owl

Spyman: "Do you like Owl also reject Relativity and have your own personal diverging variant of that theory too?" I don't "reject Relativity" per se. (Cap for being an absolute?) I have not yet reconciled the well proven constant speed of light with the claim of relativity that, for instance, sun-earth distance actually changes with every possible near-light-speed frame of observational reference... or that, as per Lorentz transformation, the size and temperature of the sun actually changes, as extreme frames of reference claim. It is in fact absurd to believe that cosmic bodies move closer and further from each other just because it looks that way from a near-light-speed frame of reference. PS: Spyman ignored (and the standard model he belabors does not consider) the scale of the above model relative to our very small sphere of visibility deeply embedded in the "rubber" of the expanding balloon membrane. If we can nowhere near see to the inner or outer extreme of the "rubber's thickness," of course what we can see will and does appear isomorphic and homogeneous.

First, apologies to HampserPower for my part in hijacking this thread... It seemed to be lying dormant.... Of course there is no end to space! I jumped in here with a logical argument to that effect. What boundary? What beyond the imagined boundary? Nonsense. .. "and beyond that?... But I want to address the following: View Postdragonstar57, on 15 January 2011 - 10:31 AM, said: so is space really expanding or are the things in it moving away from each other in an already infinite space? IMHO, if space is expanding, it has to have bounds." ............... (sorry, don't have the hang of quote boxes/tools) No one is asking "What is space?"... assuming (with Einstein, et. al) that "it" is some kind of medium (not just 'empty' space) that expands and is bent/curved and all. How does infinite emptiness expand? It is not presently codified by the most popular cosmologists, but I think that "the things in it (space... are) moving away from each other in an already infinite space?" To the last comment above: If space is emptiness, it is no-thing, not even an "it' to expand. And, as above you can not imagine an end to empty space. It must, by reason of 'no possible end' be infinite! What expands, as I envision it and contrary to popular 'wisdom' is the whole 'shebang' from the Bang... all matter/energy/plasma and the forces they generate... all expanding as the cosmic fireworks explosion... but within a 'shell' of thickness beyond which we can not see. (It's all isotropic and homogeneous as far as we can see from here... within the thickness of the 'rubber membrane of the expanding balloon.') ...For what it's worth. Cosmology is the turf of visionaries. No proofs available for what is beyond our "cosmic event horizon"... as far as we can see. But some things are obvious... to me... meaning 'all of the above.'

I was looking for a straight answer about the distance between sun and earth in the real world compared to what a near-light-speed-traveler would see approaching and whizzing by our system. There is a consensus among astronomers about that distance from earth's frame of reference. So I was wondering how relativity theorists justify the claim that the distance really does vary just because it would be "seen" to vary by the above high speed travelers. Also that, according to Lorentz transformation, the sun actually shrinks and changes temperature "as seen from" the above near-light-speed extremes. You can not say that what the rocket jockey sees at near light speed makes the earth move closer to the sun. that is just nonsense! Likewise that the Amazing Lorentz transforms the actual size and temperature of the sun. Total nonsense! Finally, if a guy goes left 540 million miles and a laser goes right 670 million miles, both in the same hour, the guy is just wrong if he thinks that, since his travel and the light's travel total 1210 miles, that light traveled 1210 miles an hour. That figure is the total sum of distances traveled by him (to the left) and by light (to the right.) I can not be more clear. If that is confused, then I am confused.

Two questions posted above today. Anyone? (post #223)

We have beat the stick men to death to no avail. I want direct answers to direct questions about sun-earth distance. Does it change with changes in inertial frames of reference from which it is measured? If so, why do we not experience heating up and cooling down because of the changing distance? Also, does "Lorentz transformation" actually claim that the sun changes size and temperature as measured from "different frames of reference?"

You can dress the little guys up in cute costumes and make them do the tango as they make their moves, but that will still not contract the lengths traveled just to keep lightspeed constant, which it is. If you say a guy goes 540 million miles in an hour and a light beam goes 670 million miles an hour in the opposite direction, the total, 1210 million miles does not mean that light traveled 1210 million miles in that hour. It's just that simple, no matter how it looks from "left guy's" frame of reference. But to bring it back to the real world... I'll just stick to "length contraction," in this case, the old familiar distance to the sun. (Understood, it varies with earth's position in it's elliptical orbit.) If extreme frames of reference from which that distance is measured actually made the distance change, earth would actually move closer and further away from the sun, as some "fly by at near lightspeed" measures would indicate. But we do not fry or freeze as if we actually moved way closer or way further away from the sun. So, if we can abandon our little stick figures for a moment and deal with asrtonomical reality... as distance to the sun... If all this length/distance contraction were the real thing in the real world, how come we don't get the ice and fire effect above as the distance changes... depending, of course, on extreme inertial frames of reference as "just as valid/accurate" as our close up and relatively at rest frame, from which we get all that astronomical consensus about sun-earth distance

