Everything we perceive is in the past due to finite speed of light

We cannot perceive anymore than one sequence of events at a time. The time it takes light to reach us versus the time that it occurs in reality are different. And due to this difference, mind exists in a realm independent of reality. Or it could possibly mean that mind is one reality of its own.

It's still a mystery what that one is though. But we know it's a single thing. That is to say, mind is not divided.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well something you learn in mathematics, is that you can put bounds on the error induced by rounding things off, such that you can be certain it makes no difference to the answer up to the desired level of precision. If you want to be completely 100% precise, then you should set speeds in units of \(c\) instead of \(m/s\), and something moving at half the speed of light would simply be moving at \(0.5c\). Much cleaner, easier to work with, and infinitely precise.

No, what you assume is that it doesn't matter what velocity you're going at relative to anything outside the train, it doesn't change anything you see happening inside the train, and reality matches that picture.

That setup wouldn't work at all, because you'd have to know how far you are from the points on the ground where the ground observer sees the lightning strikes. And how are you to know whether or not the ground observer is moving or how fast, anyhow?

Fact is: with your assumptions and your numbers, if I'm on the train and I set up devices to measure the length of train covered per unit time by each lightning flash as measured from my POV, I would get two different measurements. In reality, the measurements will be the same in both directions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's been doing that for years. He's the most outspoken relativity denier here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So delayed reality = independence from reality? Not a very supportable statement.

Human minds are quite literally divided. But for most people that doesn't matter much, because we perceive them operating as one mind.

 

We're more like vast collectives of microorganisms under the strict rule of a powerful inner bureaucracy.

 

It's only cleaner because you decided to pick a clean .5c. How clean is it when the object is traveling a precise .8464398573498567243958724568956 c???

Really?? So a train is traveling in space at .5c. How do you determine that .5c if you are the one sitting in the train, like we are talking about? You wake up in a train. How fast is it traveling, or do you simply assume that the train is not traveling? If you can measure the velocity of the train from within the train then please show your work here and now! No reference to an embankment or such, just tell me how you determine the velocity of the train??

What are you talking about? What ground? What ground observer? Tell me how you determine how fast the train is traveling in space, without reference to external objects outside the train. There are no windows, no comparisons to embankments. Just cut to the chase, tell me how you determine how fast the train is traveling from within the train??

Your point of view is irrelevant! The measurements being performed is how much time it takes for light to reach the receivers. You can go back to sleep because your point of view is irrelevant to the measurements. Did you notice that it takes .65 seconds for light to reach the z receiver when the receiver is only .5 light seconds away from the source at all times in the cube frame?? UH OH, you have a serious problem on your hands!!! Length contraction doesn't occur in the z direction, does it??

 

It's stupidly, pointlessly ugly to express, don't see why you'd need to pick it. If you want to use a horrible number, just call it \(k\) and we can plug the numbers back in at the very end.

You have no way of measuring the velocity of the train as such. You have no way of knowing whether it's at rest, whether it's in motion, or how fast. Any experiment you do onboard the train will yield the exact same results in each case. If you attempt to use the setup you propose, you will find that the time it takes light to reach point "Z" is the same in each case, as measured by the observer on the train, no matter how fast the train is moving relative to ground. It does not give you a means of determining your speed relative to some universal frame of absolute rest.

Unfortunately for you, the truth is that in reality the clock at Z will tick off 0.5 seconds, not .65. Sorry, bud.

 

Only in your world of fantasy does it need to be clean. Only in your world do you round stuff off to make it clean. The real world doesn't round off, it is what it is. Just because you have limited measuring capability doesn't mean that the real world rounds off. Again, if it takes .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second for something to occur, then that is what it takes, and it is not ZERO, it is .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, and that doesn't go away!!

BS!!! What you mean to say is that YOU have no way of measuring, because Einstein doesn't have a method of determining the velocity, he just assumes it to be zero. Then, he breaks out the box of band-aids to make the numbers work. You really don't understand what you are talking about, you are parroting Einstein's BS!

