Ontology of time

[owl]

swansont:

 

What of a duration between events? Oh, but now you have to define what a duration is.

 

I’m not being obscure or cryptic about the obvious meaning of event duration. Pick a physical process (“any physical process”, as a card shark would say.) Pick any instant, “now.” Wait awhile. Pick another instant,” now.” Use a stopwatch if you like. The duration of the event you chose to monitor is the “time” between the clicks or the two instants of “now.”

Note: We did not create something, “time” with this activity. We just measured the duration between two instants while observing a physical process.

 

Me:” what can we ‘point to and say,’ this is time?”

 

You:

A clock. It measures time. (Define four, leg, canine and mammal. And all the terms in those definitions)

 

A clock is time? “That which is measured” simply substitutes “that” for “time,” which is not a definition of time. In contrast, we all know what the words four, legs, canine, and mammal denote “in the real world,” (where words have meaning in common experience) and they are some of the actual properties of, and a partial but meaningful definition of “dog.”

And does this stop us from doing physics? No, apparently not.

 

No, but this thread is on the ontology of time. Let me remind you of the distinction made by Kelley Ross in his frequently quoted (by me) paper... that the math does not provide the meaning. I’ll find the exact quote again if you like. So maybe some physicists don’t care what time is as long as the math of relativity works out (which of course it does.) It is the “business” of ontology to care what we mean when we say, “time.”

 

I missed where you asked, but the answer is yes. That distance would contract.

What is the nature of length, anyway? Why the obsession with time?

 

Just to be sure, you believe that earth’s diameter contracts and expands and that the one astronomical unit between earth and sun expands and contracts with measurement from different frames of reference? Length is earth’s diameter in the first case and earth to sun distance in the second. Seems obvious, but you asked.

Why do you call my long standing interest in what time actually is an obsession?

 

md65536

Distance between Earth and Sun varies even without length contraction since Earth's

orbit isn't a perfect circle (wikipedia says "The Earth is 1.00 ± 0.02 AU from the

Sun")

I understand that earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle and that therefore the distance varies with the irregularity of the ellipse. My point is that various measurements of the average distance (one AU) does not make earth move closer to or further away from the sun.

 

md:

Curses! You've once again proven me a fool by my taking of your bait and replying to

your posts!

 

Don’t take it personally. This is not a social network site (in spite of popularity rating, which does not belong in a serious science forum.) Impersonal science should prevail, even in questioning/challenging of mainstream science.

Try replying to my point by comparing what “aurameters” claim to measure (subtle energy emanations of living things) to what clocks claim to measure... the ever elusive “time.”

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe it because it does vary.

Yes indeed. Lengths actually do contract, and the effect can be experimentally verified with particles moving at very high speeds.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction#Experimental_verifications

[owl]

Cap ‘n Refsmmat:

Yes indeed. Lengths actually do contract, and the effect can be experimentally

verified with particles moving at very high speeds.

 

Has anyone ever experimentally verified the decrease in distance from earth to sun (as measured by extreme velocity fly-by frames of reference) by an obvious reality check: the increased radiation/heat on earth as it gets much closer to the sun?

(Rhetorical question.)

Earth does not actually get closer to sun as these thought experiments from relativity and all the precise math (from extreme frames of reference) would have us believe. (Even tho C is constant. No more lectures on SR, please. I have actually studied it in depth.)

 

No, Cap ‘n. I disagree. We would fry if we got that much closer to our sun. It simply is not true. Measurement does not make the distance change!

 

PS:Earth does not grow and shrink in diameter either, regardless of the 'science myth' of length contraction.

Edited June 17, 2011 by owl

[swansont]

I’m not being obscure or cryptic about the obvious meaning of event duration. Pick a physical process (“any physical process”, as a card shark would say.) Pick any instant, “now.” Wait awhile. Pick another instant,” now.” Use a stopwatch if you like. The duration of the event you chose to monitor is the “time” between the clicks or the two instants of “now.”

Note: We did not create something, “time” with this activity. We just measured the duration between two instants while observing a physical process.

