A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Feb 2010 09:26 On 2/16/10 5:41 AM, JT wrote: > Idiot a distance is the spatial separation between two points, a > length is the spatial extension of an object, a unit is a comparisson > tool, a length*unit* should be a spatial comparisson tool. > > A meter as defined by modern physics is a circular definition an ECDT. Distance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Distance.html Unit of length (meter) http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html JT--you should read these to clarify your understanding.
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 10:24 On Feb 16, 12:10 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 4:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. > > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > > nonsense. > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > > absurd nonsense. > > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste > > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755? He's > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little > > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world-- > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad, > > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life? > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think > > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing. > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them? > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious. > > > Sometimes I ask myself the same question. > > Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my > question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors > in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future > determining the past? And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that it's absurd? > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either. You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd, just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion.
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 10:25 On Feb 16, 12:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 4:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 3:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. > > > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > > > nonsense. > > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > > > absurd nonsense. > > > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too.. > > > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste > > > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755? > > > > You really believe the reason for the observed behavior in a double > > > slit experiment are because the future determines the past? > > > It doesn't hinge on what one chooses to believe. You think it does. It > > doesn't. > > 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit > experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and > of itself 'waves'. It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe. > > In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are > required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining > the past. > > Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave > there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which > in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to > believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past. > > > > > He's > > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly > > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little > > > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of > > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond > > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world-- > > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad, > > > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for > > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life? > > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and > > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up > > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really > > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think > > > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of > > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing. > > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them? > > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious.
From: BURT on 16 Feb 2010 23:35 On Feb 16, 8:31 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 7:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the > > > > > > spaceship. > > > > > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time: > > > > > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre > > > > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the one > > > > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for > > > > > > light > > > > > > to > > > > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this > > > > > > manner > > > > > > be c or some other value? > > > > > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top? > > > > > > _________________________________ > > > > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether. > > > > > The the tabletop is the train. > > > > > __________________________________ > > > > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my > > > > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some other > > > > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it? > > > > How is the tabletop able to move at 'v' with respect to the aether? > > > > It's on a train.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Nothing shrinks. There are no flat atoms. The aether is stationary for > > space but flows for energy.. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Light comes goes in and out of matter while time is flowing. Light > order must them be associated with the flow of time.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space flows through matter in the case of gravity.
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 10:53
