Eric 5

Smell is real and is the sensory perception of particles. Sound is real, it is the sensory perception of the vibration of air. Sound is a form of energy. Air is made of particles, atoms and such. The experience of sound is objective, something happens in the physical universe and our senses detect this occurence. Our senses are at the effect point of what occurs in the physical universe. All of our senses are adapted to percieve the world around us, either through the motion of particles or waves. All of our senses percieve those motions caused by real physical things that are some form of energy. Be specific in your answer. Do you think space and time are real physical things that are some form of energy or not? I say both space and time are concepts of man. Neither are real things that exist as an enity in the physical universe. Why don't you come out and take a stand. What is your understanding of space and time? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This sounds like you think that space-time is a physical thing. How would someone percieve physically this thing called space-time? Through our eyes as light reflects off it? Touch? Percieve how? Are you being literal when you say that space-time is an invisible canvas? An actual canvas that does not reflect light? Instead of giving a concept of space-time why not just give the scientific definition of space-time. What does science say space-time is? If you think that space-time distorts our sight that would mean that this thing has the ability to redirect light, that means that it is made of something either particles or E/M waves. Science does not say space-time is a physical thing. You are not using science. Please stick to science.

Think about this. Without time everything would be frozen and there could be no motion. Frozen for how long? If there was no motion, then what ever objects that are existing would be motionless forever, and forever is a measure of time. Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. What do you think time is? I know that there are some people on this forum who cringe when they see me back on here talking about time. I find it rather humorous that on a physics forum there is still the idea that time is a thing, yet established science has never defined time to be a thing. If anyone here thinks that time can bend and dilate and the absence of time would prevent motion, than please explain what this thing is, what is it made of? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man. Clocks are a man made device operating as man designed it, counting off man made increments that man gave a numeric significance to, that results in a man made concept called time. Clocks are designed to give numbers, to which man assigns a significance or importance to. A clock could be considered to be a device or machine that generates a number or numbers in a regulated manner that was pre-determined by man. A clock is akin to a regulated number generator that converts mechanical, electrical, or the motion of an object to a number through pre-determined engineering of the device, and these numbers are delivered at a rate that follows the set standards that man has agreed to be universal in all such machines. Take a look at a clock or any of the devices constructed by man to measure time. Are these devices actually measuring or detecting a force or thing called time? If you believe that clocks or any such device measures time then ask yourself, how does this measurement or detection occur. If you were to take the batteries out of a clock it will no longer work and therefore no longer “measure” time. Clocks are man made devices that are made to move according to a pre-engineered construction. Man decides how a clock will move, not time. The general idea of how man perceives time is that time flows, so I will go along with this analogy to ask you, if time flows then how is it that a clock measures this flow. A clock would be like a flow meter, meaning that the flow of time would drive the clock. We all know that this is not true. Clocks are pre-programmed to move or count at a certain rate that has been determined by man, not time. Clocks work according to how man made them to work, they are not time driven. Clocks were invented to give mankind a universal agreement on when things occur. Clocks allow man to be on the same schedule when it comes to communicating or planning. Clocks give a structure to human activity. They do not actually measure time, they just operate at a pre-determined rate that has been set up by man. If clocks or any time piece were actually influenced by a thing called time, in effect, driven or motivated by a force called time, than they would not need an external power source to make them work. But we all know that clocks are not motivated by time nor do clocks have any effect on time, changing a clock does not change time. Time does not effect the motion of clocks, or anything. Time does not make clocks run or work. Clocks are just man made machines that are made to give a desired result when operating properly, they are not meters that measure the flow of time. Please share with me your definition of a clock and time that shows that clocks actually measure anything outside of its immediate construction. What outside influence is a clock measuring? Hi again Mr. SWANSONT. Please tell the class how a clock measures time. What sensor or detector do all clocks posses that enable them to detect this thing called time? I have seen many repair manuals for clocks and timepieces and I have yet to see any sort of time sensor or detector. You say clocks measure time, is there any scientific reference that explains how this occurs?

Why do you say we are in big trouble if there are ghosts? Trouble? What kind of trouble? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Is that what you think? That when we die we BECOME ghosts. That sounds a bit strange. I am just curious, what do you think happens when you die?

Whoa! I think that there is a misunderstanding here. I am saying that if someone concludes that life is matter, and all matter is made of electrons, then how do these electrons become alive. I am not saying that I agree with the idea that life is matter, I was just raising the question that if life is made of electrons then how do these electrons become alive. Again, I am not saying electrons ever become alive. I am saying that life being made of matter does not logically work. There has to be something that is being overlooked in this whole life question. I hope that we can somehow get closer to resolving this matter. This topic really puts to use our ability to apply logic, common sense and science. Look, I may be wrong in my idea that life is not made of matter, but until I see how an electron can become alive I will have to continue to conclude that this life is matter is a dead end.