 

So why do you get a pass with not having to define your terms, but you require it of time in science? I can just say "it's obvious what I mean by time" and that's good enough?

 

A clock is time?

Nope, didn't say that.

 

Cap ‘n Refsmmat:

 

 

Has anyone ever experimentally verified the decrease in distance from earth to sun (as measured by extreme velocity fly-by frames of reference) by an obvious reality check: the increased radiation/heat on earth as it gets much closer to the sun?

(Rhetorical question.)

Earth does not actually get closer to sun as these thought experiments from relativity and all the precise math (from extreme frames of reference) would have us believe. (Even tho C is constant. No more lectures on SR, please. I have actually studied it in depth.)

 

No, Cap ‘n. I disagree. We would fry if we got that much closer to our sun. It simply is not true. Measurement does not make the distance change!

 

PS:Earth does not grow and shrink in diameter either, regardless of the 'science myth' of length contraction.

 

So we've moved from philosophy to out-and-out physics denial. The problem is you now are compelled to present some kind of physical model explaining the results of relativity (see speculations rule #1)

[owl]

swansont:

So we've moved from philosophy to out-and-out physics denial. The problem is you now are compelled to present some kind of physical model explaining the results of relativity (see speculations rule #1)

 

From the Wikipedia link provided by Cap ’n R above:

 

A direct experimental confirmation of Lorentz contraction is of course hard to achieve, as such an effect can only be observed at particles that nearly travel at the speed of light, and which spatial dimensions are vanishingly small.

 

It is the leap from high speed particle physics on micro-scale to astronomical scale length/distance that has not been experimentally verified.

Any astronomy site will verify one AU as a constant (averaging the elliptical variation in distance,) and any earth-science site will verify the constant earth diameter (neglecting any increase in the trivial bulge at the equator over eons of centripetal force from spinning.)

 

Further, if earth-sun distance contracted significantly, a significant increase in global temperature would occur as a result. No such result has been measured. (No one attributes global warming to such “length contraction.”) Lack of such a drastic change is verification of my null hypothesis (that no such contraction occurs.)

Lack of catastrophic gravitational changes from closer proximity to the sun constitutes the same kind of verification... no contraction of the one AU length.

 

continuing with the Wikipedia link:

Reality of Lorentz contraction:

Another issue that is sometimes discussed concerns the question whether this contraction is "real" or "apparent". However, this problem only stems from terminology, as our common language attributes different meanings to both of them. On one side, the word "real" is used for things that we can measure without considerable observational errors, and "apparent" therefore denotes to the products of observational error, optical distortions, or displaced images like a Fata Morgana. If this definition is chosen, length contraction would be "real" since it principally can be detected by error free measurements of the simultaneous positions of the object's endpoints...

Again this is all in the arena of high speed particle physics, which has not been experimentally verified as applicable to the solar system scale of length/distance as the basis for my challenge. Even if a near-light-speed fly-by of our solar system measured the distance as half the standard AU (as a verification of SR,) this would not mean that earth actually moved to half the present distance to the sun (as verified above.)

 

Likewise earth itself would not shrink to half its size because of a similar measurement. Verification is self evident by any definition of "reality," but, if required, I would site "Google Earth" photos, which never show such a shrunken earth.

 

So the word “real” as used in the Wiki quote above must also apply to “...error free measurements of the (simultaneous) positions of the object's endpoints”... on solar system scale, in which the “object” is either one AU (end points being sun and earth) or earth scale, the end points being the extremes of its diameter .

 

Now to the following exchange with swansont:

me:

"A clock is time?"

swansont:

"Nope, didn't say that."

Replay:

Me:” what can we ‘point to and say,’ this is time?”

You:

"A clock. It measures time."

 

You said we can point to a clock and say that this is time, a direct answer to my question. (I know this is picky but literal.)

Edited June 17, 2011 by owl

[DrRocket]

Yes indeed. Lengths actually do contract, and the effect can be experimentally verified with particles moving at very high speeds.

