What if Newton was not wrong?

[quant]

Not any comments, just bizarre ones like this:

You obviously do not think that it is bizarre that two travellers starting off from the same point and travelling to the same destination can each measure the distance differently, for one traveller the distance measures 100 km and the other traveller measures 10 km. (Don’t say I don’t understand, these are the facts of the case. I have done the calculations for 5 space ships travelling at different speeds and there was no problem with my results.) and still occupy the same plane of existence.

 

[quant]

So you think that - somehow - relativity requires that space splits into multiple bits? That's how you put it.

There's nothing in the maths of the theory of relativity that describes any such "splitting" of space. And since the maths reflects the conceptual content of the theory, I'd say that it's fair to conclude that nothing in the theory describes such a thing happening, either.

Certainly, no book on relativity that I've seen has talked about space splitting into bits every time somebody travels at a high speed, or anything like that.

My question, then, is: why do you believe this is a consequence of the theory of relativity?

I suppose this fealty could be equated with defending objections to a theology. The reason I started a serious study of this subject, was precisely in answer to that question, namely “..is this the best that science has to offer.” As to a better theory I do have a much better alternative but then I would probably be banned from this forum, so rather than risk that, I will just observe and comment.

Okay. So what?

You mean to say it doesn’t make any difference to you that the electron or electron cloud is supposed to interact with something that is 178 million times (slight correction) its size. This leaves me bereft of an answer.

What's the problem?

Atoms typically have sizes of about $$10^{-10}$$ m, but the energy spacing of atomic energy levels corresponds, in some cases, to the energy of visible photons, including ones of wavelength 500 nm. That's why those atoms can absorb and emit light of that wavelength.

Even a size of $$10^{-10}$$ m is still 36,000 times smaller than 500 nm. Surely this overlapping is going to have effect. For instance an object that is 36000 times the size of a 1 cm dia ball bearing would be 360 m in diameter. In case you are wondering this is 327 times more than the earth to sun ratio! One hundred and nine earths can fit into the sun’s diameter, but 3600 icm ball bearings can fit into a 360 m diameter.. But that is chicken feed in the quantum mechanics world so let’s move onto something else.

 

[James R]

quant:

James R it occurs to me from a cursory reading of posts at this site and the stated opinion of many registered members, that you are considered to be both fair-minded and open to reason.

Nice of them to say that. Thanks!

It is therefore an enigma to me as to why you so whole heartedly oppose any adverse comments about special relativity.

I don't. Bring them on, by all means. I might want to correct you when something you say about relativity is factually incorrect, however.

Relativity has stood for over 100 years now. In that time, countless people have tried their best to torpedo it, and failed. A lot of those people, I'll wager, were better qualified for the attempt than you are. But who knows? Maybe you'll be the guy who disproves relativity and wins the Nobel Prize. We'll see.

After all it is merely a question of my saying that a thing measures 10 ft and your saying that it measures 9 feet. Surely, there is nothing wrong in a discussion taking place on how such differences can arise?

You and I agree on how such differences can arise, don't we? You seem to be familiar with the relativistic formula for length contraction.

Do you think you've spotted some error in the theory of relativity? If you have, why don't you tell me what it is? Like I said previously, "It doesn't feel right to me" is not going to tear down the theory. Nor is "It doesn't match my common-sense notions about how the world is supposed to work". You'll need to bring something more.

Yet from what I can understand of your post, no discussion at all is to be either permitted or tolerated on special relativity.

Aren't you and I having a discussion about special relativity, right here? I haven't closed this thread. I haven't deleted your posts. I haven't warned you not to challenge relativity.

So where did you get the impression that discussion of relativity is not permitted? Even a brief search of past threads on the forum should disabuse you of that idea quite quickly.

It is as if I were questioning a Holy Book or something.

It's not a Holy Book. I accept the theory because I'm not aware of any better theory. If you have one, by all means go ahead and present it. Alternatively, if you have found some error or flaw in relativity, tell me what is is.

I hope I am not banned on account of this post being overly argumentative.

People here aren't banned without prior warnings, except in extreme cases. Nobody has ever been banned for questioning relativity. Read the site posting guidelines in the Site Feedback subforum and you'll see what gets people banned.

I was wondering if you would be amenable to listen to the logical side of my argument.

I'm listening.

