Frame of Reference as Subject in Subjective Idealism

[tar]

New tangent on thread.

 

What role does sleep take, in determining or establishing the baseline (object), from which, and in which changes are noticed?

 

Do the psychological constructs of ID, Ego and superego, have an analog that belongs in this thread?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Schrödinger's hat]

Do the psychological constructs of ID, Ego and superego, have an analog that belongs in this thread?

 

Don't think so, but this -- along with discussion on what constitutes a perception of now -- are interesting topics. I'd also like to explore that AI-that-can-only-transmit-information-east idea further.

Start a new thread?

[owl]

I can exactly describe the "true shape" of our home planet. It just happens to live in four dimensions.

 

The absurdity you point out is entirely normal.

About those four dimensions: I see 3-D objects in 3-D space (three axes describe volume, whether objects or the space in which they exist; and time elapses as things move.

So Earth remains a nearly spherical object spinning and orbiting through space from one moment to another... time, right? It doesn't change shape (very much) over time. It exists as a nearly spherical object independent of how it is observed, from whatever FOR. (Realism.)

So what happened to your claim that a severely oblate spheroid, as seen from the old near c fly-by frame is just as valid a description, because we Earthlings have no privileged FOR over the latter?

 

Btw, I am "wired" to see things from an overview perspective* first, and then focus in on the details.

That is why I keep asking you to make your case for length contraction as a whole and then focus in on details. Cook the eggs until they are done, please, at least once, so I can see the big picture before examining the parts in detail. And of course, I thrive on concrete examples in which I am not required to translate graphs into real world pictures.

*(Reality as a whole, on whatever scale does not depend, for its existence or properties, on the different FORs from which it is observed. My "cosmos with no intelligent life" scene is an illustration of this principle. It wouldn't go away or change drastically sans observational FORs.)

Thanks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And of course, I thrive on concrete examples in which I am not required to translate graphs into real world pictures.

Well, that's unfortunate.

 

Maybe you could answer md65536's recent question, then.

[Iggy]

It exists as a nearly spherical object independent of how it is observed, from whatever FOR. (Realism.)

Do you have a source saying that distance (or volume) cannot be relative to FOR according to realism? I would be very interested to see any source you have for that especially if it explains why.

 

Thank you.

[Iggy]

Ps, yet again (still hammering on the fallacy/absurdity of length contraction as per Cap 'n R's and Swansonts repeated assertions):

In the real world, how does high speed observation (near c FOR) change the shape of Earth, Earth-Sun distance, length of a meter rod, etc?

By the way, this can be proven remarkably easily by assuming an invariant speed of light. You could just derive the relative nature of time with a light clock then solve the relative distance that light travels considering time dilation. Any instance of time dilation necessitates length contraction.

 

Of course, this method does not work with illogical deductions and mistaken notions of invariance conceived out of bias, so it hardly needs mentioned in this thread.

[Schrödinger's hat]

About those four dimensions: I see 3-D objects in 3-D space (three axes describe volume, whether objects or the space in which they exist; and time elapses as things move.

So Earth remains a nearly spherical object spinning and orbiting through space from one moment to another... time, right? It doesn't change shape (very much) over time. It exists as a nearly spherical object independent of how it is observed, from whatever FOR. (Realism.)

So what happened to your claim that a severely oblate spheroid, as seen from the old near c fly-by frame is just as valid a description, because we Earthlings have no privileged FOR over the latter?

Just because I can look at a circle top down and see a circle, doesn't mean someone else can't see an ellipse by looking at it from a funny angle.

 

Btw, I am "wired" to see things from an overview perspective* first, and then focus in on the details.

That is why I keep asking you to make your case for length contraction as a whole and then focus in on details. Cook the eggs until they are done, please, at least once, so I can see the big picture before examining the parts in detail. And of course, I thrive on concrete examples in which I am not required to translate graphs into real world pictures.