 

http://en.wikipedia....l_verifications

 

The effect has been seen in terms of things like the distance traveled by muons, which is also indicative of time dilation. However, as far as I know a direct measurement of length contraction has not been achieved. I am aware of an experiment to attempt just such a measurement. I don't know the details of how that is to be done or current status of the expeeriment. I will PM a physicist involved and see if he responds with any reportable progress.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, Cap ‘n. I disagree. We would fry if we got that much closer to our sun. It simply is not true. Measurement does not make the distance change!

You do not understand how relativity works. We won't be sitting here in our air-conditioned living rooms and then suddenly whooosh we're half a mile from the surface of the Sun. We will measure the distance to be the same. Someone flying from the Earth to the Sun at near the speed of light would find the distance to be incredibly short.

 

Measurement does not make the distance change, but your perspective does.

 

The effect has been seen in terms of things like the distance traveled by muons, which is also indicative of time dilation. However, as far as I know a direct measurement of length contraction has not been achieved. I am aware of an experiment to attempt just such a measurement. I don't know the details of how that is to be done or current status of the expeeriment. I will PM a physicist involved and see if he responds with any reportable progress.

Yeah, there's never been a ruler fired at 99% of light speed or anything like that. There's a lot of particle physics that depends on Lorentz contraction behaving as predicted, though.

 

Apparently the Space Interferometry Mission would be able to make accurate measurements, but it was cancelled.

[swansont]

It is the leap from high speed particle physics on micro-scale to astronomical scale length/distance that has not been experimentally verified.

Any astronomy site will verify one AU as a constant (averaging the elliptical variation in distance,) and any earth-science site will verify the constant earth diameter (neglecting any increase in the trivial bulge at the equator over eons of centripetal force from spinning.)

 

I'm pretty sure that gravity has been not been experimentally verified in your living room, but I venture to guess that we all agree it is present there.

 

Further, if earth-sun distance contracted significantly, a significant increase in global temperature would occur as a result. No such result has been measured. (No one attributes global warming to such “length contraction.”) Lack of such a drastic change is verification of my null hypothesis (that no such contraction occurs.)

Lack of catastrophic gravitational changes from closer proximity to the sun constitutes the same kind of verification... no contraction of the one AU length.

 

You really need to learn some relativity, because this represents a pretty spectacular failure to comprehend.

 

Now to the following exchange with swansont:

me:

"A clock is time?"

swansont:

"Nope, didn't say that."

Replay:

Me:” what can we ‘point to and say,’ this is time?”

You:

"A clock. It measures time."

 

You said we can point to a clock and say that this is time, a direct answer to my question. (I know this is picky but literal.)

 

How are you getting from "a clock measures time" to "a clock is time" ?

 

If you insist on misinterpreting the statement, then I will amend my answer to be "there is nothing you can point to and say 'this is time' because time is not a physical object." Better?

[DrRocket]

The effect has been seen in terms of things like the distance traveled by muons, which is also indicative of time dilation. However, as far as I know a direct measurement of length contraction has not been achieved. I am aware of an experiment to attempt just such a measurement. I don't know the details of how that is to be done or current status of the expeeriment. I will PM a physicist involved and see if he responds with any reportable progress.

 

 

 

Yeah, there's never been a ruler fired at 99% of light speed or anything like that. There's a lot of particle physics that depends on Lorentz contraction behaving as predicted, though.

 

Apparently the Space Interferometry Mission would be able to make accurate measurements, but it was cancelled.

 

I did get a reply. There are, not surprisingly, some major difficulties with the experimental setup, but the experiment is still planned. the theoretical work for the measurement has been done. Best current estimate is 2-3 years before an announcement.

 

I don't know anything more than this.

 

Assuming that this comes off as planned it will be an impressive display of experimental skill. The result itself is most unlikely to be a surprise.

[rigney]

I did get a reply. There are, not surprisingly, some major difficulties with the experimental setup, but the experiment is still planned. the theoretical work for the measurement has been done. Best current estimate is 2-3 years before an announcement.

 

I don't know anything more than this.