A finite recurring pattern of WHAT? What is primary space? Our accumulation of facts are those ideas that man had about a certain phenomenon and he tried to apply it to the real physical world. It is all very well to have a lot of theories, ideas, beliefs. These are all great things. As long as you do not phenomena, you can have all the theories that you want to. that is the rule in engineering, physics, and the other sciences. You get a theory and then you try to apply the theory, idea, belief, and if it doesn’t apply to the physical universe you throw it out and get another theory, and if it does apply then you might be on to something and through further research and testing you might just end up with a fact that has usefulness and applicability. Unless you have phenomena to back up your claims, unless you can measure these things-and measure them accurately-they still remain in a big state of "up in the air." So do you have an opinion on what space is? This is not some kind of contest. I am not here to make judgments of peoples comments on if they are right or wrong. We are all just here to discuss science, I do not see where you are finding anything that I have said to you to be considered offensive. I am not forcing any dichotomy on you in this thread. I think that you are taking this a bit personal, please don’t. I am sure that you are a very intelligent person and have much to say regarding science, so I thought I could benefit from what you have to say. I have not been on this forum in quite awhile, but I do not recall ever being suspended from this forum. I checked the banned /suspended list and I was not on it. If anybody agrees with iNow on his statement about me please let me know, for I have politely stated my questions and just wanted to have a dialog about this particular topic. Again, if anyone on this thread can point out where I am being obtuse, I arguing metaphysics and philosophy, and I am being childish, please let me know so I can correct it. Otherwise, iNow, please see if you can contribute to the topic at hand, and if you have a disagreement in what I have stated then lets talk about it, try to keep your opinions of me out of the discussion since it has nothing to do with the topic. iNow, here is a reminder of the forum rules that apply in this instance: Section 2: Posting To maintain civility in discussions on SFN, the following rules are enforced: Be civil. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion. From the etiquette guide: II. Replying to Threads Don't Flame Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you need to insult them. They may be ignorant, but try not to flame them out of the forum. If they're intentionally insulting people, don't reply--just use the Report Post function to let the moderators know about it. They can deal with insult wars and rule-breakers more efficiently than regular users. Don't be Mean If you don't agree with someone, don't attack them. Tell them politely why you think they're wrong, and give them evidence. Insulting people won't get you anywhere but suspended. Thank You.

Please show me where I mentioned abiogenesis. The questions that I have raised are simple and concise. If all life is made of matter and all matter is made of atoms and all atoms are made from electrons, then the next logical question to ask if you are under the belief that life is made of atoms, is what occurs to make electrons become alive. That is all. A plain and simple question. I have not stated how I think life got started or agreed with abiogenesis. If you want to participate in this discussion then please do and try to refrain from personal attacks that have no basis. Thank you.

I guess that basic consensus is that life is a bunch of chemicals. The only problem I see with all of this is that there is no mention on how chemicals become alive. You see if you say that life is a process that involves certain chemical mixtures, well I would have to say that there are many processes involving chemicals that happen all the time that do not result in life. Can you be more specific on what these "certain chemicals" are? I really appreciate that fact that you are trying to help make this topic easier to understand. I think that this is a very interesting topic. Now having said all that I would like to ask you some questions about your computer analogy. We all know that computers are not alive, but I understand where you are trying to go with this, yet in the end no matter what arrangement of parts that are done to a computer it will never become alive. I am sure that someone will jump at this statement and bring up artificial intelligence, which is OK, but lets try and not get to far off the topic. Also, in this arranging of the computer parts in the proper way, it takes life to do the arranging, so in a way your computer analogy requires life to be involved to start or create life. You see what I mean. This analogy of yours does highlight the exact question that I have regarding this life from chemicals idea. Since all of those computer parts are made of atoms, and all chemicals are made of atoms, and when you really get down to it both the atoms in the computer and the atoms in any chemical are made of the same things (electrons, protons, neutrons). So all atoms have the same type of building blocks, it is the arrangement of these building blocks that make different types of matter, whether it be a solid, liquid or a gas. So just arranging atoms together does not seem to be able to make anything more than matter, and we know that matter is dead not alive. So my point is, it seems atoms do not make life, atoms are not alive, so no quantity or arrangement of a non-living substance will ever become alive. You see where I am going with this. This is the question I have, how can anyone say that atoms become alive, there has to be more to life than just a bunch of atoms. Atoms themselves are not alive, so if science would like to pursue that avenue then they will have to show how an atom, electron, proton, neutron, and such become alive. I hope this points out the sticking point I see in this whole life from atoms theory. You see this is what I am talking about. No matter the arrangement of non-living atoms you will never get life. Arranging atoms only creates different matter, not life. Do you see my point? There needs to be something else that is involved in the creation of life. Any ideas?

Great so there are many theories on this whole life business, all that needs to be done is weed out the one that are not plausible. For example, do you think that the theory that all life started from a puddle of chemicals or some such thing. Or you can state what theory you seem to think fits and we can discuss it. OK.