 

We gave you your overview, but your response was 'no, prove it'. The reason for the disagreement lies in the minutae. Whether our reading of your stated assumptions is wrong, or they are logically inconsistent, the only way to reveal it is by getting into the nitty gritty.

 

If you want animations rather than/as well as the graphs, I can add some more scenarios to this simulator* to outline the scenario. Other than that, the only way I know of to get a sufficiently precise description of the concepts is to use mathematics.

 

*(Reality as a whole, on whatever scale does not depend, for its existence or properties, on the different FORs from which it is observed. My "cosmos with no intelligent life" scene is an illustration of this principle. It wouldn't go away or change drastically sans observational FORs.)

On this we agree, and have always agreed.

 

 

*please click on it now and go to a random scenario to confirm for me that it works on your browser, if it does not, tell me your browser and OS in a PM and I shall endeavor to fix it.

[owl]

Well, that's unfortunate.

 

Maybe you could answer md65536's recent question, then.

I am presenting realism here as the philosophy that reality, including the intrinsic shapes of objects and the distances between them in the natural world, like the distances between planets and the sun, do not vary with how they are observed, as per FORs at different velocities relative to what is observed/measured. All the above is independent of models, math and graphs and coordinate systems and assumptions about 4-D space. That is why I ask for illustrations using "pictures" or thought experiments based on the above "real world." So I don't see how that request is "unfortunate", considering realism as being about the actual territory, not the various maps describing the "takes" of various FORs describing the territory.

 

What recent question by md65536?

 

Speaking of recent questions, will you please answer mine above (bolded) and address the context preceding it:

About those four dimensions: I see 3-D objects in 3-D space (three axes describe volume, whether objects or the space in which they exist; and time elapses as things move.

So Earth remains a nearly spherical object spinning and orbiting through space from one moment to another... time, right? It doesn't change shape (very much) over time. It exists as a nearly spherical object independent of how it is observed, from whatever FOR. (Realism.)

So what happened to your claim that a severely oblate spheroid, as seen from the old near c fly-by frame is just as valid a description, because we Earthlings have no privileged FOR over the latter?

Have you changed your mind?

If length is NOT invariant (i.e., it changes with FORs), then do you now believe, with Swansont and Schrodinger's hat and others that Earth does in fact drastically change shape and that the Au can shrink to 1/8th of its precisely astronomically verified length, and same with the meter rod? Or is it that we just can not know which is accurate in all of the above, given the "no preferred FOR" dictum? ("Poor science...")

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If length is NOT invariant (i.e., it changes with FORs), then do you now believe, with Swansont and Schrodinger's hat and others that Earth does in fact drastically change shape and that the Au can shrink to 1/8th of its precisely astronomically verified length, and same with the meter rod? Or is it that we just can not know which is accurate in all of the above, given the "no preferred FOR" dictum? ("Poor science...")

The phrasing "drastically change shape" implies that an observer will be looking at Earth and watch in amazement as it squashes itself flat. That doesn't happen.

 

However, different observers will not agree on the Earth's shape, and that's not particularly worrisome to me.

 

At no point have I disagreed with swansont or Schrodinger's Hat.

 

Here's the question I hoped you could answer:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58293-frame-of-reference-as-subject-in-subjective-idealism/page__view__findpost__p__629154

[owl]

Schrodinger's hat, replying to my:

*(Reality as a whole, on whatever scale does not depend, for its existence or properties, on the different FORs from which it is observed. My "cosmos with no intelligent life" scene is an illustration of this principle. It wouldn't go away or change drastically sans observational FORs.)

...

 

On this we agree, and have always agreed.

 

Really!! Then how is it that the distance to the sun, and the shape of earth and the length of a meter rod in the "real world" all vary with FOR?

I had no problem seeing the animated simulator. I have never disputed constant c. It still doesn't make distances between objects, etc.,etc., in the real world shrink.

