What is "spacetime" really?

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

While you spent 14,000 hours in meditative stillness, I took many car rides, plane flights, and other transient shuffles of everyday life. Moving as I have, I experienced 13,999 hours compared to your 14,000 hours.

 

My experience was very real to me, so I demand the cosmos accept it as the objective truth. Your experience was equally real to you and you likewise demand the cosmos accept it as the objective truth. But, which of our experiences does the cosmos prefer?

 

My 14,000 hours were earth-commensurate fractions (1/24 specifically) of a complete real- earth rotation. Sounds like your hours were shaved a bit short by exposing your watch to more accelerating and stopping than mine while sitting still. But a standardized "hour" remains a 24th of an earth rotation "in the real world."

 

Everything is relative...

Ah, so!.... I've discovered your mantra, the very core of your system of belief.

 

For me, and the primary real-ization derived from my nearly four decades of daily meditation is that "everything is relative as viewed from local perspectives " (i.e., relative to other perspectives)

 

But (and it's a big one... no pun intended...) What is not relative is absolute. This is the "cosmic perspective" I've been presenting here... as a thought experiment for scientific contemplation, but as a direct realization that reality pertaining to over-all cosmology transcends the limits of local perspective, including all the thought experiments used to teach relativity... as if there is no transcendental perspective.... your limit and bias as a relativity dogmatist.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

You seem to be incapable of understanding what you call "presentism" as anything but a questionable concept (which you prefer over the alternative... in which past and future are real and accessible).

 

You lost me. Are you saying that I think the past and future are accessible? Or, that relativity requires that?

 

No. You once said you preferred "presentism" to the alternative which reifies the past and future. So do I. I am adopting the label "presentism" for the purpose of my hammering on "time" as not itself "real" while the ongoing, perpetual present is now happening regardless of ones focus on "spans of time."

I agree that time is a human concept, just like gravity.

The word "gravity" denotes the actual force of attraction among all masses. The word "time" denotes what you "capture" between clicks of you stopwatch button. Quite a difference in "the real world!"

 

 

I agree that space is most likely infinite and unbound. I disagree that your perspective is the cosmic perspective. For example, you're quite sure that the cosmic perspective has the earth 93 million miles from the sun. But, the only reason you think the earth is that far from the sun is because you are in earth's reference frame. Were you in the center of the galaxy (and motionless to it) you would measure that distance differently. Human arrogance has historically believed that earth is somehow preferred by the cosmos. But, relativity tells us that even things like duration and distance are relative.

I don't care if you go with miles, kilometers, earth diameters or light minutes. The distance between earth and sun (obviously not a perfect circle orbit, i.e., average distance is very well established scientifically, as is the distance to the moon, Alpha Centauri, etc., etc.

I could give you a dozen links of the "ask a scientist" type.... (OMG I'm the conventional one on this point!) and they will all give you the well established distance in units of your choice.

 

I'm actuall quite tired of this aspect of the argument here. You are very good with scientific links. Treat yourself to a few of them on the established distances between the usual bodies of interest in space! No, modest, it is not all relative.

 

Distance and duration as I see it is not distance and duration as you see it. Two things that happen simultaneously from my point of view, may not happen simultaneously from your point of view.

Transcending "my point of view" and "your point of view" is an objective, transcendental point of view. I know this from 14,000 hours of transcending "my personal point of view."

 

Massive objects can do many things without the need for human concepts. The idea is to create a human concept that explains and describes what is happening between massive objects—to understand it ontologically.

Agreed. And I would add... from a universal perspective, not limited by relative perspective.

 

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

(Can you even imagine space as emptiness, given your "educational" indoctrination as to how it must be 'something' with various properties like curvature to explain the simple fact that objects *in space* often have curved trajectories as effected by gravity as a force operating through *empty space" (which seems impossible to you?)

 

Can you explain "affected by gravity" and "operating through empty space" ontologically?

I thought I just did in the quote above. Ontologically, emptiness is nothing. Positing "something" as a required medium requires evidence and explanation.

 

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I take your point that "nearly the same" is not "identical" and that Lorentz invarience yields the required precision that Gallilean invarience does not.

 

That's good. The variables in the Lorentz transformations are time, distance, and velocity. Why do you think the first two are relative depending on the third?

 

I'll have to get back to you on this one.

... and the rest...

Back asap.

Michael

[modest]

Modest:

 

 

My 14,000 hours were earth-commensurate fractions (1/24 specifically) of a complete real- earth rotation.

 

There are hundreds of observatories and atomic clocks and networked computers all dealing with the laborious problem of standardizing time and correcting for relativistic effects (e.g. clocks run faster at lower latitudes and higher altitudes as relativity predicted they should). No two clocks can seem to agree just *exactly* how long it takes earth to rotate once around its axis. But, your clock is the one? It is the cosmic perspective?

 

Sounds like your hours were shaved a bit short by exposing your watch to more accelerating and stopping than mine while sitting still. But a standardized "hour" remains a 24th of an earth rotation "in the real world."

 

So I understand correctly... People at higher or lower altitude and different velocity from you—they’re all having time shaved off your absolute, real-world, cosmic reference frame?

 

I don't care if you go with miles, kilometers, earth diameters or light minutes. The distance between earth and sun (obviously not a perfect circle orbit, i.e., average distance is very well established scientifically, as is the distance to the moon, Alpha Centauri, etc., etc.

I could give you a dozen links of the "ask a scientist" type.... (OMG I'm the conventional one on this point!) and they will all give you the well established distance in units of your choice.

 

So I understand you correctly... You accept that distance is contracted because of length contraction, but you think the absolute, cosmic, transcendent perspective is whatever we measure here on earth (indeed, one particular spot on earth)? Our earth frame is special in this way, yes?

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest,

I must backtrack and share my critique of the link you offered above

(Does a clock's acceleration affect its timing rate?) and then address your misunderstanding of what I call cosmic perspective. But, up front: NOT my special egocentric perspective or an earth-centric one!

 

At the risk of overkill and boring everyone, I will share selected paragraphs from the above link, italicize for emphasis, and interject my comments in context in bold.

 

Does a clock's acceleration affect its timing rate?

It's often said that special relativity is based on two postulates: that all inertial frames are of equal validity, and that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames. But in real world scenarios, objects almost never travel at constant velocity, and so we might never find an inertial frame in which such an object is at rest. To allow us to make predictions about how accelerating objects behave, we need to introduce a third postulate.

