Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post Reply
User avatar
Nautilidae
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:10 am
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Nautilidae » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:06 pm

dj357 wrote:i can't really formulate it without figuring out if my approach is correct or not. if you glanced through Farsight's topic you may noticed a line that say you can't "unevent an event" and that's pretty much what I'm talking about. If you take a caesium clock, and I'm too jaded to figure out which runs faster or slower, but take a caesium clock on earth's surface and place an identical one in orbit directly above the other one. let's pretend that the one in orbit goes faster. let's go crazy and imagine it goes twice as fast. so, it takes one second for 9 billion or so periods to occur on the surface clock and it takes 0.5 seconds for the same number of periods to occur (let us imagine, it's the principle that matters here) in orbit. Now, the details are different but this phenomenon is a certified fact, we all agree on that. What I'm positing is that the reason for this is because the gravitational fields and whatever else that is acting upon these clocks causes the particles in the orbiting clock to interact with each other at a different rate than that of the particles in the clock on the earth's surface.

just disconnect your Relativity-drive for a second, and just imagine for a second that time is NOT a dimension. So, here we have a world around us where everything that we understand to exist is made up of infinitely large numbers of particles that interact with each other based upon rules we just about understand, for the most part. We have two identical caesium clocks. We understand that approx. 9 billion periods (and we understand this concept also) occur in what we call one second, for us here on planet earth. Now, it is true to say that everything that occurs in the universe is due to the interaction of matter and energy, yes? Ok, so now, we take our second caesium clock and place it in orbit above our first clock and we see that they run at slightly different rates. Now, we also understand the concept of gravitational fields and acceleration etc... and we imagine that a gravitational field works upon objects like an acceleration. With all these concepts and all these understandings, how do we explain the difference between the two clocks calculation of time?

Do we imagine ourselves as existing not only in the 3 dimensions of space that we can map out mathematically, through which we can move, not just in theory, but in practice, but also as existing in a fourth dimension called "time" which we imagine carries us from one state of the universe to the next, which describes, for example, the orbit of an electron around it's nucleus OR do we postulate that the gravitational fields and accelerations acting upon the clocks affect the rate at which the interactions of the particles that make up these clocks occur...?

Now, before you say "ok, that's a nice story, but the maths works for time as a dimension and it explains the way things work when we look at examples of relativity at work e.g. length contraction, time dilation etc..." stop for a second. Is it not possible, that the conceptualisation of time as a dimension works mathematically because we frame it in such a way that we can move through it just like space? Take the example given before of the two cars travelling to the same point at different angles. The explanation is that one is travelling additionally through an extra dimension which takes away from it's travel in the other dimension. However, when you examine the situation, both cars travelling at the same speed will arrive at different times because the distance they have to travel is different. Now I understand it was used as an example to help visualise time as a dimension but it can help to visualise the way we examine time.

Let's take the phenomenon of length contraction. There was a good example of it on the anti-telephone link with the train cars and the light source. This one is actually rather easy. The fact that moving near the speed of light, as far as these theoretical situations go, does not change the fact that the light reaches both the front of the train and rear of the train at the same time. The fact that the observer watching the train goes by experiences a phenomenon whereby he sees the light reach one end before the other is irrelevant to our discussion of travel near the speed of light and our concept of time. In this area of science we seem to get all muddled up by observers and what they appear to see. What is actually happening when we see this length contraction phenomenon? The light that travels from the train, which is the only way we have to observe the train, reaches us in sufficient time for us to see a contraction of the length of an object moving past us, when in actual fact the length of the object has NOT changed. The way we observe events influences the way we perceive them and I put it to you, that time is NOT a dimension, but we have crowned it as such and made workable mathematics out of it because we have made an assumption that phenomenon that occur due to the method by which we observe the events in question influence the way the system works.

the image which has the graph being skewed one way and then the other highlights my point. Regardless of the order in which we see events based on relativistic motion, it doesn't change the fact that the events occurred in the order A->B->C. We see C happening before B and B before A in a certain situation because the method we to observe the event is not immune to misinterpretation.

We see a man a mile away hammer a post into the ground. A short time later we hear the sound. Do we thereby assume that both events occurred in the order we observed them? No. We examine the situation again on the level of atoms and particles and we see the man strikes the post which in turn imparts kinetic energy to the post which results in compression of the air around the striking point and the particles within the post resulting in the vibration of the air molecules in a radial direction outwards from the post. The light which reflects off the man travels faster than the speed at which the sound wave does and as such we experience the events in that order. But that does not imply that the order in which they occurred and the relative delay between the events is indicative of the way things played out on the particle level. If you are travelling near or at the speed of light, the fact that it does take a quantifiable amount of time for light to travel from the front of the train in it's current position to you so you can observe it is important because the light that makes it to your eye from the millimetre in front of where the train will be in the next instant could potentially fool you into thinking that the train is a millimetre shorter than it actually is.

sigh... now I need a frickin nap....
You seem misunderstand some basic concepts, although this is forgivable.