 

S.h.:

Just because I can look at a circle top down and see a circle, doesn't mean someone else can't see an ellipse by looking at it from a funny angle.

 

We have beaten this to death already. My pancake did not change shape "in the real world" when picked up off the plate (top view) and viewed on edge.

I do not dispute that angular view of things, like the moon, as you suggested, changes with different points of view... only that the moon itself does not (obviously) change shape with differences in angular view.

 

The phrasing "drastically change shape" implies that an observer will be looking at Earth and watch in amazement as it squashes itself flat. That doesn't happen.

 

Glad to hear it again, as you said before.

However, different observers will not agree on the Earth's shape, and that's not particularly worrisome to me.

 

So science doesn't really know what shape Earth actually is?... the alternative I have often mentioned. It could have a 1000mile diameter, according to your near c fly-by observer? Who knows?

In that case we can throw epistemology as applied to empirical science right out the window.

 

At no point have I disagreed with swansont or Schrodinger's Hat.

 

They have both stated that length varies with FOR. This implies that there is no "real world", as it all depends on the FOR from which it is observed... the philosophical point of view challenged in this thread.

Here's the question I hoped you could answer

:

md:

From the flashlight's frame of reference, the light should move one light-second in one second (as with any observer since the speed of light is c in every frame of reference), and the flashlight is not moving relative to the observer, so the light is one light-second away from the flashlight after one second.

 

Does anyone disagree?

 

From a realists perspective, the overview of the whole scene, it is a "trick question" based on the assumption that FOR describes reality, and reality changes with different FORs. I (standing for realism) say it does not.

 

Light travels at c. A flashlight traveling at 1/2 c and shining its light ahead in the direction of its travel will be traveling through the tail end of the beam it is projecting at 1/2 c. So the front end of its beam will appear to be traveling at 1/2 c relative to the flashlight, even though light is still traveling at full c from the starting point.

This is why my "jousting lasers" scene was based on a one Au "track" with two end points, the starting points of the two jousters. So we need not claim that light is moving at constant c relative to some "ether," making space a substance or whatever. It moves at c relative to the point of origin of its source.

That is another good reason to take it off the graph and put it in the real world, at least as a "picture" that relates to the real world.

Ps; Wikipedia on realism:

Realism, Realist or Realistic are terms that describe any manifestation of philosophical realism, the belief that reality exists independently of observers...

I have explained many times that FOR as substituted for "observers" in this thread does not require a person or subject, but can be an abstract point of view from different locations and/or different velocities relative to whatever is observed. Changes in FOR do not change "reality", which has a "life of its own" whether observed or not.

(This to the forum in general. I have quit replying to Iggy in particular... Insert exact quote if you can find it.)

Edited October 1, 2011 by owl

[Iggy]

I am presenting realism here as the philosophy that reality, including the intrinsic shapes of objects and the distances between them in the natural world, like the distances between planets and the sun, do not vary with how they are observed, as per FORs at different velocities relative to what is observed/measured.

Do you have any backup or support that such a property is precluded from realism?

 

Thank you

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So science doesn't really know what shape Earth actually is?... the alternative I have often mentioned. It could have a 1000mile diameter, according to your near c fly-by observer? Who knows?

In that case we can throw epistemology as applied to empirical science right out the window.

Science knows exactly what shape an observer will measure the Earth to be. It can predict that mathematically with excellent precision.

 

It's not like relativity permits an observer to fly past and discover that the Earth is now in the shape of a half-eaten jelly doughnut. There are certain rules.

 

Light travels at c. A flashlight traveling at 1/2 c and shining its light ahead in the direction of its travel will be traveling through the tail end of the beam it is projecting at 1/2 c. So the front end of its beam will appear to be traveling at 1/2 c relative to the flashlight, even though light is still traveling at full c from the starting point.

So you're saying that the person holding the flashlight will measure the velocity of the light beam as 1/2 c relative to him? That's what this seems to imply.