 

Assuming that this comes off as planned it will be an impressive display of experimental skill. The result itself is most unlikely to be a surprise.

 

What was time before man decided to inject his ideas? Even the notion of it is absurd unless we can determine how sub-atomic particals and a celestial universe feel about it. Time is of the essence only to humans who think of speeds and distances only as scientific measurments. A 'tick" at this moment is the future. A 'tock", the past. Let's just consider ourselves lucky enough to be in the in-betweens of nature, "not our own makings". Edited June 18, 2011 by rigney

[owl]

Would someone please address my replies to the quoted material on length contraction in my last post.

Telling me that I need to understand it better does not help when I give it my best shot and no one answers. I am not a mathematician, but I am seriously trying to understand how length contraction comes out of the particle accelerator and applies to earth's diameter and our standard astronomical unit. If those lengths really "contracted," how is it that earth's diameter, earth itself does not shrink, and we do not actually get closer to the sun. I thought these were fair question deserving more than implied ridicule for answers (and another demerit in the popularity contest department.)

 

As an aside, I'd like to put the exchange with swansont in that post to rest.

swansont

How are you getting from "a clock measures time" to "a clock is time" ?

 

Like this: I didn’t ask, “What can we point to and say, ‘this measures time’?... to which “a clock” would have been an obvious answer (though it doesn't address what time is.

I asked, “What can we point to and say, ‘this is time’?, to which you replied with a complete sentence “A clock.”, meaning a clock is time. You then added that it measures time, but I was asking, as always “what is time?” I am really picky about accurate use of language ... to say what we mean and mean what we say. (Which is why I contantly bitch about the use of "time dilation" without any consensus on what time is.... i.e., just that, whatever it is, it "dilates." This is all part of my ongoing inquiry into what we mean when we say, “time.”

 

If you insist on misinterpreting the statement, then I will amend my answer to be "there is nothing you can point to and say 'this is time' because time is not a physical object." Better?

 

Yes. But if it is just "Event Duration of Physical Processes" (my coined acronym for time, EDPP) then slowing down of physical processes is the empirical observation and does not fall into the pit of "time" reification, i.e., that "it dilates." OK?

 

rigney:

A 'tick" at this moment is the future. A 'tock", the past.

 

This just adds to the confusion about time in my opinion. Rather, the "tick" is one instant (now, the present, with no "duration"), and the "tock" is another instant with no "duration." In between the tick and the tock is a segment of event duration which the clock measures and which we call time.

[swansont]

Relativistic effects are dependent on the observer. Someone on earth will never see the (average) distance to the sun change, because we have not changed our motion with respect to it. As has already been pointed out, one would have to be traveling close to c to register a significant difference in the measurement.

 

"Event Duration of Physical Processes" fails, as I have pointed out previously, because the duration of physical events can vary due to environmental changes, such as a change in temperature or magnetic field. One needs to draw a distinction between those and the effects that are present owing to being in a different reference frame (be it inertial or accelerating).

[md65536]

No more lectures on SR, please. I have actually studied it in depth.)

I am not a mathematician, but I am seriously trying to understand how length contraction comes out of the particle accelerator and applies to earth's diameter and our standard astronomical unit. If those lengths really "contracted," how is it that earth's diameter, earth itself does not shrink, and we do not actually get closer to the sun. I thought these were fair question deserving more than implied ridicule for answers (and another demerit in the popularity contest department.)

I'm surprised that you never came across these answers while studying SR in depth. I find that sometimes, pages of books I'm reading get stuck together and I skip over things without even realizing it. You might look over your notes to check for this. Perhaps you accidentally skipped a few chapters.

 

Since you have studied it in depth, you will know how length contraction follows as a logical consequence of the principles of relativity, and you will know what observed evidence must be incorrect if length contraction is false.

 

 

Yes. But if it is just "Event Duration of Physical Processes" (my coined acronym for time, EDPP) then slowing down of physical processes is the empirical observation and does not fall into the pit of "time" reification, i.e., that "it dilates." OK?