Special relativity is not based upon reaction time or how fast something arrives to an observer; it's based upon one frame of reference with respect to another frame of reference.

Time dilation is also already described by gravity in general relativity. Time for an observer in a frame of reference on Earth runs slower than an observer in a frame of reference in free space because the Earth-frame is in a gravitational field.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by colubridae » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:13 pm

Nautilidae wrote:
dj357 wrote:i can't really formulate it without figuring ......
You seem misunderstand some basic concepts, although this is forgivable.

Special relativity is not based upon reaction time or how fast something arrives to an observer; it's based upon one frame of reference with respect to another frame of reference.

Time dilation is also already described by gravity in general relativity. Time for an observer in a frame of reference on Earth runs slower than an observer in a frame of reference in free space because the Earth-frame is in a gravitational field.
Don't worry nautilidae.
He hasn't misunderstood anything.

:doh: :doh: :fp:
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
Nautilidae
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:10 am
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Nautilidae » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:20 pm

colubridae wrote:
Don't worry nautilidae.
He hasn't misunderstood anything.

:doh: :doh: :fp:
Oh. Well in that case, you are simply incorrect.

User avatar
dj357
Jehovah's Nemesis
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:32 pm
About me: absurdly creative twat
Location: Luimneach
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by dj357 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:21 pm

colubridae wrote:
Nautilidae wrote:
dj357 wrote:i can't really formulate it without figuring ......
You seem misunderstand some basic concepts, although this is forgivable.

Special relativity is not based upon reaction time or how fast something arrives to an observer; it's based upon one frame of reference with respect to another frame of reference.

Time dilation is also already described by gravity in general relativity. Time for an observer in a frame of reference on Earth runs slower than an observer in a frame of reference in free space because the Earth-frame is in a gravitational field.
Don't worry nautilidae.
He hasn't misunderstood anything.

:doh: :doh: :fp:
Would it kill you colubridae to either explain to me where I'm going wrong or just keep quiet? I'm not a f**king moron and I have shown nothing but respect for everything that has been explained thus far. The simple fact that I do not understand or have things arseways is no excuse to be rude. I find this just as frustrating as you do, so please, help, or leave.

ok, nautilidae, let's go over this once more. I'm standing on earth. You jet off to the other side of the universe near or at the speed of light. I stand in a cave ignoring everything but the water dripping down the walls until you return. You return and 5 days have passed for you, while I've starved in a cave for the past two weeks. Forget frames of reference. Forget observers. What caused time to run at a different rate for you?
"what good is something if you can't have it until you die..." - Greg Graffin
"in meinem Himmel gibt's keinen Gott!" - Till Lindemann
http://dj357.wordpress.com/ - my views on stuff
http://www.facebook.com/sinisterdivideband - my metal band

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Tigger » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:23 pm

dj357 wrote:
colubridae wrote:
Nautilidae wrote:
dj357 wrote:i can't really formulate it without figuring ......
You seem misunderstand some basic concepts, although this is forgivable.

Special relativity is not based upon reaction time or how fast something arrives to an observer; it's based upon one frame of reference with respect to another frame of reference.

Time dilation is also already described by gravity in general relativity. Time for an observer in a frame of reference on Earth runs slower than an observer in a frame of reference in free space because the Earth-frame is in a gravitational field.
Don't worry nautilidae.
He hasn't misunderstood anything.

:doh: :doh: :fp:
Would it kill you colubridae to either explain to me where I'm going wrong or just keep quiet? I'm not a f**king moron and I have shown nothing but respect for everything that has been explained thus far. The simple fact that I do not understand or have things arseways is no excuse to be rude. I find this just as frustrating as you do, so please, help, or leave.

ok, nautilidae, let's go over this once more. I'm standing on earth. You jet off to the other side of the universe near or at the speed of light. I stand in a cave ignoring everything but the water dripping down the walls until you return. You return and 5 days have passed for you, while I've starved in a cave for the past two weeks. Forget frames of reference. Forget observers. What caused time to run at a different rate for you?
It didn't run at a different rate for him, his time ran at a different rate for you.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
hackenslash
Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by hackenslash » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:37 pm

The real problem here is that you seem to think that we accept the conclusions of GR because the math works. This is not the case. We accept GR because the predictions that arose from treating time as a dimension were borne out by reality time after time after time. The reason for this is very, very simple: Time is a dimension.
Dogma is the death of the intellect

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by colubridae » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:37 pm

Tigger wrote:
dj357 wrote:
colubridae wrote:
Nautilidae wrote:
dj357 wrote:i can't really formulate it without figuring ......
You seem misunderstand some basic concepts, although this is forgivable.