Take a spaceship (a) that is travelling at 0.5c it reaches a planet B that is 10 light years away in a time of something like 17.3 years. No problem with that, the maths exists to prove it can be done. Yet consider it is not just spaceship (a ) above who can reach planet B, it is any spaceship that travels at 0.5c that can reach planet B. What does this signify, it signifies that space has a special layer for people travelling at 0.5c.

So, by extension, if you can drive from your house to the shops at 40 miles per hour, and it's not just you who can do that but anybody using the same road, then that signifies that roads have a "special layer" for people travelling at 40 miles per hour? And ... what? A different special layer for people driving at 50 miles per hour?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the planet B that is observable from earth is not the same planet B that is reached by spaceship (a).

I don't understand why you would say that is the "only conclusion". And you haven't given any reasons for arriving at that conclusion, so far.

Take a more extreme example, spaceship ( e) sets off to Planet B travelling at a speed of 0.9c , in this case it reaches Planet B in a time of something like 4.2 years (according to special relativity. There is no logical explanation for how something that is only 10 light years away in one ‘quote “frame of reference” unquote’ can travel a distance of a little less than half that and still be in the original space from which it started out.

What do you mean by something being "still in the original space"? In all of the examples your have given so far, spaceships start from planet A and end at planet B. Planet B isn't in the "original space" of planet A, because they are 10 light years apart.

What are you talking about?

Spaceship ( e) has to occupy layer ( e) of space.

And cars driving at 40 miles per hour have to occupy the 40 mile per hour layer of the road?

Now consider the pre-Einstein scenario where the aether prevailed, what would happen, regardless of the speeds at which they were travelling? Spaceship ( e) would merely be travelling faster than space ship(a) but both are still in the same time frame. They can communicate by radio, as they will not be able to do in the special relativity scenario.

That's incorrect. Travelling spaceships can communicate with one another by radio. How do you think that satellite communication works? How do astronauts on the International Space Station communicate with the ground, or with approaching space capsules?

The only difference is that spaceship (a) will arrive at Planet 17 years (approx.) later than spaceship ( e).

Whose clock are you using to measure the elapsed travel time?

Certainly, the earth clocks will measure a different elapsed time for the journey from A to B than the spaceship clocks; that's a result from relativity. And the same applies to the elapsed time on the clock in your car compared to the one you left at home, when you travel to the shops at 40 miles per hour, by the way.

Time dilation has been experimentally tested and confirmed in countless experiments, you know.

Could you enlighten me, leaving aside the many experimental proofs, how such a scenario is possible?

It's possible because the laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames of reference, from which it also follows that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all inertial frames. Those two facts are all we need to derive the entire theory of special relativity.

Any introductory textbook on the subject will lead you through the relevant derivations. You can also find them in lots of places on the internet.

 

[James R]

Has Dark Matter been debunked, there is the same problem in detecting it as was posed by the erstwhile aether.

The existence of dark matter is currently an active topic of research. It might be "debunked" or we might discover a new kind of matter. Time will tell.

The problem of dark matter is certainly not the same problem that was posed by the aether. The aether was undetectable because it doesn't exist. While it is conceivable that dark matter does not exist, there's certainly some stuff going on that requires an explanation. If dark matter isn't it, then we'll still have some mysteries to solve.

It does not require a genius to see that there is not only scope for a layered Universe (according to the postulates of special relativity) but that there remains no logical alternative if special relative is followed.

Explain what you mean by a "layered" universe.

Do you literally think that the universe has a "layer" for every conceivable frame of reference? Are the layers detectable in some way? Does the "layer" theory make any predictions that theories such as relativity do not make? Is any existing physical theory incompatible with the "layer" theory? If so, what evidence shows the incompatibility? Are there experiments we can do to show there are "layers"? Or observations we can make?

 

[James R]

You obviously do not think that it is bizarre that two travellers starting off from the same point and travelling to the same destination can each measure the distance differently, for one traveller the distance measures 100 km and the other traveller measures 10 km. (Don’t say I don’t understand, these are the facts of the case. I have done the calculations for 5 space ships travelling at different speeds and there was no problem with my results.) and still occupy the same plane of existence.

Is length contraction the sticking point for you? You're fine with time dilation, but you can't stomach the idea of length contraction? Or do you think time dilation and/or length contraction simply don't happen, which would mean that the theory of relativity is false?

Relativity is about frames of reference. It turns out that space and time are relative, which means that observers in relative motion disagree about the distances and time intervals between certain pairs of events. They can even disagree on the order in which two events occur (i.e. which one happens first and which one happens later), under the right circumstances. They do, however, agree that events that happen happen. Under no circumstances can one observer say that event X happens, while some other observer says event X never happens.