 

This is often called the "clock postulate", but it applies to much more than just clocks, and in fact it underpins much of advanced relativity, both special and general, as well as the notion of covariance (that is, writing the equations of physics in a frame-independent way).

 

....So this says that an accelerating clock will count out its time in such a way that at any one moment, its timing has slowed by a factor (γ) that only depends on its current speed; its acceleration has no effect at all.

...

In other words, the accelerated clock's rate is identical to the clock rate in a "momentarily comoving inertial frame" (MCIF), which we can imagine is holding an inertial clock that for a brief moment slows to a stop alongside the accelerated clock, so that their relative velocity is momentarily zero. At that moment they are ticking at the same rate. A moment later, the accelerated clock has a new MCIF, again one that is moving momentarily to match its speed, and there is a new inertial clock that briefly slows to a stop alongside the accelerated clock. And again, the rates of accelerated clock and the new inertial one will momentarily be the same.

The thought experiment here is to do stop-action comparisons so that between "infinitessimal distances" between check points, there is no acceleration but rather constant velocity.... a distortion of reality in service to "the clock principle."

 

So the clock postulate says that the rate of an accelerated clock doesn't depend on its acceleration. (... if you take brief enough "snapshots" with a very high speed "camera", then accelleration at a given "moment" is negligible!) But note: the clock postulate does not say that the rate of timing of a moving clock is unaffected by its acceleration. The timing rate will certainly be affected if the acceleration changes the clock's speed of movement, because its speed determines how fast it counts out its time (i.e. by the factor γ).

 

The clock postulate is not meant to be obvious, and it can't be proved. It's not merely some kind of trivial result obtained by writing special relativity using non-cartesian coordinates. Rather, it's a statement about the physical world. But we don't know if it's true; it's just a postulate.

 

The spacetime metric, or interval

 

This something is the idea of a spacetime metric. Typically, when learning special relativity, at some stage we note that the "interval" between two events, Δt2− Δx2− Δy2− Δz2, is independent of the inertial frame in which we make our measurements. So although relativity has taught us to throw away our ideas of the absoluteness of space and time, even so this idea of something else which is observer-independent leads to a new absolute thing called spacetime.

 

This is a clear example of what I call the "indoctrination" into the dogma of this "new absolute thing called spacetime."

 

This sort of idea is exactly analogous to the idea of calculating the length of a curve by dividing it into a large number of short segments, each of which is almost straight, and then adding up the lengths of each of those using Pythagoras: dl2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2. That's an exercise in calculus.

 

Exactly. Chop a curved line into small enough fragments and you can treat them as straight segments for purposes of calculation. Calculous is an excellent tool, but, of course it doesn't actually straighten out the curve.... and "speed photography" of moments in time for a traveling object does *not* eliminate the *force* of accelleration, changing its velocity. It just makes accleleration negligible for purposes of calculation

 

So, the idea of calculating the time elapsed on a clock that accelerates from one event to another is just the same. We're dividing its path into small segments that the clock postulate lets us work with. And just as the curvatures of those small segments in the previous paragraph never become zero (and yet we can ignore them), so too the accelerations of the clock along its path never become zero either--and yet the clock postulate allows us to ignore them too.

Like I just said above.

 

So your claim, modest, and the generally accepted postulate you are promoting with all of this is not actually true. There is no "steady velocity" in the real world, and just because you can ignore acceleration for short enough moments of time does *not* make it go away!

 

I'll post this and then address your last reply.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

But, your clock is the one? It is the cosmic perspective?

You seem to be intentionally ignoring or dismissing the sincerity of my statement above:

Transcending "my point of view" and "your point of view" is an objective, transcendental point of view. I know this from 14,000 hours of transcending "my personal point of view."

 

Try a new thought experiment:

Humans never evolved, but otherwise earth and cosmos remain as is.

Without all this obsession with our clocks and measuring time, what is the true nature of "things" from transcendental, cosmic, *objective* , omnipresent perspective?

 

Please give it a bit of actual contemplative consideration. Earth is still spinning on its axis and orbiting sun, but there is no one around comparing clocks with variations in time keeping. *If* clocks magically appeared all over the planet, they would, of course, "keep different time" in proportion to differences in their exposure to changes in inertia, i.e., without the human perspective and invention of the "clock postulate" which effectively eliminates the actual force differences on the clocks by the "speed photography" method which I just critiqued in reference to the "Does a clock's acceleration affect its timing rate?" link. (Answer: Yes it does if you don't ignore it via micro-managing "infinitesimally small "moments" in the velocity equations.)

 

I think the above makes my point without belaboring a reply to the rest of your post.

 

So I understand correctly... People at higher or lower altitude and different velocity from you—they’re all having time shaved off your absolute, real-world, cosmic reference frame?

No! ... as above.

So I understand you correctly... You accept that distance is contracted because of length contraction, but you think the absolute, cosmic, transcendent perspective is whatever we measure here on earth (indeed, one particular spot on earth)? Our earth frame is special in this way, yes?

No to "length contraction" and to the absurdity that anyone can claim that his personal point of view is "absolute." There is an absolute however, transcending all personal and relative perspectives, as I keep saying. It's just not "mine" but a real-ization from the absolutely transcendental perspective, which is universal and available to anyone who can finally transcend "personal viewpoint" (not to mention "personal identity", which is a subject for transpersonal psychology and spiritual realization.

Michael

)

[Michael Mooney]

I'm still playing reply-catch-up, but maybe some points are passe' since my exposure of the ontological error of ignoring acceleration by permission of "the clock postulate" for purposes of calculus-like computations using infinitesimally small "moments of time" effectively reducing the momentary influence of acceleration to near zero.

 

But, to follow through on earlier stated intent, in reply to modest's question:

 

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I take your point that "nearly the same" is not "identical" and that Lorentz invarience yields the required precision that Gallilean invarience does not.

 

That's good. The variables in the Lorentz transformations are time, distance, and velocity. Why do you think the first two are relative depending on the third?

 

I don't think that elapsed time and actual distance are "relative." I think that clocks can not be made to "keep perfect time" as standardized earth-commensurate fractions of earth cycles, because of the actual forces of inertial change effecting them constantly "in the real world", if you don't devise ways to ignore them (or "transform" them" for practical reasons. So the Lorentz transformations take up the slack in our calculations and, as you say, keep GPS guided planes from crashing into mountains.