[md65536]

So you're saying that the person holding the flashlight will measure the velocity of the light beam as 1/2 c relative to him? That's what this seems to imply.

I think he's saying that the person holding the flashlight will measure the velocity of light to be c, using the Earth's frame of reference. As far as I can remember, owl has never admitted acceptance of "there are no preferred frame of reference".

 

But what I wonder is, what if the person holding the flashlight is on the Earth, which is orbiting the sun, pointing the flashlight in the direction they're orbiting? Then are they "catching up to the light beam" as owl suggests, and thus measure a speed of light less than c? Or does the Earth not "catch up to light" the way that the flashlight holder in your example does? Is the earth really a preferred frame of reference, the only place where you can truly say "This place is at rest, as far as measurements of the speed of light are concerned. Everything else in the universe truly does move around the Earth."?

[Iggy]

So you're saying that the person holding the flashlight will measure the velocity of the light beam as 1/2 c relative to him? That's what this seems to imply.

I woudI think he's saying that the person holding the flashlight will measure the velocity of light to be c, using the Earth's frame of reference.

But he has said before that the velocity "relative to the ship" or "relative to the flashlight" is c. Using Owl's mechanics, and the thought experiment he has given, there is no frame (either privileged or not) where the speed of light relative to both flashlights is c.

 

Here is an example,

 

Sunlight traveling from sun to earth has the well known constant velocity relative to both sun and earth. From Alpha Centauri to earth, its velocity is relative, again, to both source and destination of the light. (186,000 mps from sun or Alpha Centauri to earth.)

 

Alpha Centauri and earth are no different from the ships in Owl's latest jousting thought experiment. If they are approaching one another with any speed then the speed of light relative to one needs to be the same as the speed of light relative to the other... and they both need to be c to be consistent with Owl's worldview. He obviously can't make that work.

 

Here are the two pertinent frames animated I offered to help him try (I omitted a photon because it's superfluous and the distance isn't 1au because that would be inconvenient, but the principle remains the same):

 

 

Edited October 2, 2011 by Iggy

[md65536]

Alpha Centauri and earth are no different from the ships in Owl's latest jousting thought experiment. If they are approaching one another with any speed then the speed of light relative to one needs to be the same as the speed of light relative to the other... and they both need to be c to be consistent with Owl's worldview. He obviously can't make that work.

Unless the sun, Earth, and Alpha Centauri are all part of the same preferred frame of reference and don't behave like the "moving flashlight source".

Perhaps Realism asserts that the Earth and the sun are fixed in space and do not move relative to each other.

 

 

[tar]

Owl,

 

From your #453

 

About those four dimensions: I see 3-D objects in 3-D space (three axes describe volume, whether objects or the space in which they exist; and time elapses as things move.

 

I think you are forgetting something. Time elapses even if things in your Frame Of Reference DON'T move relative to you.

 

Like the half full cup of lukewarm coffee next to you, which was a full, hot, cup of coffee next to you, 5 minutes ago.

 

Let's say the flybyguy flies by and measures the cup full and hot. How many minutes will pass, on the flybyguy's watch until he measures the cup half full and lukewarm? (Remember all of the flyby guy's observers are in his FOR, have watches that are ticking the same rate as his, can radio to the flybyguy with instaradio, and are also passing by (the somewhat oddly shaped cup) at the flybyguy's velocity.)

 

You see Owl, (and I think I can talk to you, since you are still misunderstanding something that I also misunderstood, which I now think I understand the "meaning" of), your understanding is from this FOR, and from this FOR, everything exists as you say, when and where it happens, in the exact shape/position, and the exact time/causal order/duration, that it actually happens, regardless of whether anybody is looking at it or not. But move, in reference to this frame of reference, not in imaginary space, but actually through this frame of reference and you have aquired a new frame of reference where time still ticks off the same, meters are still meters, and seconds are still seconds and light still travels 300,000,000meters in one second. All that has changed is you and your FOR through the previous FOR. You are stationary, as far as you are concerned, and its your previous FOR that is moving through your present one.