This is counter-intuitive, because we spend most of our lives looking at things that are travelling at only a small fraction of the speed of light relative to us (other than light itself, of course). But countless experiments show that this is how the universe is.

Nothing in the theory of relativity demands "different planes of existence". On the contrary, the theory assumes a shared spacetime, common to all observers, which is why everybody can agree on what happens.

 

[James R]

As to a better theory I do have a much better alternative but then I would probably be banned from this forum, so rather than risk that, I will just observe and comment.

We have a dedicated "Alternative Theories" subforum right here on sciforums. People do not get banned for posting their own theories in that subforum.

I'm not sure what you're so afraid of. Have you had bad experiences shopping your theory around other internet forums?

Anyway, it sounds like you think relativity is wrong. So, if you're too afraid to post your alternative theory, we can talk about why you think relativity is wrong. Tell us what's wrong with it. You won't be banned for that.

You mean to say it doesn’t make any difference to you that the electron or electron cloud is supposed to interact with something that is 178 million times (slight correction) its size.

It was already pointed out that the wavelength of a photon is not the same as its "size". Electrons, by the way, can also be described as waves, with a wavelength. Their wavelength is also not their "size". A better way to think about the wavelength of a photon or an electron is that the wavelength is associated with the momentum of the photon or electron (which, in the case of the electron, is its mass times its speed). Another way to think about it is that the wavelength is related to the energy of the photon or electron.

To answer your question: no, your 178 million times figure doesn't bother me, since it doesn't relate to what happens when a photon interacts with an electron in an atom.

 

[exchemist]

We have a dedicated "Alternative Theories" subforum right here on sciforums. People do not get banned for posting their own theories in that subforum.

I'm not sure what you're so afraid of. Have you had bad experiences shopping your theory around other internet forums?

Anyway, it sounds like you think relativity is wrong. So, if you're too afraid to post your alternative theory, we can talk about why you think relativity is wrong. Tell us what's wrong with it. You won't be banned for that.


It was already pointed out that the wavelength of a photon is not the same as its "size". Electrons, by the way, can also be described as waves, with a wavelength. Their wavelength is also not their "size". A better way to think about the wavelength of a photon or an electron is that the wavelength is associated with the momentum of the photon or electron (which, in the case of the electron, is its mass times its speed). Another way to think about it is that the wavelength is related to the energy of the photon or electron.

To answer your question: no, your 178 million times figure doesn't bother me, since it doesn't relate to what happens when a photon interacts with an electron in an atom.

I've had a look at Dilip James, the author of the book being plugged by quant in his earlier posts on this forum. I found this on GoodReads, which seems to have some relevance:

Dilip James made a comment in the group Science and Inquiry — Is quantum mechanics due for an update? topic
" Hello, I am Dilip James an author on Good Reads. I have just published a book entitled "Redefining the Electron" ISBN 979-8336047615. This book does exactly what it claims to do, namely redefines the electron. There are several problems with our current understanding of the electron. For instance, if we take the classical radius of the electron to be 2.78 x 10^-15 m then an incoming 500 nm wave length (green-blue light) would be 178 million times greater that the electron! This 500 nm green blue photon (EM wave) would also have a footprint (area) that could accommodate more than 25 million atoms. So how does this work? According to Max Planck all energy (with special reference to EMR: Electromagnetic Radiation) is quantised. That is each photon is an individual discrete packet of energy, one photon one electron is the way the photo-electric effect is described. Obviously the current description of the electron as a cloud with the atom does not fit this description. Again, it has been definitively proved with the recent invention of the rubidium optical atomic clock, that electrons within the atom oscillate at rates of hundreds of trillions of times per second and emit electrons at those rates. The older Caeisum atomic clocks that worked on the microwave frequency, did not do this, instead the whole atom was moved to a metastable state, which were then counted. The reason being that microwaves are so low energy that direct emission by the electron is not possible. In the rubidium atomic clock the atoms resonate with the irradiated frequency emitting radiation at the irradiated rate. Another problem with the current theory is that the electron within the atom is described as a wave-function (cloud if you like) this cloud absorbs a photon, moves to a higher energy level drops down to its original energy level changes shape and emits a photon equal to the difference in energy levels. What happens to recoil? In any event 'Redefining the Electron' deals with questions like these and also with questions such as why is it possible to shield an object from electromagnetic waves but not from gravity. The great thing about this book is that it offers answers. Every bit of information is supported by accredited citations. It is worth a read.