Velocity, of course, is just the statement *actual distance traveled* in *actual standardized units of time*... miles per hour.... adjusted for inertial forces on our timers when need for more precision.

 

Oopse.... I'm "pressed for time" again. (So many demands on "my time!") Back when I get another break.

Michael

[modest]

A particle feeling extreme inertial force is time dilated equally with a particle feeling no inertial force if they have equal velocity to the observer. Many such experiments have been done and show conclusively that the clock hypothesis is valid. Acceleration does not affect a clock's timing rate.

 

“Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301...

 

The experiment of Bailey et al. referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 10^18 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.

 

* Sherwin, “Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'”, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1 (1960), pg 17.

 

He discusses some Mössbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~10^16 g) and depends only upon velocity.

 

Experimental Basis of Special Relativity

 

If you need help interpreting this (which does not require calculus as you seem to assume above) then let us know.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

A particle feeling extreme inertial force is time dilated equally with a particle feeling no inertial force if they have equal velocity to the observer. Many such experiments have been done and show conclusively that the clock hypothesis is valid. Acceleration does not affect a clock's timing rate.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that you are totally ignoring my critique of the link on "the clock postulate" exposing how acceleration is ignored by restricting the time of observation to near-zero "moments" for the purpose of facilitating the calculations (calculus-wise.) In other words, in the real time span of an object's movement, inertial change *actually does* effect change in velocity.

 

Restricting the "time frame of observation" to extremely fast "snapshots" does not actually eliminate the force of inertial change. It just makes it negligible *for the restricted time of each small segment of observation*... which then facilitates calculation corrections, but does not eliminate actual inertial force effecting the velocity.

 

Can you comprehend this criticism? I think not, as your response displays a strict rigidity of indoctrination and bias. Also you use of the phrase "time dilated" as an established fact ignores everything I've said in this thread about the ontology of "time." More strict rigidity, with no responsiveness to my basic argument here!

 

Quote:

“Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301...

 

The experiment of Bailey et al. referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 10^18 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.

 

* Sherwin, “Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'”, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1 (1960), pg 17.

 

He discusses some Mössbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~10^16 g) and depends only upon velocity.

 

Experimental Basis of Special Relativity

 

If you need help interpreting this (which does not require calculus as you seem to assume above) then let us know.

 

~modest

Modest,

You seem to have forgotten that I have already replied to the above Baily et al experiment, saying that the "life expectancy of muons" is still very controversial, including criticisms of experimental controls, i.e., the difference in the effect of the magnetic storage ring on the captured muons as compared with the control muons with the same energy moving inertially.

 

The assertion as fact that "that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration" ignores my whole critique of your link above and merely insist on the factuality of a "postulate" which your link admits is not *proven*, contrary to your rigid mindset/bias to the contrary.

 

You, sir, are *not* an open minded or unbiased scientist. If you were honest with yourself, you would resign as a moderator of this forum.

 

No, as to your continued inappropriate condescension:

If you need help interpreting this (which does not require calculus as you seem to assume above) then let us know.

 

I do not need help interpreting the above... which I have done previously, though you totally disregard/ignore it. I made no assumptions about needing calculus for the "proper" (according to your bias) interpretation. I merely agreed with the linked text that the calculus treatment of curved lines for purpose of calculation is perfectly analogous to the "momentarily co-moving inertial frame" (MCIF) of the "clock postulate.

I suppose there is no way you will give up your textbook perspective as the basis for automatic condescension on all challenges of mainstream scientific "authority."

 

I will not keep butting heads with you. Either respond to the substance of my criticism, or I will soon leave this forum. I do have other venues of conversation with highly credentialed scientists... which I will not share here for personal reasons of confidentiality and professional anonymity.

 

Michael

[modest]

Hello Michael, how are the holidays treating you?

 

A particle feeling extreme inertial force is time dilated equally with a particle feeling no inertial force if they have equal velocity to the observer. Many such experiments have been done and show conclusively that the clock hypothesis is valid. Acceleration does not affect a clock's timing rate.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that you are totally ignoring my critique of the link on "the clock postulate"...

 

Well... Yeah, I think I’ve written 5 sentences in this thread since your critique on that link. Could be I was “totally ignoring” it. Might be I’ve been pressed for time

 

exposing how acceleration is ignored by restricting the time of observation to near-zero "moments" for the purpose of facilitating the calculations (calculus-wise.)

 

The clock postulate is not a proof against your idea. It’s not a proof of anything, and it’s not something you should feel you need to critique. It is just an assumption (a postulate or hypothesis) for which experimental evidence will either agree or disagree. Does the rate of an accelerated clock depend on its acceleration or just its velocity? The assumption or the hypothesis is that the rate of the clock does not depend on its acceleration—but only its velocity.

 

So far, the experimental evidence of the last 80 years or so has agreed with the postulate. It’s that experimental evidence and observations that either agree or disagree with the hypothesis and it’s the same with your idea... experiment will either agree or disagree.

 

Your idea is that inertial forces somehow physically affect a clock (and all other systems capable of determining duration) such that they are slowed. Yet, particles subjected to large centrifugal force decay at the same rate as particles feeling no inertial force so long as both have the same speed relative to the observer. So then, we can say with confidence: the inertial, centrifugal force has no affect whatsoever on the rate particles decay.

 

I’m sorry, Michael, but your idea that time dilation is the result of inertial forces is not supported by observation.

 

This would be true even if the formalism of the clock postulate were somehow shown to be in error—which seems entirely unlikely.

 

In other words, in the real time span of an object's movement, inertial change *actually does* effect change in velocity.

 

Correct, it does.

 

Acceleration is by definition change in velocity per time. But, you should also consider that two bodies can have different relative speeds while neither is accelerating, and also that something can have constant speed yet be subjected to constant inertial force as when it is spinning in a circle.

 

Restricting the "time frame of observation" to extremely fast "snapshots" does not actually eliminate the force of inertial change. It just makes it negligible *for the restricted time of each small segment of observation*... which then facilitates calculation corrections, but does not eliminate actual inertial force effecting the velocity.

 

You’re correct, inertial forces affecting velocity are not being eliminated by looking at fast snapshots. The clock postulate says that velocity determines the rate at which a clock ticks regardless of its acceleration or inertial forces. So, there’s no need to deny that acceleration is an inertial force or that acceleration affects velocity. The only need is to find the value of velocity in order to solve for time dilation.