feb 25 post 126 Iggy: "Get two metal rods that are each 540 million miles long. Lay one to your left, pointing to your left, and another to your right, pointing right. Send someone down the length of each rod at 540 million mph. After one hour each person will be at the end of each rod. Yes? Everyone will agree on this, yes? mar 1 post 182: You introduce the laser as a red arrow originating from the center, or central stick figure. You say: "Good. Thank you. Only two more questions then. If they shoot a laser to the right at the onset, then after an hour everything is positioned like this? You conclude that post with a graphic showing the laser to have traveled 670 million miles to the right while left and right guy each traveled 540 million miles in opposite directions. You show 1210 million miles between left guy at end of his rod and light beam to the right after its hour of travel. You say: "Do each of our thought experiment cosmonauts agree that this is the position of everything?" I reply "yes," that I'm good with that picture. Then in your next post, mar 2, post 186 you you contradict what I agreed to and claim I am contradicting myself, as follows: " The distance between the left guy and the light changes 1210 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 1210 million miles per hour. The distance between the center guy and the light changes 670 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 670 million miles per hour. The distance between the right guy and the light changes 130 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 130 million miles per hour. By assuming that distance, time, and simultaneity are constant (in other words, those things are the same for all observers) we have found that the speed of light is not constant (it is not the same for all observers). Since you have said that you believe the speed of light is constant you should see that you are contradicting yourself." The 1210 million miles is not, by your graphic, how far light traveled in that hour. To beat a dead horse, left guy went 540 million miles left of center, and light went 670 million miles right of center in that hour.Your conclusion, " He finds the speed of light to be 1210 million miles per hour."... is ridiculous, and your claim that I agreed to it is even more ridiculous So in your last post you write: "The laser was fired by the guy on the left from his position." The record shows that it was fired from the center, by your own account. Then I wrote (yet again): ......... I said that, no matter what left guy thinks he sees, the distance between him and the end point of the light after an hour is 1210 million miles, BUT light did not travel 1210 million miles in that hour... obviously. ....... And finally you replied: "Those two statements contradict each other and you are incapable of understanding why. If someone shoots a laser and one hour later the light is 1210 million miles away then the speed of the laser is 1210 million mph. If you don't understand that then you don't understand what "speed" is which I think is probably the case." As the above history shows, you are confused. If someone (center guy) shoots a laser to the right, and it goes 670 million miles in an hour, and another guy goes left at 540 million miles an hour for the same hour and turns around and sees that the distance between his position and laser's end position is 1210 miles, if he concludes that it traveled 1210 million miles in that hour, he is as confused as you are. I'm done with it.

A piece at a time: Me: "I spoke of how insubstantial light is, as an explanation of how a speeding ship can not "push it faster" than "C," as per ship's velocity plus "C."" Iggy: "An airplane also doesn't "push" sound faster the faster it goes. That isn't the point of relativity. It's completely beside the point." Whose point? My point was that, unlike the cumulative speed of a bullet and a speeding ship that fires it straight ahead, a speeding ship firing a laser straight ahead will not add the ships velocity to the light's speed. Point: "C" is constant and will not go faster because of the ship's velocity. "The Michelson-Morley experiment showed no such global overview." No kidding! That experiment shows local frame of reference perspective. I'm presenting global or "overview" perspective... non-local. "In reference to what do you consider light to always travel with the same speed?" You simply can not even imagine "life without a local frame of reference." You are totally deaf to what I'm saying. Light travels through space, whether past different viewpoints or just plain going through empty areas of space... at the constant speed, "C" in whatever units... 670 million mph in recent context. Iggy: "In your thought experiment a person floats weightless in deep space. He shoots a laser and one hour later finds the beam 1210 million miles away.... If you cannot understand the contradiction between those two things then everything else is moot." Huh? That was YOUR thought experiment! A laser was fired to the right from a central point. One guy went right at 540 million mph (beside the point here) and another guy left at same speed. Light obviously went 670 million miles in the same hour that right and left guy went 540 million miles in opposite directions. That is how YOU presented the thought experiment. I said that, no matter what left guy thinks he sees, the distance between him and the end point of the light after an hour is 1210 million miles, BUT light did not travel 1210 million miles in that hour... obviously. His journey to the left accounted, obviously, for the other 540 million miles of distance. But I said this already, and now you are putting contradictory words into my mouth. There is absolutely no communication going on here!