Quote by Eric 5. "I say space is a term used to describe the area of nothing that is between objects." In this thread the term space that is being talked about is that space that is considered to be a part of the real physical universe. Nothing is being shifted, I am talking about the space as it applies to this thread. But since you brought it up, do you think that this Minkowski space is a real physical thing? Quote by Eric 5. "The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view." So are you saying that we do percieve though a something? Quote by Eric 5. "There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space." Even blind people can perceive areas of nothing where there are no objects to bump into. Lets keep this simple. What is your concept of space as it is being used in this thread? Do you think that space is a real physical thing? What exactly do you mean? You say that space has no shape, are you suggesting that space is a formless thing?

Pioneer. You have given us much in the way of data in your attempt to show the importance of water to sustaining or even starting life. I would like to see if I can whittle all that information down to a concise statement of what you are trying to say. You are saying that water, which is basically chemicals, and these chemicals are basically made of an arrangement of electrons, protons, and neutrons, combine with other arrangements of electrons, protons, and neutrons, such as DNA, RNA, or any other chemical, and from this arrangement springs life. I know that this was over simplified, but I just want you to get to the point. After you simply explain what your theory is then you can go into more detail. It would be of great help for you to explain your point simply so as to get more people on board to your way of thinking, and then once you have achieved that then you can get into your long winded explanations. Do you see what I am saying? Just let me know if I am close to understanding what you are trying to say. Thank You.

I want to make sure I understand you. You think that life is basically some chemical mixture? Look I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to address this topic with a creative point of view. Your statement about water adding something needs to be thought through a bit more. You can add water to a rock and the rock does not come alive. You can add water to a dead animal, person and they do not come back to life. The question you should think about is what is it that changes when some thing that was alive no longer has life. What is that dividing line between alive and dead. I want to give you some helpful advice. Please think about what you are saying a bit more before posting. I really would like to see you participate in this discussion and not bring on the "wrath" of others. In your statement about dehydration of something that is living, I assume that you want to prove a point that when you take water out of a living thing it will die, the only problem with that is, if you add too much water to something that is alive, you will also kill it. If adding water gave life then adding more water might add more life, but it does not. Alright, Please give us your understanding of how life got on this planet. Just simply as you can, explain your point of view in a way that would not be considered delusional or perverse.

After reading this thread I can see that it has touched a nerve in some people. Maybe it would be a good idea to define the term space. There is the space that is considered outer space (the universe) and there is space between me and other objects, is there a difference? Do some of you have the idea that space is a thing that exists as an object or as a form of some type? I say space is a term used to describe the area of nothing that is between objects. The concept of space comes about from the idea that one perceives through something when looking out from our point of view. There are objects that exist other than where we are viewing from, and by looking out to these items we create the idea of space.

O.K. So lets see if we can get this whole discussion on time boiled down to the basic essence of what time is. I have proposed that there are only two ways in which something can be real, or exist for us as humans. Either those things exist in some physical form or as a concept. I see no other way. I explain my view on this in post #51. Some of you on this thread have stated that asking if time was a physical thing or a concept was a trick question, a false dichotomy, and that my question does not cover all possibilities. Here are some of the posts that state such things: Just to be clear, energy is a thing that can exist in many different physical forms, i.e. fuels, those things that have a potential energy. Energy would mean a potential of motion or power. It would be a force or flow, or the potential force or flow from something to something; or the ability to accomplish work; or the ability to make motion or movement. Energy is a mass of particles which is a mass of motion. An agitation within agitation is the basic formation of particles of energy, such as electrons, protons, and others. So, you could say that clocks measure energy or motion and convert that reading to a number that represents time. Clocks are not measuring a thing called time. Man can make devices that are influenced by energy and this influence is from motion. Energy is derived from a source, there is a specific location and duration of this source. There you go. Now as far as this idea that I asked a bad question regarding the nature of time, is it a physical thing or a concept. Tell me what other possibilities are there? I am asking a physics question, what is time, the same time that is used in all of physics. Energy can be detected by man, and man made devices. Clocks measure motion, which is energy. The more quantity of motion or the more intense that motion the more energy. Unlike time. You can hold energy in your hand, potential energy-batteries, as one example. Yet not all physical things are defined by if you can hold it in your hand or not. Come on. Did you really mean to say that energy is not physical? So what are the other possibilities? Reading through the thread I also noticed that some people want to describe time as something that exists but not in a physical form, or describe time by saying that it is like something else that has not been defined as being physical or not. Examples: So in what way does it exist? Exist how? In what way or form? Really? That is a poor example since you did not say how space exists. Real in what way? Physical? How do you define space? Anyway, as you can all see, I have stated in a concise and exact manner how I define time. Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. The response to this has been protest and comparisons of time to unrelated things. So can anybody who believes that time is a thing that clocks measure, or is a thing that exists in the physical universe, be a bit more specific in their definitions or examples? I say time is not a physical thing, it is a consideration. How do you define time? Thank you. Eric 5.

