What is "spacetime" really?

[Essay]

Bump.

"I will, of course, leave the forum if this stonewalling approach persists. But in the interest of science, I welcome any explanation in answer to the points made in the two posts transcribed above."

Looks like the above is just what the moderators had in mind... stonewalling until I give up.

I thought I answered the "distances" challenge quite clearly, and no one will touch the "subjective idealism" component of distance variation with observer perspective. I also reviewed my understanding and criticism of SR and GR above with no reply.

I've been busy, but have replied before--with little response from you...

But i haven't been too active on this anyway, so just as well. I think i've kept up with the reading, except the last few pages maybe.

 

Anyone on the "speed of gravity" reply above?

That is a good one (and I'm sure no expert); as evidenced by my question about "does energy have gravity?"

 

How about "things" traveling faster than light... traversing the well established distance sun to earth in less than a minute. Is this crackpot science or what?

Well, that is measured from the perspective of onboard the "things traveling."

Why would that be crackpot--it's just normal relativity....

 

What is time without clocks?

Very difficult to measure?

 

What does curvature of space add to our understanding of how gravity works? Ontologically, what is space anyway, besides the no-thing-ness in which things exist.

I think three different folks (me included) have specifically said that spacetime is generated by, or a product of, or an artifact of, or an illusion generated by--energy--ontologically speaking that is. I know this isn't a democracy, but consider how many....

 

But what does your simplest of paradigms add to our understanding?

That we are barking up the wrong tree?

What is your drive here--your goal?

 

Going, going... I get it... "good riddance."

 

Michael

see above--in bold:

:)

 

p.s.

I suppose the simplest answer is....

And relativity itself is just a consequence of trying to be in two places at once.

[watcher]

What is time without clocks?

 

the question is redundant. time is already the clock. clocking the passage of time is a human contraption. you don't measure time. time is already the measure of change from one state to another, iow time is motion. at least the way i understand it.

eternal now is an eternal flow of things. it is not a state or a time/place to arrived at, don't absolutize it. listen to buddha's advice. take the middle way. eternalism is materialism. materialism is eternalism.(paraphrased)

 

What does curvature of space add to our understanding of how gravity works?

 

it tells us that space has structure related to gravity . it tells us that space has varying densities, it tells us that gravity is the resultant force of those dynamic shifting of space densities.. that space also had varying densities imperceptible to human detectors, that make the particles' motions "appear" to be discrete. (quantum jump).

 

Ontologically, what is space anyway, besides the no-thing-ness in which things exist.

 

these things which exist in space are also 99.9999% space. in the middle of these things are "spins". if you really think that these spins are simply overlayed in a vacant space , so what is this vorteces with centrifugal forces if you "pluck" them out from the background empty space? spirit?

the nothingness of space is a mental differentiation, it has no physical meaning.

[Michael Mooney]

Well... no moderators have the guts or true spirit of scientific debate to reply to my continuing challenges. It's more like an indoctrination into dogmatic relativity than an open minded science forum... Oh... but "All is relative" is the dogma which passes for science on this forum

MM:

"What is time without clocks?"

Watcher:

the question is redundant. time is already the clock. clocking the passage of time is a human contraption. you don't measure time. time is already the measure of change from one state to another, iow time is motion. at least the way i understand it.

eternal now is an eternal flow of things. it is not a state or a time/place to arrived at, don't absolutize it. listen to buddha's advice. take the middle way. eternalism is materialism. materialism is eternalism.(paraphrased)

 

Redundancy is repetition. What is repetitive in the above question? Ontologically, "time" is only a human concept created by "clocks"... a human invention. It is a product of linear thinking. "Beginning" when one starts the clock and "ending" when one stops the clock. Without the human fascination/obsession with observation/"clocking" of *selected* event duration, as above, there is only the natural movement of objects in space... to which the phrase "elapsed time" can be applied... tho "now" has no "spans of time", what happened being 'not now' and what will happen also being 'not now'... now ongoing always.

 

Something came up in "real life." Back asap.

Michael

[watcher]

Redundancy is repetition. What is repetitive in the above question? Ontologically, "time" is only a human concept created by "clocks"... a human invention. It is a product of linear thinking. "Beginning" when one starts the clock and "ending" when one stops the clock. Without the human fascination/obsession with observation/"clocking" of *selected* event duration, as above, there is only the natural movement of objects in space... to which the phrase "elapsed time" can be applied... tho "now" has no "spans of time", what happened being 'not now' and what will happen also being 'not now'... now ongoing always.

