Theory Of Realtivity Question.

The thing observed is always observed with respect to the observer. This is the extent to which the observer is considered. There are two elements to this: the observer is the origin of her frame of reference (i.e. the observer has co-ordinates [0,0,0]); the observer is in her rest inertial frame (even if another observer P sees her moving, the first observer O is always at rest in her reference frame). You are always at rest with respect to yourself.

The effects of relativity are always observed due to their motion. Time dilation and length contraction are things I observe in bodies with fast velocities in my rest frame, i.e. moving fast with respect to me. In the body's rest frame, there is no dilation or contraction.

So if you're in a space-ship moving at 0.5c away from me, I perceive you as doing everything slowly and can infer that your thoughts and perceptions take longer than mine. However, in your frame (i.e. with respect to you) your thoughts and perceptions are normal because you are at rest (in your frame) and I am moving at 0.5c away from you. Thus you perceive my actions as slow and infer that my thoughts and perceptions are slowed.

I think that you are attempting to bite off more than you can chew.

[SIZE="3"]Relativity is difficult for most people, so it's not just you; but the problem is made far more difficult than it needs to be because of misconceptions we have about energy, matter, time and space. I was only able to understand something about relativity by throwing out all my preconceptions about physical reality and starting over. If you'll bear with me for a few paragraphs, I'll explain what I mean. You'll find this explanation of relativity unorthodox, but it does fit the facts.


Energy
First off, what is energy? You might be surprised to know it is merely a measurement of how much movement power something like an atom contains. No one has ever seen energy, only how it affects things. For example, as an atom decays, it releases something that another atom can absorb; when the other atom absorbs, the atom will oscillate faster. We say it's absorbed "energy" (carried by a photon or heat), but all we really observe is a change in the atom, not the energy itself.

It's not immediately apparent how energy is relevant to relativity, but later you will see it is because compression is related to how much energy something has. A photon, for example, has more energy the shorter its wavelength is (it also oscillates faster). If the wavelength of a photon lengthens, it oscillates slower. One of the most exciting discoveries of the 20th century was background microwave radiation still hanging around from the Big Bang; but also, that this radiation increases its wavelength as the universe expands. Obviously, the energy of matter is "leaking" to space, and if things keep going as they are, we might expect all the matter of the universe one day to be one huge bed of incredibly long photons.


Matter
From the above description, it appears matter is compressed energy (whatever energy is). If you examine the periodic table of elements, you can see it reflects how each element has more mass packed into it than the element before it. Levels of compression of energy, then, is the basis of matter. Of course, we still don't know exactly what is being compressed (since energy is the measure of movement power, not a substance). In my opinion, science lacks a key component, what I call a ground state substance, or a concept for a fundamental existential "stuff" that is naturally energetic, uncreated and indestructible, and exists as an infinite ocean that is constantly subject to compression-decompression dynamics. So the Big Bang, for instance, would be explained as an intense compression of the ground state substance at one spot in the infinite ground state ocean. The elements are various levels of compression of ground state substance, which are gradually decompressing as the universe expands. But, as you know, we don't have a "ground state substance" concept in physics, so for now let's just stay matter is compressed energy that gets evermore energetic as it is compressed, and continuously less energetic as it decompresses.


Time
What is time? So many people have projected their emotions onto time that you can't have a no-nonsense discussion about it. If we rely on the above model of the universe as compressed energy (now decompressing), then time is our observation of how fast (or slowly) the matter of the universe is decompressing into energy. The normal way we talk about decompression is as disorganization (a.k.a. entropy) since energy is held in matter through organization of atoms and molecules. Hold that thought, and let's personalize time a bit.

Time is personal because of our body, which, like all the rest of the matter of the universe, is gradually disorganizing. One day, when the body can no longer sustain its organization, we "die." We watch the clock go around, the calendar pages turn, our body age. . . and say "time" is passing. But it is a projection to say that, because time is simply a measurement of how fast matter is disorganizing. There is no actual quality or dimension of time, there is only how much matter is left to return to the fully decompressed condition.

Now this is where it starts to get interesting, and it is also where most people get stuck on relativity. The rate of entropy/disorganization/decompression/matter-converting-to-energy (however you want to say it) can be affected; that is, things can be made to disorganize faster or slower by altering certain conditions, which is to say time is relative to certain conditions. To explain that we need one more factor.


Space
Using the term "space" to describe what's between hunks of matter causes a lot of problems for people trying to understand physics because the areas where matter is not isn't a void (which is how most people think of space).

Space has traits, qualities, which could not be if space were a true void. I'm not just talking about that background microwave radiation mentioned above, but something far more significant: gravity

You could observe space for a billion years and never see anything happen; but bring a bit of matter into "space" and all of a sudden gravity shows up. Not only that, but matter causes the area around it to actually curve space.