It is my strong suspicion that quant is Dilip James. Be that as it may, this gives a bit more of an idea on the sort of ideas quant is pushing. None of it makes much sense. For example what he says about the distinction beteeen Rb and Cs atomic clocks is total rubbish. Both exploit the hyperfine structure of electronic states, which arises from interaction of electrons in the atom with the magnetic moment of the nucleus, according to the respective orientations of their angular momentum, in just the same way. And both therefore make use of absorption of tuned microwaves, because the spliting of states is so small that the energy gap is in the microwave region.

There are zero reviews of the book on GoodReads, unsurprisingly.

Curiously, I came across an Electric Universe crank called Xavier Borg a few years ago, on another forum, who also made a big deal out of the classical electron radius. He seemed to think it was a real, i.e. actually observed, size of the electron. He didn't realise it is just the output from a calculation of classical electrostatic energy, when concentrated within a radius chosen to set the energy equal to the electron's rest energy.

Ironically, the classical electron radius calculation relies on special relativity, as it makes use of E=mc². So it makes little sense for quant to cite it if he thinks relativity is wrong. Unless, I suppose, he is arguing the classical electron radius is wrong - which it certainly is if interpreted literally, as the radius of an actual particle.

 

[DaveC426913]

Has Dark Matter been debunked, there is the same problem in detecting it as was posed by the erstwhile aether.

It is not the same problem. In fact, it is the opposite problem.

Aether was invented because we didn't understand how a wave could travel without a medium to travel in. We put our thinking over the evidence.

Dark matter didn't exist until we had observations that we couldn't explain. We stargted iwth the evidence.

The former tries to bend evidence around the idea; the latter bends the idea to fit the evidence. Only the latler is scientifically sound.

It does not require a genius to see that there is not only scope for a layered Universe

Well, I will agree with you on that one. It does not require a genius.

 

[DaveC426913]

You obviously do not think that it is bizarre that two travellers starting off from the same point and travelling to the same destination can each measure the distance differently, for one traveller the distance measures 100 km and the other traveller measures 10 km. (Don’t say I don’t understand, these are the facts of the case. I have done the calculations for 5 space ships travelling at different speeds and there was no problem with my results.)

That is not bizarre, no.

and still occupy the same plane of existence.

This is ambiguous and fanciful.

 

[DaveC426913]

You mean to say it doesn’t make any difference to you that the electron or electron cloud is supposed to interact with something that is 178 million times (slight correction) its size. This leaves me bereft of an answer.

This misunderstanding of yours about "sizes" has been debunked, more than once, and from more than one perspective.

Did you not read it? Take a moment to review.

If you dud read it and are simply ignoring it, is there any point in entertaining any assertions that follow it?

 

[foghorn]

What does this signify, it signifies that space has a special layer for people travelling at 0.5c. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the planet B that is observable from earth is not the same planet B that is reached by spaceship (a)

Quant, if you’re standing still on earth, and then start waving yours arms about, your arms will age less than the rest of your stationary body. Do you think your arms at the end of waving, are the same arms you started with?

 

[quant]

I suppose this fealty could be equated with defending objections to a theology. The reason I started a serious study of this subject, was precisely in answer to that question, namely “..is this the best that science has to offer.” As to a better theory I do have a much better alternative but then I would probably be banned from this forum, so rather than risk that, I will just observe and comment.


You mean to say it doesn’t make any difference to you that the electron or electron cloud is supposed to interact with something that is 178 million times (slight correction) its size. This leaves me bereft of an answer.





Even a size of $$10^{-10}$$ m is still 36,000 times smaller than 500 nm. Surely this overlapping is going to have effect. For instance an object that is 36000 times the size of a 1 cm dia ball bearing would be 360 m in diameter. In case you are wondering this is 327 times more than the earth to sun ratio! One hundred and nine earths can fit into the sun’s diameter, but 3600 icm ball bearings can fit into a 360 m diameter.. But that is chicken feed in the quantum mechanics world so let’s move onto something else.

Correction: 36,000 1 cm dia ball bearings can fit into a 360 m diameter.

I don't. Bring them on, by all means. I might want to correct you when something you say about relativity is factually incorrect, however.

