mufcdiver.

Distance is a 'fixed' measurement, not variable! Distance is a 'standard' that is maintained by many International protocols! However, there are many ways to measure 'distance' and all methods incur their inaccuracies!

If an 'inflexible' and 'unchanging' method of measurement is used to measure a 'distance' there can be no change in the 'perception' of the 'distance' that is 'measured'. If a method of measurement is used that can show a 'different value' to 'different observers' of a particular 'event' then that method of measurement is not 'inflexible' and not 'unchanging'. Measurement by 'light speed' is not inflexible (except for the purpose of using a 'laser tape-rule' to measure room dimensions, or other approximations) as the speed of light 'varies' and is only assumed a 'standard' when it travels through a 'vacuum'! Thus, in these circumstances 'relativity' needs to be applied. The main problem with 'relativity' is that it seems to be applied in 'all' situations and not just those that need it to be applied 'to'. Relativity also 'claims' each different perspective's measurement to be accurate.

'Relativity' uses a 'flexible' 'timeline' to make corrections to observations from a different and particular 'perspective', but relativity doesn't make a 'true' timeline that each observer can relate to for their 'placement' within the overall co-ordinate system that the 'perspectives' are generated 'within'. Each observer believes that their observed 'timeline' is true, but that can 'not' be so and is thus 'false'. There is only 'one true timeline'.

Relativity only indicates that changes can cause differences of observed data due to altered perspective! This can 'not' lead to a change in the true order of occurrence of events, or a change in the true timing of events! Only the 'perception' of this!

The odd thing about the 'standard speed of light' is that it looks to be unable to travel through the 'pure vacuum' that its 'standard' requires.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Distance is a 'fixed' measurement, not variable! Distance is a 'standard' that is maintained by many International protocols! However, there are many ways to measure 'distance' and all methods incur their inaccuracies!

If an 'inflexible' and 'unchanging' method of measurement is used to measure a 'distance' there can be no change in the 'perception' of the 'distance' that is 'measured'. If a method of measurement is used that can show a 'different value' to 'different observers' of a particular 'event' then that method of measurement is not 'inflexible' and not 'unchanging'. Measurement by 'light speed' is not inflexible (except for the purpose of using a 'laser tape-rule' to measure room dimensions, or other approximations) as the speed of light 'varies' and is only assumed a 'standard' when it travels through a 'vacuum'! Thus, in these circumstances 'relativity' needs to be applied. The main problem with 'relativity' is that it seems to be applied in 'all' situations and not just those that need it to be applied 'to'. Relativity also 'claims' each different perspective's measurement to be accurate.

Fair enough suricat, lets say that we've defined our self a measure and we're going to use it to standardise length through-out the universe.For arguments sake our defined measure is 1000,000,000(a billion) Hydrogen atoms laid end to end(to save calibrating rules and posting them out to all corners of the Universe). So we fire a photon down the length of our standard measurement and time it and it takes 1 second to travel the length(I know its not to any pedants, but for the sake of argument....)
Lets send the details of our little experiment to aliens that dwell inside our Bose-Einstein condensatemajig and ask them to do the same, and the answer comes back that the time taken was 1 second, but we timed their attempt at closer to 5 minutes(pedant see above )So to us light appeared to slow down(do see what I mean suricat)

mufcdiver.

That doesn't pose any problems, even if it is just a tad unrealistic for a scenario. The problems arise when your aliens make first contact with us and we don't know about the 'BECmajig'. Instead of us looking for them in a Lunar orbit (where they are), we'll be looking for them in a Mars orbit and never find them!

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

That doesn't pose any problems

quote:

There is only 'one true timeline

which one of these quotes of yours is correct then suricat?

mufcdiver.

quote:

quote:
That doesn't pose any problems
quote:
There is only 'one true timeline

which one of these quotes of yours is correct then suricat?

Both, of course. You 'included' the true timeline within your scenario!

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

You 'included' the true timeline within your scenario!

I included two time-lines suricat, which is the true one?

mufcdiver.

quote:

I included two time-lines suricat, which is the true one?