What is gravity? Well, that mystifies the greatest of minds, which of course complicates relativity even further; but possibly lacking humility, I am going to try to explain it anyway. Gravity is a latent constrictive force, part of the "fabric" of space, that lies dormant until mass is present. In other words, space contains a general field that remains non-reactive until mass appears, and then space suddenly constricts.

So an area of space is just sitting there minding its own business, and then a planet shows up. Space constricts in a spherical way toward the surface of the planet from all sides, and the constriction affects an area around the planet too so that any other mass, say an asteroid, coming near the planet is affected by the constriction (light passing through it will curve too).

Another way to cause space to constrict is by accelerating; that's why G-forces are experienced as an airplane takes off. Finally, any kind of velocity (i.e., non-accelerating) causes space to constrict in the direction of movement.

Keep all the above ideas in mind as we talk about relativity.


Relativity

Okay, here we go!

The rate of matter's disorganization can be slowed by increasing constriction at some location. So two locations can be experiencing two different rates of disorganization, depending on what conditions they are being subjected to. For example, if you live on Mt. Everest and your sister lives in Death Valley, general relativity claims you are aging faster than her because you are subject to less gravity (i.e., constriction), and therefore your atoms are disorganizing at a faster rate (gravity grows weaker as one goes further from the Earth's surface). Your clock moves faster too because less gravity affects that as well. On a neutron star, where gravity is incredibly strong, disorganization is happening very much slower than anywhere here on Earth; we probably can't even imagine how slowly a clock would turn there (relative to ours on Earth).

There is absolutely no way to distinguish acceleration from gravity (both produce the constriction effect), so if you take off in a jet, time slows down (relative to a non-accelerating person). The jet example introduces a couple of other relativity issues too. Remember constriction is also caused by movement (this is explained by "special relativity"), so acceleration plus movement affects time on the plane (remember "time" = rate of disorganization/decompression/entropy). Yet you've gone up and away from Earth's surface, where Earth's gravity is less. So in terms of measuring how much your rate of entropy has changed from when you were sitting in a chair on Earth's surface, you have to take all those factors into account.

As you can see, time or the rate of entropy is relative to the conditions you subject something to. The set of conditions in particular place is called the "frame of reference" in relativity. Above we were talking about your frame of reference on Mt. Everest, and your sister's frame of reference in Death Valley, etc.


An Interesting Question

Let's say you take off in a space ship and leave your sister behind on Earth. You accelerate to nearly the speed of light, travel for one year like that, and then return to Earth. You find while you have aged one year, your sister has aged 20 years.

Now, most physicists will argue that you (the sister traveling in the space ship) would only notice one year had passed. But I proposed that although your clocks and calendar only recorded a year, you might feel that it was longest damn year you ever experienced.

"No, no, no," all the physicists insisted, "everything in your frame of reference will change at the same relative pace, so there is no way to tell."

"Yes," I answered, "but that's because you are assuming consciousness is physical (or a physical derivative), and so is affected by physicalness exactly as matter is affected. But what if consciousness is independent in some way from matter? In that case, even though all physical indicators say one year has passed, some inner sense might experience each second or minute as agonizingly slow."[/SIZE]

Space the relative distance between two objects.

Time can be considered the rate at which events occur.



By looking at events, such as detection of photons Time Dilation, Length Contraction and Simultaneity (from Einstein Light) Then make a comparison between that, from the example linked, which Jasper and Zoe percieve.

Is thought or consciousness out of the picture in this theory?

if time is to be considere here as the rate at which events occur, is it refferring to changes observable in the external world?

how bout let's say a mental clock?

That's the question I posed at the end of my post. Personally I think time is purely physical, so if consciousness is something more, then it very well may have its own "frame of reference" distinct from physical time.

The physical components of thoughts and consciousness are in the picture. When we think of eating an apple an event occurs. We can see a physiological change via magnetic-resonance imaging.

An initial response would be yes, any event or change in the external world, observable or not. By external world I mean the common, external world (see below).

The mental clock is a perception. While some perceptions have physical components, eg hallucinations, these components do not occur in the common external world.

Thanks.

I just want to make a distinction with regard to a thing being "perceived" and "conceived."

I think a mental clock inasmuch as it is ideal though may have some foundation in reality may not necessarily function the same as physical clocks. Let's try not to go into a empiricism vs. rationalism arguments for that would be funny. I think conception is very much different from perception. perception is more passive while the conception is an active intention of the intellect.

I thanks in advance. I still have some questions but I have to save them for later.

I do not claim to hold any truths, but please ask.

This is an interesting thread as I too have my questions about relativity, matter, energy, Space, Time, etc. Perhaps single posts are not Space enough or one does not possess, at this moment, sufficient Time to cover all these topics.

