It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Relativity Paradox

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



I am having trouble accepting the idea that both frames of reference are equally true.

no! both didn't happen. only one happened, and which happened is based on your position. see my last post for an explanation.




posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Sigh... your math hasn't explained anything. It's as simple as this:

According to the theory of relativity two different sequences of events can be observed from two different frames of references and they can both be considered as equally true.

Now my problem with this comes in at the point where they try to say both are equally valid, and if you still cannot understand why I have a problem with that then I give up trying to explain it.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Bob Sholtz
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



I am having trouble accepting the idea that both frames of reference are equally true.

no! both didn't happen. only one happened, and which happened is based on your position. see my last post for an explanation.

Oh for christ sakes, we're going in circles here. Only one happened from my point of reference, that is true, but what about the other guy who claims he witnessed a different sequence of events?

WE CANNOT BOTH BE EQUALLY CORRECT IN OUR OBSERVATIONS IF THOSE OBSERVATIONS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!
edit on 18/12/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by wtbengineer
 



The ball appears to curve, but that is only from one frame of reference. I have a problem with the mentality that a thing can be in two different states in absolute terms.

Exactly, just because one frame of reference reports that the ball did curve and the other reports that it didn't curve doesn't mean it did both things at the same time. But that is exactly what the theory of relativity is trying to say, that two different things can occur simultaneously and both are equally true in absolute terms. It's just insane imo.


I entirely disagree. It seems you don't understand (???) what RELATIVITY really means.

It means THERE IS no "absolute", there ARE no "two separate" events, there is no curved line and there is no straight line. There "is" only what there is depending on how you look at it.

The "straight" line is as true as the "curved" line. The insanity (IMHO) comes when you erroneously assume there is one "absolute truth"...but that's what relativity is about...an absolute truth doesn't exist, a truth "materializes" only for the observer or it it's only valid within one specific system.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NoRulesAllowed
 



It means THERE IS no "absolute", there ARE no "two separate" events, there is no curved line and there is no straight line. There "is" only what there is depending on how you look at it.

Oh, so there is no spoon. Lol, sorry, I just had to say that.


The "straight" line is as true as the "curved" line. The insanity (IMHO) comes when you erroneously assume there is one "absolute truth"...but that's what relativity is about...an absolute truth doesn't exist, a truth "materializes" only for the observer or it it's only valid within one specific system.

If there is no absolute truth, and every frame of reference is equally valid like you say, then you are admitting that some type of superposition is occurring. If what I observe is the absolute truth for me, and what my friend observes is the absolute truth for him, and we both observe different things, then both truths must be a reality simultaneously. THUSLY, there must be some type of superposition occurring which allows my reality to be just as real as anyone else's even though they contradict each other.

I for one refuse to accept such nonsense, clearly there must be some definitive frame of reference imo. Anyway I'm off to get some sleep, I'll check back on this thread later. I'm probably going to dream of spoons.
edit on 18/12/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



WE CANNOT BOTH BE EQUALLY CORRECT IN OUR OBSERVATIONS IF THOSE OBSERVATIONS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!

you would be right, but the observations cannot be compared because they didn't take place at the same location and at the same speed. it's that simple.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
my 2 cents
the calculations proves that it is true...but, humans are incapable of observing it.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 

your two cents are well spent. you're dead on. each observer would measure the intensity of gravity at different levels at different times.

both perspectives cannot be viewed at the same time in reality. you can do it in theory, and it is a useful tool, but it results in paradoxes if you try to combine the two different reference frames because they are not compatible.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

superposition deals with probability waves. a single particle's probability wave can be "split" so that it interferes with itself (the double slit experiment), but once a measurement is made there is only one result (assuming one starting particle).



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Did I misunderstand something? Didn't he say that the "squishing" only happens in the exact direction of movement of the *observer*?

Which means that the observer has to be in motion, as well. Just the fact that we're dealing with at least two different *apparent* squishing (four when we include the guillotines), kind of throws a big monkey wrench into the whole thought experiment.

Assuming, of course, that I'm understanding it as well as I think I'm understanding it.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder
If there is no absolute truth, and every frame of reference is equally valid like you say, then you are admitting that some type of superposition is occurring. If what I observe is the absolute truth for me, and what my friend observes is the absolute truth for him, and we both observe different things, then both truths must be a reality simultaneously. THUSLY, there must be some type of superposition occurring which allows my reality to be just as real as anyone else's even though they contradict each other.
I wouldn't use the word "superposition" in this case, but let's look at an example which is a little simpler than the one in the video.