 

While that is very straightforward in a frame of constant velocity (its speed never changes), something that is accelerating in a straight line is constantly changing its speed. So, we can’t just plug one speed into an equation and solve for time dilation. You could take the average speed over some period of time, but that wouldn’t be very accurate. If you split the time in question in half and found the average velocity of each half and calculated with both those values then added the results together, you’d have a more accurate result. Finding the average velocity of 4 or 5 or 6 segments would give you better and better results.

 

The idea is to split up the curve into an infinite number of infinitesimal changes and sum them all up giving an accurate result. This is known as a derivative and it is not unusual for a physical law to be expressed this way. Entropy (for example) is expressed the same way when temperature is not constant. It is a normal math operation that neither proves nor disproves the clock postulate. It is simply what we should have to do mathematically if the clock postulate is true in order to find the elapsed time of an accelerating clock.

 

You seem to have forgotten that I have already replied to the above Baily et al experiment, saying that the "life expectancy of muons" is still very controversial, including criticisms of experimental controls, i.e., the difference in the effect of the magnetic storage ring on the captured muons as compared with the control muons with the same energy moving inertially.

 

I’m unaware of the criticisms and controversy you speak of, but I would be interested to read about it if you have a link. I would find it extremely unlikely that there is a "magnetic storage ring effect" which cancels your proposed 'time dilation' effect caused by inertial forces. This would require one unknown anomalous process to be exactly equal and opposite to another unknown and anomalous process in order to hide it.

 

Also, muons are not the only particles for which time dilation is measured in a ring in this way. Various particles and atoms are tested for time dilation in various particle accelerators all undergoing extreme inertial force.

 

The simplest and most complete explanation for the data at hand is that centrifugal force has no affect on the timing rate of a clock, inertial forces are not the cause of dilation in the timing rate of a clock, and time dilation is related directly to velocity (rather than acceleration).

 

I believe your desire to understand the ontology of these things is true—and a very worthy goal. But, I also believe strongly that whatever ontology is proposed should agree with observation, which in this case means existing in the constraints of the preceding paragraph.

 

On another completely separate issue of ontology that is (I think) related strongly to spacetime and gravity is the question of inertia... as an entity. Why do massive objects resist changes in momentum? Why do they resist being moved? Why is inertial mass equal to gravitational mass? What is it ontologically that gives mass these characteristics? Something to think about in any case.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest:

The clock postulate is not a proof against your idea. It’s not a proof of anything, and it’s not something you should feel you need to critique. It is just an assumption (a postulate or hypothesis) for which experimental evidence will either agree or disagree. Does the rate of an accelerated clock depend on its acceleration or just its velocity? The assumption or the hypothesis is that the rate of the clock does not depend on its acceleration—but only its velocity.

 

[b... "]But in real world scenarios, objects almost never travel at constant velocity, and so we might never find an inertial frame in which such an object is at rest. To allow us to make predictions about how accelerating objects behave, we need to introduce a third postulate.

This is often called the "clock postulate"[/b]

 

Yet again, the "clock hypothesis" ignores actual change in inertia over the actual time of observation of a moving object. Works fine for the "transformation" into a more elegant math tool, but in actuality, I say again, there are inertial forces acting on clocks which are keeping time differently.

 

Why don't you address this ontological "reality" directly rather than continue to repeat the math-based dogma of the mindset "momentarily co-moving inertial frame", saying "The assumption or the hypothesis is that the rate of the clock does not depend on its acceleration—but only its velocity."

 

This assumption ignores the *reality* that inertial forces *are* at work on the clocks, ignoring them using the calculus-like MCIF tool for calculating nearly instantaneous velocity.

 

Answer this if you will, and we can move to the other points in your last post... and maybe eventually to your complete avoidance of what cosmic (objective) perspective might mean as transcending your (ironically) absolute belief that

 

"Everything is relative."

 

You have not given a hint of understanding what I mean by "omnipresent" perspective which can give the actual average distance earth to sun, for instance in whatever units one prefers, earth-diameters to light minutes and seconds. You have not responded to my challenge to visit "science" websites asking for the best known information on the distance to/between the usual objects of interest in our solar system and beyond. You simply repeat your "mantra", "everything is relative" (to the viewpoint of different local observers.)

Michael

P.S.,... still using the phrase "time dilation" as if "time" were some "thing" which can expand and contract, totally ignoring the ontology I have here presented to the contrary. (See my reply to "Moontanman" above, for instance.)

M:

I’m sorry, Michael, but your idea that time dilation is the result of inertial forces is not supported by observation.

 

You can ignore inertial forces, as I said again above, but that does not make them go away. Are you "hearing" me?

[Michael Mooney]

MM:

You seem to have forgotten that I have already replied to the above Baily et al experiment, saying that the "life expectancy of muons" is still very controversial, including criticisms of experimental controls, i.e., the difference in the effect of the magnetic storage ring on the captured muons as compared with the control muons with the same energy moving inertially.

 

M:

I’m unaware of the criticisms and controversy you speak of, but I would be interested to read about it if you have a link. I would find it extremely unlikely that there is a "magnetic storage ring effect" which cancels your proposed 'time dilation' effect caused by inertial forces. This would require one unknown anomalous process to be exactly equal and opposite to another unknown and anomalous process in order to hide it.

 

Sci.Math Forum:

"Muon Time Dilation Is Proved to be a Fallacy

Muon Time Dilation is Proved to be a Fallacy - sci.math | Google Groups

Another:

Re: Muon Question

From which I quote David Smith:

"Flux at different altitudes, and speed observed through the

instrurment, are in agreement with a "lengthened lifespan" and

"speed just less than c". Charge, momentum, and Cerenkov

radiation are in agreement for being muons, and traveling

greater than the speed of light in air. TIme of day and

orientation of path are in agreement with solar particles

generating the muons. Lifespan of muons in other situations

shows a similar "increase in lifespan with speed"."

 

I am not in full agreement with Smith (on technicalities beyond the present focus) but the above merely mentions that many factors may effect the "lifespan" of muons.

 

As to your last two statements above: You seem to have no capacity for critical thinking about experimental design, being inclined to trust the credentials of the experimenters without serious question.

 

Have you ever considered that a "lifespan" of two microseconds is a very short time for a muon to "live" in any case in any environment or that extreme energy fields (like the magnetic containment ring) might just be a major influence relative to the control muons as detected in natural environment?