 

Something came up in "real life." Back asap.

Michael

objects cannot just move in space with "taking" the time. so time is an important element to the comprehensibility and functionality of the universe. you cannot even see the back of your pc without taking the time to move around it. there is also an energy spent in the movement. see how they all intertwined? the kw-hr energy your appliances consumed are real , whether you conceptualize it or not. iow, time is need to accomplished something (WORK). time is needed to convert mass into energy and vs. time is not a human whim.

 

"now on going always" means flow. a flow is a form of motion. if your suggesting that the ontological origin of space-time is motion, i agree. but this flow must be scalar since vectorial motions already requires space and time to be plotted.

[Michael Mooney]

Well, Watcher, looks like you and Essay are the only ones talking to me here, so I'll try to wrap it up with both of you then maybe list the major unanswered questions I've raised in this thread (not all in this post) and then be on my way.

 

Question to moderators: Is there a probationary period for such an infraction as mine, or am I permanently off your list of people worthy of a reply? (for my ill-conceived tongue-in-cheek comment to Doctordick... in response to his quite rude condescension.)

 

I asked you, Watcher:

What does curvature of space add to our understanding of how gravity works?

You replied:

it tells us that space has structure related to gravity . it tells us that space has varying densities, it tells us that gravity is the resultant force of those dynamic shifting of space densities.. that space also had varying densities imperceptible to human detectors, that make the particles' motions "appear" to be discrete. (quantum jump).

 

Do you understand that the question, "What is spacetime, really?" is an ontological question which you have never addressed? Rather you have jumped to the common conclusion that it is "something" (rather than nothing) which has certain traits in and of itself, like curvature, expandability and density. Of course objects moving *through space* have various curved trajectories as masses pull on each other via gravity, but "curved space" not only does not explain how masses pull on each other (how gravity works) but it assumes the ontological status of "spacetime" as a malleable medium (as above) as a basic reality, begging the ontological question.

Are you with me on this. (Anyone? This is, after all the "Philosophy of Science" section of the forum.)

You say:

objects cannot just move in space with "taking" the time. so time is an important element to the comprehensibility and functionality of the universe. you cannot even see the back of your pc without taking the time to move around it. there is also an energy spent in the movement. see how they all intertwined? the kw-hr energy your appliances consumed are real , whether you conceptualize it or not. iow, time is need to accomplished something (WORK). time is needed to convert mass into energy and vs. time is not a human whim.

 

Of course one can "clock" the elapsed time of objects as they move from a designated point A to a designated point B. This does not make "time" an actual entity, and certainly not a reality in itself which can speed up and slow down, tho, of course clocks and many natural events/cycles do that under various circumstances.

You continue:

"now on going always" means flow. a flow is a form of motion. if your suggesting that the ontological origin of space-time is motion, i agree. but this flow must be scalar since vectorial motions already requires space and time to be plotted.

 

It means that the future is not yet present and the past is not still present, so all there is is the present... ever... always... everywhere... simultaneously.

 

Again, ontologically, space is the no-thing-ness in which all things exist and time is "clocking duration", neither of which nor both together are ontological realities.

This is about "what is real" not ways of "plotting" the motion of real things in space over time.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

MM:

"Anyone on the "speed of gravity" reply above?"

Essay:

That is a good one (and I'm sure no expert); as evidenced by my question about "does energy have gravity?"

"Mass creates gravity (by whatever mysterious agency short of "curving" the no-thing-ness between things. Even massless light has the energy of its momentum which responds to mass/gravity exactly as if it did have mass, resulting in its trajectory being bent or curved by masses... still not requiring that "space itself" be bent or curved.

 

MM:

"How about "things" traveling faster than light... traversing the well established distance sun to earth in less than a minute. Is this crackpot science or what?"

Essay:

Well, that is measured from the perspective of onboard the "things traveling."

Why would that be crackpot--it's just normal relativity....

 

What is "crackpot" is any claim that anything can travel the *actual well known and documented distance* between sun and earth (see my detailed post a couple of pages or so ago on the subject) in less than a minute. It takes light over 8 minutes and that is the fastest speed there is.

 

MM:

"What is time without clocks?"

Essay:

Very difficult to measure?

MM:

Again, ontologically, what is time if not merely an artifact of measuring (clocking) event duration ?"