 

If you compare, from a fullgod perspective, the measurements you would have taken from the first FOR and the measurements you would have taken from the second FOR, the position/shape of events, and the duration/timing of events, would nescessarily, not be the same. That is what the transformations of SR allow us to do. SR describes exactly how it is possible that everything really exists and really is happening in actual reality, even though the measurements of time and distance disagree between frames. Light only travels at C, in both frames, and provides the invariant link between.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Or another way to look at it.

 

Presently, each point in the universe is one universe age old.

 

Each point has access to, or is being reached by electromagnetic patterns emitted from all the other points in the universe, propogating at C. This has been the case since the universe became transparent.

 

Each point is separated by a distance, such that this propagation takes a certain amount of time to go from point A to point B. Say if the propagation takes 1 sec, then A and B are 300,000,000meters apart in space.

 

Normally, if I was glued to A and something happened at B, it would take light 1 second to reach A.

 

If I cheat the system and move toward B very very fast, I will be at neither point A or B but at all the points between consecutively. If I run into the propagation, it will be getting to me at the speed of light, and at that moment that I get to the propagation, I will be at the point that normally receives propagations from B at the speed of light there, but the next moment I am at a different point, so WHEN I ran into the propagation, and WHERE I ran into it, need some figuring. Point A is getting farther away from me in time and space, and B is getting closer in both. Yet both A and B and me are at a point in the universe that is the age of the universe old, with the propagations from the rest of the universe arriving at our points at the speed of light. The only difference is our relative velocity, hence our take on the separation in both distance and time of commonly witnessed shapes and events.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

[Iggy]

Perhaps Realism asserts that the Earth and the sun are fixed in space and do not move relative to each other.

I wouldn't be surprised. Realism has been asserting some funny and unsubstantiated things lately

[tar]

Each point has access to, or is being reached by electromagnetic patterns emitted from all the other points in the universe, propogating at C. This has been the case since the universe became transparent.

 

 

On reflection, this might be a misstatement. The instant the universe became transparent, light was only coming to a specified point from the items immediatedly around it. The "clarity" probably would have expanded from this specified point, "clearing the fog" in a sphere that expanded at the speed of light. Might be said that the background microwave radiation is our point's current clear/fog borderline.

 

Regards, TAR2

[owl]

Cap 'n R,

from my post 447:

Rather, you said that there is no way to know which frame of reference is correct... what I call the standard, Earth science measures of all of the above or the measures taken from the infamous near c fly-by FOR.

 

Again where does that leave the epistemology of empirical science? Hijacked by a theory of length contraction based on “no preferred frame of reference,” (also based on no experimental evidence) so the squished Earth is just as valid as the spherical Earth?

 

From my post 453:

Cap ‘n:

I can exactly describe the "true shape" of our home planet. It just happens to live in four dimensions.

 

The absurdity you point out is entirely normal.

Me:

About those four dimensions: I see 3-D objects in 3-D space (three axes describe volume), whether objects or the space in which they exist; and time elapses as things move.

 

Again, how does elapsed time during movement contribute to changing shapes of 3-D objects (objects with volume) like Earth?

Is a squished version of Earth just as valid as a nearly spherical Earth, according to length contraction or not? You made the case in great detail quite a few pages ago that the ship flying by at near c could see Earth as having a 1000 mile diameter, and that is just as valid as an 8000mile diameter Earth. Have you now changed your mind?

I think you answered in your 459:

However, different observers will not agree on the Earth's shape, and that's not particularly worrisome to me.

 

So Earth has no intrinsic, objective shape of its own, independent of how it is observed?... and epistemology (how we know what we know) has no place in relativity... "thrown out" as it were?