Originally Posted by Eric 5 Look, my point is that objects exist before light reflects off of them. Objects have a finite size before light reflects off of them. Originally Posted by Slinkey Please provide some evidence of this assertion. Look at all of the physical objects around you right now. They all have a finite size, right? Light carries the information of the object's physical properties after it reflects off that object. It takes time for light to leave it's source and arrive at the object. The object either exists before the light hits it, or after the light hits it. There is no evidence that states physical objects are created after light comes in contact...... You know if the object does not exist before the light hits it then what is going to cause the light to reflect at that particular location? Why would light decide to just stop traveling in one direction and then go off into a different direction if there was nothing there to cause this change in direction. It takes energy to cause a change in a physical thing, matter is just condensed energy, so there has to be some energy that exists before the light arrives at that location in order for the light to change direction. The object is in existance before the light arrives. Go into a room where it has only one source of light. Turn the light off and the objects stiil exist. Turn the light on and the objects are still there, they were there before the light went on. If you were to dig up a rock and break it open, guess what, all of that physical matter existed before the light hit it. There are caves on this planet that have not been throughly explored by man, yet I am sure that the physical things in those cave that have never had any light reflect off of them exist all the same. Look, It seems a bit odd that you want proof that physical objects exist before light reflects off them, but whatever, there are some examples. Are you asking for evidence of physical objects existing before light hits them, because you do not think that this is the case? If so, then can you explain to me what your idea of a physical object is and it's ability to persist in time regardless of it surrounding conditions. Do you think that light has some bearing on the creation of all physical matter? Is that why you are making such an odd request? BRILLIANT! Very nice! So do you think that you can answer the question, or are you still unsure. You do not want to be stumped by a troll do you? I have stated my case very simply and straight forward, I have responded to your posts with detailed explainations many times, you have come at my assertion that physical objects exist without our observation of them with your counterpoints and now that I have made a perfectly valid statement about the nature of matter, and have done so in a clear and concise manner, it looks like you have run out of ways to try and invalidate my view on this topic. So now what? just stop. There was much to respond to in that post, do not get discouraged. Are you just going to resort to name calling and insults again? After all you have said, this is what it comes down to for you. Just think, if I was not playing the devil’s advocate on this issue, you would have nothing to do but agree with the others, all you guys would be left in the position of just massaging each others egos. This way you can test your concepts and look at them from a different angle. You have to realize that you and the others do not like to have your beliefs shaken. If someone were to suggest a differing view than yours you will go on the offensive to the point of insulting and name calling. Look if you guys just can’t decide how to think about the nature of objects, than I will drop it for a while and we can discuss the original topic, that of length contraction. I do not recall if anyone has answered my question regarding if they thought that physical objects physically contract or if they just appear to contract. The data that you guys are operating from, do you just accept that data on the authority of the person, or do you decide for yourself on what is true or real?