MM:

"What does curvature of space add to our understanding of how gravity works? Ontologically, what is space anyway, besides the no-thing-ness in which things exist."

 

Essay:

I think three different folks (me included) have specifically said that spacetime is generated by, or a product of, or an artifact of, or an illusion generated by--energy--ontologically speaking that is. I know this isn't a democracy, but consider how many....

You didn't even address the above question but only appealed to the common consensus that "spacetime" is an established reality with actual traits like curvature, expandability, "density" (as Watcher claims) as if it were a given through repetition over the years. It originally functioned as a visual aid to understanding the effects of gravity, but was eventually reified into an actual "fabric", and this is the error this thread has addressed.

 

Essay:

But what does your simplest of paradigms add to our understanding?

That we are barking up the wrong tree?

What is your drive here--your goal?

 

Actually it subttracts the reified "fabric" spacetime in the tradition of Occam's Razor. Then we are left with a focus on, for instance, explaining the dynamics of clocks slowing down under the forces of inertial change rather than continuing the foolishness of claiming that "time slows down" tho time, after all is just "what clocks measure." Technically this is the error of tautology familiar to philosophy.

Yes. Time is an artifact of clocks, not a real thing as the forces, masses, and energies/plasmas of the cosmos are "real things" and the proper subject of scientific study.

 

My goal has always been to expose the above fallacies of space, time and their marriage as "spacetime" as ontologically "real" as in bendable, expandable, curved, speeding up, slowing down... "dilating" etc.

 

This is a proper subject for "The philosophy of Science" and all my challenges still go unanswered.

Michael

[JMJones0424]

Mr. Mooney- Please forgive me, as I am sure this will not be an accurate answer to your many questions. This is just my attempt, based on my imperfect knowledge.

 

There are many "common sense" observations that we make on a daily basis that seem to disagree with the concept of relative time. "Common sense" is dangerous in physics, because common sense is based upon those experiences that you have the ability to encounter, where physics is not bound by only your every day experiences. In this case, with time dilation, the problem is a matter of scale. Never in your life do you even approach a speed fast enough to notice the difference between time measured by two observers with drastically different relative speeds. This difference however is measured, on a daily basis, by GPS satellites. GPS satellites also give an accurate measurement of time dilation that occurs in proximity to a large mass.

 

GPS and Relativity

 

The idea of "spacetime" in and of itself is a metaphor that explains current observations very well, and makes accurate predictions of how bodies will act. It is not an actual description of what you would perceive, because it condenses three dimensions into two, for the sake of understanding gravity's influence on matter. It describes the orbit of Mercury more accurately than Newton's laws of gravity.

 

I am color blind. I perceive colors differently from someone who is not color blind. This does not mean that the wavelength of that particular color is different when it reaches my eye, it means that my perception of that wavelength is different than another's. In a similar way, time itself is a perception. The passage of time is dependent on speed and distance to massive objects. Two observers do not necessarily agree on the passage of time, even though they observe the same event, because of relative differences in speed and location to massive objects. Atomic clocks do not even agree. This difference, which was predicted by Einstein's equations prior to the invention of GPS satellites, tends to show that it is useful to think of space and time to be interconnected. Once again, because of problems of scale, we generally do not encounter the differences that make this distinction important, but important it is nonetheless.

 

Space-time is a metaphor, just as the Mercator projection on a map is a metaphor. It is a useful tool, and sometimes a hard to grasp subject.

[freeztar]

Hi folks,

Looks like I'll be leaving Hypography, as I'm blacklisted by the moderators in the "philosophy of science" section

 

Blacklisted?

 

You are mistaken. As a moderator, I can say this as fact.

 

Some of us are sometimes concerned by your posts, but we have not "blacklisted" you.

Your continual claims that we have done so are cause for concern though. Why do you feel this way?

[modest]

Question to moderators: Is there a probationary period for such an infraction as mine, or am I permanently off your list of people worthy of a reply? (for my ill-conceived tongue-in-cheek comment to Doctordick... in response to his quite rude condescension.)

 

Michael, your infraction expired 7 days ago. I don't know why other people such as Will left this conversation, but personally, I find you to be rude and irrational, so I have no further interest in participating in this thread.