The most intriguing definition of time proposed by LWSleeth as: ""time" = rate of disorganization/decompression/entropy" is a new one for me but quite thought provoking. I feel it is a contextual definition applicable to and valid in a Newtonian level view of the universe. For instance some claim 'time = the progression of events' as opposed to a change of state of material organizations. And then there is consciousness which as we all know perceives with a 'plastic' or malleable time frame. In ordinary circumstances I like to relate time as a measurement of astronomical events (orbit and rotation about the primary) because we all, on this planet in this solar system, participate. (I try not to be too concerned with time on another solar system because, hey, what goes on over there simply doesn't apply to me, yet.:sarcastic:) So time for me is a unit of measurement laid upon life's activities that allows the viewing/experiencing of life so it doesn't happen all at once. The human 'sense' of time is an altogether different animal which can perceive and experience events in a flash or drawn out "over time". Additionally I do respect the idea of local versus non-local versus relative position considerations.

Seems to me, in reading LWSleeth's excellent presentation many of the points hinge on the idea the universe is coming apart or self-destructing via entropic forces. I've always been thoughtful about this postulate. How does that explain an apple tree developing from a seed? Sure the seed itself self-destructs but then a new organization begins to bring together more and more elements as the bulk and functions of the tree come together. So in this case we do not see entropy but syntropy. (Entropy can be seen in the neighboring elements/soil as it transforms to feed and become the tree.) This growth (gaining bulk, life, form and function) process will continue to accumulate and concentrate up to where a preponderance of entropic events occurs resulting ultimately, over time, in the disintegration of that builded up previously. Entropy and syntropy always exist together in a dynamic balance of forces first one then the other predominating. Which by the way could be a time measure from beginning of birth through syntropic preponderance to and through the entropic preponderance and eventual cycle termination - one big happy cycle from birth to death. By extension an atom can entropy itself into a reduced state/condition losing electrons (which according to some don't really exist; an electron being a unit of measure; i.e., least amount of electrical force) but another atom could syntropy itself into something new by gathering in that electron in a formative event.

[SIZE="3"]Thanks for the kind words. I developed that explanation of energy, matter, space, time, gravity, and how they figure into relativity, in order to make the subjects more palatable for the non-science person. It's a problem for many when they hear those topics discussed in terms of only how they affect reality or are measured, and using terms people don't understand.

I also don't think the average person can grasp relativity because they can't see how energy, time, space, matter, and gravity are all part of the same underlying ground state condition. You can't affect one without all the others adjusting in some way, which indicates there is some sort of "oneness" at the foundation of existence we've not yet discovered (and may never find -- through science anyway).

Then there's the problems of BIG misconceptions about energy and time, being mystified by gravity, thinking space is a void, etc. Few people, if asked, would say energy is merely a measurement concept; most think atoms are made of energy, and so energy is a substance of some kind. Time, IHMO, is the most misunderstood of all concepts because we project our sense of things disorganizing (especially our own body and those people we know) onto reality. We think there is some sort of realm of reality, a dimension even, that passes or can be moved around it, when time is nothing more that our awareness of physical change and the various ways to count the rate of that change. You say you use celestial cycles to count, but any regular cycle could be used (such as that of a cesium atom).

Gravity too is a huge mystery. Some talk about it in terms of, say, the Higgs field, then bring bosons into it, etc. . . . leaving behind the average thinker. But if you just look at how gravity behaves, it does seem to constrict in the presence of mass or the movement of mass. It is easier to imagine space as field that reacts to mass than it is to try to understand the workings of bosons.

I personally think other factors, like the constancy of light speed and Planck's constant, are also are connected to the same field gravity shows up from. We call it "space" but it has enough substance to it to regulate with unflinching consistency the limits of speed, the response to mass, and precisely what quantity of energy is allowed per transition.[/SIZE]




[SIZE="3"]So, how would you answer my question about the traveling twin? Even though her clock and body only indicated a year had passed (while 20 had passed on Earth), would she have some intuitive sense it was the longest year she'd ever experienced? If so, what might that tell us about the nature of consciousness?

My own answer is she would notice intuitively, and that's because consciousness is not physical, but something more basic from which both physicalness and consciousness emerge. If we don't have something "most basic" (as a ground state substance and ground state conditions), then there seems no way to avoid duality, or resorting to choosing between pure physicalism or pure mind.[/SIZE]

Personally I feel relativity is a bit over rated and over emphasized. Yes, it is valid as a perspective or a point of view of what is going on and its perception and meaning. And then, I feel, there is a lot more/else going on in our universe we might want to take a look at.

I believe the universe and our experience of it is all One Continuum appearing in gradients of energy/matter. I laid out the basic idea in a graphic (that needs a bit of touching up but is mostly accurate). Other charts are being prepared to show other aspects and/or more detail.

SVP Universal Cosmology - Part 1 of 17

On the right is undifferentiated consciousness labeled Aether*. On the left is it's opposite state of pure condensed Matter at carbon. The chart runs counter clockwise showing matter forming syntropically from idea or consciousness into solid matter by countless degrees of contraction then entropically devolving back to where (the state) it came from through countless degrees of dispersion. In this way all matter/energy/states/conditions are connected to everything else yet retaining discrete individuality.

*SVP - John Worrell Keely's Sacred Science