Q, And I assume that if you drop two rock, at same time, on opposite sides of the earth, the earth will magically move to meet both rocks at the same time. Think about it. Tom
Tom, <i>There are no observers in my example. I'm comparing the readings of the clock in the spaceship to the clock on Earth.</i> From where are you doing the comparison? Because that makes all the difference. Come on, Tom. It's not that hard to grasp. You can do it. <i>And I assume that if you drop two rock, at same time, on opposite sides of the earth, the earth will magically move to meet both rocks at the same time. Think about it.</i> Perhaps <b>you</b> should think about it. Here's a simple diagram for you: A E B A and B are the rocks. E is the Earth. When They are dropped, we end up with this situation: AEB From E's point of view, A has moved to the right and B to the left. From A's point of view, E has moved to the left, and so has B. From B's point of view, E has moved to the right and so has A. It's quite easy to see that.
James R, Obviously, E can't move to meet both A and B at the same time, therefore it's not E that's moving, it's A and B. Tom
<i>Obviously, E can't move to meet both A and B at the same time ...</i> Yes it can, and it does. From the point of view of E, E doesn't move at all. A and B both move towards it, hitting it at the same time. From the point of view of A, E moves towards A. At the same time, B moves towards E. At the moment that E meets A, B also meets E. From the point of view of B, E moves towards B. At the same time, A moves towards E. At the moment that E meets B, A also meets E.
James R, You're begining to confuse the hell out of me. Does the Earth expand to meet both A and B at the same time, or not???? Tom
No, it doesn't expand. Read what I wrote again. Do you disagree with me? Are you <b>able</b> to consider things from more that one point of view? (I'm beginning to have my doubts.)
James R, Since the Earth does not expand, the points of view of A and B are WRONG. A and B's points of view are optical illusions. Tom
<i>Since the Earth does not expand, the points of view of A and B are WRONG. A and B's points of view are optical illusions.</i> Well, that's an interesting assertion. Would you care to support it with an argument?
And I assume that if you drop two rock, at same time, on opposite sides of the earth, the earth will magically move to meet both rocks at the same time. Think about it. It is clear from your response you don't understand relativity and don't wish to understand. If I told you that from the rocks FOR, the Earth IS viewed as moving towards both rocks at the same time, you will laugh. But that is exactly what is happening. Try and allow your mind to leap past the simplistic and visualize what's really happening. Visualize yourself as the speck on either rock. You will view the Earth as moving towards you.
Q, As I stated before, just because the rock sees reality differently doesn't mean that the perception of the rock is correct. As I told James R, the rock is seeing an optical illusion. Tom
Tom, Optical illusion how ? The rock will impact, won't it ? The impact surely can't be an optical illusion aswel ? Bye! Crisp
Crisp, The rock believes that the Earth is moving toward it, when in reality the rock is moving towards the Earth. In other words, the rocks perception that the Earth is moving towards it is the optical illusion. Tom
Tom: Maybe. Common sense would imply that heavier objects fall faster. Yet they do not. That is simple Newtonian physics. If Newtonian physics can contradict common sense, what about more advanced physics? Common sense dictates that light is either particle or wave. But it is both. So we must reject about 400 years of well verified physical theories. Nonetheless, I shall look forward to your next thread. JamesR: No harm, no foul. I'm not educated in physics enough to take offense to criticism. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I appreciate your help.
As I stated before, just because the rock sees reality differently doesn't mean that the perception of the rock is correct. As I told James R, the rock is seeing an optical illusion. Wrong. No optical illusion whatsoever. The rock is not seeing reality differently. The rock is simply viewing reality from it's FOR. If so, by your logic, everything you view is an optical illusion.
I really shouldn't be hanging out around here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! just small response: "Maybe. Common sense would imply that heavier objects fall faster. Yet they do not. That is simple Newtonian physics." Yes, but one single experiment can show this to be wrong without anyone going to argue that different intepretations are possible. The common sense is easily replaced by a new and correct common sense. "Common sense dictates that light is either particle or wave. But it is both. " Are you 100% that it is both? Are you 100% sure that we can talk positively about non-locality without any doubt? There is so little that we understand. A particle is "stuff" for me and that's where my common sense stops. "Wrong. No optical illusion whatsoever. The rock is not seeing reality differently. The rock is simply viewing reality from it's FOR." viewing reality from its FOR = illusion The magician fools the audience. It is only he who knows what really happened. If we can't find the magician to learn from, then we are stuck in our illusions. Everything that moves, cannot tell the true motion of another entity. It's that simple. As I said before, points of view can be wrong and in this case, they are all wrong. But instead, relativity goes on to say that they are all right. But some systems that move all together with a constant speed can be considered as *the* FOR to use above others. The solar system for example. Imagine that the planet earth, for some mysterious reason, suddenly leaves the system. The rest of the planets just keep orbitting like they usually do. The solar system also moves with respect to other systems. Her motion does not change. The only way that could have caused the earth to leave the system is because the earth's change in velocity. If viewers from the earth think that the whole system is flying away from them instead of the other way around, then they are all wrong. Only one point of view can be correct. The FOR of the solar system is not 100% correct cause it is in motion itself. It can only say that it is the earth that changed from velocity and not herself because compared to the other systems, nothing changed (just imagine we can measure this easily). But it cannot tell the true path of motion that occures. That is what people usually call science. Science = Objectivism and Relativity = Subjectivism. Relativity is the world of the observer and his illusions. His illusions and his clock. Good night
Tom, <i>The rock believes that the Earth is moving toward it, when in reality the rock is moving towards the Earth.</i> Then you'll be able to propose a test to show us whether it is <b>really</b> the Earth or the rock moving, won't you? But you can't. Thanks for the post. I had a good laugh. c'est moi: <i>But some systems that move all together with a constant speed can be considered as *the* FOR to use above others. The solar system for example. Imagine that the planet earth, for some mysterious reason, suddenly leaves the system. The rest of the planets just keep orbitting like they usually do. The solar system also moves with respect to other systems. Her motion does not change. The only way that could have caused the earth to leave the system is because the earth's change in velocity.</i> Following your reasoning that the solar system provides an absolute standard of reference: Imagine that the solar system, for some mysterious reason, suddenly leaves the galaxy. The rest of the stars just keep orbitting like they usually do. The solar system also moves with respect to other systems. Her motion does not change. The only way that could have caused the solar system to leave the galaxy is because the galaxy's change in velocity. Agree?
There something that we call "cause". Which thing would cause a galaxy to change velocity and a solar system not? There is none.
Okay you sarcasmo, this is no real answer. It breaks down discussion. I wouldn't call them abs. FOR's for reasons I made clear enough. I'd call them semi-abs. for's or relevant abs. for's Let me call it SAF to make it short. And thus begon the journey of the SAF-theory ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You seem to be blindstarring at FOR's. You should never forget the cause behind a system's or entity's motion. The last one rules out possibilities. For the record, could you provide me a concrete situation where we need the double-way view of relativity? (no sarcasm) A rock appraoches earth, we want to predict energy release upon impact etc. it seems one-way reasoning is enough. It's entirely unusefull to calculate it from the rocks point of view. Muons live longer. You calculate the supposed time-dilation from your point of view. What's the use of knowing what happens from the FOR of the muon? The muon is supposed to tell that it is our time that slows down --> not usefull, is it? Or is it? For the record, relativity has never provided any insight in how speed could influence time and space and. Science is not only about predicting, the origin of science is in the desire of wanting to explain *why* something happens. Call it with the fancy name "spacetime continuum", produce Lorentz transformations and end of story?