 

As far as Doctordick... it's ironic to the point of being sad. He is the one person in all of this thread who would have and could have supported your conclusions intelligently, and look how that ended up. :naughty:

 

~modest

[freeztar]

I don't know why other people such as Will left this conversation, but personally, I find you to be rude and irrational, so I have no further interest in participating in this thread.

 

Ditto.

[Michael Mooney]

Michael, your infraction expired 7 days ago. I don't know why other people such as Will left this conversation, but personally, I find you to be rude and irrational, so I have no further interest in participating in this thread.

 

As far as Doctordick... it's ironic to the point of being sad. He is the one person in all of this thread who would have and could have supported your conclusions intelligently, and look how that ended up. :hihi:

 

~modest

Modest,

As first trustee of a trust/ community which practices "radical honesty" as a higher priority than being "polite" in highest regard to personal feelings over total honesty, I understand that you consider me "rude" as do many visitors to our community... until we explain the above priorities.

"Irrational" is another matter. I ask you one more time to address what you think is "irrational" in my debate with you on... just for a handy example... the distance earth to sun and how we "know" it as established beyond "relative perspective."

 

Here again is my argument in that regard:

 

By means of triangulation or parallax using satellites and radar we (the scientific community) know for a fact that the sun is, on average exactly 92.58 million miles from earth, being, at perhelion 91million miles and at aphelion 94.5 million miles from earth.

 

We know that lightspeed is constant at 670 616 629 mph and that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed (unless you "believe in" the inflationary model of expanding space after the "bang"... which is fantasy.) So, when you do the math (oooh, scary!) it turns out to be exactly 8.317 light-minutes sun to earth. (Light minutes or years are, of course measures of distance, so the above in light minutes equals the above in miles. "Elementary, my dear Watson."

 

So, any claim that anything, even light, can travel from earth to sun in less than a minute is totally bogus. And any *real* website on science has the actual objective distances listed (averages and max/min breakdown as above) for distances from sun to all planets and some objects beyond our solar system.

This claim that such distances all depend on variation in speed/vector of point of observation is a bogus fixation on the dogma that "It's all relative."

 

If you will *please* reply to the above in all honesty, I will ask no more.

 

Regarding Doctordick, there can be no doubt that he was quite rude in his condescension to the point of questioning my intellectual capacity on the grounds that I disagreed with what he sees as the unavoidable implications and conclusions of relativity. I went into great detail outlining the basic tenants of both GR and SR and being very specific about which parts I see as well established and which "implications" I do challenge. He, like you, never bothered to address the differences point by point.

I did get his point (very roughly paraphrased )that all "scientists" so far on this thread assume that their epistemological assumptions preclude the more basic need to examine the very ontology of "spacetime"... the core of this thread's challenge... which you have so far successfully ignored.

Finally, you have never addressed my most basic philosophical challenge of the subjective idealism upon which your insistence that "It is all relative" is based. Case in point, do you believe that the existence of the cosmos/universe depends on observation of it (forget "by whom?" for the moment) for its existence? If you can not or will not answer this most basic challenge, then you have no business being a moderator of a forum section entitled "Philosophy of Science."

"Ditto" freeztar.

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Blacklisted?

 

You are mistaken. As a moderator, I can say this as fact.

 

Some of us are sometimes concerned by your posts, but we have not "blacklisted" you.

Your continual claims that we have done so are cause for concern though. Why do you feel this way?

 

I am not computer "savvy." I once took Modest's stylized exclamation points around a demand (that I give links/reference on demand) to be him "showing me his badge of authority" as a warning.

I have never before the above, used the term "blacklisted" but rather "stonewalled" meaning no moderators replying to my posts. This after incurring my "infraction." If there is a difference, it is lost on me... but maybe I really don't know the meaning of "blacklisted." (I didn't say "banned.")

 

I got your "ditto" in my "spacetime" thread. I take it that my admitted rudeness (in response to rudeness!) makes the substance of what I post (as above) unworthy of reply... even my basic challenge of the subjective idealism upon which the "axiom" "It is all relative" is based, as an appropriate challenge in a "philosophy of science" section.

Michael

[pamela]

Michael, I reread doctorDicks posts and they were not rude. You asked for responses and he gave them to you. Your posts were rather sarcastic and that begets more sarcasm. I find it interesting that you of all people are complaining about rudeness, when you clearly view yourself as the same. Condescension? Holy Smokes! I know your IQ and your background:D Come on , now.....

