quantity of motion for any object(it is time of motion with absolute speed).We can consider slow motion as nano motions at 'c' and expectations.
For example object with gamma factor=2 has 0.5 second of time of expectation per 1 second of general time and (3/4)^1/2 second of time of absolute motion per 1 second of general time. 0.25 +0.75=1
Robittybob1
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 13 2012, 06:43 PM)
Any cases.Time is quantity of motion and quantity of expectation.Earth has motion and expectation.Photons have only quantity of motion(overcome distance/c).Overcome distance/c  is quantity of motion for any object(it is time of motion with absolute speed).We can consider slow motion as nano motions at 'c' and  expectations.
For example object with gamma factor=2 has 0.5 second of time of expectation per 1 second of general time and (3/4)^1/2 second of time of absolute motion per 1 second of general time.  0.25 +0.75=1

(3/4)^1/2 does not equal 0.75!
How do you apportion time periods to these attributes. For once you think about it logically you still have square it and then square root it to get it back in seconds and not "per second" as you quoted.
So if an event was half the time motion and half expectation.
1/2^2 + 1/2^2 = 0.5
sqrt(0.5) = 0.707106781 and that is in seconds. So what does 0.707106781
seconds mean?
AlexG
As usual from dim, word salad.
dimazin
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 13 2012, 06:55 PM)
(3/4)^1/2 does not equal 0.75!

[(3/4)^1/2]^2 eguals 0.75
Robittybob1
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 13 2012, 07:09 PM)
[(3/4)^1/2]^2 equals 0.75

This seems a prime candidate to bring in Occam's Razor. Introducing unnecessary complexity!
dimazin
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 13 2012, 07:07 PM)
As usual from dim, word salad.

No knowledge and no understanding agen.
dimazin
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 13 2012, 07:13 PM)
This seems a prime candidate to bring in Occam's Razor. Introducing unnecessary complexity!

I think the unnecessary complexity is way to understanding of time.
Larryde2003
Time (seconds, minutes, hours, etc.) as we relate to it is nothing more than a measure of change. Time should be replaced by new word which represents the CHANGE in our reality. Think about this. "One hour ago" only represents an increment of change but of what? What is time? If we count the number of steps we take what are we measuring? Are we walking in a straight line or a circle? It tells us nothing but how far we walked. Yesterday had an exact location of every atom in the Universe. In order to go back to yesterday we would have to put every atom in the universe exactly where they were YESTERDAY. Otherwise, we are only altering TODAY.
dimazin
QUOTE (Larryde2003+Feb 15 2012, 12:00 AM)
Time (seconds, minutes, hours, etc.) as we relate to it is nothing more than a measure of change. Time should be replaced by new word which represents the CHANGE in our reality. Think about this. "One hour ago" only represents an increment of change but of what? What is time? If we count the number of steps we take what are we measuring? Are we walking in a straight line or a circle? It tells us nothing but how far we walked. Yesterday had an exact location of every atom in the Universe. In order to go back to yesterday we would have to put every atom in the universe exactly where they were YESTERDAY. Otherwise, we are only altering TODAY.

Theory without laws.
Larryde2003
No, just common sense.
dimazin
QUOTE (Larryde2003+Feb 16 2012, 01:22 AM)
No, just common sense.

If your enemies can't use your common sense,then it is really common sense.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 13 2012, 12:39 PM)
T^2 = t^2 + t'^2

T - general time
t - time of expectation
t' - time of absolute motion

How do you know it it not more like the Fermat factorization formula
Time^2 = t^2 - t'^2
For the time (period) of expectation always seem longer than it (the event) actually takes.
Time^2 is the difference of 2 squares.

How do you measure expectation?
dimazin
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 16 2012, 06:35 PM)
How do you know it it not more like the Fermat factorization formula
Time^2 = t^2 - t'^2
For the time (period) of expectation always seem longer than it (the event) actually takes.
Time^2 is the difference of 2 squares.

How do you measure expectation?

This law is not my property. But I know t^2+t'^2 is not t^2-t'^2.
If you can't measure then you can calculate.The formula exists for it.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 17 2012, 12:50 PM)
This law is not my property. But I know t^2+t'^2 is not t^2-t'^2.
If you can't measure then you can calculate.The formula exists for it.

I can measure and calculate, but I am asking why you put them into your equation and not mine. Where did you get your equation from?

How do you define "expectation" to be able to measure it?
dimazin
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 17 2012, 04:57 PM)
I can measure and calculate, but I am asking why you put them into your equation and not mine. Where did you get your equation from?

How do you define "expectation" to be able to measure it?

The proprietor of the theory of time does not show it.But he said that the law of time from his theory.I don't know how is it using in his theory .
I think if you use much time of work then you can use little time of rest.If you use time of motion then your life uses less its time.
mik
(Larryde2003 @ Feb 15 2012, 12:00 AM)

“What is time.”

I’ve been looking around here for a serious discussion of the ontology of time.

I had replied (with my introductory take on time) to khalid masood’s short lived thread on “Time Cosmology” in the “Special Project” section as follows:

QUOTE
Einstein once said that if all matter/energy disappeared from the universe, time and space would also disappear. I disagree that space would disappear. It would just become empty space. But the concept of time is derived from movement of matter/energy from point A to point B in space, whether oscillating clocks or naturally occurring movement, all of which can be said to have an "elapsed time."

Masoosd’s thread was just a “God” centered religious promotion, so this thread is the more relevant place for my comments on time.

“Time dilation,” for instance, seems to reify time as if it were an entity or medium of some sort which can expand (dilate) or slow down “because of relativity.” We all know that clocks slow down (‘tick’ more slowly) at higher velocities and in higher gravitational fields. But this does not mean that clocks are detecting ‘something’ called time that has slowed down.

dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Feb 24 2012, 06:28 PM)
(Larryde2003 @ Feb 15 2012, 12:00 AM)

“What is time.”

I’ve been looking around here for a serious discussion of the ontology of time.

I had replied (with my introductory take on time) to khalid masood’s short lived thread on “Time Cosmology” in the “Special Project” section as follows:

Masoosd’s thread was just a “God” centered religious promotion, so this thread is the more relevant place for my comments on time.

“Time dilation,” for instance, seems to reify time as if it were an entity or medium of some sort which can expand (dilate) or slow down “because of relativity.” We all know that clocks slow down (‘tick’ more slowly) at higher velocities and in higher gravitational fields. But this does not mean that clocks are detecting ‘something’ called time that has slowed down.

