michel123456

OK so far. But if observer 6 takes the time to travel till point C, he will observe the cow slightly changing from a reddish ccclrrrrrrrstowish thing into a cow. At some point he will not be able to go further and that's it. I find it so wrong to believe that observation from 6 is the same valuable as observation from C. And reversely if observer 6 extends his hands and takes the cow inside his own FOR, I seriously doubt he will obtain that reddish ccclrrrrrrrstowish thing. If he believes he will, then he made a mistake calculating the transform from one frame to another.

You are correct there is no symmetry in the twins paradox. As there is no symmetry in the Hafele-Keating experiment. Be our guest and post your explanations here.

I expected someone to give a reason for that. The satellite is supposed to have reached its planned orbit at the first Lagrange point or L1, about one million miles from Earth toward the sun. So the question goes, isn't L1 exactly on the line between Earth's center and Sun's center? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point And also Nasa's statement Is it accurate? Since the camera is not aligned upon the axis?

Is that the only point that bothers you in my post?

Yes Relativity has been shown to be correct to a fairly precise level. There is no discussion about that. But No, this is not what Relativity says. Relativity says that what is observed in a frame can be translated in what is observed in another frame. That is all. What more than that you believe it says, for example that what one observer IS "truly" happening, is not part of the equations of Relativity.

i disagree completely. Let me try to explain: 300 observers are looking at point C (the Cow, the center) One observer says the cow is white, the other blue, the other red, etc. They all get different informations about point C, BUT they have a great Theory that make them able to compare their measurements. So in the end they all agree that point C is a 4D object that IS at the same time red, blue, yellow, white, etc. But at the end of the conversation, one should realize that there is only one point C. There is a single intersection to the 300 lines of sight. There are not 300 different points C. This point C doesn't change color because it is observed 300 times. It may be that point C has no intrinsic color at all but there is only one reality which is that point C somehow exists. There are no 300 overlapping realities*, and putting measurements above that is madness. AND to me, there is a "best frame" between the 300 which is the frame that is exactly at the intersection. This frame measures proper length (1), proper time(2), proper mass (3 rest mass) in as much as possible present time(4). These are 4 reasons for putting this frame a better one. *That must be mathematically provable.

Soccer. Football. Alcohol. Sex. Drugs. Senility (getting older). Lobotomy. ----------- More seriously, if you read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes from the book (not the TV serie), the hero has a theory about memory that goes the way you are asking. But it is a novel, I doubt it works in real life. (I don't remember in which of the many stories) -------- A Study in Scarlet http://literature.org/authors/doyle-arthur-conan/study-in-scarlet/part-01/chapter-02.html http://www.sherlockholmes-fan.com/sherlock-holmes-trivia.html

You cannot know what reality is. Saying that reality IS what you measure is wrong. The best way to know what reality is about is the get closer to it the much possible. The farther you are, the more elusive it gets. but putting measurement ABOVE reality is wrong. the observer is constating (I'd like to translate this more properly) phenomenas. the observer has no power on reality (except when he makes an experiment in a lab). ---------- And you still believe that I don't understand.

This is outrageous wrong. Again you are putting the observer above reality. It cannot be that way. just because you are measuring something does not say that the thing IS that way. As I said before, the observer has no power to change reality. Except when he does, in a lab.

Then i must have misunderstood Swansont post What does that mean? That the ruler has changed after returning?

You didn't answer again. i see you master the technique to answer a question with a question.

It would be so easy for me to stop here and say oh yes you are right. But NO. Nothing in the equations of Relativity says anything like what we are measuring is "really' happening. It is an interpretation that some clever academics have provide as if reality was mystical. It is taking something simple and making it unnecessarily complicated. You were never a dumb student that could not figure out and suddenly "understood" with a click in your brain. You just became accustomed to the concepts that were put in your brain with the help of academic hammer. Please open your mind again. You have been contaminated .

Is the cow blue? 1. yes it is blue 2. no it is not blue Please.

There is proper mass too. there is also the fact that all observers will get the information delayed (because of c is not infinite), which means that only the frame of the object itself observes what is happening now. All the other frames will see what was happening.

So you say there is no one single reality. Is that it?

(Hijacking again) So. The situation is: we have a ruler, we send it to space and while traveling we are measuring it changing length, then upon coming back in our frame we are measuring that miraculously it has recovered its dimensions. And if there were an astronaut with the ruler at hand all the time, we could even get a signed testimony that the ruler didn't change during the travel. What makes us believe that the ruler did change at all and that it was not simply a kind of observational paramorphosis?

A simple answer would be great. 1. Yes it has changed 2. No it has not changed. Please.

Doesn't that mean that the satellite (the camera) is not exactly in the line between Earth and Sun?

So nobody answered the question.

Who will answer this question? Same question: if the observer imports the cow into his own frame, will the cow be blue?

"No one says that"??? Read again the threads from the beginning. I have not opened 3 threads. And I feel like having a medieval conversation. How is it possible to believe at the same time that every observer has a different view of reality and at the same time that a single reality does not exist. For all observations to take place, don't you need a starting point? "Something" that you observe ? And worse, believe that the distorted reality IS "really" distorted???? Just because you are observing it? It is insane.

I don't care about the one YOU see. Exactly as I don't care about what the billions of other humans see at my wrist. My clock does not change speed because an E.T. passed by the Earth and looked at it.

this relation describes an increase of velocity (stubbornly I call that an acceleration) I am struggling against people who believe that the observer dictates the physical law of the universe. The state of motion (& other) affects the way we measure an event. I apologize for being sarcastic from time to time. It is not easy to discuss with 4 different knowledgeable & intelligent members in the same thread.