You are using very decisive tactics on our members all the while you are playing the martyr. Not every one meditates nor lend themselves to a higher consciousness in order to do your thought/mind exercise.

Some people are rooted and grounded in methodologies and facts. You have to accept the differences without laying out the humiliations.Several members have entertained your concept and have given you feedback. Repeatedly belittling Modest is not the way to go forward. You should know that. I suggest that you consider the art of persuasion to embrace your audience.:hihi:

[pamela]

originally posted by Michael Mooney

So I will go with "yes" on the question. God's body is the cosmos (known and beyond our "cosmic event horizon"), and God's consciousness is omnipresent, not just transcending It's body but manifesting/creating it perpetually and eternally. God's "outbreath" is the "Bang" and the "inbreath" is the "Crunch"... perpetually, eternally cycling... with no "beginning" or "ending"... which are both products of linear thinking, which can not comprehend eternity, infinity, or the perpetual process of re-birthing and again collapsing into the ball of primordial matter/energy for yet another "bang."

actually Michael, i thought what you wrote most eloquent. Although we think differently, I enjoyed your concept:)

[freeztar]

I am not computer "savvy." I once took Modest's stylized exclamation points around a demand (that I give links/reference on demand) to be him "showing me his badge of authority" as a warning.

 

Modest was just doing his job as Moderator. The rules of this site require *every* member to back up their claims.

 

I have never before the above, used the term "blacklisted" but rather "stonewalled" meaning no moderators replying to my posts. This after incurring my "infraction." If there is a difference, it is lost on me... but maybe I really don't know the meaning of "blacklisted." (I didn't say "banned.")

No members (Moderators included) are obligated to reply to your posts. We all have different reasons for replying to some threads, and not others. Reasons may include disinterest, lack of comprehension, lack of time, etc.

 

I got your "ditto" in my "spacetime" thread. I take it that my admitted rudeness (in response to rudeness!) makes the substance of what I post (as above) unworthy of reply...

It's not that the subject matter is necessarily unworthy of examination/reply. I can't speak for everyone, but for me, I grew tired of the argument as well as the general tone of the thread.

[modest]

Michael, you have proclaimed that all observers measure the speed of light equally—that the speed of light (a velocity... distance divided by time) is constant regardless of the state of motion of the frame of reference.

 

You are either unwilling or unable to explore or understand the logical consequences of that observation. Any time a member tries to explain, you wave your hands and object based on some misconception. The result is you have no idea what special relativity is (I say this after 300 posts of you consistently demonstrating a lack of understanding) and it is impossible for you to learn what it is in this thread because of your confrontational style. You are trying to debate people who are simply trying to explain a concept to you.

 

If you really want to understand relativity then you're going to need to read something like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/3/3b/Special_relativity.pdf

because from everything I've seen, it will not be possible for you to learn a new concept in the setting of this thread.

 

Notice from the link, common misconceptions people have:

 

Here is a collection of common misunderstandings and misconceptions about SR...

 

Beginners often believe that special relativity is only about objects that are moving at high velocities. This is a mistake. Special relativity applies at all velocities but at low velocity the predictions of special relativity are almost identical to those of the Newtonian empirical formulae. As an object increases its velocity the predictions of relativity gradually diverge from Newtonian Mechanics.

 

There is sometimes a problem differentiating between the two different concepts "relativity of simultaneity" and "signal latency/delay." This book text differs from some other presentations because it deals with the geometry of spacetime directly and avoids the treatment of delays due to light propagation. This approach is taken because students would not be taught Euclid's geometry using continuous references to the equipment and methods used to measure lengths and angles. Continuous reference to the measurement process obscures the underlying geometrical theory whether the geometry is three dimensional or four dimensional.

 

If students do not grasp that, from the outset, modern Special Relativity proposes that the universe is four dimensional, then, like Poincaré, they will consider that the constancy of the speed of light is just an event awaiting a mechanical explanation and waste their time pondering the sorts of mechanical or electrical effects that could adjust the velocity of light to be compatible with observation.

 

Now, you are not yet at the point of understanding why a consistent speed of light implies a 4-dimensional universe let alone why it demands distance and time be relative. If you're not willing to explore these things in a calm and rational way then nobody is going to want to discuss them with you.

 

Situation A:

I'm on earth (motionless to the earth and sun) and I throw a baseball at the sun and the baseball is going 150,000 km/s relative to me (that's the speed at which I measure the ball) and it takes the ball one thousand seconds to reach the sun then what is my measurement for the distance to the sun?