Why kinematic slowing of time is relative,but gravitational slowing of time isn't relative?
Robittybob1
what do you mean it isn't relative? It has been shown or at least postulated to be relative to the strength gravity. One that I read yesterday was at the event horizon of a Black Hole time = zero.
OK it it is what I read, still it makes no sense to me, but that is one of it's relations.
mik
My quote after, "as follows:" above did not post in the quote box, so this should clarify. I said,

"Einstein once said that if all matter/energy disappeared from the universe, time and space would also disappear. I disagree that space would disappear. It would just become empty space. But the concept of time is derived from movement of matter/energy from point A to point B in space, whether oscillating clocks or naturally occurring movement, all of which can be said to have an "elapsed time."
Then, my challenge of the meaning of "time dilation" is based on the question, "what dilates?", given that all we observe is clocks slowing down at higher speeds and in higher gravitational fields. They don't 'detect' something that is slowing down. Their 'ticking' IS what is slowing down... not some mysterious medium, time.
I hope that clarifies my take on time.
dimazin
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 25 2012, 06:26 PM)
what do you mean it isn't relative? It has been shown or at least postulated to be relative to the strength gravity. One that I read yesterday was at the event horizon of a Black Hole time = zero.
OK it it is what I read, still it makes no sense to me, but that is one of it's relations.

If I think I am smarter than you,but you think you are smarter than me.Then it is relative.
If I think I am smarter than you and you think the same about me,then it is not relative.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 26 2012, 07:31 PM)
If I think I am smarter than you,but you think you are smarter than me.Then it is relative.
If I think I am smarter than you and you think the same about me,then it is not relative.

I thought for a moment you were in for a fight!
But I read on and see you were trying to show an example of relativity.

I must be smarter than you for I think you failed. If it is relative in one case it must be relative in the other too.
AlexG
You're both dumber than a bag of hammers.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 26 2012, 08:30 PM)
You're both dumber than a bag of hammers.

Still relatively smarter that you then!
dimazin
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 26 2012, 08:30 PM)
You're both dumber than a bag of hammers.

Educate us how to work by physicist without brains?
dimazin
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 26 2012, 07:42 PM)
I thought for a moment you were in for a fight!
But I read on and see you were trying to show an example of relativity.

I must be smarter than you for I think you failed. If it is relative in one case it must be relative in the other too.

Can quantity of gravitational mass be relative?
Robittybob1
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 27 2012, 06:02 PM)
Can quantity of gravitational mass be relative?

Relative is defined:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/relative
QUOTE

rel·a·tive (rl-tv)
1. Having pertinence or relevance; connected or related.
2. Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of the suburbs.
3. Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute. See Synonyms at dependent.
4. Grammar Referring to or qualifying an antecedent, as the pronoun who in the man who was on TV or that in the dictionary that I use.
5. Music Having the same key signature. Used of major and minor scales and keys: A minor is the relative minor of C major.
n.
1. One related by kinship, common origin, or marriage.
2. Something having a relation or connection to something else.
3. Grammar A relative pronoun.

So Gravity is relative to mass, and distance.
OK it doesn't have a "Lorentz" type of relationship.
Even though it might if gravity propagates at the speed of light, the force of gravity maybe weakened exponentially as the velocity of the bodies increases.
brucep
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 25 2012, 06:26 PM)
what do you mean it isn't relative?  It has been shown or at least postulated to be relative to the strength gravity.  One that I read yesterday was at the event horizon of a Black Hole time = zero.
OK it it is what I read, still it makes no sense to me, but that is one of it's relations.

RB1

One of the reasons folks have a problem understanding the basics of GR, or SR, is they never get the hang about frames of reference. Let's make you a Blackholenaut. You're safely encapsulated falling feet first towards the event horizon and beyond. A light pulse is being emitted from the stern of the capsule. Two frames of reference. The local blackholenaut frame of reference [you] and the remote bookkeeper frame of reference far away. Lets call it the Hubble telescope.

The remote bookkeeper reckons that time stopped when you reached the event horizon. The remote bookkeeper also reckons the Blackholenaut velocity at the event horizon is 0.

The local Blackholenaut confirms his watch is ticking properly and that the capsule velocity is c as he crosses the EV. Each set of measurements are just as valid as the other set of measurements.

Read article and look at the 2nd animation showing the piece of accretion disc breaking off and 'winking out' as it approaches the event horizon. This was observed from a remote bookkeeper frame of reference called the Hubble Telescope.

New evidence for black holes

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/scien...001/ast12jan_1/

Common sense thought on why the signal 'winks out' for the remote observer. The light pulse is red shifted as the emitter approaches the EV and no longer exists when it falls into the hole.

More detail if needed. There are metrics which don't have a coordinate singularity at r=2M so you can evaluate the path of objects all the way to r>0.
dimazin
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Feb 27 2012, 06:16 PM)
So Gravity is relative to mass, and distance.
OK it doesn't have a "Lorentz" type of relationship.

You start to understand something.
mik
Anyone interested in the most basic time question, "What is time?"
I threw in above on 2/26.
??
dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Feb 28 2012, 06:24 PM)
Anyone interested in the most basic time question, "What is time?"
I threw in above on 2/26.
??

I will try to understand this after a check of relativity in inertial system of a satellite of the Earth.
However all scientists deny advantage(benefit) of such experiment.
albert2
QUOTE (brucep+Feb 28 2012, 06:25 AM)
RB1

One of the reasons folks have a problem understanding the basics of GR, or SR, is they never get the hang about frames of reference. Let's make you a Blackholenaut. You're safely encapsulated falling feet first towards the event horizon and beyond. A light pulse is being emitted from the stern of the capsule. Two frames of reference. The local blackholenaut frame of reference [you] and the remote bookkeeper frame of reference far away. Lets call it the Hubble telescope.

The remote bookkeeper reckons that time stopped when you reached the event horizon. The remote bookkeeper also reckons the Blackholenaut velocity at the event horizon is 0.

The local Blackholenaut confirms his watch is ticking properly and that the capsule velocity is c as he crosses the EV. Each set of measurements are just as valid as the other set of measurements.

Read article and look at the 2nd animation showing the piece of accretion disc breaking off and 'winking out' as it approaches the event horizon. This was observed from a remote bookkeeper frame of reference called the Hubble Telescope.

New evidence for black holes

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/scien...001/ast12jan_1/

Common sense thought on why the signal 'winks out' for the remote observer. The light pulse is red shifted as the emitter approaches the EV and no longer exists when it falls into the hole.