EDPP... I like it. It's less confusing than "time" and it's clear from the words exactly what it means (ie. it means what we really mean when we're talking about "time"). It doesn't roll off the tongue quite like "time"--I will pronounce it "Edpeepee"--but it is good.

 

Of course, the Edpeepee still varies due to relativity; that is, the durations can be longer ie. dilated, but since the wording is clearer we can know that we don't have Edpeepee reification, when we say that it is a logical consequence of the principles of relativity and a fact of nature, that "Edpeepee dilates".

Edited June 19, 2011 by md65536

[DrRocket]

I asked, "What can we point to and say, 'this is time'?, to which you replied with a complete sentence "A clock.", meaning a clock is time. You then added that it measures time, but I was asking, as always "what is time?" I am really picky about accurate use of language ... to say what we mean and mean what we say.

 

 

Time is that which is measured by a clock.

[StringJunky]

Time is that which is measured by a clock.

 

Like Length is that which is measured by a ruler.

[rigney]

I didn't make the "Tick-Tock" statement to add drama, just a metaphor reminding us of how little we really know about time. If you thought my reasoning added confusion, give the below link a "5 minute" read. And this guy is a physicist!

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

 

Don't you find it strange looking back 13+ billion years into the past using infrared, yet can't remember what we had for breakfast this morning; or our plans for tomorrows future?

Edited June 19, 2011 by rigney

[swansont]

I didn't make the "Tick-Tock" statement to add drama, just a metaphor reminding us of how little we really know about time. If you thought my reasoning added confusion, give the below link a "5 minute" read. And this guy is a physicist!

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

 

Don't you find it strange looking back 13+ billion years into the past using infrared, yet can't remember what we had for breakfast this morning; or our plans for tomorrows future?

 

He's not addressing the ontological question

 

I’m trying to understand how time works.

 

How it works is not the same as what it is. We know a bit about how it works. One area where we are lacking is the arrow of time.

 

One problem, as it pertains to this thread, is that if you don't understand how time works, you probably have no hope with the ontological question.

[rigney]

He's not addressing the ontological question

 

 

 

How it works is not the same as what it is. We know a bit about how it works. One area where we are lacking is the arrow of time.

 

One problem, as it pertains to this thread, is that if you don't understand how time works, you probably have no hope with the ontological question.

 

If I may ask, who recently installed you as God, or a god of any consequence? Did you even bother reading this physicists revue, or simply think I was too stupid to understand his meaning? The "arrow of time" was mentioned in his opening statements.

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

 

Here is another you may, or may not want to revue.

 

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/02/ontology-of-time.html

Edited June 19, 2011 by rigney

[swansont]

If I may ask, who recently installed you as God, or a god of any consequence? Did you even bother reading this physicists revue, or simply think I was too stupid to understand his meaning? The "arrow of time" was mentioned in his opening statements.

 

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

 

Here is another you may, or may not want to revue.

 

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/02/ontology-of-time.html

I've been a moderator for a couple of years. A physicist (at the PhD level) for a while longer. Which deified status was of concern to you? The one where I suggest/imply you shouldn't be hijacking the thread, or the one where I draw the distinction between the details of the discussion?

 

The arrow of time is not the ontological question of this thread. The interviewer in the wired article is mistaken in her assessment that Carroll is addressing the question of "what is time?" The OP doesn't mention the arrow of time. The second link doesn't mention Sean Carroll or the arrow of time.

 

If you want to discuss a different topic, open a new thread.

[rigney]

I've been a moderator for a couple of years. A physicist (at the PhD level) for a while longer. Which deified status was of concern to you? The one where I suggest/imply you shouldn't be hijacking the thread, or the one where I draw the distinction between the details of the discussion?

 

The arrow of time is not the ontological question of this thread. The interviewer in the wired article is mistaken in her assessment that Carroll is addressing the question of "what is time?" The OP doesn't mention the arrow of time. The second link doesn't mention Sean Carroll or the arrow of time.

 

If you want to discuss a different topic, open a new thread.