 

This is idealism, contradicting realism... that the reality of “the world” does not depend on how it is observed.... the constant theme of this thread.

(Wiki... again:...” philosophical realism, the belief that reality exists independently of observers...”)

 

You said:

At no point have I disagreed with swansont or Schrodinger's Hat.

 

To my:

Reality as a whole, on whatever scale does not depend, for its existence or properties, on the different FORs from which it is observed. My "cosmos with no intelligent life" scene is an illustration of this principle. It wouldn't go away or change drastically sans observational FORs.).

...

 

Schrodinger’s hat replied:

...

On this we agree, and have always agreed.

 

Do you agree with his reply or not?

 

Cap ‘n:

So you're saying that the person holding the flashlight will measure the velocity of the light beam as 1/2 c relative to him? That's what this seems to imply.

 

Seems reasonable since it is going c and he is going 1/2 c through the tail end of the beam. But I know the theory of length contraction has abandoned reason, so my appeals to the latter will be a moot argument in this case.

 

I am saying (this thread contends) that FOR does not determine reality, even though c is constant. The beams of light each travel one Au in 8+ minutes, just like sunlight in the real world. My “track” was for distance-traveled reference. The light beams traveled over 5/8ths of the track length at c velocity while the observers firing the beams traveled 5/16ths of the track length, going 1/2 c. At that point on the track and after just over 5 minutes of travel they see each other’s beams.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Seems reasonable since it is going c and he is going 1/2 c through the tail end of the beam.

Light moves at the speed of light relative to any observer, and you agreed that the experiments demonstrate this. So your version of events has been experimentally demonstrated to be impossible.

[tar]

Owl,

 

Early on, you said:

My argument then as now is that one astronomical unit stays the same length and earth stays the same shape and size, in the objective world of what is, independent of extreme platforms (FORs) from which they are measured.

To claim otherwise, i.e., that "there is no preferred FOR... those measurements are equally correct" means that one perspective is just as accurate as another, and therefore, there is no objective universe. It all depends on how we look at (and measure) it.

 

 

Cap'n Refsmmat replied:

 

Not necessarily. A relativistic explanation would involve a four-dimensional spacetime which we view three-dimensional sections out of, and different frames of reference necessarily view different three-dimensional sections out of the four-dimensional (immutable) whole.

 

But I'm not a general relativity guy -- ajb would have to make sure I'm talking sense here.

 

Seems Cap'n answered your logic early on and agreed that indeed immutable objective reality does exist, but is not completely realized as a pie until you assemble the slices.

 

You seem to be arguing that the slice is what is real, and if it is not, then neither is the pie.

 

Well, I think, after following this thread for a bit, that it is evident that the pie is real. Although one slice is not enough to describe it fully.

 

Regards, TAR2

[owl]

Light moves at the speed of light relative to any observer, and you agreed that the experiments demonstrate this. So your version of events has been experimentally demonstrated to be impossible.

You said:

So you're saying that the person holding the flashlight will measure the velocity of the light beam as 1/2 c relative to him?

I replied (bold edit for emphasis):

 

Seems reasonable since it is going c and he is going 1/2 c through the tail end of the beam. But I know the theory of length contraction has abandoned reason, so my appeals to the latter will be a moot argument in this case.

 

The Michelson/Moreley and subsequent experiments confirming constant c relative to any observer does seem to defy reason, as I agreed above, yet I accept the experimental results and do not argue against them. What those results do not confirm is length contraction as a logical consequence of constant c. That is what I tried to demonstrate in my little "jousters" scenario with a one Au "track" that does not contract.

There have not been any experiments confirming large scale* length contraction, as many have acknowledged in this thread. *(Such 'confirmation' (or not) on a subatomic scale in a particle accelerator would require expertise in atomic physics, so I will not presume to criticize, though I have my doubts about how the "end points" are measured in the accelerator.)