More detail if needed. There are metrics which don't have a coordinate singularity at r=2M so you can evaluate the path of objects all the way to r>0.

relative is velocity of material change in a 3D quantum vacuum
time is merely numerical order of change
brucep
QUOTE (albert2+Mar 2 2012, 08:19 AM)
relative is velocity of material change in a 3D quantum vacuum
time is merely numerical order of change

Quit trolling dipshit.
norgeboy
time is another word for "physical event."

in our three dimensional space, a physical event is an acceleration = sec^-2.

physical events are accelerations ~ forces.

dimazin
Time is length of link between quantity of motion and quantity of expectation.
mik
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 28 2012, 06:44 PM)
I will try to understand this after a check of relativity in inertial system of a satellite of the Earth.
However all scientists deny advantage(benefit) of such experiment.

I was looking forward to your reply on this, as it directly addresses the question, "What is time?"
And how can that question, albeit ontological, *not* be relevant to, for instance, "time dilation?"

Here is my post of reference again from 2/26:
QUOTE

Einstein once said that if all matter/energy disappeared from the universe, time and space would also disappear. I disagree that space would disappear. It would just become empty space. But the concept of time is derived from movement of matter/energy from point A to point B in space, whether oscillating clocks or naturally occurring movement, all of which can be said to have an "elapsed time."

Then, my challenge of the meaning of "time dilation" is based on the question, "what dilates?", given that all we observe is clocks slowing down at higher speeds and in higher gravitational fields. They don't 'detect' something that is slowing down. Their 'ticking' IS what is slowing down... not some mysterious medium, time.
I hope that clarifies my take on time.

dimazin
Gravitation increases length of link between quantity of motion and quantity of expectation.

T^2=(t'^2(1-2GM/Rc^2)+t^2)*(1-2GM/Rc^2)

It reduces quatity of expectation(t) relatively of general time and explanes gravitational slowing of time.And it reduce quantity of motion(t') relatively of general time and explanes gravitational length contraction.
mik
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 8 2012, 01:59 PM)
Gravitation increases length of link between quantity of motion and quantity of expectation.

T^2=(t'^2(1-2GM/Rc^2)+t^2)*(1-2GM/Rc^2)

It reduces quatity of expectation(t) relatively of general time and explanes gravitational slowing of time.And it reduce quantity of motion(t') relatively of general time and explanes gravitational length contraction.

Thanks, I think? Way over my head technically/ mathematically.
Since there is no philosophy of science section here where my question, "What dilates... besides clocks slowing down?"... I'll just have to give up on the question.
It's not like time is something that slows down, which clocks detect, so "time dilation" remains a reification of time, which is only the concept of 'that which elapses' as things move.

I'll quit on it now if there is no clarification (in English) of the above.
dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Mar 8 2012, 05:58 PM)
Thanks, I think? Way over my head technically/ mathematically.
Since there is no philosophy of science section here where my question, "What dilates... besides clocks slowing down?"... I'll just have to give up on the question.
It's not like time is something that slows down, which clocks detect, so "time dilation" remains a reification of time, which is only the concept of 'that which elapses' as things move.

I'll quit on it now if there is no clarification (in English) of the above.

Though you have less brain thinking in a gravitational field, you have more soul thinking.Freedom of soul thinking dilates.
mik
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 9 2012, 09:57 AM)
Though you have less brain thinking in a gravitational field, you have more soul thinking.Freedom of soul thinking dilates.

Well that sure clears it all up. Very helpful!
So "what dilates" is imaginative thinking (and witty comments) about time. Cool.

While you are clearing things up for me... You mentioned length contraction in your previous post. I've always wondered how traveling faster makes the distance traveled shorter. Do you have an equally lucid explanation of how that works?
Oh, wait, now I remember. The faster we travel the slower our clocks run, so less elapsed time for a given distance traveled (say earth to sun) means that the distance to the sun shortens to way less than the usual 93 million miles!
Science is great, the way it clarifies our understanding of the world we live in!

Thanks again.
dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Mar 9 2012, 05:09 PM)
Well that sure clears it all up. Very helpful!
So "what dilates" is imaginative thinking (and witty comments) about time. Cool.

While you are clearing things up for me... You mentioned length contraction in your previous post. I've always wondered how traveling faster makes the distance traveled shorter. Do you have an equally lucid explanation of how that works?
Oh, wait, now I remember. The faster we travel the slower our clocks run, so less elapsed time for a given distance traveled (say earth to sun) means that the distance to the sun shortens to way less than the usual 93 million miles!
Science is great, the way it clarifies our understanding of the world we live in!

Thanks again.

In gravitation photon loses quantity of motion per second of general time.Solar gravitation increases time of travel(Earth - surface of Sun) of photon(60 microsecond).
mik
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 9 2012, 07:29 PM)
In gravitation photon loses quantity of motion per second of general time.Solar gravitation increases time of travel(Earth - surface of Sun) of photon(60 microsecond).

Now I see the reason for my misunderstanding. I'm guessing that English is not your first language... I assume from the gibberish you just posted.

It may be also that you are just stupid, but that is only a working hypothesis, nothing personal. (Of course! We are all civil here, no doubt.)
dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Mar 10 2012, 12:57 AM)
Now I see the reason for my misunderstanding. I'm guessing that English is not your first language... I assume from the gibberish you just posted.

It may be also that you are just stupid, but that is only a working hypothesis, nothing personal. (Of course! We are all civil here, no doubt.)
AlexG
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 10 2012, 01:38 AM)
Do you deny this? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282*...Fspeed+of+light

Deny what? There's nothing to deny, idiot.
dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Mar 9 2012, 05:09 PM)
Well that sure clears it all up. Very helpful!
So "what dilates" is imaginative thinking (and witty comments) about time. Cool.

While you are clearing things up for me... You mentioned length contraction in your previous post. I've always wondered how traveling faster makes the distance traveled shorter. Do you have an equally lucid explanation of how that works?
Oh, wait, now I remember. The faster we travel the slower our clocks run, so less elapsed time for a given distance traveled (say earth to sun) means that the distance to the sun shortens to way less than the usual 93 million miles!
Science is great, the way it clarifies our understanding of the world we live in!

Thanks again.

Do you think gravitational length contraction reduces time of photon travel? No, it increases! Only physics of such idiots like AlexG uses wrong terms.
mik
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 10 2012, 08:42 AM)
Do you think gravitational length contraction reduces time of photon travel? No, it increases! Only physics of such idiots like AlexG uses wrong terms.

First, sorry for insulting you. I won't hang around in a nasty ***-slinging atmosphere.
Second, I understand that, according to SR, time dilation and length contraction are reciprocals.