 

Situation B:

I'm traveling at 150,000 km/s toward the sun and I throw a ball at the sun exactly when I pass the earth. The ball that I throw is going 150,000 km/s relative to me (that's the speed at which I measure the ball). It takes the ball 500 seconds to reach the sun. What is the distance from the earth to the sun as I measure it?

 

Situation A.1:

I'm on earth and I throw *something* at the sun which is going 300,000 km/s relative to me. It takes this "something" 500 seconds to reach the sun. What is the distance from the earth to the sun as I just measured it?

 

 

Situation B.1:

I'm traveling at 150,000 km/s toward the sun and I throw something at the sun with a velocity of 300,000 km/s relative to me as I pass the earth. It takes this something 500 seconds to reach the sun. What is the distance from the earth to the sun as I just measured it?

 

If you honestly try to work these problems out, I believe you will start to see the problem—if Newtonian mechanics works for both A and B and the speed of light is constant for them both then distance and time (as it is used in Newtonian mechanics) cannot be absolute. Notice special relativity predicts that person B (in situation :hihi: will not measure 500 seconds while Newtonian relativity predicts that person B will measure 500 seconds. The difference between the two is that time and distance are relative in the former and absolute in the latter.

 

Where you have said all observers will measure the same distance between these things, you are supporting Newtonian relativity and denying special relativity. You need to explore their logical consequences to determine which is correct.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

OK, folks. I get the message. The rudeness factor of my "radical honesty" and my natural arrogance as a "high genius polymath" are blowing people away. Time for a change of tone. Not to say, "time to roll over and play dead."

 

Pamela,

You said,

Some people are rooted and grounded in methodologies and facts. You have to accept the differences without laying out the humiliations.

 

I accept the latter and resolve to quit being blatently offensive. As to the former, very recently above I shared again the scientific facts about sun to earth distance and the general methodology by which these facts are known. I will repeat a version of that post below, cleansed of my usual arrogance and sarcasm.

In reply, tho I nicely asked, "please," Modest ignored the facts and methods and repeated that:

"Now, you are not yet at the point of understanding why a consistent speed of light implies a 4-dimensional universe let alone why it demands distance and time be relative"

...

and went on to repeat his bias that I am not only not rational but also not calm.

"If you're not willing to explore these things in a calm and rational way then nobody is going to want to discuss them with you."

 

Actually I am very calm, even when I sound hostile... tho this medium can not "see" that. And I see myself as very rational. ("Aced" "Logic and the Scientific Method" in grad school!)

 

Your "homework assignment for me, Modest, seems to assume that If I do the math you gave me, it will prove that the distance between earth and sun is not established as per the facts i shared but relative to ones perspective. (*See my repeated references to the philosophy of subjective idealism which I reject.)

 

Maybe I'll go ahead and do the math preliminary to further comment on that. Meanwhile...

Modest,

Here is the edited text of the facts and methods which I pleaded with you to address... to no avail.

 

By means of triangulation or parallax using satellites and radar we (the scientific community) know for a fact that the sun is, on average exactly 92.58 million miles from earth, being, at perhelion 91million miles and at aphelion 94.5 million miles from earth.

 

We know that lightspeed is constant at 670 616 629 mph and that nothing can travel faster than lightspeed... it turns out to be exactly 8.317 light-minutes sun to earth. (Light minutes or years are, of course measures of distance, so the above in light minutes equals the above in miles....

 

So, any claim that anything, even light, can travel from earth to sun in less than a minute (ed: as in Modest's hypothetical relativity problem) is (edit: let's just say a "thought experiment that stays in one's head, not descriptive of the real world.) (Ed: Many science websites list)... the actual objective distances... (averages and max/min breakdown as above) for distances from sun to all planets and some objects beyond our solar system.

This claim that such distances all depend on variation in speed/vector of point of observation (ed:... is based on the philosophical belief that, basically, observation from various points of view... dependent on light speed... creates "reality" and that there is no such thing as objectivity vis-a-vis distances between objects, i.e., "Its all relative.")

(End of edited quote.)

 

I asked you nicely... "please"... to address the above, but in reply you again repeated that I obviously don't understand relativity and gave me another set of "word problems" to solve in the spirit of "thought experiments" which do not require reference to the 'real world.'

 

I'll post this then do the math and further commentary in another post.

 

Michael