 

Then, why did you bring up the "Arrow of Time"? Your quote; One area where we are lacking is the arrow of time! Unquote. I merely gave you a couple links to look at. Perhaps I don't understand the total emphasis of what "Time Ontology" means, but to suggest plagiarizing either the thread or links is a bit steep. Edited June 19, 2011 by rigney

[swansont]

Then, why did you bring up the "Arrow of Time"? Your quote; One area where we are lacking is the arrow of time! Unquote. I merely gave you a couple links to look at. Perhaps I don't understand the total emphasis of what "Time Ontology" means, but to suggest plagiarizing either the thread or links is a bit steep.

Yeah, that's my quote. Posted as a RESPONSE to you. IOW, you can't use it as a justification for bringing the subject up in the first place.

 

Where the heck did anyone mention plagiarism? No, don't answer that. Just drop it and stop with the off-topic stuff.

[rigney]

Would someone please address my replies to the quoted material on length contraction in my last post.

Telling me that I need to understand it better does not help when I give it my best shot and no one answers. I am not a mathematician, but I am seriously trying to understand how length contraction comes out of the particle accelerator and applies to earth's diameter and our standard astronomical unit. If those lengths really "contracted," how is it that earth's diameter, earth itself does not shrink, and we do not actually get closer to the sun. I thought these were fair question deserving more than implied ridicule for answers (and another demerit in the popularity contest department.)

 

As an aside, I'd like to put the exchange with swansont in that post to rest.

swansont

 

 

Like this: I didnt ask, What can we point to and say, this measures time?... to which a clock would have been an obvious answer (though it doesn't address what time is.

I asked, What can we point to and say, this is time?, to which you replied with a complete sentence A clock., meaning a clock is time. You then added that it measures time, but I was asking, as always what is time? I am really picky about accurate use of language ... to say what we mean and mean what we say. (Which is why I contantly bitch about the use of "time dilation" without any consensus on what time is.... i.e., just that, whatever it is, it "dilates." This is all part of my ongoing inquiry into what we mean when we say, time.

 

 

 

Yes. But if it is just "Event Duration of Physical Processes" (my coined acronym for time, EDPP) then slowing down of physical processes is the empirical observation and does not fall into the pit of "time" reification, i.e., that "it dilates." OK?

 

rigney:

 

 

This just adds to the confusion about time in my opinion. Rather, the "tick" is one instant (now, the present, with no "duration"), and the "tock" is another instant with no "duration." In between the tick and the tock is a segment of event duration which the clock measures and which we call time.

 

Let me apologise to you owl for what someone might have thought as a plan to hijack your thread. Saw it and just wanted to interject an idea. Evidently, my statements to the issue were not germane due to my lack of knowledge, but nothing I said was meant to be disrespectful or dishonest. It's only in my thoughts that distance is always a positive; regardless of how long or short that distance may be. Time is merely a tool to measure the speed necessary for getting the job done. Have a good one. Edited June 20, 2011 by rigney

[owl]

rigney:

It's only in my thoughts that distance is always a positive; regardless of how long or short that distance may be. Time is merely a tool to measure the speed necessary for getting the job done. Have a good one.

 

What do you mean by, “distance is always a positive?” (It is what it is, whatever its end points in the cosmos... Earth to

Sun, Earth diameter,... from here to Andromeda...)

But particle accelerators seem to make these sub-atomic energy levels ("particles") do strange things. Then physicists extrapolate to assume significance beyond that micro-level of study... and we have intelligent scientists believing that all these cosmic distances vary with measurement. Seems like a very homo-sapient-centric view of the cosmos to me. But I am "waxing philosophical" and this is the "specualtions" department, so i am probably off topic. (We certainly would not want that to continue!)

 

I agree with how time is just a tool, a convention, an agreement about process duration and how to label it in standardized units. It's mostly for figuring velocities and human activity schedules ... distances traveled over whatever time span or time of day for us activity coordination worldwide. But whether it is applied to natural cosmic processes or sending vehicles into orbit or deep space, it has been over-rated as something that itself “expands”... the meaning of dilation.

