Purple dosn't beleve in relativity

OK I stand corrected on that mistake. I didn't mean to infer the existence of a third observer.What about in a hypothetical "absolute" frame of reference? or maybe I should say from the frame of reference of the light beam.
Oh forget it! I'm not even sure where I'm going with this one. My head hurts Now I remember why I dropped physics and went into chemistry.I need to go away and think about all this stuff very very deeply I think.Nice Piccy btwPY

Sorry, there is no such thing. That's just the most extreme extension of what we're talking about already, in which no time elapses for the observer while any amount, up to infinite, time elapses for the rest of the universe.

Here's your mistake: This is false. The distance from A1 to A2 is shorter for the observer - he still observes light moving at C.The rest of your presentation builds upon this mistake, and so is similarly flawed.--Percy

quote:

---

Also please try to remember that I am playing devil's advocate here (as stated in my first post in this thread)

---

I think Paul is trying to say that Newtonian physics are an approximation in the same way that 3.14 is an approximation of pi for small differences in velocity. Do we need to carry out pi to the millionth decimal place to approximate the volume of a sphere? No, 3.14 will work just fine. There are times when we do need precision, and then special/general relativity becomes important.

Is it actually shorter or does it simply appear to be shorter.PY

Hi Jazzns Maybe it's my ignorance of math that is at fault here but if this is correct then you have just turned my entire understanding of mathematics on its head.I always thought that "<" and ">" were called "inequalities". ie. the two variables are not equal.Using real numbers in normal math, if you were to substitute 10 for A and 658 for B then by this logic "10 = 658" Clearly incorrect.If you are just trying to say that in boolean logic, "(10 < 658) and (658 <10) =>(10 = 658)" then you are just talking about logic states and not real numbers in which case I don't think it applies since it makes no claim that 10 = 658 at all, just the logic state of FALSE.It would be the same as saying "TRUE AND FALSE => FALSE" wouldn't it?PY

Ok..do this experiment: Go to the nearest bowling alley, take the heavest bowling ball you can find. Now hold it steady over your foot. Steady now...Ok now ask yourself one question before you let it loose..does the bowling ball exist? Is Newtonian physics adequate to predict what is about to happen? Will the bowling ball quantum tunnel? Let us know what you find out. I think your skepticism of the laws of the universe and mans precision at predicting motion will be put into a new light. Cuz you see it doesnt matter whether you believe it or not. Shit happens anyways.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Time, distance and mass are all *relative* to the observer. There is no correct or actual time, distance or mass, only that measured by each observer in his inertial frame. It is the relative nature of reality that gives relativity its name.Relativity says that light will always be measured traveling at a speed of C in any frame of reference. Both your observers see light traveling at C in their reference frames, just as relativity requires.--Percy

[qs]Ok..do this experiment: Go to the nearest bowling alley, take the heavest bowling ball you can find. Now hold it steady over your foot. Steady now...Ok now ask yourself one question before you let it loose..does the bowling ball exist? Is Newtonian physics adequate to predict what is about to happen? Will the bowling ball quantum tunnel? Let us know what you find out. I think your skepticism of the laws of the universe and mans precision at predicting motion will be put into a new light. Cuz you see it doesnt matter whether you believe it or not. Shit happens anyways.[qs] Thats all very well and fine but am I just imagining the sensation of an imaginary bowling ball crushing my imaginary toes? And furthermore, am I imagining the sirens of the ambulance that rushes me to the imaginary hospital? Shit even happens in your imagination!PY

I am with you on this point but surely there has to be some kind of correlation or interaction between frames of reference or else the equations that so conveniently convert observations in one frame to those in another have no definable reference piont to work from.From what I am picking up here today, the equations (is this the Lorentz equations btw?) are applied to one frame of reference to bring it in line with another frame are actually just a correction factor based on the differences in observed time.
Is that right or have I gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick here?An analogy from my own line of work would involve measuring the isotope ratios of a given element with a mass spectrometer. We know the ratio of the isotopes in the standard but the machine measures it slightly different. Therefore we have to determine the correction factor to apply to all measured ratios based on the difference between the known and observed. This correction changes with different conditions.Does that come anywhere close?I will read up a little more on these equations I think.PY

Well you have two feet, you could repeat the experiment to verify your intial results. And as far as the "brain in the vat" scenario whether you "imagine" it or not something is doing the "imagining". Cogito ergo sum. Perhaps you should just stay locked in your room since everything is merely in your imagination. Whats the point maybe if you stop eating your imaginary body will die from malnutrition.

Or course they're correlated. The observers can easily measure the relative velocity of their reference frames and freely convert measurements of mass, time and length from one to the other. The Lorentz coefficient allows you to calculate the length, mass and time duration for your own reference frame of measurements you make of objects and events in another reference frame, presumably in motion relative to your own reference frame else the conversions are trivial since in that case the Lorentz coefficient becomes 1. Your earlier error resulted from using both converted and unconverted measurements.The Lorentz coefficient is a conversion factor, not a correlation factor. I don't see an analog with your own work.--Percy

Better make that imaginary malnutrition.Anyway I think it is reasonably well established that whether we are imagining everything or not, our imagination/reality is still controlled by a set of physical laws so the point is moot anyway.It's just a question of what those laws actually are.PY

PY, you remind me of a five year old, that keeps saying, how do you know? but how do you know? but how do you really know that? but how do you really know for sure? but how do you know?
How do you know XYZ is such and such. Regardless of the evidence presented there is always , but how do you know thats accurate. So I gave you a simple experiment to conduct. One of which would be easy to duplicate. One that would show beyond a shadow of doubt the veracity of newtonian phyisics and the principle of gravity. Something much simpler a concept than Special relativity. You have no intention of doing the experiment , why not? I think it is because you know science is accurate enough to predict reality and you just do not want to admit you are wrong. Do the experiment or what else is there to discuss?
I await your results.

A conversion factor is still a conversion factor no matter what way you look at it. If you have a measurable divergence between two different measurements and that divergence has a constant rate then the conversion factor can be applied in all cases providing the fields of reference remain constant.The principle applies to my work or to relativity. The measurements are of a different type though.PY