 

That leaves all relativity's claims about the validity of length contraction as applied to Earth, the Au, the meter rod and the distance through Earth's atmosphere not confirmed by experiments.

Please answer the several unanswered questions/challenges in this regard in my last post.

 

TAR2:

Seems Cap'n answered your logic early on and agreed that indeed immutable objective reality does exist, but is not completely realized as a pie until you assemble the slices.

 

You seem to be arguing that the slice is what is real, and if it is not, then neither is the pie.

 

Well, I think, after following this thread for a bit, that it is evident that the pie is real. Although one slice is not enough to describe it fully.

Realism says that the whole cosmos and all of its parts are real independent of how (from whatever FOR) it/they are observed.

 

The Cap 'n has said many times that a squished Earth ( or contracted Au, etc.) is just as valid a description as a nearly spherical Earth (or 8+ light minute Au), because 'there is no preferred FOR.'

No, "the world" and all its properties are intrinsically real. How we see it doesn't change that.

All the theoretical "slicing" of the "4-D Earth"* etc. or "the world" in general does not change that.

* I have many times challenged the fourth dimension asserted above. Objects and the space they exist/move in are 3-D (described by 3 axes.) Time elapses as things move. Calling time a dimension coalesced with space does not change the the shape of things or the distances traveled when they move around in a "world" independent of observational FORs.

Edited October 5, 2011 by owl

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What those results do not confirm is length contraction as a logical consequence of constant c.

Fascinating. Length contraction and time dilation were devised as ways to make things logically consistent after the constant speed of light was accepted. They are direct consequences.

 

There have not been any experiments confirming large scale* length contraction, as many have acknowledged in this thread. *(Such 'confirmation' (or not) on a subatomic scale in a particle accelerator would require expertise in atomic physics, so I will not presume to criticize, though I have my doubts about how the "end points" are measured in the accelerator.)

My boss is a particle physicist. Anything you want to ask him?

[tar]

Owl,

 

Interesting to me, is that early on in this thread, I understood what you were saying and agreed with it.

 

Later on, after I finally understood the meaning behind SR and what it was trying to say, I now find that I understand what you are saying, but also see that you do not understand the consequences of the speed of light measuring the same for any and all FORs.

 

If one FOR is moving at a velocity to another FOR, and observers in each frame witness the same events, they will not, indeed can not report the same distances between the events and the same timing of the events.

 

They will both observe the events. They are real events. And they have to have the same reality in both frames. Since the speed of light does not change. What is different between the frames?

 

Regards, TAR2

[owl]

Fascinating. Length contraction and time dilation were devised as ways to make things logically consistent after the constant speed of light was accepted. They are direct consequences.

 

 

My boss is a particle physicist. Anything you want to ask him?

Yes, thanks.

How are the "end points" measured in the accelerator? And how do those measuremets confirm that the distance between them has been shortened by their respective high velocities?

In other words, how does going faster make the distance traveled, or length between them shorter or contracted?

 

Also fascinating that you refer to length contraction and time dilation as:

...devised as ways to make things logically consistent after the constant speed of light was accepted. They are direct consequences.

 

I agree that they are "devised" for the purpose you stated.

 

Clocks slow down at high velocity (etc.), and "time dilation" is "devised."

Three D objects and the distances between them in space look different from different perspectives/velocities, and "length contraction is "devised." And they are conceptual reciprocals... expanded time=contracted space/distance. "Time and space" are taken for granted as some sort of entities... reified. (Not so, ontologically.)

 

On the other hand, how "logically consistent" is the assumption that solid objects either change shape or their shape can not be known because of the great mystery of c and how things look from different frames of reference. Same for the natural/objective/intrinsic distance between objects in the real cosmos.

The cosmos doesn't care how we look at it. It is as it is, and its up to science to find the best ways in all cases to investigate and discover "what it is", how it and its parts are shaped, how far it is between them and how all parts of it dynamically interact.

(A little philosophy...)