Special relativity is not based upon reaction time or how fast something arrives to an observer; it's based upon one frame of reference with respect to another frame of reference.

Time dilation is also already described by gravity in general relativity. Time for an observer in a frame of reference on Earth runs slower than an observer in a frame of reference in free space because the Earth-frame is in a gravitational field.
Don't worry nautilidae.
He hasn't misunderstood anything.

:doh: :doh: :fp:
Would it kill you colubridae to either explain to me where I'm going wrong or just keep quiet? I'm not a f**king moron and I have shown nothing but respect for everything that has been explained thus far. The simple fact that I do not understand or have things arseways is no excuse to be rude. I find this just as frustrating as you do, so please, help, or leave.

ok, nautilidae, let's go over this once more. I'm standing on earth. You jet off to the other side of the universe near or at the speed of light. I stand in a cave ignoring everything but the water dripping down the walls until you return. You return and 5 days have passed for you, while I've starved in a cave for the past two weeks. Forget frames of reference. Forget observers. What caused time to run at a different rate for you?
It didn't run at a different rate for him, his time ran at a different rate for you.
By my count this has been explained to you seven times. and you have simply ignored it or said it isn't so.

As tigger said his time ran at a different pace for him than for you.

Before you repeat why, look back through the thread and you will see more than one post saying why.

I have praised you to high heaven.
I have encouraged you along with everyone else
I feel hurt and used. :cry: :cry: :cry:

That's not being rude. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I think your theory, worked on for five years, is tremendous.
Keep plugging you have nearly cracked it.
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
Nautilidae
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:10 am
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Nautilidae » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:38 pm

dj357 wrote:
colubridae wrote:
Nautilidae wrote:
dj357 wrote:i can't really formulate it without figuring ......
You seem misunderstand some basic concepts, although this is forgivable.

Special relativity is not based upon reaction time or how fast something arrives to an observer; it's based upon one frame of reference with respect to another frame of reference.

Time dilation is also already described by gravity in general relativity. Time for an observer in a frame of reference on Earth runs slower than an observer in a frame of reference in free space because the Earth-frame is in a gravitational field.
Don't worry nautilidae.
He hasn't misunderstood anything.

:doh: :doh: :fp:
Would it kill you colubridae to either explain to me where I'm going wrong or just keep quiet? I'm not a f**king moron and I have shown nothing but respect for everything that has been explained thus far. The simple fact that I do not understand or have things arseways is no excuse to be rude. I find this just as frustrating as you do, so please, help, or leave.

ok, nautilidae, let's go over this once more. I'm standing on earth. You jet off to the other side of the universe near or at the speed of light. I stand in a cave ignoring everything but the water dripping down the walls until you return. You return and 5 days have passed for you, while I've starved in a cave for the past two weeks. Forget frames of reference. Forget observers. What caused time to run at a different rate for you?
You cannot forget reference frames; they are fundamental to special relativity.

The reason for time dilation is motion. I am moving faster than you are. Wether or not you see it with your eyes is irrelevant; compared to your reference frame, I am experiencing time slower than you are. Even if you are sitting in a cave painting portraits of cats, you are still experiencing time faster than I. If I am moving faster than you are, I am experiencing time more slowly than you are. Wether or not you observe it with your eyes does not change anything.

User avatar
dj357
Jehovah's Nemesis
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:32 pm
About me: absurdly creative twat
Location: Luimneach
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by dj357 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:56 pm

Nautilidae wrote:
dj357 wrote:
colubridae wrote:
Nautilidae wrote:
dj357 wrote:i can't really formulate it without figuring ......
You seem misunderstand some basic concepts, although this is forgivable.

Special relativity is not based upon reaction time or how fast something arrives to an observer; it's based upon one frame of reference with respect to another frame of reference.

Time dilation is also already described by gravity in general relativity. Time for an observer in a frame of reference on Earth runs slower than an observer in a frame of reference in free space because the Earth-frame is in a gravitational field.
Don't worry nautilidae.
He hasn't misunderstood anything.