My question about time dilation was, what slows down at higher velocities and gravitational fields besides clocks' rates of oscillation, i.e., what is "time" that "it" slows down?

My challenge of length contraction is its claim that distance actually shortens as observed from relativistically high speeds, i.e., distance to sun shrinks "for" a high speed traveler flying by.
dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Mar 10 2012, 05:22 PM)

My challenge of length contraction is its claim that distance actually shortens as observed from relativistically high speeds, i.e., distance to sun shrinks "for" a high speed traveler flying by.

How spacecraft can shorten distance between Earth and Sun?It is not even a flea, which can cause a reflex of reduction of your muscles.
albert2
QUOTE (dimazin+Feb 13 2012, 12:39 PM)
T^2 = t^2 + t'^2

T - general time
t - time of expectation
t' - time of absolute motion

you miss one:
time of desperation: t''
Robittybob1
QUOTE (albert2+Mar 12 2012, 06:42 PM)
you miss one:
time of desperation: t''

Ancient Wisdom states “There is a time for everything”.
mik
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 12 2012, 04:43 PM)
How spacecraft can shorten distance between Earth and Sun?It is not even a flea, which can cause a reflex of reduction of your muscles.

Huh?
But seriously. Special relativity claims that "length is not invariant" and "there is no preferred frame of reference."
So... from a frame of reference flying by our solar system at near lightspeed, the distance between earth and sun would be measured as very much shorter than 93 million miles. Three other science forums* have insisted (replying to my challenge) that the at-rest frame at one end of that distance, the earth, is not an "absolute", and that a 12 million mile distance as seen from the above extreme frame, is just as valid.

I wish relativity theorists would decide which. Of course a changing distance to the sun depending on frame of reference is absurd nonsense, but that is *"their" story, and they are sticking to it.
synthsin75
QUOTE (mik+Mar 12 2012, 05:25 PM)
Huh?
But seriously. Special relativity claims that "length is not invariant" and "there is no preferred frame of reference."
So... from a frame of reference flying by our solar system at near lightspeed, the distance between earth and sun would be measured as very much shorter than 93 million miles. Three other science forums* have insisted (replying to my challenge) that the at-rest frame at one end of that distance, the earth, is not an "absolute", and that a 12 million mile distance as seen from the above extreme frame, is just as valid.

I wish relativity theorists would decide which. Of course a changing distance to the sun depending on frame of reference is absurd nonsense, but that is *"their" story, and they are sticking to it.

Spacetime intervals are invariant. The specific lengths and durations are observer-dependent.
Confused1
It is difficult to know anything from a starting point of knowing nothing. In my experience (of knowing nothing).. length contraction isn't the thing to start with. I have found time dilation to be an easier starting point both conceptually and mathematically.

We all have to consider whether there may be something special about our home town which makes it the one place where the laws of physics are (uniquely) true. Given the number of home towns on this planet and 'home towns' spread throughout the galaxy and (probably) far beyond we might be drawn to consider the possibility of a reality where the laws of of physics are not 'special' to our home town or indeed any particular location. The foothills of understanding this 'non special' reality is (perversely) called the Theory of Special Relativity.
mik
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 12 2012, 11:40 PM)
Spacetime intervals are invariant. The specific lengths and durations are observer-dependent.

Does, "The specific lengths and durations are observer-dependent..." mean that the length/distance to the sun "depends" on the "observer?"

So there is no objective cosmos with intrinsic distances between objects independent of observation? No true distance to the sun, which it is science's job to measure accurately?
That makes "the observer" (frame of reference) the primary universal reality, and the distance to the sun varies with observational frame.

That is flat out nonsense.

"Spacetime intervals are invariant" is standard relativity-speak, but without defining what space and time *are* (that would be irrelevant ontology) before "weaving them together" into one "fabric" the whole sense of "how far is it to the sun, actually, objectively, really?" is obscured by tecno-speak and the Minkowski spacetime *model* is elevated to real world status.
No doubt it works fine as a framework for the math unless it insists that the actual distance to the sun varies with observation.
If time is "what clocks measure" and clocks vary a lot because of changes in speed and gravity, then you combine that with a very malleable concept of space...

No wonder I can't get a straight answer to "Exactly how far is it to the sun?"... since one frame of reference for measuring is just as good as another.
mik
QUOTE (Confused1+Mar 13 2012, 01:06 AM)
It is difficult to know anything from a starting point of knowing nothing. In my experience (of knowing nothing).. length contraction isn't the thing to start with. I have found time dilation to be an easier starting point both conceptually and mathematically.

We all have to consider whether there may be something special about our home town which makes it the one place where the laws of physics are (uniquely) true. Given the number of home towns on this planet and 'home towns' spread throughout the galaxy and (probably) far beyond we might be drawn to consider the possibility of a reality where the laws of of physics are not 'special' to our home town or indeed any particular location. The foothills of understanding this 'non special' reality is (perversely) called the Theory of Special Relativity.

See my last post. So clocks oscillate more slowly at higher speeds, etc. So if a ship is speeding past the earth-sun distance its clocks will say that less time has elapsed than earth clocks. Then they can punch in the reciprocal of time dilation into their computer and see that, sure enough, the distance is shorter than observed from earth.

Then you go into the bit about, "We all have to consider whether there may be something special about our home town", measurement of earth sun distance from earth in this case. The only thing "special" about it is that it is at rest with what is being measured, not flying by at near 'c.'
So if "there is no preferred frame of reference" (standard SR) and the latter frame gets, say 15 million miles for a contracted astronomical unit, that is just as accurate, because there is "nothing special" about being at rest with what we are measuring? Every astronomical book or website will "beg to differ."
synthsin75
QUOTE (mik+Mar 13 2012, 12:03 PM)
Does, "The specific lengths and durations are observer-dependent..." mean that the length/distance to the sun "depends" on the "observer?"

We've already answered this, several times. The distance to the sun is the maximally measured distance within the center of momentum (COM) frame (at rest relative to the sun). Any other frame could be length contracted and require a Lorentz transform to find this distance. There is only one maximal distance because lengths can only contract, not dilate.

QUOTE
So there is no objective cosmos with intrinsic distances between objects independent of observation? No true distance to the sun, which it is science's job to measure accurately?

The space between objects is intrinsic to those objects, not the cosmos which doesn't even have a known extent.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE So there is no objective cosmos with intrinsic distances between objects independent of observation? No true distance to the sun, which it is science's job to measure accurately?