I ME: "The universal speed of light has nothing to do with how substantial the speeding ship is. Light always travels at the same speed no matter what the speed of the ship.... The reason why we all talk about frame of reference ad nausium is because this conception works! Einstein's great vision of how the world behaves is not accepted by scientists because it is so clever (which it is), but because it gives such accurate predictions." First statement: Another example of your misinterpretation of what I said. I spoke of how insubstantial light is, as an explanation of how a speeding ship can not "push it faster" than "C," as per ship's velocity plus "C." I have repeatedly stated the same thing as your, "Light always travels at the same speed no matter what the speed of the ship." Yet you inform me of it anyway. Second statement: Of course it works for describing what local frames of reference "see." You have not even heard me. My point by point reply to the above very pedantic "Socratic" teaching devise was not even heard, as you all keep pounding on "see, it's all relative to frame of reference." 'FOR' is NOT ABSOLUTE. Regardless of the relativity doctrine that local point of view is all there is. My "thought experiment" from global overview was totally ignored.

Try thinking of time and space as follows: If all cosmic "stuff" disappeared (matter, energy, plasma... and the "forces" they generate, nothing would be left... one could say "nothingness" or emptiness. Of course this conflicts with the standard reification of space as a malleable medium (with uncertain ontology) or as an entity which curves, expands, etc. Then, same with "time,"... as "that (whatever) which clocks measure"... clearly a tautology which does not address the ontology of "time,"... "what is it?" So... the concept, "the beginning of time" is a result of "making something of it" beyond the obvious duration of events ... between one instant (now) and another... (now.) An eternal and perpetually cycling universe avoids this kind of problem... linear thinking and reification of space and time.

Ouch! do I detect more than a little hostility here? (I know you despise me, and I'm fine with that.) I have nothing against Ed Witten but, like as par for multi-dimensional theorists, its all esoteric/metaphysical after 3-D space (and time as a factor, but not a "dimension.) No ontological examination of what these dimensions actually are in "the real world." I am not, of course, an string/M-theory expert. I just found its development interesting all the way along. At one point, his eleventh dimension was not going down well with his colleagues. It has been many years, and I can not cite specifics, but it is common knowledge in the development of M-theory. Then, somehow, I don't know the details, it started to make sense in a way that integrated the seemingly conflicting varieties of strings. He was hailed as father of M. Good for him. As for Hawking: His "infinite mass density in a point of zero volume" still stands as the most absurd, pseudo-scientific quote ever, in my book. He did in fact endorse the M-theory book by Turok and Seinfeld, and as far as I can tell this was an abandonment of his cosmology built around a primordial singularity... with above "characteristics." You say: "I am quite confident that anything that you posted in any forum has had zero influence on Hawking and that he remains blissfully unaware of your opinion." I am sure you are correct. But it was just a few months between my criticism of the above absurdity and what I took to be abandonment of that as a cosmic origin in favor of M-theory. If you see it differently, shoot. And try not to choke on your condescension and animosity.

I agree that this is going nowhere. You guys will not consider an alternative to frames of reference (local viewpoints) as the only descriptions of reality we have. It is ironic that relativity is so absolutist as to claim that "everything is relative." So the "global reality" or overview I tried to introduce is simply ignored as you all pound away on frames of reference as the ultimate/only possible view of reality. I thought I had addressed SR reasonable. Regardless of how any frame of reference "sees it" it, in and of itself, an actual phenomenon independent of observation/viewpoint, light traves at the universal constant, "C." I do wonder why a speeding ship can't push it faster... but too insubstantial to push I guess. I also wonder why everone sees it going "C" regardless of the traveler's direction or speed. But if there were a transcendental perspective on the little skit, one would see it exactly as I said, point by point. But the absolutism of frames of reference perspective would need to be suspended first, and no one here can/will do that. I saw no reason to continue beating a dead horse with you, Spyman. Tedious repetion of "see, its all relative to frame of reference." Enough already.