Originally Posted by Eric 5 So we will agree that the bench has an atomic structure and so much quantity of this atomic structure, in other words, this bench is a physical object that has existed before anyone encountered it and this bench has a finite size. The following quotes are from post # 98, a post that Slinkey created. Originally Posted by Eric 5 So is the bench at the train station a physical object? Response from Slinkey to this question. From Slinkey’s answer it has been established that Slinkey is stating that the bench at the train station is a physical object . So what do you disagree with in the statement about the bench? Do you disagree that the bench is a physical object? Do you disagree that the bench has a finite quantity of atoms? Do you disagree that the bench existed before anyone encountered it? Continuing with current post. Originally posted by Eric 5 These are the things that we CAN say about something (this something being a physical object) before we measure it. What we can say of this something: What color it is. Where it is located in reference to us. How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine. We can say that it indeed exists. We can say its shape. How much light it reflects. There are numerous things we can say about a physical something without ever measuring it. To be exact, if you think science treats the definition of observation the same as measurement, then they would not have two different words for the same definition. So I would say that science has different definitions for each word. You may think that science treats those two terms the exact same way, that would just mean that you have a misunderstanding of the two terms. Just grab your dictionary and clear up the terms. Besides, all you are doing is arguing semantics. Originally posted by Eric 5 Again, the dimensions may be undefined but the object is what it is regardless of being measured or not. YOU need to make up your mind on if an object can exist physically without being measured. Then from that point YOU need to decide if a physical object can exist without being observed. YOU HAVE NO IDEA! None? A complete blank? Nothing? WOW! Well this is a good revelation on your part, now you have a good starting point from which to learn more about physics. You see physical objects are those things that either have existed before life arrived in the universe or all of these physical objects in the universe came into existance after life came on to the scene. This is something for you to think about. Now, This forum is a place where people can come and get some their questions answered or at least have a discussion on those things they have no idea about. You know, like your situation regarding the nature of physical objects. Someone in your position who is interested in resolving their lack of any idea on the nature of physical objects could benefit from discussing this topic on this forum. Yet you say that you do not want to make up your mind. You would rather just not know? That is too bad. Lastly, your statement that knowing if a physical object exists without being observed is irrelevant, that statement is absurd, and unusual coming from someone who spends his time on a physics forum. It is irrelevant to you, but it is not irrelevant. Just think if Werner Heisenberg, or Niels Bohr had that same lack of desire to find out the true essence or existance of physical matter. Where would science be today without Quantum Mechanics. I think that my question is quite relevant, so do many other inquisitive minds. After all, the desire to know is what has driven science and man's understanding of the universe. A lack of that desire is not really compatible with the spirit of science. I would like you to be able to have some idea about the nature of physical objects, so I hope that you will change your attitude toward learning and find out for yourself. Originally posted by Eric 5 "That is more of a philosophical stance than a scientific stance. Whether an objects exists before we view it is irrelevant." Are you serious? You think that this is a philosophical question and has no basis in science. How could this question be irrelevant, to be irrelevant would mean that it has no bearing on the out come of the ideas put forward by S.R. I ask if a physical object exists before it contracts, and you say that this question is irrelevant in regards to length contraction. Asking if an object whose length is being contracted ever existed is irrelevant to you? I would have to say that in order for a physical object to contract that object has to exist. It has to exist before it was contracted. How do you know if an object contracts if you can not compare it to the size it was BEFORE it contracted. There is the size of the object before the object contracts and the size after it contracts. The object has a size before it contracts. There has to be an object that physically exists before it can contract. Your line of reasoning is goofy. You start out with an assumption and from there you go on to show that an object does not have to exist before light hits it, that is from the perspective of light. Lets have some fun with this. First, I am not talking about perspectives of anything. You see you are just re-wording my question from observation to perspective. So my question would still be the same. Can a physical object exist without observation or perspective of anything? If you really want to have something to mentally chew on then try this idea. You say that from the perspective of light there is no time. Well we can agree that light is not alive so it does not really have a perspective of anything, you can just imagine the concept that light has a perspective, but that is beside the point. You say that light has a perspective and from that perspective there is no time. So what about the perspective of the physical object the light is reflecting off of? What about this poor little lonely object just sitting out in space. Are you going to suggest that the physical object does not have a perspective before the light hit it, you see from the objects perspective it takes some time for the light to reach it. So the object had to exist before the light hit it. Think about it. If it takes light lets say eight minutes to reach an object that means the object was in existance at least eight minutes prior to the arrival of light. Also, your explanation does nothing to explain if an object can exist in total darkness. You see I am not basing the existance of an object on the existance of something else. I might be tempted to then ask if a physical object can exist without the existance of anything else. So before light leaves it’s source the object may not exist, you reason. Originally posted by Eric 5 The whole idea depends on the existance of physical objects being around to be observed and if they exist as a finite things in their natural undisturbed state at all times. This is an nice example of avoiding the question. I ask if a physical object can exist without being observed and your answer is if we don’t measure or observe something then we can say nothing about it. Right, if you don’t see the object or know that it exists then you can say nothing about it. But this thing that you know nothing about, can it still exist? How about this, can a physical object exist without anyone knowing it exists? This is such a simple basic question and you guys are making it so difficult. Man, you are having a hard time with this aren’t you. What is your point? Are you saying that we have to know about something before it exists? Before we knew about Jupiter did it exist? Or did Jupiter come into existance AFTER we knew about it? I am sorry, but I have to tell you that your line of reasoning is quite amusing. Just think about it, maybe everything exists AFTER we know about it. Lets see how this would work. We don’t know of something, then we know of it, THEN that thing comes into existance. Is this the idea you are trying to express? I wonder if the rest of the crew will agree with your point of view. See how I made that rhyme, do you? (Ha, Ha,) This whole topic has really put a smile on my face, thanks. Just remember not to take this too seriously, it is after all just a forum for people to engage in conversation and discuss their take on the world around them. Peace out. (Ha, Ha) I am sure you guys will have a field day with this post. By all means tear into it. Eric 5ive.

Originally Posted by Eric 5 What color it is. Where it is located in reference to us. How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine. We can say that it indeed exists. We can say its shape. How much light it reflects. WOW! What a statement! You are saying that observation and measurement are very similar. I could post definitions for observation and measurement to show you that they have very different meanings, but you can do that if you do not agree. Light will reflect off of an object regardless if you observe it or not. Right? Think of all the distant objects that we are just now seeing the light from that were around before we were. Look, my point is that objects exist before light reflects off of them. Objects have a finite size before light reflects off of them. So, you think that physical objects do not have an absolute size. Lets examine your statement. When you observe a physical object you observe it to have a finite size. Yes/No? If yes, then the physical object had a finite size when the light reflected off of it. Agreed? If no, well you would have to explain what you do see when you look at the world around you, it would be quite entertaining. Objects do not need to have someone observe them so that light can reflect off of them. Physical objects will reflect light without being observed. Yes/No Sorry, I forgot that you wrote that when I made the QM post. Since you did make the statement about collapsing wave function in response to my query of if physical objects exist without being observed, I would like to hear from you on how you think this applies to my question. With all that said, You have still not given a definative answer on if YOU think physical objects can exist without being observed. Just a simple yes or no. I have given my stance on this. What is your stance?