:doh: :doh: :fp:
Would it kill you colubridae to either explain to me where I'm going wrong or just keep quiet? I'm not a f**king moron and I have shown nothing but respect for everything that has been explained thus far. The simple fact that I do not understand or have things arseways is no excuse to be rude. I find this just as frustrating as you do, so please, help, or leave.

ok, nautilidae, let's go over this once more. I'm standing on earth. You jet off to the other side of the universe near or at the speed of light. I stand in a cave ignoring everything but the water dripping down the walls until you return. You return and 5 days have passed for you, while I've starved in a cave for the past two weeks. Forget frames of reference. Forget observers. What caused time to run at a different rate for you?
You cannot forget reference frames; they are fundamental to special relativity.

The reason for time dilation is motion. I am moving faster than you are. Wether or not you see it with your eyes is irrelevant; compared to your reference frame, I am experiencing time slower than you are. Even if you are sitting in a cave painting portraits of cats, you are still experiencing time faster than I. If I am moving faster than you are, I am experiencing time more slowly than you are. Wether or not you observe it with your eyes does not change anything.
ok, that's fine, I get that. so why do we then have to consider time to be a dimension...?
"what good is something if you can't have it until you die..." - Greg Graffin
"in meinem Himmel gibt's keinen Gott!" - Till Lindemann
http://dj357.wordpress.com/ - my views on stuff
http://www.facebook.com/sinisterdivideband - my metal band

User avatar
dj357
Jehovah's Nemesis
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:32 pm
About me: absurdly creative twat
Location: Luimneach
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by dj357 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:00 pm

colubridae wrote:By my count this has been explained to you seven times. and you have simply ignored it or said it isn't so.

As tigger said his time ran at a different pace for him than for you.

Before you repeat why, look back through the thread and you will see more than one post saying why.

I have praised you to high heaven.
I have encouraged you along with everyone else
I feel hurt and used. :cry: :cry: :cry:

That's not being rude. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

I think your theory, worked on for five years, is tremendous.
Keep plugging you have nearly cracked it.
praising me and encouraging me and being sarcastic when I'm wrong isn't exactly helpful, though I may have overstated the rudeness aspect, my apologies. but i'm not ignoring it or saying it ain't so, I'm trying to figure out why time has to be a dimension. it doesn't make sense. and yes, it should make sense. time as a dimension to you, clearly makes sense. either i'm wrong and I need time as dimension to make sense to me, or time isn't a dimension and I'm trying to make sense of what it is. I'd rather keep trying to see if the latter may be the case than give up and simply say "ok, I don't get it, whatever. better go to college, again"
"what good is something if you can't have it until you die..." - Greg Graffin
"in meinem Himmel gibt's keinen Gott!" - Till Lindemann
http://dj357.wordpress.com/ - my views on stuff
http://www.facebook.com/sinisterdivideband - my metal band

User avatar
hackenslash
Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by hackenslash » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:10 pm

dj357 wrote:I'd rather keep trying to see if the latter may be the case than give up and simply say "ok, I don't get it, whatever. better go to college, again"
That's not the way to go about it, and it certainly isn't the scientific approach. What you should do is try to address those details that you think don't work if time is treated as a dimension. That's certainly the way to go about replacing the paradigm. What you should do is to learn the details of the paradigm and then try to either break it or work out why the paradigm doesn't work for you. Bear in mind that, to replace the paradigm, you need to come up with something that not only explains everything explained by the paradigm, but also something that the paradigm doesn't explain. You haven't got a prayer of doing this until you understand why the paradigm is the paradigm, why it explains so much, and where the things are that are not explained by it. If you can do this, and continue on to replace the paradigm, your Nobel prize awaits. Seriously.

If you really want to understand why time as a dimension works, go back to my first relativity post and really absorb the details, because that explanation is the simplest I can think of, and I really have been wracking my brains trying to come up with a way to simplify it. In the meantime, I'm going to go back through the thread and see if I can't find the source of the malfunction.
Dogma is the death of the intellect

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by Tigger » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:12 pm

I like this, I think it helps?
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
dj357
Jehovah's Nemesis
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:32 pm
About me: absurdly creative twat
Location: Luimneach
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by dj357 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:24 pm

hackenslash wrote:
dj357 wrote:I'd rather keep trying to see if the latter may be the case than give up and simply say "ok, I don't get it, whatever. better go to college, again"
That's not the way to go about it, and it certainly isn't the scientific approach. What you should do is try to address those details that you think don't work if time is treated as a dimension. That's certainly the way to go about replacing the paradigm. What you should do is to learn the details of the paradigm and then try to either break it or work out why the paradigm doesn't work for you. Bear in mind that, to replace the paradigm, you need to come up with something that not only explains everything explained by the paradigm, but also something that the paradigm doesn't explain. You haven't got a prayer of doing this until you understand why the paradigm is the paradigm, why it explains so much, and where the things are that are not explained by it. If you can do this, and continue on to replace the paradigm, your Nobel prize awaits. Seriously.