I think I see reason for the discrepancy here. As I said in opening post 192, 3/3: "First, I am not debating SR, but rather arguing that local frames of reference do not describe the global reality of the situation." So we are really in two different "ballparks." If you are automatically dismissing my "global reality of the situation", then please just think of it as my counter thought experiment to the standard relativity stance that it all (the reality of the situation), always, depends on what different observers see from different frames of reference. Please re-read the post in reference above and reply to the "overview" of the situation as I presented it. Meanwhile, however redundantly, I'll reply to a few of your points. (All quotes, Iggy.) "I didn't specify who shot the laser because it doesn't matter." It matters from overview perspective that you specified its it origin at the central guy's position. "The guy on the left did not travel 540 million miles away from himself. We are saying that light must recede at 670 million mph from any inertial observer which includes all three people in this thought experiment. That is what a constant speed of light means." I didn't claim that he did. Impossible/absurd. He traveled 540 million miles away from center guy/position. From "global" or "overview" perspective (if you will bear with my "reality check" here) light always travels at "C", 670 million mph. That is what constant lightspeed means independent of who sees it from what frame of reference, if you can "think outside the frame" for just a moment here. "The speed of light, as figured by the guy on the left, is 1210 million miles per hour in this thought experiment." He is a confused stick figure guy in a confused thought experiment. In the overview (independent of the three FOR), and I am repeating, he actually went 540 to the left while light went 670 to the right of the central guy/point. The actual distance between the two end positions is 1210 million miles. Light did not travel 1210 million mph. "They can all three shoot a laser at the beginning, it doesn't matter. You have said that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source, so the rays need to stay together." I have said, several times (see my rocket man shooting laser straight ahead of a speeding ship) that that beam will still travel at "C", not "C" plus the ship's velocity. You lost me on the last phrase. What does, "so the rays need to stay together" mean? Left guy firing a laser to the left and right guy firing one to the right will still create light beams going in opposite directions at 670 million mph, not, of course, their velocity plus 670 million mph. "he guy on the left is no different from any guy that's floating in space. In this Newtonian thought experiment, he shoots a laser and one hour later the laser light is 1210 million miles away. This means that the laser receded from him at 1210 million mph." I've addressed this twice or more already. His velocity in opposite direction does not add to the laser's speed, but the distance between end points is clearly 1210 million miles. "But, that is not how the world works. The speed of light is constant/invariant which means that any person who is moving at a constant velocity can look at a ray of light that is moving away from them and say "that light is moving 670 million miles every hour away from me"." That is how "frames of reference" differ from "how the world works." "The world"/cosmos does not depend on our measurements from all possible different frames of reference. This is what I call a reality check. Distances between objects in "the real world" do not "morph" all over the map just because the "mappers" are seeing/measuring from all different FORs. "This thought experiment is different from the real world. The guy on the left cannot look at the ray of light and say "that light is moving 670 million miles every hour away from me"." Your first sentence nails it! I'll not keep repeating my response to the latter. "If distance and time are constant (meaning, everyone agrees on them) then the speed of light is not constant." The speed of light is constant. Left and right guy each traveled 540 million miles in opposite directions from center, while light, originating at center (all as stated in *your thought experiment*) traveled 670 million miles to the right... all in the same hour. Trying to make all of the above sound like light traveled 1210 million miles in that hour in violation of "C" is simply a bogus argument.

Yes, "nothing" is empty space, not to assert the absurd, that all space is empty. But we can distinguish every-*thing* existing *in space* from space as the empty volume in which all cosmic "stuff" exists and moves around. Seems the human mind can not tolerate the concept of no-thing-ness, emptiness. The collective mind of science seem to always assert that space "itself" is *something* and nothingness or empty volume is just not "allowed." There is a difference between all "stuff" and the space in which it all exists. (Side note: There can be no end to space. What boundary? What beyond this imaginary/bogus boundary? More space, ad infinitum.) You ask, "Why do universes need to recycle thru big bangs and crunches?" Well, "need" in this context seems to be simply a logical necessity if one refuses to accept the "magic" of all cosmic "stuff" just appearing out of nowhere/nothingness... or "empty space"... supposed to "originally" have nothing in it... but, somehow... Presto!... it all just appears, and, by whatever dynamic "goes bang" or "space" (emptiness) starts magically expanding. (Two levels of "magic" here. Space becomes *something which expands* and it does so without any reasonable cause.) So an oscillating cosmos allows that all cosmic "stuff" always existed and always will exist, as per the law of conservation of energy/matter. And, "where it all came from" is answered by gravitational reversal of outward expansion, i.e., It all just comes back and, after the "crunch" or "bounce" it "bangs" again, by whatever debatable dynamic. Finally you state: "However, a big crunch should result in a super-supermassive black hole, not a rebound." Given that some of our best scientific minds claim that the laws of physics break down within a black hole, I think the jury is still out out on that question. But... Since we have discovered that there is a supermassive black hole (SMBH) at the center of every galaxy (mature enough to have a bulge at the center), and each is sucking up all the stuff closest to it, many are wondering if galaxies recycle after all galactic material is sucked in to the SMBH. Do they "eat" and then somehow re-birth the consumed galaxy? How, the dynamic, is still all speculation. But we do have supernova explosions after star collapse... a possible smaller scale model of whatever it is that big fat SMBH's do after their galactic meal. And we have quasars spewing stuff out from their spinning axes... like squeezing their plasma/"stuff" back out into space. Fun to contemplate anyway even if we will never know for sure... or... ??