 

Interrupted. Back later. I was just gettinj started on replies.

[owl]

Cap ‘n R:

Measurement does not make the distance change, but your perspective does.

 

Different perspectives (frames of reference) make distance change? How is this different from measurements from different perspectives making distance change?

Either way, do you believe that a near light speed frame of reference viewing (measuring) earth and getting half its well known and published diameter means that earth has actually “contracted” to half-size during that observation/measurement period?

Say it ain’t so! Or at least answer my above objections to such variations in earth diameter and AU length/distance.

Cap 'n R:

Someone flying from the Earth to the Sun at near the speed of light would find the distance to be incredibly short.

 

So, even though it takes light eight minutes to travel the distance, someone flying at near light speed but less than C, as required by physics, will find the distance (8 light minutes) and travel time (eight minutes) to "contract" to less than eight light minutes of length and less than 8 minutes of time? I get that his clock will not show 8 minutes for the journey... because his clock will have slowed down!

Remarkable that the traveler going less than C can cover the standard one AU or 8 light minutes (length) in less time that light itself!

Or maybe there ARE preferred frames of reference!... like at rest relative to the length being measured. Same for the ubiquitous “rod.” The one in hand is a preferred frame of reference (measuring tape in the other hand) over the near-light-speed fly by shot at it. (Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me.)

 

Whoops! Length contraction is not time ontology... or is it?... considering the time component of high velocity. A bit tricky to sort out, topic wise.

 

rigney:

Let me apologise to you owl for what someone might have thought as a plan to hijack your thread. Saw it and just wanted to interject an idea.

 

No apology necessary for my part. I welcome your comments. Seems like more of a policy to intimidate dissent from mainstream relativity theory. In that case, anyone who agrees with me will be either banned or told to start their own thread. Kind of like breaking up the minority argument so we can not support each other in a coherent way (via continuity in the same thread.) But that is just "my perspective."

Edited June 21, 2011 by owl

[rigney]

Cap ‘n R:

 

 

Different perspectives (frames of reference) make distance change? How is this different from measurements from different perspectives making distance change?

Either way, do you believe that a near light speed frame of reference viewing (measuring) earth and getting half its well known and published diameter means that earth has actually “contracted” to half-size during that observation/measurement period?

Say it ain’t so! Or at least answer my above objections to such variations in earth diameter and AU length/distance.

Cap 'n R:

 

 

So, even though it takes light eight minutes to travel the distance, someone flying at near light speed but less than C, as required by physics, will find the distance (8 light minutes) and travel time (eight minutes) to "contract" to less than eight light minutes of length and less than 8 minutes of time? I get that his clock will not show 8 minutes for the journey... because his clock will have slowed down!

Remarkable that the traveler going less than C can cover the standard one AU or 8 light minutes (length) in less time that light itself!

Or maybe there ARE preferred frames of reference!... like at rest relative to the length being measured. Same for the ubiquitous “rod.” The one in hand is a preferred frame of reference (measuring tape in the other hand) over the near-light-speed fly by shot at it. (Seems a reasonable hypothesis to me.)

 

Whoops! Length contraction is not time ontology... or is it?... considering the time component of high velocity. A bit tricky to sort out, topic wise.

 

rigney:

 

 

No apology necessary for my part. I welcome your comments. Seems like more of a policy to intimidate dissent from mainstream relativity theory. In that case, anyone who agrees with me will be either banned or told to start their own thread. Kind of like breaking up the minority argument so we can not support each other in a coherent way (via continuity in the same thread.) But that is just "my perspective."

 

It's around 5:15 AM Tuesday morning here in Lakewood, Ohio. And honestly, I didn't sleep well just thinking that I may have messed up your thread. There has been much input to your many questions and much more to be learned. Started looking through some stuff I had filed away? While it isn't on the micro-cosmic level, and someone may have already put it in the thread, or perhaps it has no revelence. But just thought, if it is written well enough for me to understand, it isn't going to hurt your cause.

 

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Edited June 21, 2011 by rigney