I do not see how that follows at all. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of whether or how we measure it, suggesting that continuous motion through spacetime is a more fundamental reality than discrete positions in space or discrete instants in time treated separately. A meter is an arbitrary unit of length, and a second is an arbitrary unit of duration. A material object traveling at half the speed of light relative to an observer would be measured by that observer as shorter than the same thing not moving at all relative to that same observer. The uncertainty principle is that it is impossible even in principle to measure both the velocity and position of a particle to the same precision at the same designated instant.If C is always the same that implies measurements are accurate and that there is absolute points in space (it least in most if not all senses or "levels") — christian2017
If C is always the same that implies measurements are accurate and that there is absolute points in space (it least in most if not all senses or "levels")
— christian2017
I do not see how that follows at all. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of whether or how we measure it, suggesting that continuous motion through spacetime is a more fundamental reality than discrete positions in space or discrete instants in time treated separately. A meter is an arbitrary unit of length, and a second is an arbitrary unit of duration. A material object traveling at half the speed of light relative to an observer would be measured by that observer as shorter than the same thing not moving at all relative to that same observer. The uncertainty principle is that it is impossible even in principle to measure both the velocity and position of a particle to the same precision at the same designated instant. — aletheist
I do not see how that follows at all. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of whether or how we measure it, suggesting that continuous motion through spacetime is a more fundamental reality than discrete positions in space or discrete instants in time treated separately. — aletheist
A material object traveling at half the speed of light relative to an observer would be measured by that observer as longer than the same thing not moving at all relative to that same observer.
— aletheist
Shorter. — tim wood
Not at all; the separation of space and time, with basic units assigned to each, is an arbitrary convenience. Presumably it reflects the fact that we can directly measure them more easily than velocity. Nevertheless, we could (and arguably should) instead treat velocity as primary and derive our units of distance and duration accordingly. In fact, that is how we get the Planck length and Planck time, the smallest measurable units of distance and duration.Doesn't speed/velocity require a standard unit of distance measurement over a standard unit of time? — christian2017
What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? My contention all along has been that space is not composed of points and time is not composed of instants. We artificially mark points in space and instants in time for purposes such as measurement.I actually never heard Stephen Hawkings nor my Physics professor in college say there is not absolute points in space. — christian2017
Nevertheless, we could (and arguably should) instead treat velocity as primary and derive our units of distance and duration accordingly. In fact, that is how we get the Planck length and Planck time, the smallest measurable units of distance and duration. — aletheist
I actually never heard Stephen Hawkings nor my Physics professor in college say there is not absolute points in space.
— christian2017
What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? My contention all along has been that space is not composed of points and time is not composed of instants. We artificially mark points in space and instants in time for purposes such as measurement. — aletheist
Am I missing something? — christian2017
Am I missing something?
— christian2017
I think you are missing the entire science of quantum physics. Not that I claim to understand it, but listen to some lectures on that topic and have your mind boggled. — Nobeernolife
These examples always assume physical matter can retain its form when at that speed. That is the only flaw. Molecules start to break apart at that speed so the barn, her pole and the girl herself will not be a solid object anymore. -Jeff — christian2017
These examples always assume physical matter can retain its form when at that speed. That is the only flaw. Molecules start to break apart at that speed so the barn, her pole and the girl herself will not be a solid object anymore. -Jeff
— christian2017
You have to ask Jeff how he knows the barn and the pole are moving. — tim wood
I think you are missing the entire science of quantum physics. Not that I claim to understand it, but listen to some lectures on that topic and have your mind boggled. — Nobeernolife
I think the point made in a number of videos made by responsible and knowledgeable scientists on Youtube is that it is very easy to make mistakes in relativity. Among the problems is the need to be precise in definitions. And I know this first-hand from schoolwork. An example of the mistakes that can be made is at hand:
I think you are missing the entire science of quantum physics. Not that I claim to understand it, but listen to some lectures on that topic and have your mind boggled.
— Nobeernolife
The subject is relativity, not QM. He might as well have mentioned Egyptology. And relativity is understandable. QM is not. — tim wood
there is absolute points in space. If he doesn't agree with that then i guess i misinterpreted what he said.
I'm currently reading Einstein's book called "Relativity". It will probably take me 2 years to read that book. — christian2017
there is absolute points in space. If he doesn't agree with that then i guess i misinterpreted what he said.
