Z
Variable Constant
lifegazer said:
Your assumption. Science makes a reverse assumption - that our perceptions are images/sounds/etc. of a real world external to us. This assumption is verified time and again in the consistancy of our observations of said world, and further by the mortality of our awareness. When one of us dies, what he perceives does not vanish; only his perception of it vanishes.
But, again, this assumes also that people are individual awareness - again confirmed through countless millions of observation of separation of one awareness from another.
All science - including Newtonian - is about the perceived world. But all science assumes that this perception of a world is an accurate model of said world. Can you prove it is not? Of course not.
This statement is unclear. Can you clarify it, preferrably with examples and models? And some clear definitions?
No, you haven't. If you had, would we be arguing it? But your statement is, itself, quite false. In a real world of real objects separated by definite values of spacetime, those values would of course be subject to subjective negotiation. But this isn't what 'relativity' was about - not observer bias, but speed in relation to motion and its meaning for time.
Now, the interesting thing is, there is some research that suggests that Einstein's theory may actually be wrong, and that there may be an 'absolute' time - to use lifegazer's fave rave term - and that the speed of light is actually variable after all.
See, in Galilean theory time (and space) were a constant - that is, that there was a background frame of reference that held true. Whereas in Minkowski theory it is light that is a constant, rather than space or time, and that all frames of reference were local and therefore relative. But quantum mechanics seems to be suggesting that Galilean time is more true; certain effects fit the model better if a background time is assumed.
Remember, lg, that Einstein's theory is just that: a theory. In science, that's the next best thing to claiming a fact; but all theories are relative to change, even to total negation. And Einstein's theory also led to the possibility of temporal paradox for superluminal events, which caused him to simply discard the possibility of superluminal effects. On the other hand, Galilean theory allowed for superluminal effects without paradox, and may therefore be more true after all.
Neither is a complete theory; both relied upon future observations and tests. For example, we find it impossible, given Einstein's theory, to accurately determine the precise speed of light - so we don't know for certain if that speed is a constant. And some recent research seems to indicate that light speed may, in fact, slow over time.
Still, let the scientists argue that one.
I'm rambling on - I know you're not interested in reading about the ins and outs of 'establishment physics'. All I'm trying to explain is a) Newton and Einstein might both be wrong; b) observer bias plays a role in any observation, regardless if you are discussing an illusionary 'internal world' or a physical 'external world; and c) your assertions are unfounded and indefensible.
Meaningless. 'Relativity' relates to apparent distortion of time at near light speeds through physical experiments. Do you know the classic example of relativity?
Take two clocks, A and B, a light emitter, and a mirror (with detectors on each end). Flash a bit of light from A to B and back to A.
In a Rest State Reference Frame, the light will move from A to B and back again at a constant speed. Say these clocks are a fixed distance from each other - distance D. The difference in time measurements between A and B as light travels across D gives us a measurement Ta and Tb. At rest Ta and Tb are equal.
But as we move and approach the speed of light, assuming lightspeed is constant, a beam shining toward B from A will take longer to get to A, and shorter to return to B. Overall, the speed remains the same - light, after all, is a constant - but Ta will be greater than Tb, even though D is technically the same within the frame of reference. Thus, spacetime appears to be a variant at near-luminal speeds if we assume lightspeed to be constant.
Yes, I can hear it already... "The perceived time over the perceived distance..." But either you reject your perceptions - and therefore know nothing at all - or you accept those perceptions as they are and understand the things that affect your world.
It may. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants, lg?
See it's all about theories. Is time absolute? If it is, light is not a constant and Einstein was wrong on a few things. If it isn't, then light is a constant and time is entirely local in nature. Either way, though, one of the two HAS to be constant/absolute/whatever. Some even theorize that both are that way - that absolute time does exist, as does constant lightspeed.
But there is no need for an observer for there to be variance. Just two light-emitting bodies in motion... say, all the stars in the sky?
The tree doesn't have to fall near a person to make sounds.
Einstein also formulated his theories under the same assumption. And Newton may not have been wrong, entirely - Einstein may have been wrong.
No, Einstein's Laws apply to a real world in which spacetime is variable and lightspeed is constant. Has nothing to do with perception and awareness.
Actually, you don't perceive Einstein's world. You perceive Newtonian physics and Galilean models. Einsteinian observations occur at near-light speeds. Tell me the last time you travelled at near light speeds? Almost every physicist agrees that for day-to-day purposes, Newton was right. Nasa launches shuttles and rockets on this basis. So, no, we see the same world that is out there. Hence, we cannot be the primal cause of the world we experience, since we are within that world.
Do you see what reading could do for you? You have so much to learn, grasshopper - and the worms are hungry again.