Iggy, I answered every point in your previous post, one point at a time and asked you to specify exactly where you think I went wrong. You picked one: "If you are floating in space and you shoot a laser and 1 hour later it is 1210 million miles away then the laser light is receding from you at a velocity of 1210 million mph." Left guy didn't shoot a laser. You are changing the scene to fit your predisposition. It came from the center point in the scenario and went in the opposite direction at "C", 670 million mph (traveling, obviously 670 million miles.) Left guy went 540 million mph in the opposite direction (traveling, obviously 540 million miles.) The distance between his end point and the laser's end point at the end of the hour was 1210 million miles. Light did not go 1210 million mph. Right guy didn't fire the beam of light either. It went, as above, 670 million miles in the hour while right guy went 540 million miles. Light, at 130 million mph faster than right guy, went 130 million miles further. Will you please show me where you think I am wrong in the above recap? PS: I am really tired of hearing how wrong I am without specifics, point by point showing, as requested exactly where you think I got "derailed."

I'll take this one step at a time, and then you can tell me where exactly I get derailed. First, I am not debating SR, but rather arguing that local frames of reference do not describe the global reality of the situation. (All quotes, Iggy.) "The distance between the left guy and the light changes 1210 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 1210 million miles per hour." The guy on the left has gone 540 million miles in the opposite direction from the light beam. Their speeds are not cumulative, as I said in a previous post where I fired two lasers, left and right, each independent of the other, each going, obviously at "C", not twice "C." So your last sentence above is false. His observation does not "see" the global picture. "The distance between the center guy and the light changes 670 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 670 million miles per hour." Yes. "The distance between the right guy and the light changes 130 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 130 million miles per hour." No. If he were firing the light beam as he traveled (540 million miles an hour") it would only gain 130 million mph, the difference between his speed and lightspeed. I covered this also in a previous post with a rocket man going nearly lightspeed firing a laser straight ahead. Same result as above. "Light can not be pushed and faster than "C." (I pondered why in same post.) Since the light beam and he started from center at the same time, they are independent velocities, his at 540 and light, as always, at 670 (million mph.) "By assuming that distance, time, and simultaneity are constant (in other words, those things are the same for all observers) we have found that the speed of light is not constant (it is not the same for all observers). Since you have said that you believe the speed of light is constant you should see that you are contradicting yourself." As above, I am not assuming that at all. Rather independent velocities, since the guy on the right, going 540, is not the light source. "The speed of light actually is constant in all inertial reference frames. The first good indication of this was with the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887. They assumed the world worked the way you described it and the way I drew it in the diagram. If the speed of light is c for one person then it would be c-v for another person who is moving with a speed v in the direction of the light." So, again, you misunderstand the way I think the "world works." Here it is again, frames of reference (FOR) claiming to be the ultimate perspective on the global (overall) situation described*. "FOR observer A vs FOR observer B." * Left guy went 540 million miles to "the end of his rod" in an hour. Right guy did the same in the opposite direction. Light, from origin at center, went right 670 million miles in the same hour, going 130 million miles further than right guy. What left or right guy "sees" does not change what I just said, nor is the constancy of lightspeed violated. "In other words, if Leonardo (the guy in the middle of the diagram) figures that light is moving to the right at 670 million mph and there is another guy floating to Leonardo's right at 540 million mph then the guy on the right would figure that the distance between the light and himself changes 130 million miles in one hour. That is what the diagram shows and it is intuitive." Right guy, from global perspective, would notice that light went 130 million miles further than he did in the hour. No problem. "What they found instead is that light moves at c for anyone in any inertial reference frame. It is invariant and constant. The guy on the right finds that the distance between the light and himself changes 670 million miles in one hour." See my last comment, same application here. Light traveled at 670. He traveled at 540. Light went 130 further. He was confused. "Albert Einstein explained the constant speed of light by making distance and time variable in special relativity. The invariant speed of light and the predictions of relativity are confirmed accurately and regularly with things like GPS." I am not questioning the predictions of relativity for differences in FOR! I am saying that any overview, transcending local FOR will still have constant lightspeed without the absurdity of changing distances to accomodate the differences between what observer A and observer B "sees." Earth-sun distance, as I have already beat to death, does not vary with... what observer A and observer B "sees." "In other words, you say that everyone in the diagram will agree that the distance between the guy on the left and the laser beam changes 1210 million miles in one hour. If fact, the guy on the left should find that the distance changes 670 million miles in one hour. " Again, he had an independent journey to the left. He ends up 1210 million miles from the end locus of the light beam at the end of the hour without the absurd assertion that it traveled 1210 million mph. Maybe this makes no sense to you. Maybe it clarifies. What do you think?