Or have you considered the other factors mentioned by Smith above? On a similar note, why did you dismiss my centrifuge experiment suggestion with a human and a twin over an extended time and familiar variables, preferring the extreme energy environment of captive muons with a two microsecond lifespan... all to support the standard doctrine on "time dilation" as preferred over differences in "event duration" due to a host of possible causes?

 

Your last objection:

"This would require one unknown anomalous process to be exactly equal and opposite to another unknown and anomalous process in order to hide it"... is a clear example of rigid "thinking inside the box!"

You misunderstand me. The required equivalencies you demand above disregard the other variables involved. It is not a simple case of a "magnetic storage ring effect" which you suggest as canceling "my" proposed 'time dilation' effect caused by inertial forces. (And I have never accepted the (to you, factual) "time dilation effect." Time is a human artifact. "It" does not "dilate." Events vary in duration depending on actual forces impinging upon them. It seems you are too indoctrinated to even consider the possibility that this could be true.

 

My holiday is going fine, thank you, tho I could use some major "time dilation" as busy as I am with professional dialogue and family gatherings.

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Modest,

Hope this follow-up doesn't divert you from addressing my last two posts.

You wrote:

On another completely separate issue of ontology that is (I think) related strongly to spacetime and gravity is the question of inertia... as an entity. Why do massive objects resist changes in momentum? Why do they resist being moved? Why is inertial mass equal to gravitational mass? What is it ontologically that gives mass these characteristics? Something to think about in any case.

 

Indeed. Why call inertia an "entity?" Is reification now standard procedure?

We all know that, at maximum applied force, an athlete can throw a baseball much further than a shotput. And astronaughts need more jet-pack power to move a big massive piece of equipment into position (say working on the space station) than to launch a tool bag into deep space. Of course we all know that inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass Why? Indeed. And how does gravity work anyway?

Shall we simply assume a-priori that some kind of "entity" is required as a "medium" to carry the force among all masses? Why?

 

In previous debate with you I gave the example that a common magnet attached to one side of a lab vacuum will still pull an iron bar released from inside the opposite side of the vacuum with *nothing* in between but a few atoms that didn't get pumped out, i.e., no "perfect" vacuum in a lab. How does magnetic force act with essentially nothing between magnet and iron bar? We don't know why/how it works, just *that* it works *without a known medium in between*... And gravity does not automatically require a medium/entity... some-thing as a go-between either.

 

What say you?

Michael

[modest]

Yet again, the "clock hypothesis" ignores actual change in inertia over the actual time of observation of a moving object. Works fine for the "transformation" into a more elegant math tool, but in actuality, I say again, there are inertial forces acting on clocks which are keeping time differently.

 

“Change in inertia” has no readily apparent meaning in the sentence above. You might mean “change in momentum”, but I won’t presume to speak for you. I’ve previously demonstrated that GPS clocks feel no inertial forces while they keep different time which disagrees with the statement “there are inertial forces acting on clocks which are keeping time differently.”

 

You have proposed that inertial forces cause time dilation by physically affecting a clock. You liken this to holding a watch under water such that the increased friction of the water will slow the flywheel. For you to maintain this claim consistent with GPS observations you will need to explain how the inertial force that the GPS clock felt in the 1980’s affects its rate of timing today. Using your analogy, this would be like the submerged watch continuing to run slow after it is removed from the water.

 

You would also need to explain why all systems capable of keeping time which are themselves very physically different have the same effect when confronted with an inertial force. This would be like a digital watch slowing equally with an analog watch when they are both submerged.

 

There is then the matter of the quantity and duration of inertial forces. You would need to find some way to quantitatively relate the timing rate of something (let’s say, some decaying isotope) to the inertial force it is subjected to. The proper (or normal) way to do this is to start with your postulate (inertial forces cause clocks to slow) then use logic, deduction, and established rules of physics to build a theory or model through to its conclusion, which would be something like: “If a clock experiences X inertial force for Y seconds as measured by Z feeling no inertial force then the clock will advance T seconds.”

 

You could then make predictions based on your idea. To accomplish this you would need to overcome the obstacle of experimental observations which have concluded that centrifugal force had no measurable effect on the timing rate of a clock. It is difficult for an inertial force to both be the cause of time dilation and have no effect on time dilation. However, I may be missing something and I fully support your effort to develop your idea.

 

If you need help with any of this then let me know, but I’m not going to spend any more time supporting the clock postulate or the decay rate of muons or anything else that disagrees with your idea. I understand your reason for criticizing such things, but there’s no utility to it. I am genuinely disinterested.

 

Perhaps if you clearly stated your ideas and appreciated feedback rather than burying everything under layers of ad hominems and insults there would be more interest.

 

You have not given a hint of understanding what I mean by "omnipresent" perspective which can give the actual average distance earth to sun

 

I do not understand what you mean because you have done nothing to explain it. You’re putting words together like omnipresent, objective, universal, transcendent, cosmic perspective and expecting other people to get what you’re talking about. It’s completely undefined. Is there distance and time in your “perspective”? Do things move? Do they interact?

 

How fast would I need to travel in order to reach the sun from the earth in 50 seconds assuming someone on earth measures the distance at about 150 million kilometers? I don’t understand how your cosmic perspective answers such things. I don't know what it does or even what it's supposed to do.

 

Sci.Math Forum:

"Muon Time Dilation Is Proved to be a Fallacy

Muon Time Dilation is Proved to be a Fallacy - sci.math | Google Groups

Another:

Re: Muon Question

From which I quote David Smith:

"Flux at different altitudes, and speed observed through the

instrurment, are in agreement with a "lengthened lifespan" and

"speed just less than c". Charge, momentum, and Cerenkov

radiation are in agreement for being muons, and traveling

greater than the speed of light in air. TIme of day and

orientation of path are in agreement with solar particles

generating the muons. Lifespan of muons in other situations

shows a similar "increase in lifespan with speed"."

 

I am not in full agreement with Smith (on technicalities beyond the present focus) but the above merely mentions that many factors may effect the "lifespan" of muons.

 

These links are newsgroup conversations. David is not saying that anomalous processes are affecting the lifespan of muons. He is explaining that relativity affects their lifespan. The experiment being referred to is here:

 

Muon Experiment in Relativity

 

And, the muon time dilation process is explained in a more popularization-of-science kind of way here:

 

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings ... - Google Book Search

 

As to your last two statements above: You seem to have no capacity for critical thinking about experimental design

 

:Glasses:

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Hi Modest,

Hope your holiday is going well.