Finally, I was wondering when someone would bring up quantum physics when answering this question. The uncertainty principle, you have just expanded this topic to a very interesting place. Thank You. Lets see what the rest of the participants in this discussion think of this new direction. Eric 5.

Originally Posted by Eric 5 So we will agree that the bench has an atomic structure and so much quantity of this atomic structure, in other words, this bench is a physical object that has existed before anyone encountered it and this bench has a finite size. The bench has undefined dimensions before anyone observers it, agreed, the physical object has not been given the man measurements that define its dimensions for man. The physical object does exist though without being measured. A physical object has to exist before man can see it or measure it. The dimensions come after the fact that the physical object exists. Agreed? You say that "until we measure something we can say NOTHING about it" This is a very general and incorrect statement, I cannot understand why you would make such a bold statement when you can see that it is wrong. These are the things that we CAN say about something (this something being a physical object) before we measure it. What we can say of this something: What color it is. Where it is located in reference to us. How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine. We can say that it indeed exists. We can say its shape. How much light it reflects. There are numerous things we can say about a physical something without ever measuring it. Again, the dimensions may be undefined but the object is what it is regardless of being measured or not. YOU need to make up your mind on if an object can exist physically without being measured. Then from that point YOU need to decide if a physical object can exist without being observed. Originally posted by Eric 5 The object can and does exist without the dependence of an observer. "That is more of a philosophical stance than a scientific stance. Whether an objects exists before we view it is irrelevant." Are you serious? You think that this is a philosophical question and has no basis in science. How could this question be irrelevant, to be irrelevant would mean that it has no bearing on the out come of the ideas put forward by S.R. It has everything to with the outcome and process by which length contraction is supposed to occur. There has to be physical objects that exist to be measured, so my question is basically asking you if you think that objects can exist BEFORE they are measured, or do physical objects come into existance AFTER they are measured. Think about it. In order for an observer to measure a physical object that observer has to see it. In order for that observer to see the physical object light has to reflect off of that object and travel to the observer with the information of the size, color, shape, etc, of that object. This information carried in the light is what the object was when the light reflected off of it, BEFORE an observer received that information. So the size and all that information of the object was established before the light hit it. The object is a something that reflects light. If you say that the object's size and shape and everything that goes along with it are not determined until the light hits it, well that would be a new discovery in science and I would have to ask you for a reference that describes this occurrence, but even still. if this was the fact, the object would still have a finite size and shape before it was measured. So my question to you is, do you personally think that physical objects can exist and have a finite size without ever being observed or measured? In other words, did physical objects exist before life? This is the ground floor on which the length contraction idea rests on. The whole idea depends on the existance of physical objects being around to be observed and if they exist as a finite things in their natural undisturbed state at all times. Or does this natural state of physical objects depend on life to observe it to give it existance (ie. size, shape, color etc) So what do you think? Eric 5. NO! I am asking you if you think physical objects can exist without being observed. This is a very basic question that I think that you can answer, you have to have an opinion on this question. Come on, I know you have an answer. It is a simple yes/no question. Your lack of an answer is surprising. I can say that you either can not answer this question or you will not answer this question because of the problems it causes in your belief in the idea of length contraction. The fact that you have no answer to a basic physics question is most telling. How could you not have an answer to this question? It is most humorous that a persons with 2,799 posts on this forum since Aug 2007, a person who obviously has an opinion on many subjects and makes these opinions known freely, has no opinion on the existance of physical objects. The humorous part is the fact that you are avoiding answering the question. Is this a question on which you just have no opinion on? Are you stumped? This is not a debate. For it to be a debate, you would have to state your point of view on the question "Can physical objects exist without being observed?" You have not even given an answer yet. This whole subject that we are talking about got started with a word problem that was presented to me about a bench at a train station. All I wanted to know is if the bench existed before it was ever measured, what is so hard about that question that you cannot give an answer? Maybe you have given this question much thought and decided that in order to keep your ready made, unexamined ideas of length contraction safe and undisturbed, you would just avoid the consequences of answering a most simple question. Looks like there is a lot of unresolved issues regarding the whole concept of length contraction in your mind. Just try and see if you can answer the question and see what happens. I promise that you will survive it and come out O.K. I might have gotten a bit carried away with this, if you feel harassed, sorry, I just find it a bit amusing that you have hit a roadblock on such a simple question and now you are looking for a detour away from such a question. Honestly, if you just can not answer this question, I apologize for pushing the issue, I would not want to upset your beliefs. After all, the only way someone can keep their beliefs valid is to not examine them too closely. Alright, I will stop. This is such an interesting reaction that you have to this simple question. Eric 5