While we are waiting for Iggy to proceed with his agenda, I will again address the ontology of "time," specifically as asserted by I Me as a well proven entity, as follows: "We have all kinds of evidence with atomic clocks on airplanes, rockets, and satellites and numerous laboratory experiments that time does indeed slow down with motion" We KNOW that clocks "tick" or "keep time" differently in all kinds of different inertial/energy/gravitational environments. But you again repeat the litany that "time does indeed slow down with motion." Do you see the ontological fallacy of this often repeated assumption, asseting that time is an entity that slows down/speeds up?

Yes.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate"... ('Cool Hand Luke'.) I misunderstood what you meant by: "To do this you must assume that all of the people in the thought experiment are using your system of mechanics (absolute space, time, and present" I thought everyone contemplating your thought experiment on these boards were, "all of the people in the thought experiment." Way off, as I see now. Par for the course with our communication. So its about the stick figures believing as I believe! Well, that makes it easier. They will come to the end of their rods in the same hour, having each traveled 540 million miles. You hammer on... "If everyone in the thought experiment thinks like you do and believes like you believe then they all agree on the position of everything at the end of the hour, yes?" Yes, of course. They are my clones in your little skit here! My wrong assumption above threw me way off track. So, now we can proceed with the inquisition. But, to define terms, I differ with the usual (relativity) meaning of "absolute space, time, and present." The most simple meaning of space (before the post-Euclidian revolution) was emptiness... nothingness, no "thing" at all... not some "absolute" like the old "aether" (ether) or whatever. But I suspect that this version of space is just too simple to understand! We just *must* make "something" of it! Time, is no "thing" either, as I've argued to death on these boards. The present being always present is very hard to argue with, but many do. Or they think "time" is some kind of local "environment," even though it's all about clocks' variation in rate of "ticking" or "time keeping." Now everywhere is obvious. No argument with the fact that "it takes time" for light/information to travel from one place to another. Just to keep clear on definitions.

Yes. Both are at the end of their rods, and I am about at the end of my patience with this pedantic little exercise of yours. Why don't you just make your case from beginning to end? I really don't see the point in belaboring it all, like, "If everyone in the thought experiment thinks like you do and believes like you believe..." Of course they don't. But I don't know what other people believe.... 'cept that rod length changes with velocity of observer, etc., which I consider absurd. (No doubt that "observed rod length changes."

Iggy: "I asked two questions in my last post that were not ambiguous at all. If you will please indulge me with two very simple and direct answers." I presume you are referring to the quote below and that the second question is, "Everyone will agree on this, yes?" "Get two metal rods that are each 540 million miles long. Lay one to your left, pointing to your left, and another to your right, pointing right. Send someone down the length of each rod at 540 million mph. After one hour each person will be at the end of each rod. Yes? Everyone will agree on this, yes?" Ok, so you insist on your metal rods rather than my simplification where each just goes 540 million mph for an hour in opposite directions. (Good grief!) Maybe the rods make the distance traveled more tangible for you. Whatever! Either way, each traveler goes the same 540 million miles in opposite directions. Yes, "After one hour each person will be at the end of each rod." No, I don't think everyone will agree, because some of you believe in "length contraction," by which, in some manner, because of the velocity of each traveler relative to each rod, I think, relativity theorists actually believe that somehow each rod becomes shorter. Please now answer how this is NOT subjective idealism ("subject" being frame of reference): Measurement from frames of reference at high velocity (our travelers) actually changes the reality of what is measured. Another challenge you never answerd but to say, that, no, relativity is not based on subjective idealism... that with no explanation or further comment.) OK, I have now answered your two question and have, I would think, a right to reciprocation vis-a-vis my six replies above. Forgive me for I have sinned in that I do not accept everything about relativity as absolutely true! You have spoken Ex-Cathedra as a True Believer in the doctrine of relativity. Anyone questioning the dogma is a heretic and a fool. You don't even bother to engage in the conversation enough to address the specifics in my last post. Oh well. I see new developments on the horizon in which good ol' Euclid might find a new respect among relativity theorists, but you will not be among them. Your mind is made up, and you are not about to waste your time with a fool like me. Such fundamentalism right here in science!