Up-front, I would like to remind you that this thread is an ontological

 

challenge to the "reality" of both time and space, and I have

 

repeatedly shown that time is a human artifact, not a "dilate-able"

 

reality (i.e., clocks keep time differently under different physical

 

conditions)... and that space remains emptiness until the theory of

 

"expanding , inflating, curving space" can show evidence that "it" is a

 

"malleable medium" in the above sense.

 

You again assert:

“Change in inertia” has no readily apparent meaning in the

 

sentence above. You might mean “change in momentum”, but I won’t

 

presume to speak for you. I’ve previously demonstrated that GPS clocks

 

feel no inertial forces while they keep different time which disagrees

 

with the statement “there are inertial forces acting on clocks which

 

are keeping time differently.”

 

In fact my meaning is the same as in your link on the "Clock

 

Principle":

But in real world scenarios, objects almost never travel at

 

constant velocity, and so we might never find an inertial frame in

 

which such an object is at rest."

"Change in inertia" refers to the real world as above and as contrasted

 

with the *math tool* called the "momentarily co-moving inertial frame"

 

in which nearly instantaneous "snapshots" are taken of moving

 

objects... which ignores actual "inertial change) for *purposes of

 

calculation." So, again, math creates its own little version of

 

"reality" and "Walla!", inertial change doesn't count, but only

 

velocity.

You refuse to address this ontological challenge.

 

 

You have proposed that inertial forces cause time dilation by physically affecting a clock. You liken this to holding a watch under water such that the increased friction of the water will slow the flywheel. For you to maintain this claim consistent with GPS observations you will need to explain how the inertial force that the GPS clock felt in the 1980’s affects its rate of timing today. Using your analogy, this would be like the submerged watch continuing to run slow after it is removed from the water.

 

You would also need to explain why all systems capable of keeping time which are themselves very physically different have the same effect when confronted with an inertial force. This would be like a digital watch slowing equally with an analog watch when they are both submerged.

 

First, I deny the reality of "time dilation" in favor of differences in "event duration."

Again, if time is a human artifact, not an actual entity, "it" can not "dilate." The focus is then on what "event" one is measuring (the timespan thereof) by what instrument.

If you agree that, as above, "objects almost never travel at constant velocity", then maybe actual minute changes in velocity (relative to the "earthside" control clock's surface-bound inertial frame and other orbiting clocks) account for the time-keeping differences.

 

My hypothesis is that inertial change slows down the oscillating energy of all things on an atomic level. this would include all physical time-keeping devices. I do not pretend to design an experiment to "prove it", but if you realize that time is just what timekeepers "keep", then, in the real world, the proper object of scientific investigation must focus on the differences in actual elapsed time of actual events.

As per my recent thought experiment with no humans, therefore no "time-keepers," there is no "time"... just the events of nature/cosmos themselves, in constant motion, constantly changing. Where is "time dilation" then in the natural world/cosmos. Gone!

 

MM:"You have not given a hint of understanding what I mean by "omnipresent" perspective which can give the actual average distance earth to sun

M:"I do not understand what you mean because you have done nothing to explain it. You’re putting words together like omnipresent, objective, universal, transcendent, cosmic perspective and expecting other people to get what you’re talking about. It’s completely undefined. Is there distance and time in your “perspective”? Do things move? Do they interact?

 

I have attempted to explain that, beyond local perspective, the proper viewpoint of relativity (in which "it is all relative) is a dimension of "absolute" reality. In this dimension, the average distance earth to sun is actually, objectively, independent of who sees what from where, about 93 million miles or 8 + light minutes.

I have challenged you to admit that all science websites will give such standardized and "objective" distances between "the usual objects of interest in the solar system and beyond.... which you continue to deny in favor of your absolute insistence on relative perspectives in denial of the possibility of transcendental perspective, as above.

Of course there is distance between all objects, tho it varies with objects' movements relative to each other (obviously.) And time, again... as above. Events happen by themselves. They don't need our time-keepers to keep them moving!

 

 

You say:

Perhaps if you clearly stated your ideas and appreciated feedback rather than burying everything under layers of ad hominems and insults there would be more interest.

I state my ideas as clearly as I can, but you often seem to totally ignore them and repeat the mainstream position. What do you mean by "burying everything under layers of ad hominems?" I am a long-time practicioner of "radical honesty." I tell the truth as I see it and value absolute honesty over mere politeness in service to avoiding hurt feelings.

 

You say regarding the "muon lifespan controversy":

These links are newsgroup conversations. David is not saying that anomalous processes are affecting the lifespan of muons. He is explaining that relativity affects their lifespan. The experiment being referred to is here:

 

I studied that link already. My point was in the many factors effecting muon lifespan... not so cut-n-dried proven as you seem to think. And being "newsgroup conversations" doesn't disqualify them from being legitimate controversy.

The "Muon Time Dilation is Proved to be a Fallacy - sci.math | Google Groups" link, for instance was a thread started by someone with an alleged IQ of 200. Sometimes "genius" appears in such conversations having not yet made it to respected scientific journals or "papers."

Time to go to Christmas dinner.

The best to you and yours.

Michael

[modest]

Hi Modest,

Hope your holiday is going well.

 

Yep, thank you, Christmas was a joy.

 

Up-front, I would like to remind you that this thread is an ontological challenge to the "reality" of both time and space, and I have repeatedly shown that time is a human artifact, not a "dilate-able" reality (i.e., clocks keep time differently under different physical conditions)... and that space remains emptiness until the theory of "expanding , inflating, curving space" can show evidence that "it" is a "malleable medium" in the above sense.

 

Have you "demonstrated" this?

 

You again assert:

“Change in inertia” has no readily apparent meaning in the sentence above. You might mean “change in momentum”, but I won’t presume to speak for you. I’ve previously demonstrated that GPS clocks feel no inertial forces while they keep different time which disagrees with the statement “there are inertial forces acting on clocks which are keeping time differently.”

 

In fact my meaning is the same as in your link on the "Clock Principle":

 

"Change in inertia" refers to the real world as above and as contrasted with the *math tool* called the "momentarily co-moving inertial frame" in which nearly instantaneous "snapshots" are taken of moving objects...

 

You're using the word inertia different than it is used in science. Inertia is the quality of resisting change in momentum or a tendency of an object to maintain momentum. You can also think of it as a quantitative description (or a measure) of how difficult it is to change the momentum of an object.