Unfortunately for you you're wrong. There is no way in hell that the speed of light can be the same in all directions from the point in space that it was emitted and reach the z receiver in .5 seconds if the cube is in motion in space. Only in your fantasy Einstein magical illusion show does the light always reach all the receivers in .5 seconds, because since Einstein has no way to determine the velocity of the cube, he says that the cube always has a zero velocity and the light always reaches the receivers in .5 seconds. That is a load of crap because of his incapability to determine the velocity of the cube in space!

 

Hi CptBork, Motor Daddy.

I am not clear on exactly what you two are arguing over there. Can you clarify what the disagreement is over, exactly, regarding the train frame tick rate and distances covered over supposedly contracted and non-contracted space 'directions' during that same tick rate 'value'? Thanks.

 

Can you look up Relativity of Simultaneity?
Not directly related but there are some interesting points that have shades of this in them.
I'm curious as to how you would compare that with what is being suggested here?

 

The diagram showing how much time it takes for light to reach the receivers in a cube that has a velocity in space.

 

So the speed of light that travels between a perceived event and our eyes is somehow different than the speed of light in reality?
And because of this difference of time of travel/speed, then mind must therefore exist in a different or possibly independent reality?
How about it possibly being the EXACT SAME REALITY! Einstein was quoted as once stating: "Time is natures way of keeping everything from happening at once."
So maybe, just maybe, mind lags a few milliseconds behind, in that same reality, only in the "perception" of that reality.
As an example, if I was crushed instantly by a hundred ton block falling from one hundred feet above me - and you witnessed it from a hundred feet away - you would probably state(correctly), that I was gone before I knew what hit me. And, fact of the matter, a person right next to you could state(correctly,also), that I was gone before you knew what hit me. This would be because of the time it took for you to receive, perceive and mentally process the event. Yet all that happens in the exact same reality.
Now the only reason that:
"It's still a mystery what that one is though. But we know it's a single thing. That is to say, mind is not divided.",
is because you have not answered that question.

After all you are the OP, and you posted:

" Everything we perceive is in the past due to finite speed of light
Apparently the actual event happens before the perceived event. This means that mind is one."

You made the statement - I only asked for clarification!
If it is indeed a mystery - then it is of your creation, and I am only guessing, but it is probably not the single mystery in your reality.

At this point, you would probably prefer to exist in the reality where that event I used as an example, earlier in this reality, had already happened, to me.
Later,dmoe

 

Unfortunately (for you), experiments falsify your crank statement. You've been peddling BS for quite a while now, despite being proven wrong every time you "open shop".

 

So you wake up in a train. How fast is it traveling in space, Tach? Zero? Bwahahahaha, get a clue!

 

Damn, I'd hate to be a store clerk and argue with you every time the price goes up a couple of cents.

Einstein said the velocity of the train doesn't matter, plain and simple. Thus it makes no difference whether the train is in motion, or at rest, nor does it matter what the Earth's velocity at that moment is either. The velocity of an object has absolutely no meaning whatsoever except in relation to something else.

Well thankfully we're not living in Hell, we're living in an orderly universe where distances and times depend upon the observers measuring them, and the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. The z-observer ticks off .5 seconds, it's been experimentally beaten to death for more than 100 years.

 

He decided this was a good opportunity to take another swipe at the cabal of international physicists and their belief that the properties of the universe can't be divined in your living room. Can't get his head over the idea that simultaneous events in one frame need not be simultaneous as measured in another.

 

You don't know, and you can't know - because to that observer, all light beams still go 1C.

 

The above makes no sense, at all, you must have forgotten to take your meds again.

 

Ah, belief is one thing, but facts are facts! If light is emitted from a point in space and light travels at the same speed in all directions in space, then you have some serious issues that you need to address, as in order for a light sphere to continue increasing its radius at the same rate in all directions, the center point of the sphere is always at the center of the light sphere as the radius increases. If the source that emitted that light which was at the center point at emission and then travels away from that point, then the source is no longer at the center of the light sphere, which means according to the source, light is further in one direction then it is the other direction. Again you have some serious issues to address!

 

Makes no sense because you don't have a way to determine the velocity of the train so you just say the heck with it and call it zero? You don't know what the velocity is so you claim it to be zero. That is so laughable!!