More old business, and then back to "Iggy's two questions." Dr Rocket: "In general relativity, space is NOT a 3-D volume and time is NOT duration between two chosen events." In the spirit of ontological inquiry, I have been questioning some of the basic assumptions of relativity about the nature of space and time starting with the transition from Euclidean 3-D space to non-Euclidean 4-D spacetime.) If you were to approach this as a respectful dialogue (which you don't) you would not assume the correct status of a "4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold, spacetime." By assuming the premise as true and established, you totally avoid the discussion, sounding like an arrogant, omniscient one, condescending to declare: "Owl is not even in the ballpark*. He is talking to himself" ...because I don't accept the dogma of a "4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold" as established beyond all doubt. (* I am comparing the "ballparks" of Euclid and post Euclid.) I have actually presented the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry on these boards in some detail with special focus on how intrinsic curvature in one conceptual manifold is "transformed" into extrinsic curvature in another manifold. In this regard, I quoted at some length from Kelley Ross's essay on The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry. You have sucessfully ignored the whole issue and stuffed me in a category in your mind for one who just doesn't understand relativity. Your first statement above is not an absolute truth just because it is now so well accepted in the relativity community. Here is the most brief summary in contradiction of that dogma: Space is volume described by three axes or dimensions (though, beyond defined borders, there is no end to space... another reference to the title of this topic.). Time can be designated as the duration between two instants, from one "now" to another... or it can be seen as the ongoing "elapsed time" of any/all events . Space and time are not necessarily combined as a new, post Euclidian, Lorentz-ian or Minkowski-an Reality, i.e., the post Euclidean leap is not "proven fact"... a new Reality, as you and most of relativity assume. That'll do for now.

I put a focused effort into my last post, but you didn't reply to any of it. Then you claim I am contradicting myself yet again with no explanation whasoever, like, for instance, the obvious, how exactly do my statements contradict each other? My original, "what is your point?" was intended to draw out from you what I suspect is your position... namely that added together the two velocities far exceed "C." My point, intended to come after your reply... which never came, was that each can go 540 million mph in opposite directions without violating "C" because they are independent velocities, not cumulative. So I came back and made that point with the two lasers fired in opposite directions, neither ,violating "C"... not a cumulative velocity. But you ignore what you want, most of what I say, and come back with more of the same. It will be a manufacturing nightmare to get two metal rods that long (lame joke), so lets just come back to a little more common sense way of saying it. Each traveler travels 540 million miles in the same hour in opposite directions. Neither is exceeding "C." Still asking, what is your point? And how about answering my previous six replies? Is your time and energy so very much more valuable than mine? I said: "This does not mean that I debate, for instance the Lorentz equations but rather their interpretation. NOW... Now on earth is the same "now" on the sun and everywhere." Lightspeed limit does not change that fact that NOW IS NOW everywhere, just because information takes time to travel from one place to another. Sysyphus replied: "These statements are contradictory. Events which are simultaneous in one reference frame are not simultaneous in any other reference frame. You are not just disputing an interpretation. Whether you realize it or not, you are disputing the demonstrable fact that relativity makes correct predictions." So you say. I say they are not contradictory. What does "length contraction" mean? It means that "Observer A" will see a rod, or sun to earth distance differently than "Observer B." That is the nature of separate frames of reference. It does not mean that the distance between earth and sun actually changes each time it is measued from a different frame of reference, or that a given rod length actually changes for the same reason. Just for once, address what i just said. I aksed, rhetorically: "Are we so human/measurement centered that we no longer credit the cosmos with an existence independent of observational perspective?" Sysyphus replied: "Nobody in this thread is making any such claim." Then explain how sun to earth distance changes with each different frame of reference, and same for a given rod length. Edited to spell Sysyphus name correctly... and more on NOW.