 

When you say "change in inertia", it just doesn't make sense in the context of what you're saying.

 

Interestingly, as you object to "time dilation" because time is "just a human concept", you then say "change in inertia" as if inertia is more than a human concept. What is inertia? Is it something that can be changed? Can you make inertia bigger or smaller? Is it something I can feed to my mastiff?

 

First, I deny the reality of "time dilation" in favor of differences in "event duration."

Again, if time is a human artifact, not an actual entity, "it" can not "dilate." The focus is then on what "event" one is measuring (the timespan thereof) by what instrument.

Are you saying that "duration" is a real physical entity that can be changed while time is not? Is a duration a mailable thing? I don't understand the distinction.

 

If you agree that, as above, "objects almost never travel at constant velocity", then maybe actual minute changes in velocity (relative to the "earthside" control clock's surface-bound inertial frame and other orbiting clocks) account for the time-keeping differences.

 

Yes! "actual changes in velocity relative to [something else] accounts for time-keeping differences". This is exactly what I've been saying. It's what the clock postulate says in point of fact.

 

My hypothesis is that inertial change slows down the oscillating energy of all things on an atomic level.

 

Would you say that all motion is slowed down, not just motion on an atomic level?

 

I do not pretend to design an experiment to "prove it", but if you realize that time is just what timekeepers "keep", then, in the real world, the proper object of scientific investigation must focus on the differences in actual elapsed time of actual events.

 

I don't disagree. As I've said before in this thread, a common scientific definition of time is "time is what a clock measures" or as you put it "what timekeepers "keep"". I don't see any problem with thinking of time that way nor do I disagree that "the proper object of scientific investigation must focus on the differences in actual elapsed time of actual events".

 

I have attempted to explain that, beyond local perspective, the proper viewpoint of relativity (in which "it is all relative) is a dimension of "absolute" reality. In this dimension, the average distance earth to sun is actually, objectively, independent of who sees what from where, about 93 million miles or 8 + light minutes.

 

How did you determine this distance without measuring it? How does your cosmic perspective determine it? I need a reproducible method. I need you to describe in steps from start to finish how I can use your cosmic perspective to find that distance.

 

I have challenged you to admit that all science websites will give such standardized and "objective" distances between "the usual objects of interest in the solar system and beyond.... which you continue to deny

 

You're on a science site, Michael.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Modest,

This must be a quickie... back later for full reply.

I am absolutely amazed that I must quote to you the standard, well known precise measures of distance to familiar objects in our solar system.

"Windows to the universe":

AU

AU, which stands for "astronomical unit", is a unit for measuring distance. One AU is the average distance from the Sun's center to the Earth's center. It is equal to 149,597,871 km (92,955,807 miles).

 

AUs are often more convenient to use than kilometers when measuring large distances such as those in space. In this case kilometers are just too small - it would be like measuring the distance from Boston to San Francisco in inches. AUs simply make a measurement easier to understand and give you something to compare it to.

 

For example, Saturn's orbit around the Sun has an average radius of 9.5 AU, which means that Saturn is about ten times farther from the Sun than Earth is. The average distance from the Sun to distant Pluto is about 40 AU. Mercury, the planet closest to the Sun, orbits at an average distance of 0.39 AU.

 

AUs are generally used for measurements of distances within our Solar System. Distances to stars are much larger, and are expressed in terms of light years. One light year is equal to more than 63,000 AUs. The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is just over 4 light years away.

 

 

"WikiAanswers":

WikiAnswers - What is the distance of all planets from the sun

"

Mercury

Minimum Distance from Sun: 0.31 AU ( 46.00 million km or 28.58 million miles)

 

Maximum Distance from Sun: 0.47 AU ( 69.82 million km or 43.38 million miles)

 

Venus

Minimum Distance from Sun: 0.72 AU ( 107.48 million km or 66.78 million miles)

 

Maximum Distance from Sun: 0.73 AU ( 108.94 million km or 67.69 million miles)

 

 

Earth

Minimum Distance from Sun: 0.98 AU ( 147.10 million km or 91.40 million miles)

 

Maximum Distance from Sun: 1.02 AU ( 152.10 million km or 94.51 million miles)

 

 

Mars

Minimum Distance from Sun: 1.38 AU ( 206.67 million km or 128.42 million miles)

 

Maximum Distance from Sun: 1.38 AU ( 206.67 million km or 128.42 million miles)

 

 

Jupiter

Minimum Distance from Sun: 4.95 AU ( 740.57 million km or 460.17 million miles)

 

Maximum Distance from Sun: 5.46 AU ( 816.52 million km or 507.36 million miles)

 

 

Saturn

Minimum Distance from Sun: 9.05 AU ( 1353.57 million km or 841.07 million miles)

 

Maximum Distance from Sun: 10.12 AU ( 1513.33 million km or 940.34 million miles)

 

 

Uranus

Minimum Distance from Sun: 18.38 AU ( 2.75 billion km or 1.71 billion miles)

 

Maximum Distance from Sun: 20.08 AU ( 3.00 billion km or 1.87 billion miles)

 

 

Neptune

Minimum Distance from Sun: 29.77 AU ( 4.45 billion km or 2.77 billion miles)

 

Maximum Distance from Sun: 30.44 AU ( 4.55 billion km or 2.83 billion miles)

 

On inertia:

"Inertia is the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. ...

Inertia is the name for the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, or an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a ..."

 

I gave examples of my understanding of inertia in my last post to you, which your post shows no evidence of having read, as you are still in 'elementary lecture' mode with me on the subject of inertia.

 

My usage of "change in inertia" simply refers to the effect of forces acting on an object to change its inertial status, i.e., to slow it down or speed it up... to move it if stationary... to stop it if moving.. All change in velocity requires a "change in inertial status" of an object.... even if the "MCIF" ignores such changes. Simply obvious.

Yes, perhaps change in momentum would have been more technically accurate or "change in moment of inertia."

Back soon.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

MM:

"Up-front, I would like to remind you that this thread is an

 

ontological challenge to the "reality" of both time and space, and I

 

have repeatedly shown that time is a human artifact, not a

 

"dilate-able" reality (i.e., clocks keep time differently under

 

different physical conditions)... and that space remains emptiness

 

until the theory of "expanding , inflating, curving space" can show

 

evidence that "it" is a "malleable medium" in the above sense.