Originally Posted by Eric 5 The bench has to have a length before it can contract. I agree, length is a concept, but the object has been established as existing as a physical object, so the bench is not a concept. The bench is a thing that exists in the physical universe. Different observers will observe different lengths of the SAME object. The observations differ, not the object. The observations of the object do not come before the existance of the object. The object physically exists as a constant for all frames of reference. It is the frame that changes when measuring the object, not the object changing for the frame. Agreed? YOU are the one who needs to make up your mind if a physical object can exist without being observed. YOU are the one who has to gain some certainty on how you would answer the question. This question was posed and YOU need to make up your mind, your above considerations on the question did not give an answer of yes or no. If you were just thinking out loud than just post your answer when YOU figure it out. I already have an answer. Yes objects can physically exist with a finite size without ever being observed. Now YOU just need to decide for yourself on an answer to the question: Can physical objects exist without ever being observed? Yes/No. What do YOU think? Look, YOU are the one who decides the parameters around YOUR concept of observation and existance. It is all up to you. YOU decide. What do you think? What is YOUR answer. I have not found this to be a difficult question, everyone should have an answer to this question. Eric 5

Originally Posted by Eric 5 So is the bench at the train station a physical object? Does the bench occupy a location in space? Did the bench have a length before the trains passed? If so how long was it? From your above statement it sounds like objects appear to contract, but do not physically contract, is that what you are saying? If not, then by responding to the above questions you could clear things up on how the "point of view" is very straightforward. O.K. The LENGTH of the bench depends on what frame of reference you are in. You are talking of the LENGTH of an object, not the object itself. We have to agree that there is an object to measure or view. Now the question is, what is the size of the object before we observe it? You admit that there is an object that can be viewed from many different frames of reference, so this object exists physically right? The proper length is dependent on the observers frame of reference, but the object is a physical object that reflects light so it interacts with the physical universe. This object has some bearing on how much light it reflects before we can observe it. It has a finite size and reflects a finite amount of light before we can observe it. Right? Tell me, do you think that physical objects physically contract through this phenomenon called length contraction?

Originally Posted by Eric 5 So is the bench at the train station a physical object? So we will agree that the bench has an atomic structure and so much quantity of this atomic structure, in other words, this bench is a physical object that has existed before anyone encountered it and this bench has a finite size. The object can and does exist without the dependence of an observer. So the bench has a finite length before it is observed from any frame of reference. That is the size of the bench, the size that it was before it appears to contract. Now just to be clear here, you are suggesting that physical objects physically contract just to fit the frame of reference of an observer, right? originally posted by Eric 5 Does the bench occupy a location in space? If it is physical then it occupies a location in space. It occupies that space whether it is being observed or not. The bench is physical, the bench occupies a finite amount of space, and has a size before it is observed. There is a size from which this bench contracts from. This original size that the bench is before anyone observed it is the size of the bench. That is the length of the bench. Originally posted by Eric 5 Did the bench have a length before the trains passed? If so how long was it? There is a length that this physical bench has before anyone observes it. That is the length of the bench. The bench has to have a length before it can contract. Yes I have not answered your question because I asked you what the length of the bench was before the trains arrived. The bench as you said is a physical object. This bench has an atomic structure, the quantity of this atomic structure is finite. So this bench has a finite size before it is observed. That size will tell you the length of the bench. originally posted by Eric 5 From your above statement it sounds like objects appear to contract, but do not physically contract, is that what you are saying? If not, then by responding to the above questions you could clear things up on how the "point of view" is very straightforward. So what exactly are you saying? Does the bench really physically change shape or not? This is what I would like you to make clear please. If the bench just appears to change length then that is fine, but if you are suggesting that the bench physically changes length and goes from one physical length to another shorter length, then this is what I have to question. Important question. Are you suggesting that all objects can only exist or have a size AFTER they are observed? And are you suggesting that AFTER an object is no longer being observed that it ceases to have a size? An object only has a size when being observed? You said the bench is a physical object. This object has a finite size. This size exists and occupies a finite amount of space regardless if it is being observed or not. This object has a size before it is observed. Right? Look, you say the bench is a physical object. This object existed as a finite size before it was observed. All observations of that object are based on the fact that that object exists with an original finite size. All other ideas, appearances, measurements of that object are based off the original size of that physical object. The original unobserved size is the reference from which all preceding measurements are based off of. Right? You say that the bench is a physical object, we will take that as a fact in this word problem. So the fact is that the bench is a physical object, so it would follow that this physical object has a finite size. That finite size is the size of the object prior to any and all preceding observations. There is a size of this object and that is the size before the trains passed it. With all that said: This can all be cleared up now that you say that the bench is a physical object. I do not recall if you said the bench physically contracts so this would be the primary question I would ask you. Does the bench physically contract? If so, then the physical bench had a length before it was observed. From this size you can determine its original length. Put another way: You say the bench is a physical object so this has been established for the word problem. From this fact that the bench is a physical object, do you agree that this object exists as a finite size regardless of whether or not it is being observed? Yes/No If yes, then fine, I agree and all is as it should be according to the laws of nature. If no, then you will have to elaborate on how a physical object can exist without a size and how this size suddenly comes into being by the mere fact that it is being measured from an observer and this measurement is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer. Basically the object would have to know in advance what size to be so as to satisfy the observers frame of reference. So I guess the first point I would like you to make clear is if you are suggesting that the physical bench is physically contracted? Thank You. Eric 5 Slinkey has stated the bench is a physical object, what does that mean to you? Are physical objects those things that are waiting to be given a size by an observer? And do not exist or have a size without some observer? We can clear this up with a simple question. Do physical objects exist without being observed? Yes/No An "intrinsic length" cannot be found in such a situation. GREAT! glad to hear it. I am not talking about situations, just the basic facts. Can a physical object exist without being observed? Yes/No Do physical objects have a size without ever being observed? Yes/No Is it possible that there are physical objects that exist with a finite shape that have never been observed? Yes/No