The space between objects is intrinsic to those objects, not the cosmos which doesn't even have a known extent.

That makes "the observer" (frame of reference) the primary universal reality, and the distance to the sun varies with observational frame.

No, it makes the co-moving, "rest" frame primary. This frame for a distance to the sun is not the traveling observer's, but the sun's own frame.

QUOTE
That is flat out nonsense.

Only when you don't understand the basics.
Confused1
@mik,

QUOTE (mik+)
See my last post. So clocks oscillate more slowly at higher speeds, etc. So if a ship is speeding past the earth-sun distance its clocks will say that less time has elapsed than earth clocks. Then they can punch in the reciprocal of time dilation into their computer and see that, sure enough, the distance is shorter than observed from earth.
That's about it, yes. Light from the Sun reaches the speeding ship at c, light in the spaceship travels at c, and the laws of physics (in this case the speed of light) are the same for everyone.

It was possibly not entirely helpful (for me) to have played with the word 'special'. When dealing with the particular (special?) case where there is no relative motion (or gravity) there is no need to use special relativity - as synthesin75 points out - all clocks run at the same rate and lengths are maximal (maximum).

In the more usual case where there is relative motion then special relativity will apply. In the more general case where there is gravity and/or acceleration then General Relativity will generally be required. (I don't 'do' GR).

A "preferred frame" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame) is yet another thing - the idea went the way of the dodo shortly after Einstein published his paper on Special Relativity. No mainstream (non-crank) astronomical book or website will make any reference to a "preferred frame".

-C2.
dimazin
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 12 2012, 11:40 PM)
Spacetime intervals are invariant. The specific lengths and durations are observer-dependent.

If we synchronize red clock and blue clock on International Space Station. Then red clock travels to rest on the Earth.After a long rest the red clock comes back on the ISS. Will the red clock or the blue clock show kinematic slowing of time?
dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Mar 10 2012, 05:22 PM)

what is "time" that "it" slows down?

Energy can not make moving without time. Maybe time is nutrition for energy.If energy of moving in space takes much nutrition then energy of local motions can take less nutrition.
mik
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 13 2012, 07:13 PM)
We've already answered this, several times. The distance to the sun is the maximally measured distance within the center of momentum (COM) frame (at rest relative to the sun). Any other frame could be length contracted and require a Lorentz transform to find this distance. There is only one maximal distance because lengths can only contract, not dilate.

The space between objects is intrinsic to those objects, not the cosmos which doesn't even have a known extent.

No, it makes the co-moving, "rest" frame primary. This frame for a distance to the sun is not the traveling observer's, but the sun's own frame.

Only when you don't understand the basics.

So the distance to the sun doesn't actually contract. It would only appear contracted at relativistic velocity and require the Lorentz transform to get the accurate distance. Thanks. I wish you would visit those 'science' sites that do insist that "length is not invariant" including the distance to the sun.
Yet, you say, "lengths can only contract." Can they really? How does that relate to the distance to the sun staying the same ('cept for the position in orbit factor?)

I said, "So there is no objective cosmos with intrinsic distances between objects independent of observation?"

You answered, "The space between objects is intrinsic to those objects, not the cosmos which doesn't even have a known extent."

I was not talking about "extent" of the cosmos.
I meant 'cosmos' as space and the objects we have been talking about in it having distances between them independent of how they are observed and measured, from different frames of reference.

I said, "That makes 'the observer' (frame of reference) the primary universal reality, and the distance to the sun varies with observational frame.
That is flat out nonsense."

You replied, "Only when you don't understand the basics. "

What is more basic that granting that 'cosmos' (as above*) has its intrinsic, objective reality which does not vary with how it is observed?...*including things like the distances between the sun and the planets... not "varying?"
Robittybob1
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 14 2012, 05:08 PM)
Energy can not make moving without time. Maybe time is nutrition for energy.If energy of moving in space takes much nutrition then energy of local motions can take less nutrition.

Time to feed your energy boys!
mik
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 14 2012, 05:08 PM)
Energy can not make moving without time. Maybe time is nutrition for energy.If energy of moving in space takes much nutrition then energy of local motions can take less nutrition.

That reifies time into being some kind of entity or agent.
Time is the *concept* of event duration of physical processes.

"Tick, tick, tick" or... Sunlight travels to earth. It takes time... 8+ minutes by conventional units. Everything is moving. It "takes time" (we say) for anything to move. That doesn't mean that time somehow makes things move.
Yes the ontology of time is relevant to physics.
synthsin75
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 14 2012, 10:50 AM)
If we synchronize red clock and blue clock on International Space Station. Then red clock travels to rest on the Earth.After a long rest the red clock comes back on the ISS. Will the red clock or the blue clock show kinematic slowing of time?

All observes will always agree that a clock situated further down in a gravity well will run slower than one further up.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 14 2012, 06:07 PM)
All observes will always agree that a clock situated further down in a gravity well will run slower than one further up.

As one observer, I disagree if that was an attempt to answer the question.
synthsin75
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 14 2012, 12:46 PM)
As one observer, I disagree if that was an attempt to answer the question.

How doesn't it answer the question? The clock sent deeper into the gravity well will end up slower. Pretty basic.
synthsin75
QUOTE (mik+Mar 14 2012, 11:40 AM)

So the distance to the sun doesn't actually contract. It would only appear contracted at relativistic velocity and require the Lorentz transform to get the accurate distance. Thanks. I wish you would visit those 'science' sites that do insist that "length is not invariant" including the distance to the sun.
Yet, you say, "lengths can only contract." Can they really? How does that relate to the distance to the sun staying the same ('cept for the position in orbit factor?)

I said, "So there is no objective cosmos with intrinsic distances between objects independent of observation?"

You answered, "The space between objects is intrinsic to those objects, not the cosmos which doesn't even have a known extent."

I was not talking about "extent" of the cosmos.
I meant 'cosmos' as space and the objects we have been talking about in it having distances between them independent of how they are observed and measured, from different frames of reference.

I said, "That makes 'the observer' (frame of reference) the primary universal reality, and the distance to the sun varies with observational frame.
That is flat out nonsense."

You replied, "Only when you don't understand the basics. "

What is more basic that granting that 'cosmos' (as above*) has its intrinsic, objective reality which does not vary with how it is observed?...*including things like the distances between the sun and the planets... not "varying?"

The point is that the distance of anything from the sun is always the same from the sun's frame. No matter how any other frame may observe the distance, the sun's co-moving distance is not altered. This is why we denote proper length, which can always be found with a Lorentz transform using the observations from any other frame. This is invariant, as well as the spacetime interval (the combined separation of events in both space and time).