Time to get back to old, unfinished business. The above post will do. I'll just refer to statements/paragraphs by order of appearence above. 1:Obviously. I contend also that they are "objectively correct," i.e., describing the space/distance between earth and sun as they are without the qualification, "for observer A, the distance between earth and sun is no longer... (take your pick of units/numbers on fact sheet previously quoted.) 2:Aside from compacting or stretching a rod physically, the statement, "length varies with velocity" though central to relativity theory, is no more cleary true (without any argument, or evidence, as stated above, than the statement, " a rod maintains an objective, as it is length regardless of velocity. (Your argument requires specifics, not just treatment as a given truth or axiom of relativity. We are back to basics here. Saying I am wrong does not make me wrong.) 3:Again, as above. Show me the argument. 4&5 can go together. They refer to my "solution" to Iggy's "test," as follows: (Even I can do elementary math, but of course this another SR trick question since nothing can travel faster that lightspeed, which is 671 million miles an hour. So if I add the 540 million mph of the guy going away to my left onto the 540 million mph of the guy going away to my right... I get a billion and 80million mph.... which somewhat exeeds the universal speed limit.... so.... what is your point given that I know what SR means?) You never specified your point. We both know SR sticks to the speed limit "C". Just because one guy is going 540 million mph one way and another is going the same speed in the opposite direction does not mean that the speeds must be added together to give a speed exceeding "C." If I fire a laser from my left and another in the opposite direction to my right, each travels, obviously, at lighgtspeed and each in opposite directions. There is no need or reason to combine speeds. They are independent and going in opposite directions. But... big "but"... If I'm on a ship traveling at near lightspeed and fire the laser straight ahead, it can only gain the difference between the ship's speed and lightspeed. This is SR, and that is why I said that it is clear to me that light can not be "pushed" any faster than "c", truly a universal constant. I shared my speculations as to why that is previously. I also asked two questions, as yet unanswered in that regard (the nature of light.) Why does a laser recoil when fired, and why does the famous box of mirrors gain inertia when light is introduced to bounce around? If we are talking about the nature of light, as above, why not address these questions in the process, maybe to actually consider why light can not be pushed faster by a laser on a speeding ship. (Whew! Long answer.) 6th and finally: I am presenting as coherently as I can, but your misunderstanding of what I say does not, as above, necessarily make me wrong. I requires specific debunking, to which I remain open, but "specific" does not mean repeating the primary "axiom" of relativity (may I call it that?)... " Space-time is an objective reality independent of various perspectives and frames of reference." Tell that to the esteemed members of the International Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime. They have been working on it for years and have had several conferences on spacetime ontology, and they have not yet arrived at a consensus on its status as "an objective reality." Such an asssertion, regardless of your unfounded certainty, does not mean you are correct in saying, "Your philosophical objection is therefore wrong." That's six, which will do for now.

I have unfinished business with Iggy from a continuing Q&A (both ways) on the previous page... But... Michel asked what I think about this more recent interchange. Maybe my answer will also address some of the previous exchange. In the first place, I am an old fart who has followed relativity since the transition from Euclidean to non-Euclidean geometry (yes, a bit after the fact!) and, as is well known here, I and others I've cited (some from the Interrnational Society for the Advanced Study of Spacetime) do not accept "space", "time" and "spacetime" for the "given-and-established" entities now central to relativity theory. It's all, "Well you clearly don't understand relativity. (No legitimate disagreement allowed!) This does not mean that I debate, for instance the Lorentz equations but rather their interpretation. Differences in measurement do not mean that there are actual differences in lengths of rods or distances between bodies as objects in a cosmos existing independently from the anomalies of measurement (from different FOR perspective), as I've said many times here. Enter "Philosophy of Science, Relativity Section." If space is 3-D volume, basically that "emptiness" in which all things and forces exist and operate... with no "end in sight," or even conceptually possible... Remember, before it became "something" which contracts, expands, has shape... curves, etc.),... and "time" is not "something" either... just duration between any two *chosen* instants, Then... The only factor in the actual 'dance' between earth and sun which makes the distance between them vary (as objects in an objective, not relative-to-measurement-and-lightspeed cosmos) is the elliptical orbit in which the distance varies from 91 to 94.5 (? or so) million miles. All the mind games of relativity do not make them move closer or further away from each other as objects in and of themselves (translation: "independent of FOR variations in measurement.") NOW... Now on earth is the same "now" on the sun and everywhere. Now does not depend on lightspeed, though getting information from one place to another obviously does. If Now there is a solar flare of note, we will be able to see it 8.3 minutes from Now. This is because, in terms of distance, sun is 8.3 light minutes from earth... obviously! That changes only as above with position in orbit. Now is the ongoing present everywhere, having nothing to do with the signal delay and lightspeed constancy at the heart of relativity. Philosophical/rhetorical question: Are we so human/measurement centered that we no longer credit the cosmos with an existence independent of observational perspective? This is longer than enough for a single post, but maybe enough for y'all to "get my drift" maybe better than before. Back later... still a lot more "bone to pick" with Iggy's condescending, Ultimate Truth, Relativity post(s).