4
   

Is there a relativist in the crowd

 
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 01:04 pm
@rosborne979,
dalehileman wrote:
...that the time everywhere in the Universe is the same for all relatively stationary objects.

Quote:
Can you explain what you mean by that.
According to the assumption Ros that many objects in the Universe--say planets or even galaxies--are pretty much at rest with respect to one another (which might not be true), at any moment at one, it's the same moment at the others

Remember this isn't my assertion, it's only explaining to the best of my ability what I suppose the subconscious or subliminal assumption of many others

Carrying it a step further, I suppose that much thinking is based also upon the unspoken assumption that there really is a Stationary Reference Frame

https://www.google.ca/#q=universe+stationary+reference+frame
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 01:12 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
You're simply wrong. Read a book
Bran I've read quite a few, relatively

Forgive the pun

See my posting #……186 above
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 05:12 pm
@dalehileman,
It seems rather obvious that all universal objects experience the same moment even if they are separated by relativistic distances. But what significance do you take from that?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 05:45 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

...I suppose that much thinking is based also upon the unspoken assumption that there really is a Stationary Reference Frame

https://www.google.ca/#q=universe+stationary+reference+frame

Then it would be wrong. There isn't. Motion of an object has no meaning other than compared to another specific object.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 05:58 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
It seems rather obvious that all universal objects experience the same moment even if they are separated by relativistic distances. But what significance do you take from that?
It calls into question Ros certain aspects of time-at-a-distance if three different observers at the same time and location--Earth--have three different versions of what time it is on Mars, as I've pointed out above
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 06:01 pm
@Brandon9000,
dalehileman wrote:

...I suppose that much thinking is based also upon the unspoken assumption that there really is a Stationary Reference Frame

https://www.google.ca/#q=universe+stationary+reference+frame

Quote:
Then it would be wrong. There isn't. Motion of an object has no meaning other than compared to another specific object.
Of course Bran, You'll note that I had specified, "Remember this isn't my assertion, it's only explaining to the best of my ability what I suppose the subconscious or subliminal assumption of many others"
contrex
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 06:18 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
"Remember this isn't my assertion, it's only explaining to the best of my ability what I suppose the subconscious or subliminal assumption of many others"


That is nonsense. It is your assertion in the first place that the assumption is widely held. (Is your brain coming apart at the seams?). In any case subconscious (or "subliminal") assumptions are often very unreliable.

Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 06:37 pm
@dalehileman,
Dale, some questions for you...


Quote:
You'll note that I had specified, "Remember this isn't my assertion, it's only explaining to the best of my ability what I suppose the subconscious or subliminal assumption of many others"


Let's simplify that statement so it reads:

Quote:
It explains the assumption of others.


What assumption?

Who are the "others?"

========================


When you say "time at a distance" do you mean "time AS a distance?"


http://www.quantumtheorys.com/Distance-Time/index.htm


Quote:
ABSTRACT

Defining space and time in a manner that agrees more with an observer who measures distance and time with particles, I create a quantum theory of space and time which is more accurate than the special theory of relativity. This new theory, called distance-time theory, predicts the following quantum principles: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the probabilistic location of a particle, and the collapse of this probability once a particle is observed. These principles are derived mostly independent of traditional quantum theory, and they are intrinsic properties of time and space in distance-time theory. However, special relativity theory always gives a particle's exact location and speed. This relativistic result disagrees with the quantum principles previously discussed, but it agrees with classical physics. Special relativity theory is a classical theory, while distance-time theory is a quantum theory. Nevertheless, distance-time theory still predicts proven special relativistic results, and there are novel testable predictions made by distance-time theory.