You're on a train moving at constant velocity with a ball in your hand. You drop the ball and see it fall straight down.

At the same time, you can look out the window and see the scenery whizzing by so you can observe your relative motion, so, it shouldn't be too hard to visualize an observer outside the train will see the ball move in a curved motion when you drop it. With me so far? There's really no conflict about what really happened in that case, is there? Even if you're inside the train you should be able to imagine what the outside observer would see from their perspective.

So did the ball move in a straight or curved path? Relativity says both are true, but again going back to using a reference frame which is stationary relative to the CMB, we would see neither is true once we observe these additional motions of the ball:
- It's also moving as the Earth rotates, at maybe 0.3 km/s for example, which probably overwhelms the other velocities of the ball dropping and the train motion.
-It's also moving as the Earth orbits the sun, about 30 km/s
-It's also moving as the sun orbits the Milky Way about 220 km/s
-It's also moving as the Milky way center moves relative to the CMB, which is about 600 km/s

One could say with no support from relativity that the sum of all those motions is what really happened to the ball, though one must take direction into account when summing, because in its present position the motion of the sun and the motion of the milky way are in somewhat opposite directions so instead of adding up to to 850 km/s (which would be the case if all those motions were in the same direction), the net velocity is something less than 400 km/s for the Earth's motion relative to the CMB. If someone wanted to argue that point I wouldn't really argue against it, except to say it's a concept outside relativity; nonetheless I think the idea has some merit. But due to the complications of considering all those motions, I'm thankful that relativity says all reference frames are equally valid because then we can disregard those other motions, which is usually what we do, unless we are conducting an activity that requires us to make other considerations, like launching a spacecraft.
edit on 18-12-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder

Bob Sholtz
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



I am having trouble accepting the idea that both frames of reference are equally true.

no! both didn't happen. only one happened, and which happened is based on your position. see my last post for an explanation.

Oh for christ sakes, we're going in circles here. Only one happened from my point of reference, that is true, but what about the other guy who claims he witnessed a different sequence of events?

WE CANNOT BOTH BE EQUALLY CORRECT IN OUR OBSERVATIONS IF THOSE OBSERVATIONS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER!
edit on 18/12/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


Guess what else? You can observe an electric field and no magnetic field, and yet somebody else going by faster will see a magnetic field, even though there were the same number of charges and atoms creating them!

So what is really the core of Einstein's relativity? What is his insight?

The facts which are "immutable" and must be agreed upon by all are known as the "laws of physics", virtually by definition. So the underlying laws must be able to be put in a form which has a certain behavior in that it can be superficially transformed to describe behavior in the different frames of reference.

The point is that some aspects which might have previously been "absolute" and automatically agreed upon by all are no longer so (and there are formulae saying how to convert from one to the other), but there are still different physically observable facts which everybody does agree upon.

Consider, there is no such think as "relativistic charge". The electromagnetic charge of a particle is what it is, always. And of course the speed of light is another 'everybody agrees upon it' fact. And these are precisely the points which lead to Einstein developing 1905 relativity: believing Maxwell more than Newton.


edit on 18-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by theGleep
 

it happens parallel to the observer. motion is relative. is the train going towards the tunnel, or the tunnel towards the train?

if the train is going towards the tunnel, then that observer sees the train affected. (this assumes the observer is stationary relative to the tunnel)

if the tunnel is going towards the train, then that observer sees the tunnel affected.

i just had a funny thought: if space warped in an perpendicular manner with increased speed, the train wouldn't be able to get through the tunnel, it would crash because the opening would have become too small. outside observers would see the train become too big.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Does the human observer outside the train see length contraction because of the distance and there fore delay it takes the light to reflect off the train, even though its miniscule? You would think that would cause for length detraction in the form of some type of motion blur...Regardless tell me if you think this would be a better way to solve the experiment and problem then the guillotines.