Let me reiterate that. Length is not invariant; proper length is invariant.

Lengths contract relative to those of another frame. It's a difference in how the units of measurement for space and time are observed relative to those of another observer.

Without some demarcation of space itself, like a known boundary or directly observing it, distances are only relative to objects. Space is not a substance that can be directly observed, and thus doesn't provide us with anything other than objects to define distances. If the units of distance, relative to the co-moving objects of an observer, change relative to those of another, they will observe a different distance.

Basic is understanding distinctions such as proper length and spacetime interval, which are both invariant. You seem to questioning whether space itself has an objective reality. The answer, as already given, is no. Space is intrinsic to objects. If there were no other objects, you'd have no idea whether one object was in inertial motion or not. All we know of space is through the relation of objects.
dimazin
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Mar 14 2012, 06:46 PM)
As one observer, I disagree if that was an attempt to answer the question.

Confused1
Googling gps time dilation gives this:-

http://www.triangulum.nl/Werkgroepen/docum...GPS%20essay.pdf

-it's a battle betwwen SR and GR, at GPS altitude GR dominates, it would be easy to recalculate for the ISS if you knew high up it was.

-C2.
dimazin
QUOTE (Confused1+Mar 15 2012, 11:08 AM)
Googling gps time dilation gives this:-

http://www.triangulum.nl/Werkgroepen/docum...GPS%20essay.pdf

-it's a battle betwwen SR and GR, at GPS altitude GR dominates, it would be easy to recalculate for the ISS if you knew high up it was.

-C2.

What clock will lose time by kinematic motion relatively of another clock?The red clock or the blue clock?
dimazin
QUOTE (mik+Mar 14 2012, 05:55 PM)
That doesn't mean that time somehow makes things move.

Yes.If the things without energy.
Confused1
QUOTE
Then red clock travels to rest on the Earth.After a long rest the red clock comes back on the ISS. Will the red clock or the blue clock show kinematic slowing of time?

Assuming 'kinematic' means velocity alone (ISS circling a massless Earth)
The blue clock will show less elapsed time (run slower) than the red one.

-C2.

Edit .. my confidence stems from the fact that the answer is either correct or will be corrected.
synthsin75
The ISS doesn't move at a significant fraction of c, which is what is required for any significant time dilation. Thus depth in the gravity well will dominate.
Confused1
@Synthsin75,

GPS at 20200km (SR -+7us, GR +-42us)
ISS at 380km (SR ? GR < 42us)

Assuming http://www.triangulum.nl/Werkgroepen/docum...GPS%20essay.pdf is correct (I've seen the same numbers elsewhere) I think the SR component might possibly be dominant. No time (possibly also too lazy) to run the calculations.

-C2.
dimazin
QUOTE (Confused1+Mar 15 2012, 01:41 PM)

Assuming 'kinematic' means velocity alone (ISS circling a massless Earth)
The blue clock will show less elapsed time (run slower) than the red one.

I heard the longest single spaceflight slows down life time of Valeri Polyakov(2 or 3 seconds).It means kinematic slowing of time there was more than gravitational-kinematic slowing of time on the Earth.

You did not answer that what will happen in finish of the experiment?Will the blue clock or the red clock show less time in end of the experiment?
Confused1
QUOTE (dimazin+)
Will the blue clock or the red clock show less time in end of the experiment?

Plug the values for the ISS into the equations given here:- http://www.triangulum.nl/Werkgroepen/docum...GPS%20essay.pdf and you can answer this for yourself.

-C2.
dimazin
QUOTE (Confused1+Mar 15 2012, 03:54 PM)
QUOTE (dimazin+)
Will the blue clock or the red clock show less time in end of the experiment?

Plug the values for the ISS into the equations given here:- http://www.triangulum.nl/Werkgroepen/docum...GPS%20essay.pdf and you can answer this for yourself.

-C2.

I think the experiment could be truer.
Confused1
QUOTE (dimazin+)
I heard the longest single spaceflight slows down life time of Valeri Polyakov(2 or 3 seconds).

Cite source (or source site) please.

-C2.
dimazin
QUOTE (Confused1+Mar 15 2012, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE (dimazin+)
I heard the longest single spaceflight slows down life time of Valeri Polyakov(2 or 3 seconds).

Cite source (or source site) please.

-C2.

I even do not remember the channel of TV.There they spoke about 'travel into the future' .I don't remember exact data (maybe 0.2 or 0.3 s)
synthsin75
QUOTE (Confused1+Mar 15 2012, 09:27 AM)
@Synthsin75,

GPS at 20200km (SR -+7us, GR +-42us)
ISS at 380km (SR ? GR < 42us)

Assuming http://www.triangulum.nl/Werkgroepen/docum...GPS%20essay.pdf is correct (I've seen the same numbers elsewhere) I think the SR component might possibly be dominant. No time (possibly also too lazy) to run the calculations.

-C2.

GPS satellites travel approximately 14,000 km/hour.
ISS travels, on average, 27,743.8 km/h

And like you said, their distances from Earth are approximately:
GPS at 20,200km
ISS at 380km

You're correct to assume we would expect both the SR effect to increase (from the GPS speed of 14,000km/h to the ISS speed of 27, 743km/h) and the GR effect to decrease (from the GPS height of 20,200km to the ISS height of 380km). The question is how much.

And it looks like you are right.
http://ideonexus.com/2009/02/17/how-much-d...iss-astronauts/
QUOTE (^+)
If the ISS were to orbit the Earth at 1.5 times the Earth’s radius (5,900 miles or 9500 km) then the effect of velocity and gravity on time would cancel each other out. At orbits greater than 5,900 miles, gravity is stronger and speeds up time, below 5,900 miles, velocity is stronger and time slows. The ISS orbits 255 miles above the Earth at 8000 m/s, so time runs approximately 0.0000000014 percent slower.

I wasn't aware of how much more closely the ISS orbits the Earth. So the ISS clock will indeed run slower.
mik
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 14 2012, 09:46 PM)
The point is that the distance of anything from the sun is always the same from the sun's frame. No matter how any other frame may observe the distance, the sun's co-moving distance is not altered. This is why we denote proper length, which can always be found with a Lorentz transform using the observations from any other frame. This is invariant, as well as the spacetime interval (the combined separation of events in both space and time).

Let me reiterate that. Length is not invariant; proper length is invariant.

Lengths contract relative to those of another frame. It's a difference in how the units of measurement for space and time are observed relative to those of another observer.