On Feb 16, 6:59 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 16 Feb, 03:28, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I can give you a simple example of the rotation I've just described.. > > > > Accellerate an object. That's a rotation. The only reason people do > > > > not recognize it as such is because we can't step back and see the > > > > geometry of the 4 dimensional universe. > > > > As I said, the real world existed long before geometry. > > > You seem to insist that 4 dimensional spacetime is some abstract > > philosophical thing when really, it's nothing of the sort. The real > > world exists as a 4 dimensional manifold. That's not dependent on > > mathematical tricks. You have a four dimensional space. We call one > > of those dimensions time. > > > You percieve a 3 dimensional world. But you have to realize that's > > only your perception and that the universe exists outside of your > > perception. > > No we don't perceive a 3D world. We perceive a 4D world, and have done > since the beginning of time (as it were). That's what I'm saying to > you: the real world existed long before geometry. And geometry is just > a mathematical formalisation of basic concepts that were already > physically obvious to anyone who ever considered the issue. You are quite right! But it turns out we've made some erroneous presuppositions about that 4D world. In fact, the presupposition we had has a fairly tight specification. We had the notion that the universe was structured as what's called a "fiber bundle" (it's a mathematical term), with 3 spatial dimensions and an *independent* time dimension. This expresses itself in certain ways. For example, two observers in relative motion can label coordinates in 3 spatial and 1 time dimensions in several possible ways, and it's possible to make diagrams that show those relationships. One possible way is the "fiber bundle" way that says that the distance between two events in space and time (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) will be the same for both observers, and this can be traced to the *independence* of the time dimension. Another possible way is the Minkowski manifold way that says that this distance will be different between two real events for both observers. At this point, it's simply a matter of seeing which one of these presuppositions is right by experimental test. > > > > > It's the same with SR. The fault is your perceptions, not the > > > > explanation. > > > > No the fault is that you don't (or most probably can't) tailor your > > > explanation to the audience. I dare say the next time someone asks for > > > a "physical explanation", you'd do better to just say "I don't > > > understand relativity in those terms", and then everyone knows where > > > they stand. > > > I understand relativity in the actual terms of the way the universe > > really works. You're looking for something that conforms to your > > specific desires, which relativity does not. > > > Let's try it this way: what about the picture I drew for you do you > > not think could represent physical reality? > > I never said it didn't *represent* physical reality, at least in some > way. But my ability to understand requires me to translate that > representation into something physical and concrete. You'll find that this chaining of representations to objects that you are already familiar with prevents you from discovering much that is wholly new and unfamiliar. > The idea that the > representation means anything in itself is just absurd to me. > > > > > > > > But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's > > > > > supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation. It's a bit like > > > > > "light follows a groove in space" - the supposed concrete analogy > > > > > actually introduces more confusion. > > > > > It's not just an analogy, it's a physical reality. Look at the > > > > picture I drew you. It means exactly what that picture shows (except > > > > in Minkowski spacetime, rather than euclidean). > > > > It *represents* something in the real world. It is not physical > > > reality itself. At least, it isn't for people like me. > > > It represents rotation, just like when I tell you that I rotated a > > pole, that also represents a rotation. You just don't understand that > > the two things are the same. You insist that they must be different > > but in reality, they are not. They don't look quite the same to you > > because of your perspective. It's exactly like the flatland example I > > gave before. If you have people that live on a little, flat world > > sitting in our 3 dimensional space, who can only percieve the things > > that exist inside of their little 2 dimensional world, when something > > rotates into that third dimension, they'll go "what the heck just > > happened? That doesn't look like any rotation I've ever seen." > > But there is no such thing as a two-dimensional "flatland" in reality. > This is much like saying "imagine a place that is not real with people > who are not real, and imagine what reality would look like to those > people" (which I can only say is unimaginable), and then using this as > some sort of proof of a "hidden reality" that is not apparent to > people who *are* real. As I say, the four dimensions have been with us > since the beginning of time, and people have in one way or another > recognised their physical existence since the beginning of time. As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third dimension? This turns out to be very answerable. And since it is answerable by prescription in that case, one then appropriately asks whether we should be applying the same prescription ourselves? Likewise, one can also ask, how would someone who believes that a 2D surface is flat become aware that it is NOT flat, other than by exploiting information from a third dimension. This, too, turns out to be very answerable. And this also means that we can also ask the same question, and get the same answer, about whether our four dimensions are flat. > > > > > > > The picture I made for you wasn't supposed to represent an analogy--it > > > > was supposed to represent physical reality (except with a slightly > > > > different metric--but we don't need to worry about that just yet). > > > > If you don't recognise geometry as being an abstract *representation* > > > of the physical world, as opposed to the physical world itself, then > > > that is a clear difference in our understandings - and it's a > > > philosophical difference which will not be reconcilable. > > > It's no more or less geometry that showing you a picture of a pole > > that's rotated in our regular 3 dimensional space. It's no more > > abstract than that. Why do you insist on calling it something more > > abstract than that? The picture I showed you is exactly the same > > thing. > > > Relable the axes x and y, instead of x and t. Now can you agree that > > it's simply a picture of a rotated pole? Now, suddenly if I switch > > the axes back to x and t, does it magically become more abstract just > > because I changed the labels? > > No, both are abstract. The difference is that a rotation in the y-axis > translates into something quite physically different than a rotation > in the t-axis. I gather that what you're saying here is not so much that it's abstract, but that you cannot see it yet. That's ok, there's more than one way to explain it. Remember the key is to dispense with noncentral details and to focus on what the *essence* of rotation means. It is likewise impossible to get a camel to look like a whale, unless you ONLY focus your mind on what being a mammal means. |