The track and tunnel are stationary according to one another. Attach hypothetically perfect and supremely technologically advanced cameras/video cameras to the openings of the tunnel perpendicular to the track, so it cannot be seen inside the tunnel but a perfectly straight view of the plan of inside/outside the tunnel opening. Because these cameras are so perfect and share the same stable environment/frame of reference, make sure they are linked with a extremely sensitive time signature. So that when you press record or begin when the train is say 200 yards away, the cameras both sport a time signature down to the planck second. The train begins entering the tunnel and exists. We retrieve the cameras, and upload the footage and watch the footage side by side, frame by frame, with the time signature. OR! We measure the dang train and tunnel. If the arguement is that when material made of atoms is accelerated, the atoms in the molecules compress/contract as a dogs face does when stuck out of the window of a moving car, then im sure there are physics that could take into account all the forces and the amount of contraction that should be taking place, that could be incorporated into the stationary length of the train and tunnel to determine the answer to the original problem at whatever speed the train is going.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

no, the length change comes from the object's speed. you have to be going a substantial portion of the speed of light for this to be noticeable. it is still there, even when you walk it happens to you, but it's so small that it's not really measurable.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


But if it is thought that an object like an atom exists, does relativity really suggest that by changing your own reference frame, you are in reality changing that objects existence( Like if I were to shake my head really fast back and forth while looking at a rock the rock may look bigger and more blurry)? Or its just suggesting, that there is no way for any reference frame to know the truth about an object, so while there may be exact truths regarding velocity and position and composition and length etc. There is no fail safe way to prove those things (so like all things that exist exist in exact ways, there is absolute truth to everything, but any conceivable means of observing while in this system, cannot achieve true comprehension of the absolute ways all things, or even any things are?) ?



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Can you respond to the rest of my post, and explain why my ideal experiment wouldnt prove what you were saying earlier to be silly, regarding how there is no true scenario, and both observers opinions/delusions are true? Length contraction occurs regardless of observation(?), what is the physical mechanism of length contraction, is it some type of inertia, the molecules resistance to acceleration, and one they are accelerated they kind of buckle back on one another? And this would be witnessed more, obviously, the faster the material in question is traveling. Like if there was a fabric that had a lot of give, and it was hung from each corner horizontally in a rocket ship, and a marble placed in the middle. When the rocket took off, say this hypothetical rocket constantly accelerated from the time it took off till the time it reached light speed, the marble would make a further and further displacement in the fabric (maybe?). The reason on a train, why, well what im thinking about now, is that there needs to be stability in the system, for something like this to occur, in order of each piece being contracted to not just continue this chain of dominoes, and everything just fall back. So in the train the idea of this is the attached mode of power/propulsion. Im not sure if this would make any sense, and this last paragraph of rambling is not as important as my first few sentences in my mind, but would there be a difference in length contraction between a train traveling near light speed with its motor in front, then the motor in back? Like if a train was traveling near light speed, why would both ends contract, physically ( Either length contraction physically happens, or its an optical illusion)?



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

yes, sorry. what actually warps is spacetime, not the atoms of the thing. it is more a distortion than anything else.

there is a youtube video on the lorentz transformation that shows an example of what happens.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Thanks for the video, it was rather nifty. Say I have a metal rod 5 feet long, you are saying if this rod is projected near light speed, observers would view (measure?) this rod to be smaller in length then the 5 feet it was when measured while not traveling near light speed (in the reference frame of earth at least, which might be the key to all this, all material is really traveling great speeds, but atomic and molecular attraction and stability and gravity allow planets to exist which are big stable reference points, but idk)? And you are saying the reason the observer will measure or view this rod to be shorter then 5 feet long is because space/time is distorted; to be clear for my understanding I must ask, is it the space/time the rod immediately occupies that is distorted? Or is it space/time in between you and the rod that is distorted, or both or neither? The rod consists of a relatively exact quantity of molecules, that allow it to be measured at 5 feet long on earth, if the rod was measured at 2.5 feet long it could be assumed the rod had roughly half the quantity of molecules (though not sure about width and stuff so just ignore that statement). So the rod is accelerated to near lightspeed, in what way is it contracting? I will leave my questioning there and save the few more I have for your response, if need be.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I agree with Chaotic Order. Here's my case - let's modify the thought experiment a bit. Suppose instead of two guillotines both coming down "simultaneously", which is what is determined to be relative in the previous thought experiment thus causing what seem to be 2 different events both happening, suppose the back end of the train has a device on it that as it enters the tunnel (so at this point, all of the train is in the tunnel) triggers a single guillotine to instantaneously (or as close to it as possible) come down at the other end of the tunnel and stay down. If the train is indeed shorter than the tunnel, it will crash into the guillotine. If it's longer than the tunnel, the guillotine will slice the train in two. These two very different events couldn't be explained away like in the first thought experiment I don't think...?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join