Theoretical or not?

[elas]

Interesting.

The whole thing drives me to an old question in another thread, a question that some of the participants failed to understand due to my incapacity of explaining it properly.

Is all this absolute, or relative?

In other words, is Mass, Energy, and all that observable stuff that make our world, including SOL, is all this an absolute thing (1), or an observational thing relative to the observer ? (2)

Or

When we say that SOL is a constant, does that mean that SOL is an absolute, or that SOL is always constant relative to the observer? (that was the question I failed to explain)

 

I was also confused, but settled for the following as representing current teaching:

 

SOL is constant in absolute vacuum but observers are in a partial vacuum therefore the observer observes SOL as particular to there partial vacuum frame, but experiments show that all observers observe SOL as related to the SOL in absolute vacuum constant. That is to say that an observer orbiting close to a black hole would calculate the SOL in absolute vacuum to be the same as that calculated by an observer on Earth despite the huge difference in G force and time frames. There is no accepted reason given for the cause of this phenomenom; but it is accepted that SOL in absolute vacuum is an absolute constant.

[Johanluus]

1. "What is invariant is the "length in space and time", the so called space-time interval"

 

I've had diffaculty understanding this . How does one define this "interval" and prove that it is invariant under all inhertial frames.

(This is my theoretical question)

 

But this led me to another consideration:(philisophical consideration- not sure if it belongs here , but here goes)

 

2.

Is GR not just a manipulation of variables to fit our model of how we would like to percieve space and time with our current measurments? I know it works very well in general relativity but so did Newtons gravitational law for 300 years, until we found slight discrepancies with our planetary orbits, moving clocks etc.

 

 

What i'm mabey asking is , how complete is an equation, is there a "limit".

How accurate can one go, to get more precise measurment of events and observations, it is an endless cycle..

 

My analagy of this is the car decellerating to a "stand still".

 

At what "point" in space-time does it come to a stand still. if it goes slower, and we measure a speed , we can always divide that speed by two and measure again, there is always a point slower than the last.At what point will we be satisfied that the transition from motion- to rest has occured.

I can continue to do this until my instrument does not give a reading , but that does not mean it can't decellerate more, it may be we just cant measure it.

 

Their may be a "limit" in mathematics , but could this just be a manipulation of differentiation , of our definition of decelleration.

In reality we are limited to our instruments and measurments until we cannot measure more precicely.

Where does this space-time interval begin and end, what defines its boundries?

 

So we formulate a new set of equations that suit our new set of instruments

and then manupulate to suit our better measurments.Which now stop at Heisenbergs uncertainty principal , FOR NOW .. OR NOT?

 

Are we not missing the point.

 

Is there really a formula for the "theory of everything ". Does the formula preceed

everything we percieve today. Or do we manipulate/ define a formula base on how we all collectively percieve something today with our measurments.

 

Does PERCEPTION -> PROOF -> TRUTH ?

 

OR

 

does truth exist always , no matter what our current perception is there is only one truth.

[swansont]

2.

Is GR not just a manipulation of variables to fit our model of how we would like to percieve space and time with our current measurments? I know it works very well in general relativity but so did Newtons gravitational law for 300 years, until we found slight discrepancies with our planetary orbits, moving clocks etc.

 

We'll have to modify GR at some point, because it fails to work at the Planck-length scale. But for what we can currently measure, it works just fine, just as Newtonian gravity works fine where gravity isn't very strong. Modifications won't change that.

 

It's not about perception, though. Space and time actually act that way. We do experiments to test the models in order to ensure this.