If you really want to understand why time as a dimension works, go back to my first relativity post and really absorb the details, because that explanation is the simplest I can think of, and I really have been wracking my brains trying to come up with a way to simplify it. In the meantime, I'm going to go back through the thread and see if I can't find the source of the malfunction.
thanks for that slash, but I think I'm the malfunction. when I conceptualise these things in my head I'm inescapably drawn to the idea that time is not a dimension and is merely our perception of events on the atomic and sub-atomic level and even though the maths works for it, it's got to be suitable for our calculations but conceptually flawed. part of the problem is that I understand the concept of time as a dimension and why it works maths-wise, but it still doesn't sit right with me. I guess I'm going to have revisit college and actually study what the science and the evidence tells us and, as you mention, study the paradigm and try to work it out for myself and figure what, if anything, doesn't work. I clearly have no hope of going about it without doing all the proper coursework... :lay:

thanks for the patience though...
Tigger wrote:I like this, I think it helps?
thanks for that tigger, but that just compounds the issue, because to be it doesn't make any logical sense to be imagine that 4th dimension of duration as described in that video. to be that a simply a gigantic series of 'snapshots' of the normal 3 dimensions and the specific state of us in relation to them in any given moment. conceptually, it's brilliant. realistically, it doesn't fit. for me, at least.
"what good is something if you can't have it until you die..." - Greg Graffin
"in meinem Himmel gibt's keinen Gott!" - Till Lindemann
http://dj357.wordpress.com/ - my views on stuff
http://www.facebook.com/sinisterdivideband - my metal band

User avatar
hackenslash
Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by hackenslash » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:29 pm

dj357 wrote:thanks for that slash, but I think I'm the malfunction. when I conceptualise these things in my head I'm inescapably drawn to the idea that time is not a dimension and is merely our perception of events on the atomic and sub-atomic level and even though the maths works for it, it's got to be suitable for our calculations but conceptually flawed. part of the problem is that I understand the concept of time as a dimension and why it works maths-wise, but it still doesn't sit right with me.
You still have the same problem. It isn't because the math works, but because that's the way reality is. That it doesn't work for you is simply middle-world thinking. There is no other reason not to get it. Forget common sense, because common sense is not a reliable means of examining reality. The simple fact is that when we carry out experiments using this paradigm, they return exactly the results predicted by the paradigm. The caesium clock experiment is a fantastic example of this, and in reality, no other model can account for the fact that time slows for a body in motion from the perspective of an observer in another inertial frame.

Read the Brian Greene book I recommended. It deals with all of this beautifully.
Dogma is the death of the intellect

User avatar
dj357
Jehovah's Nemesis
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:32 pm
About me: absurdly creative twat
Location: Luimneach
Contact:

Re: Speed of Light and Energy...?

Post by dj357 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:33 pm

hackenslash wrote:
dj357 wrote:thanks for that slash, but I think I'm the malfunction. when I conceptualise these things in my head I'm inescapably drawn to the idea that time is not a dimension and is merely our perception of events on the atomic and sub-atomic level and even though the maths works for it, it's got to be suitable for our calculations but conceptually flawed. part of the problem is that I understand the concept of time as a dimension and why it works maths-wise, but it still doesn't sit right with me.
You still have the same problem. It isn't because the math works, but because that's the way reality is. That it doesn't work for you is simply middle-world thinking. There is no other reason not to get it. Forget common sense, because common sense is not a reliable means of examining reality. The simple fact is that when we carry out experiments using this paradigm, they return exactly the results predicted by the paradigm. The caesium clock experiment is a fantastic example of this, and in reality, no other model can account for the fact that time slows for a body in motion from the perspective of an observer in another inertial frame.

Read the Brian Greene book I recommended. It deals with all of this beautifully.
well it doesn't feel like middle-world thinking to me, since I'm talking about it on the atomic and sub-atomic scale, incorporating gravitational fields etc... but if I'm truly waaaaay off the mark, i'll just shut up and give colubridae the satisfaction of seeing me give up. as for the book, it's next on my list.
"what good is something if you can't have it until you die..." - Greg Graffin
"in meinem Himmel gibt's keinen Gott!" - Till Lindemann
http://dj357.wordpress.com/ - my views on stuff
http://www.facebook.com/sinisterdivideband - my metal band

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests