Me, the E.T. & Napoleon

[michel123456]

Someone said on another thread that the order by which events happen (the sequence of events) can depend on the Frame Of Reference.

 

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 – 1821), a figure of the past.

From my Frame Of Reference, can I see Napoleon's second marriage in 1810, exactly 200 years from now?

No.

Or yes, with the help of my E.T. friend, living upon a planet distanced 100 Light Years from the Earth. He has placed upon the surface of his planet a mirror facing the sky. With my good telescope, I can see in the mirror the Earth as it looked 200 years ago. And there is Napoleon entering the cathedral, I can see him.

And that is exactly what my E.T. friend is observing from his FOR: he is observing Napoleon.

 

Now, can I find somewhere another E.T. able to observe me & Napoleon happening in the reverse order?

[swansont]

Someone said on another thread that the order by which events happen (the sequence of events) can depend on the Frame Of Reference.

 

That would be me.

 

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

[timo]

Someone said on another thread that the order by which events happen (the sequence of events) can depend on the Frame Of Reference.

Yes, but they don't have to.

 

Now, can I find somewhere another E.T. able to observe me & Napoleon happening in the reverse order?

Obviously, there is always the possibility to reverse orders if you just let the signal transfer take suitably long (he can look at a video tape of you and then at the tape your other ET took of Napoleon). That is not what is meant by the order of event changing. What is meant that even with an instantaneous transfer of the information the time order would have changed. That is possible in principle if the two events are not causally connected (in case you don't know the term note that "causally connected" is a technical term with a rather precise meaning). Napoleon and you are causally connected (you wouldn't know of him, otherwise). So the answer is "no".

[michel123456]

Reverse order.

What does that mean?

Someone observing me as an event happening before Napoleon.

My brother John sits near to me and puts his right eye upon his telescope. He sees Napoleon, and simultaneously with his left eye, he sees me. Simultaneously but not in the same place. I am here next to him, Napoleon is upon "another" planet 200 LY from here. In fact, we know it is the same planet 200 years ago. With the mirror trick & the help of our E.T. friend, we have just transformed time into distance.

 

But we made a mistake. Our friend E.T. is not placed at 100LY from us. He is 99,9 LY from us. Fortunately the planet is getting away from us and will be at the correct distance next year. So my brother John will have to wait a while before seeing Napoleon. He is observing me before Napoleon.

[swansont]

Delaying the signal doesn't count, because you can adjust for that.

[michel123456]

Delaying the signal doesn't count, because you can adjust for that.

 

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

This thread is intended to reinforce the basic assumption you made, not to disagree.

Here it is supposed that the order by which events happen (the sequence of events) always depend on the Frame Of Reference.

[Sisyphus]

Events at the same location will always be in the same order no matter what reference frame. Events separated by distance can, to a limited degree, have their sequence depend on reference frame. It's not just a consequence of delaying the signal. It's how things "really are." It's just another way of saying that simultaneity is relative.

[michel123456]

Events at the same location will always be in the same order no matter what reference frame. Events separated by distance can, to a limited degree, have their sequence depend on reference frame. It's not just a consequence of delaying the signal. It's how things "really are." It's just another way of saying that simultaneity is relative.

 

I am confused. "events at the same location", yes, but no. Because everything is in constant motion. The concept "same location" applies only for an observator at rest at this location. Any other observator in relative state of motion will not observe "the same location".

 

??

I wonder where is the mistake in my little Napoleon's paradigm. There must be something wrong because, if you noticed, my E.T. friend observe events on Earth in reverse motion.

When placed at 99,9 LY from us, he sees Napoleon dying, and after a while, when placed at 100LY, he sees Napoleon's marriage, a few years earlier. That is time running backward.

??

[swansont]

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

This thread is intended to reinforce the basic assumption you made, not to disagree.

Here it is supposed that the order by which events happen (the sequence of events) always depend on the Frame Of Reference.

 

Frames of reference refers to observers moving with respect to each other, not at a fixed distance from each other.

[Sisyphus]

IIRC, the short answer is that events always will be in the same order if one could travel between them at less than C. If the path between them is "steeper" than C, their chronological order depends on reference frame.

 

That's what I meant by the "same location," which was a poor phrasing. No object can be at both such events, because no object can travel at C. And, for example, Paris is an object, as is Napoleon, as are you and I.