Without some demarcation of space itself, like a known boundary or directly observing it, distances are only relative to objects. Space is not a substance that can be directly observed, and thus doesn't provide us with anything other than objects to define distances. If the units of distance, relative to the co-moving objects of an observer, change relative to those of another, they will observe a different distance.

Basic is understanding distinctions such as proper length and spacetime interval, which are both invariant. You seem to questioning whether space itself has an objective reality. The answer, as already given, is no. Space is intrinsic to objects. If there were no other objects, you'd have no idea whether one object was in inertial motion or not. All we know of space is through the relation of objects.

Thanks again for your patience with me. My argument has always been that the distances between bodies like planets to sun is intrinsic and objective and does not vary with how they are observed, from whatever frame of reference. But when you say,(my bold) "The point is that the distance of anything from the sun is always the same from the sun's frame.... that distance is still dependent on the sun's frame of reference.

So "proper length" designates the actual 93 million miles of distance to the sun which doesn't "contract", unlike just "length" sans the "proper."

You say:
"Lengths contract relative to those of another frame. It's a difference in how the units of measurement for space and time are observed relative to those of another observer. "

In the objective world as it is intrinsically, independent of observational frames of reference, lengths (distances between objects) do not actually contract... period... regardless 'who' is observing from whatever frame of reference. Right?

In the case you explain where "they will observe a different distance", this does not mean that the actual distance changes just because they observe a different distance... right?

You say:
" You seem to questioning whether space itself has an objective reality. The answer, as already given, is no. Space is intrinsic to objects."

If space is volume, in which all objects exist and move around, and distance is the linear component of space, I question the proposition of length contraction that actual, intrinsic, objective distance between those objects changes (contracts) with how they are observed from different frames of reference.

Re; the "objective reality" or not of space:
Einstein said that if all matter (objects) disappeared, that space and time would also disappear.
I agree that without things moving, time would be a meaningless concept. But what could the "disappearance of space" possibly mean. With no matter/energy left, how would that *not* just leave *empty space*? On small scale, if you take all objects out of a box you are left with empty space in the box (ignoring air), no? Why would large scale make a difference in that principle?
But, back to distance between objects, you say:
" All we know of space is through the relation of objects."
One last time: Do you think the distances between objects depend on the frames of reference from which they are measured, or are those distances each an intrinsic reality in an objective "world", which it is science's job to accurately measure?
mik
QUOTE (dimazin+Mar 15 2012, 01:05 PM)
Yes.If the things without energy.

I said: "That doesn't mean that time somehow makes things move."

So, are you saying that time is some kind of force that makes "things without energy" move?

Btw, everything, on all scales, subatomic to cosmic, is already moving. Time is the concept of the duration (elapsed time) "clocked" for whatever movement from A to B... nothing more.
synthsin75
QUOTE (mik+Mar 15 2012, 12:59 PM)
Thanks again for your patience with me. My argument has always been that the distances between bodies like planets to sun is intrinsic and objective and does not vary with how they are observed, from whatever frame of reference. But when you say,(my bold) "The point is that the distance of anything from the sun is always the same from the sun's frame.... that distance is still dependent on the sun's frame of reference.

So "proper length" designates the actual 93 million miles of distance to the sun which doesn't "contract", unlike just "length" sans the "proper."

You should probably watch this video to help visualize what is actually happening:

QUOTE
You say:
"Lengths contract relative to those of another frame. It's a difference in how the units of measurement for space and time are observed relative to those of another observer. "

In the objective world as it is intrinsically, independent of observational frames of reference, lengths (distances between objects) do not actually contract... period... regardless 'who' is observing from whatever frame of reference. Right?

Wrong. The only thing invariant in all frames is the spacetime interval. Insisting on an objectively invariant space is a very antiquated notion (explained as Galilean relativity in the above video).

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You say:"Lengths contract relative to those of another frame. It's a difference in how the units of measurement for space and time are observed relative to those of another observer. "In the objective world as it is intrinsically, independent of observational frames of reference, lengths (distances between objects) do not actually contract... period... regardless 'who' is observing from whatever frame of reference. Right?

Wrong. The only thing invariant in all frames is the spacetime interval. Insisting on an objectively invariant space is a very antiquated notion (explained as Galilean relativity in the above video).

Re; the "objective reality" or not of space:
Einstein said that if all matter (objects) disappeared, that space and time would also disappear.
I agree that without things moving, time would be a meaningless concept. But what could the "disappearance of space" possibly mean. With no matter/energy left, how would that *not* just leave *empty space*? On small scale, if you take all objects out of a box you are left with empty space in the box (ignoring air), no? Why would large scale make a difference in that principle?
But, back to distance between objects, you say:
" All we know of space is through the relation of objects."
One last time: Do you think the distances between objects depend on the frames of reference from which they are measured, or are those distances each an intrinsic reality in an objective "world", which it is science's job to accurately measure?

Space is intrinsic to objects, so without the objects you don't have any means of recognizing any supposed "empty space". If it cannot be observed, by any means, then it does not empirically exist. In an empty box you still have the boundary of the box, an object, with which to define a space, so this is not an accurate analogy.

Space and time are intrinsic to objects, not some abstracted "reality", "cosmos", etc.. The only thing that is objectively invariant between all frames is the total time and space separation between events, i.e. the spacetime interval.

Do you understand how space is intrinsic to an object? Two objects that are otherwise identical are intrinsically different because they exist in different locations. If this difference is not intrinsic to the objects then we must assume that the same object exists in two locations at once. And if space is intrinsic to the object then it is dependent upon the particular units of measurement observed from that object.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2012, 02:52 PM)
The relative/philosophical reality subsists in 'what we can know'.....whereas the extant/absolute reality aspect subsists in 'what actually exists independently of what we can know'.

Anything "independent of what we can know" is beyond the scope of physics. Period. Trying to make it otherwise is a mockery of empiricism and the scientific method.
Robittybob1
@ RealityCheck - That was a rather good attempt, so I hope there is some truth to what you say.
I took it mean that two observations could be made and with reasoned analysis it can be deduced why there is an apparent discrepancy.
Whether it be the relative velocities, or the fact there was no one in the forest at the time.
At least this way life would not be so mysterious, as how does nature know when to let the tree fall without making a noise?
Or how far apart the Earth and the Sun should be?
There is something absolute and independent of any measurement.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2012, 03:13 PM)
Stop kneejerking. Read it again. The point is that where you may be quite validly arguing from the 'knowing' perspective, others may be arguing from the 'irrespective of that knowing' perspective.