 

M:

"Have you "demonstrated" this?"

 

"This" what, exactly? If time is a human artifact, which I have argued

 

exhaustively, what exactly "dilates?" If space is emptiness (which I

 

have argued in a dozen different ways), what expands, inflates, and

 

curves besides the stuff *in space*?

 

M:

You're using the word inertia different than it is used in

 

science. Inertia is the quality of resisting change in momentum or a

 

tendency of an object to maintain momentum. You can also think of it as

 

a quantitative description (or a measure) of how difficult it is to

 

change the momentum of an object.

 

When you say "change in inertia", it just doesn't make sense in the

 

context of what you're saying.

See last post and my previous practical example, as follows:

 

Why call inertia an "entity?" Is reification now standard

 

procedure?

We all know that, at maximum applied force, an athlete can throw a

 

baseball much further than a shotput. And astronaughts need more

 

jet-pack power to move a big massive piece of equipment into position

 

(say working on the space station) than to launch a tool bag into deep

 

space

M:

Interestingly, as you object to "time dilation" because time is

 

"just a human concept", you then say "change in inertia" as if inertia

 

is more than a human concept. What is inertia? Is it something that can

 

be changed? Can you make inertia bigger or smaller? Is it something I

 

can feed to my mastiff?

Again, if there were no humans or "timekeepers" the world would just

 

"keep on turning"... orbiting... all in *present tense*... no "time" or

 

"time dilation"... no one tracking specific duration of events... no

 

timekeepers slowing down relative to other timekeepers. ("Objective"...

 

"cosmic perspective", not this observers "take"vs that observer's

 

"take."

Inertia, on the other hand is a word that denotes... well as defined

 

and exemplified above... real masses with real momentum/inertia... the

 

property of requiring actual force to "change."

 

 

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

"First, I deny the reality of "time dilation" in favor of differences in "event duration."

Again, if time is a human artifact, not an actual entity, "it" can not "dilate." The focus is then on what "event" one is measuring (the timespan thereof) by what instrument. "

M:

"Are you saying that "duration" is a real physical entity that can be changed while time is not? Is a duration a mailable thing? I don't understand the distinction:.

You can start your stopwatch at the beginning of an "event" the duration of which you are "timing" and stop it at the "end of the event" as you designate the "beginning and end." So what is happening is "real" but your "take" on "event duration" is arbitrary, though no one would deny that you recorded a 'span of time.'

Since "It" is always now" "spans of time" are merely conventions of how long one chooses to observe a specifically selected "event." I can't make the distinction any plainer that this.

MM:

If you agree that, as above, "objects almost never travel at constant velocity", then maybe actual minute changes in velocity (relative to the "earthside" control clock's surface-bound inertial frame and other orbiting clocks) account for the time-keeping differences.

M:

Yes! "actual changes in velocity relative to [something else] accounts for time-keeping differences". This is exactly what I've been saying. It's what the clock postulate says in point of fact.

And changes in velocity require actual force applied to the object to *change its inertial state*, though the "clock postulate* via the "high speed photography" snapshots method (Momentarily Co-moving Inertial Frames) ignores the inertial change... a fact which you continually either ignore or deny!

 

MM:

My hypothesis is that inertial change slows down the oscillating energy of all things on an atomic level.

/QUOTE]

M:

Would you say that all motion is slowed down, not just motion on an atomic level?

I have no evidence or opinion either way. I just know that "time" is not real and does not slow down, while the duration of actual events (as above) do. As cesium decay slows down via the forces which change its velocity, this is atomic level slowing of radioactive decay... an atomic level "event." Maybe the forces of acceleration ("change in inertia" as I call it to include "deceleration" ) also effect molecular level energetic activity, like human metabolism. The G-force centrifuge experiment I suggested could find out, at least whether metabolism slows in the "twin who spins."

 

 

M:

As I've said before in this thread, a common scientific definition of time is "time is what a clock measures" or as you put it "what timekeepers "keep"". I don't see any problem with thinking of time that way nor do I disagree that "the proper object of scientific investigation must focus on the differences in actual elapsed time of actual events".

Then "time" does not "dilate" as some malleable entity. Clocks keep time differently when different forces act on them. This has been my consistent argument here against the reification of time as a component of "spacetime."

 

MM:

I have attempted to explain that, beyond local perspective, the proper viewpoint of relativity (in which "it is all relative) is a dimension of "absolute" reality. In this dimension, the average distance earth to sun is actually, objectively, independent of who sees what from where, about 93 million miles or 8 + light minutes.

M:

How did you determine this distance without measuring it? How does your cosmic perspective determine it? I need a reproducible method. I need you to describe in steps from start to finish how I can use your cosmic perspective to find that distance.

As in my last post, I did not personally measure it, but it is known, as are all the other distances in our solar system to a very precise degree of accuracy. It baffles me how you can remain in denial of these *objective scientific measures of distance* in service to your "All is relative" mantra of absolute belief.

 

You speak off my "insulting" manner. Yet, after several attempts to explain the *universality* of what I call the cosmic perspective, still you insist on calling it my cosmic perspective... while it is just the actual objective measure of distance between objects.... again see my last post. (Tedious, yes?)

 

M:

You're on a science site, Michael.

I know that! And I am tired of arguing with a "moderator" of a science forum who is in denial of the science which actually has determined all the distances shared in my previous post to a very high degree of accuracy.

Michael

[Erasmus00]

I know that! And I am tired of arguing with a "moderator" of a science forum who is in denial of the science which actually has determined all the distances shared in my previous post to a very high degree of accuracy.

 

What Modest is claiming is not controversial- relativity predicts that there is no "correct" distance between the Earth and the sun, and that various observers can measure various distances depending on their frame of reference. This comes down, again, to misunderstanding relativity.

 

Yet, after several attempts to explain the *universality* of what I call the cosmic perspective, still you insist on calling it my cosmic perspective... while it is just the actual objective measure of distance between objects.... again see my last post. (Tedious, yes?)

 

Those distances might as well be called "distances AS MEASURED FROM A SYSTEM WITH THE SUN AT REST." This is understood in the reporting of the distances. The whole point of relativity is that there isn't a single objective measure- all measurements are frame dependent.

 

The reason others are calling it "your" perspective is that you are the one advocating it.

 

I ask you again- start from your universal reference frame and try to develop physics. You'll come into conflict with a constant speed of light.