We are talking of length contraction here, so the length of the bench has to contract from a prior length. The bench has a length before it contracts. What is the length of the bench before any observer from any frame of reference measures it? The bench contracted from an initial length, a length that was present before it was observed.

Subjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. 4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience. O.K. from what you said, time is a concept of the mind, rather than a physical thing. That is what I have been saying. So you see from your statement about time, that means since time is a concept of man, a concept that was created by man, then time did not exist before man. This too is what I have been saying. Here is where the fun begins, from your above quote about time being subjective, I would have to assume that you meant time is a concept and not a physical thing, but from the context of your post from which this quote was taken from you have the idea that time is a thing that existed before man. So which is it? If time was a thing that existed before man than time is not a man made concept. Lets see if I can help you out. We all have the idea of time, time exists for us in some way. Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time. Time is not a thing that exists as a thing in the world outside of our minds. You see when we think of the universe before we existed we will automatically think of the universe as having time because we have the concept of things being created, things moving and persisting, and things decaying. All of this gives the concept that there is time. It has been said that time was created at the Big Bang, or time can be warped, in fact the Stephen Hawking book "A Brief History of Time" Mr. Hawking’s states this: "We must accept that time is not completely separate from and independent of space, but is combined with it to form an object called space-time." So does this mean time is a physical thing that can be used to make an object? There are so many variations and concepts of time from the leading experts that it makes one wonder if they even have an idea of what time is. Look, physical things can exist before man arrived on the scene, concepts came after the arrival of man. Man give names to physical things and concepts. What I am about to ask you has been asked before to much protest by others, but those others never actually answered the question or gave another possibility, so with that said: Do you think time is a physical thing or a concept? If you have some other possibility or way in which time can exist for man then please say what it is. As far as things that man considers to exist, those things are either physical or conceptual, I have not seen any other possibility to this, but maybe you can shed some light on this. Thank You. Eric 5

So is the bench at the train station a physical object? Does the bench occupy a location in space? Did the bench have a length before the trains passed? If so how long was it? From your above statement it sounds like objects appear to contract, but do not physically contract, is that what you are saying? If not, then by responding to the above questions you could clear things up on how the "point of view" is very straightforward. Thank You. Eric 5

How nice, a word problem. If I was to believe that length is dependent on an observers frame of reference, then my answer to the question “How long is the bench” would be, the length of the bench depends on my frame of reference. Both measurements from both trains are right. But I do not believe that an objects length is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer, and since I think there is another possibility than the two choices that you gave me, I am going to have to complain that your question is a false dichotomy, your set of options are incomplete. (Ha. Ha). I am sorry, I had to say that. You have to admit that was a bit funny. Anyway, I would really like to answer your question but since I do not see things your way in regards to this length contraction business, I will need a bit more info than you gave me. Here is what I would like established and on record. 1. Is the bench a physical object? 2. Does the bench occupy a location in space? 3. Did this bench have a length before the trains passed it? If so how long was it? From what I have seen and learned about the world around me I would have to think that the bench is a physical thing, occupies a location in space and since it is a physical object it has a size despite the fact that it is being observed or not, so I would say the bench has a length before the trains passed. If you do not think this is a correct line of logic, please tell me what you think. I would be curious to hear your reasoning. I would also like to say that just because I disagree with the idea that length or size of an object is all dependent on what frame of reference that the object is being observed from does not mean that I think that you are wrong and I am right. I would really like to understand your point of view on this whole idea. The questions that I asked in the above section of this post are the questions that I ask myself when thinking about the trains passing a bench and getting different measurements. I am just showing you where I am coming from on this topic so that you do not think that I am just trying to disagree with you just for the fun of it. I would truly like to see things from your point of view on this. I just do not see how a physical object is subject to a change in length just by the pure observation from a different frame of reference. If your answers to the above questions are different than the way I see things than please explain your line of reasoning. I would like to hear it. This goes for anyone who agrees that the physical length of an object is dependent on an observers frame of reference. Thank You. Eric 5