From my 'first contact' scenario, both perspectives are true to the 'observer's timeline', but not true to a 'true timeline'! From 'your' scenario, both 'timelines' are 'true timelines' for each of the 'observers' because you disclosed the '5 minute BEC delay' in 'signal transmission'!

It isn't 'what we know', it's what we 'don't know' that buggers us!

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

Do you realise what this means in terms of the Theory of Relativity?

Both special and general relativity assume that the speed of light is constant. We've known for a long time that the speed of light actually alters when it passes through a dielectric that will permit its frequency, but the fact has been ignored in favour of academic stability for institutional 'standards of practise'. I think it's high time someone came up with a more accurate and convincing theory. Not just a theory that allows academics to sit in their 'ivory towers' with 'strings' attached that lets them 'hum-m-m-M (theory)' their way through either. A theory that doesn't 'distort' the 'truth' of 'time'.

We know that BEC isn't encountered under 'natural circumstances', but its behaviour and effect upon electromagnetic phenomenon only highlights the shortfalls with relativistic physics. I would like to respectfully suggest that BEC indicates the proximity of the freezing of the medium that permits an electromagnetic phenomenon. I'd assume that medium to be sterile neutrinos at near rest with their surroundings. Do you have any suggestions?

Best regards, suricat.

Moderators.

My post of; Posted 27-04-08 20:37, is shown as being posted; 27-04-08 01:00 on the Science Forum main page!!! Thus, it is not presented as the 'latest posting'!!!

This is NOT a problem with relativity! You appear to have a 'problem' with your 'SERVERS' again!!!

This type of error leaves you open to accusations of 'misrepresentation' and should be avoided at all cost!!!

Best regards, suricat.

suricat, I've been over it a few times and I can't find anything in Relativity that says the speed of light is a not a non-relative constant. I can only assume that you mean some of the BS that has been spun off its back(if this is the case I concur 100%)
Again the only latitude I can find is in "time" and "distance" though to be honest it makes no difference if you say "C" or "distance" is a variable for the whole thing to work(we'll have to wait a year or two to see if "time" is a necessary player)

I think this make sense?

quote:

suricat, I've been over it a few times and I can't find anything in Relativity that says the speed of light is a not a non-relative constant. I can only assume that you mean some of the BS that has been spun off its back(if this is the case I concur 100%)
Again the only latitude I can find is in "time" and "distance" though to be honest it makes no difference if you say "C" or "distance" is a variable for the whole thing to work(we'll have to wait a year or two to see if "time" is a necessary player)

I think this make sense?

Disregard the last post

mufcdiver.

No, I wont 'disregard' your last post because it makes good sense to me!

quote:

suricat, I've been over it a few times and I can't find anything in Relativity that says the speed of light is a not a non-relative constant.

I try to avoid the use of double negatives, but 'non-relative constant' means 'a constant' to me whether this is to do with 'relativity' or 'not'! Though this is 'not' so because the speed of light changes with the medium of its transmission and this makes it a 'variable'.

quote:

I can only assume that you mean some of the BS that has been spun off its back(if this is the case I concur 100%)

I assume that 'BS' means 'basic science'?

quote:

Again the only latitude I can find is in "time" and "distance" though to be honest it makes no difference if you say "C" or "distance" is a variable for the whole thing to work(we'll have to wait a year or two to see if "time" is a necessary player)

If a tree falls in an isolated forest and there was nobody there to see, or hear, it fall. Did the tree actually fall, or was this scenario a 'non event'? Well, you know a tree fell because you are told this. So if a tree fell, but nobody witnessed this event, it means simply. A tree fell, but there is 'no data' on this subject!

I find relativity to follow the same logic. Time is incontrovertible (as is 'distance'). One event follows another, yet relativity 'bends' time and makes it conform as a 'variable' so that a 'justifiable explanation' can be obtained where an explanation doesn't exist. This is all dependant on the falsehood that the speed of light is a 'constant'! I'm sure Einstein used this as a 'trade off' for the 'calculations of the day'. It's nearly right, but not quite.

Best regards, suricat.