===================

When you speak of Stationary Reference Frame, do you mean Spacetime?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Quote:
In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe. Mathematically it is a manifold consisting of "events" which are described by some type of coordinate system. Typically three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one temporal dimension (time) are required. Dimensions are independent components of a coordinate grid needed to locate a point in a certain defined "space". For example, on the globe the latitude and longitude are two independent coordinates which together uniquely determine a location. In spacetime, a coordinate grid that spans the 3+1 dimensions locates events (rather than just points in space), i.e., time is added as another dimension to the coordinate grid. This way the coordinates specify where and when events occur. However, the unified nature of spacetime and the freedom of coordinate choice it allows imply that to express the temporal coordinate in one coordinate system requires both temporal and spatial coordinates in another coordinate system. Unlike in normal spatial coordinates, there are still restrictions for how measurements can be made spatially and temporally (see Spacetime intervals). These restrictions correspond roughly to a particular mathematical model which differs from Euclidean space in its manifest symmetry.

Until the beginning of the 20th century, time was believed to be independent of motion, progressing at a fixed rate in all reference frames; however, later experiments revealed that time slows at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another reference frame. Such slowing, called time dilation, is explained in special relativity theory. Many experiments have confirmed time dilation, such as the relativistic decay of muons from cosmic ray showers and the slowing of atomic clocks aboard a Space Shuttle relative to synchronized Earth-bound inertial clocks. The duration of time can therefore vary according to events and reference frames.

When dimensions are understood as mere components of the grid system, rather than physical attributes of space, it is easier to understand the alternate dimensional views as being simply the result of coordinate transformations.



http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_continuum


Quote:
The space-time continuum is a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single idea. This spacetime is represented by a model where space is three-dimensional and time has the role of the fourth dimension.

If one follows the model of space that Euclid had, our universe has three dimensions of space, and one dimension of time. By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have simplified a good deal of theory, as well as described in a simpler way, the workings of the universe at both the levels of the very large (supergalactic) and very small (subatomic).
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 08:34 pm
What's next, doing surgery without studying medicine?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 08:44 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
It calls into question Ros certain aspects of time-at-a-distance if three different observers at the same time and location--Earth--have three different versions of what time it is on Mars, as I've pointed out above

You haven't pointed out anything Dale. Your descriptions of the three person view are so convoluted and inconsistent as to be meaningless. Until you can accurately describe your scenario, you haven't described anything.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 10:27 pm
@contrex,
(Is your brain coming apart at the seams?).Apparently

Quote:
In any case subconscious (or "subliminal") assumptions are often very unreliable.
Yes of course. I'm try trying to prove anything
anonymously99stwin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 10:47 pm
@dalehileman,
I'm not assuming you're obsession for proper procedure.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:04 pm
@contrex,
That is nonsense. It is your assertion in the first place that the assumption is widely held. (Is your brain coming apart at the seams?)

Possibly .

Quote:
In any case subconscious (or "subliminal") assumptions are often very unreliable.
Yes exactly
anonymously99stwin
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:10 pm
@dalehileman,
You must be another one of those psychotic.. individuals.

To think about given statement. I'm not serious. I don't know. Guess I'm wasting time.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:10 pm
@Butrflynet,
Quote:
Dale, some questions for you...
Okay

Quote:
It explains the assumption of others

Quote:

What assumption?


That time everywhere is the same

Who are the "others?" many of us

Quote:
When you say "time at a distance" do you mean "time AS a distance?"
No

Quote:
When you speak of Stationary Reference Frame, do you mean Spacetime?
No
anonymously99stwin
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:12 pm
@dalehileman,
So are you telling me you're not real? Or that you are.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:13 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
What's next, doing surgery without studying medicine?
Who, me
anonymously99stwin
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:14 pm
@dalehileman,
I understand I jumped into the conversation from no where. Boredom attacks it's weakest enemy.
0 Replies
 
anonymously99stwin
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:15 pm
@dalehileman,
I think I like you.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Feb, 2014 11:19 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
..the three person view are so convoluted and inconsistent as to be meaningless.
To the contrary Ros they're consistent exactly with the basis for the discussion of time-at-a distance
 

Related Topics

Relativistic mechanics - Discussion by Granpa
Tesla's take on relativity - Discussion by gungasnake
Cesium clocks??? - Question by gungasnake
Why c, revisited still again - Question by dalehileman
relativity - Question by alexjlaonnae
Does light have Mass? - Question by peter jeffrey cobb
simple relativity question - Question by ralphiep
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/12/2024 at 10:17:52