In short, whether we 'know' anything at all, the reality will exist as the evolving universal phenomena which existed before us and will continue to do so after us independent of any 'knowledge/measurements' of its space/distances by us in between.

First, cut it out with the disparaging implications you constantly use. Nothing in my comment can be considered "knee-jerk", or in any way emotionally charged, other than perhaps that it doesn't agree with you. In that case, it is evidence of your own emotional response to having your opinion rejected. Nothing more.

And that rejection is based solely on the empirically objective.

Second, you always resort to this sort of personal comment (while being completely oblivious to it being such) whenever you cannot refute the facts forwarded to refute you. Notice you just keep touting this supposition of an independent reality when you can't provide the slightest evidence for anything other than what can be empirically observed.

Yes, the cross-communication is that I am discussing science on a science forum while others, yourself included, are talking philosophy, at best.
synthsin75
I don't have the inclination to read your endless yapping. No doubt making a mockery of science come very effortlessly to you.
mik
I agree totally with RealityCheck, (Thank You!)... which will inevitably put me on synthsin75's fecal matter list.

Philosophy is part of relativity, whether it is consciously acknowledged or not. The philosophy is that reality depends on observation, so when observations vary, reality (like the distance to the sun) varies accordingly.

I propose a simple "thought experiment." (Einstein liked them, and we see a lot of them in relativity debates.)

Suppose that no intelligent life ever evolved. Surely cosmos (space and all its contents) would not just cease to exist. So, regardless of any and all observational frames of reference, seeing things differently, what is left? Cosmos as it is, independent of all observation.

The distance between earth and sun only varies with earth's position in elliptical orbit. There is no such thing as "length contraction" or "time dilation." Things move around faster or slower for natural reasons all on their own without being measured or "clocked."

I'll leave it there for now and await whatever hostile and condescending attacks this might provoke.
synthsin75
And with RC joining the discussion all reliable physics goes right out the window. You're on your own, as I know the futility of correcting serious confirmation bias.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2012, 05:58 PM)
... drop the personal/dismissive stuff and provide a scientific response ...

You mean like dismissing someone by implying that their response is emotional, i.e. "knee-jerk"? I criticized your posted based solely on science. Since you chose to dismiss that I have no doubt that you will continue to do the same of any scientific response I may make to you.

So have your crank pow-wow without me. And no, unlike yourself, I cannot be baiting when I don't want to.
Confused1
@mik,

'physics' didn't arise as a philosophy - it was (and remains) an attempt to analyse and explain what is observed. See (for example) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html . See also http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tiv/mmhist.html . You don't seem to be aware of these (and many more) experiments, the results and the subsequent work that went into analysing the results.

-C2.

AlexG
QUOTE
Only that the 'relativity' aspect is just that, a 'relativity' perspective on the 'actual physics' otherwise independently extant and evolving irrespective of any human perspective/measurements/model of it etc.

This is simply, totally incorrect.

You've just demonstrated that you really don't know anything about relativity or physics.
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2012, 07:59 PM)
I only ever dismiss the 'personal' and 'kneejerking' stuff. All genuine scientific discourse is WELCOME, from ANY quarter, including you.

Really? What, exactly, is "personal" about the following?

QUOTE (me+)
Anything "independent of what we can know" is beyond the scope of physics. Period. Trying to make it otherwise is a mockery of empiricism and the scientific method.

This is a completely objective and factual statement. Look up "empiricism" and "scientific method" if you doubt me. Trying to add philosophical opinions to science as if they are on a par with quantifiable observations is very much a mockery of these.

We can only speculate and make assumptions about anything we can't know. That is not how science is done.
Robittybob1
Is the REAL REALITY a frame that has within it the entire objects being measured are held in a non moving state? Because the continual motion of bodies in the Universe it seems impossible to achieve a non moving state.
So this is not the way to define the REAL REALITY.

How do you envisage measuring in the REAL REALITY?
AlexG
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2012, 09:28 PM)

Hi AlexG!

Where exactly is the human observer's perspective a necessary condition for the universal physics to exist/evolve?

You did understand the difference between "what we can know of the physics reality" and "what physics reality exists/does irrespective of what we can know/measure about it", didn't you (or did you not bother to read the context before opening your mouth and making yet another empty post like that)?

If you have nothing to contribute that would add directly relevant information to the discussion proper, then perhaps you should just butt out?

Cheers. Back later.
.

What part of "TOTALLY WRONG" didn't you understand troll?

Relativity is the 'physics of reality'

Human perspective has nothing to do with it.

Which is why I say you obviously know nothing about physics and relativity.

All you've EVER posted is word salad.

And you're certainly not worth arguing with, years of reading your sh*t has shown that.

QUOTE
then perhaps you should just butt out?

Since you don't know your as\$ from your elbow, perhaps you should just fu*k off?
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2012, 08:45 PM)
Perhaps you should read what you write before posting. That bit I bolded distinctly implies I and others are "trying to make it otherwise...". We are not. Read my posts again and you will see I was only pointing to where the cross-communications usually arise in discussions like these. Moreover, you still have not bothered to read/ddress that little challenge contined in my earlier post which you said you were not inclined to read. How about reading it now and giving us your scientific treatment of the scenario/question I posed therein.

No, you've made it clear that even if I make strictly scientific posts that you will insist upon trying to assert your opinion as if it were on par with empirical evidence and the scientific method. And I've already told you, I will not be baited. At least not until you show some signs of reforming your MO.
AlexG
QUOTE
I think you meant to say "relativity is the physics of RELATIVE realities", mate. The REAL reality exists and evolvs irrespective of our relative-reality measurements/transforms and understandings of it.

No I didn't mean to say that. Relativity is the 'real' reality. You simply spout bullshit, without any understanding of relativity or physics.

The Word Salad Troll. That's you.
AlexG
Can I get some blue cheese dressing on that?
synthsin75
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 15 2012, 09:10 PM)
But you made no attempt to make a strictly scientific post in response to mine. All you did was accuse me of trying to do something I obviously wasn't.

Like I said, go look up "empiricism" and "scientific method". Then you might see how my reply was indeed a scientific rebut to yours. If you can't be bothered then all your talk here is completely moot, as you will have demonstrated your refusal to discuss what actually constitutes physics.

QUOTE
PS: Now, does the 'real' reality (including space/distances) exist absolutely irrespective of our relativity perspective?

The "real reality" is the spacetime interval. It is only your reliance on your limited and naive human perceptions of time and space that consistently trip you up.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.