I'm currently reading Einstein's book called "Relativity". It will probably take me 2 years to read that book.
— christian2017
You have to ask what makes an absolute point different from an ordinary point. The answer is nothing: there are no absolute points. There are reference frames, but like a well-known piece of anatomy, everyone has one.
If your book is short, with short chapters, that's an excellent book. If it has an appendix #5, that's even better. That appendix did not survive into subsequent editions.
Relativity (and QM, as i happens) are among the better verified things on earth. — tim wood
Treated separately by who? Stephen Hawkings nor my Physics Professor ever said that there were not absolute points in space. — christian2017
I'm currently reading Einstein's book called "Relativity". It will probably take me 2 years to read that book. — christian2017
Treated separately by who? Stephen Hawkings nor my Physics Professor ever said that there were not absolute points in space.
— christian2017
I can readily believe that they never said that, because they wouldn't even know what that means. You can't even explain what you mean, so I suspect that you don't know what you mean either. — SophistiCat
I'm currently reading Einstein's book called "Relativity". It will probably take me 2 years to read that book.
— christian2017
It's a popular book aimed at non-physicists, so you shouldn't have so much trouble with it. But I think you (and Jeff from Youtube) should start from the basics: non-relativistic classical physics. For instance, the question of what it would be like for someone to move at a constant speed - whether they would feel any different than if they were staying put - was considered by Galileo back in the 17th century. Einstein only refined that treatment, but to understand what Einstein did and why, you first need to understand Galilean relativity. — SophistiCat
No, I do not agree with you. Here again is what I said.aletheist actually confirmed my main issue. He agrees at least as far as i can tell that there is absolute points in space. If he doesn't agree with that then i guess i misinterpreted what he said. — christian2017
Points in space and instants in time are our creations. They do not exist apart from our designation of them; i.e., they are not real, which is what I take you to mean by "absolute" unless you clarify otherwise.What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? My contention all along has been that space is not composed of points and time is not composed of instants. We artificially mark points in space and instants in time for purposes such as measurement. — aletheist
aletheist actually confirmed my main issue. He agrees at least as far as i can tell that there is absolute points in space. If he doesn't agree with that then i guess i misinterpreted what he said.
— christian2017
No, I do not agree with you. Here again is what I said.
What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? My contention all along has been that space is not composed of points and time is not composed of instants. We artificially mark points in space and instants in time for purposes such as measurement.
— aletheist
Points in space and instants in time are our creations. They do not exist apart from our designation of them; i.e., they are not real, which is what I take you to mean by "absolute" unless you clarify otherwise. — aletheist
Since we invent points and instants as needed for any particular purpose, it depends on how we define them. If we set up a three-dimensional coordinate system for space only, then I suppose that the answer is yes--different things can occupy the same point at different instants. If we set up a four-dimensional coordinate system for spacetime (block universe), then I suppose that the answer is no--only one thing can occupy any individual point-instant.Can a galaxy that is traveling through space at some point in time occupy the same space that another galaxy (there are many galaxies) used to occupy? I'm not saying i know the answer to this but i was wondering what your answer was? — christian2017
Can a galaxy that is traveling through space at some point in time occupy the same space that another galaxy (there are many galaxies) used to occupy? I'm not saying i know the answer to this but i was wondering what your answer was?
— christian2017
Since we invent points and instants as needed for any particular purpose, it depends on how we define them. If we set up a three-dimensional coordinate system for space only, then I suppose that the answer is yes--different things can occupy the same point at different instants. If we set up a four-dimensional coordinate system for spacetime (block universe), then I suppose that the answer is no--only one thing can occupy any individual point-instant.
I ask again: What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? — aletheist
I ask again: What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? — aletheist
I did not answer that question, because I said nothing at all about absolute points, because you still have not explained exactly what you mean by that term. Coordinate systems are arbitrary and artificial intervals marked off relative to an arbitrary and artificial origin, so there is nothing absolute about the points that they define.Can two galaxies have ever occupied the same absolute points in space? You answered that question and i would like to thank you. — christian2017
Since we invent points and instants as needed for any particular purpose, it depends on how we define them. If we set up a three-dimensional coordinate system for space only, then I suppose that the answer is yes--different things can occupy the same point at different instants. If we set up a four-dimensional coordinate system for spacetime (block universe), then I suppose that the answer is no--only one thing can occupy any individual point-instant.
I ask again: What exactly do you mean by "absolute points in space"? — aletheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.