Relativity has stood for over 100 years now. In that time, countless people have tried their best to torpedo it, and failed. A lot of those people, I'll wager, were better qualified for the attempt than you are. But who knows? Maybe you'll be the guy who disproves relativity and wins the Nobel Prize. We'll see.

James R thank you for your very generous and informative post, I greatly appreciate it. If you don’t mind I will continue with my gripe with special relativity. Removing the context of light years and moving to something nearer home. Imagine two people setting out from Los Angeles on the same day and at the same time, both are on the way to Las Vegas. One of the travelers reaches Las Vegas after travelling 10 kms , the other traveller reaches Las Vegas after traveling 250 km. This is not because they have taken different routes but because their speeds were different. Does this make sense? Surely it would make more sense to imagine that each of the travelers had reached a different version of Las Vegas. What makes the concept of location so special that it has to be preserved. For us on an earth that is rotating on its axis at 1670 km/h and traveling around the sun at 107,000 km/h while the sun itself is moving through the Milky Way at 828,000 km/ h and the Milky way itself is traveling through the Universe at 2.1 million km/h: location makes little sense. Under these circumstances wouldn’t it make more sense to take a page from quantum mechanics Many Worlds Interpretation and to say that every speed results in a different version of the same location?

I will seriously consider your suggestion that I post my new theory of physics in the alternative theories section, but for now. If you could explain this. (Let me say at the outset no-one can explain the same location being both 10 km and 250 km distant under the same initial conditions with the exception of a variation in their speeds.) Yes, it is possible for the time to vary, but distance to physically vary is moot.

 

[DaveC426913]

Quant:
Space and time are not independent. We all travel through spacetime. Changing one changes the other.

Note, you are fighting a lost battle: time dilation has been experimentally confirmed .

Read up on muon decay experiments. Muons have a specific life span. When traveling at relativistic speeds, muons live longer from our perspective, as seen here on Earth.

Relativity is one of the most rested theories in the history of science and it has never failed. In fact, we are communicating using technology that depends on it being correct. My phone and your phone have corrective software that compensates for relativistic motion in satellites.

If you plan to make your own theory, it's going to have to correctly predict everything as well as relativity does. You've got your work cut out for you there.

 

[exchemist]

Correction: 36,000 1 cm dia ball bearings can fit into a 360 m diameter.

James R thank you for your very generous and informative post, I greatly appreciate it. If you don’t mind I will continue with my gripe with special relativity. Removing the context of light years and moving to something nearer home. Imagine two people setting out from Los Angeles on the same day and at the same time, both are on the way to Las Vegas. One of the travelers reaches Las Vegas after travelling 10 kms , the other traveller reaches Las Vegas after traveling 250 km. This is not because they have taken different routes but because their speeds were different. Does this make sense? Surely it would make more sense to imagine that each of the travelers had reached a different version of Las Vegas. What makes the concept of location so special that it has to be preserved. For us on an earth that is rotating on its axis at 1670 km/h and traveling around the sun at 107,000 km/h while the sun itself is moving through the Milky Way at 828,000 km/ h and the Milky way itself is traveling through the Universe at 2.1 million km/h: location makes little sense. Under these circumstances wouldn’t it make more sense to take a page from quantum mechanics Many Worlds Interpretation and to say that every speed results in a different version of the same location?

I will seriously consider your suggestion that I post my new theory of physics in the alternative theories section, but for now. If you could explain this. (Let me say at the outset no-one can explain the same location being both 10 km and 250 km distant under the same initial conditions with the exception of a variation in their speeds.) Yes, it is possible for the time to vary, but distance to physically vary is moot.

As Dave says, read up about atmospheric muons. The increase in their lifetime (in our frame of reference) due to them travelling at relativistic speeds has been observed, so there is no doubt that the effect is real. We observe more of them arriving at the Earth's surface before decaying than would be expected from the lab-measured lifetime of these particles.

However, relativity says that in the muons' frame of reference time will pass at the normal rate. So how to account, in that reference frame, for more of them arriving at the Earth's surface before they decay? The answer is that for them the distance from the upper atmosphere to the Earth's surface is shorter, due to length contraction. Therefore more of them arrive before decaying, as they have less far to travel. Bingo!

So length contraction and time dilation go hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other if you want both reference frames to agree on what physical result to expect. Provided you have time dilation in one frame and length contraction in the other, you still get agreed results from the viewpoint of both frames. Without both it is impossible.

It is fundamental that you understand this point before attempting any criticism of relativity. Even chemists like me need to understand this much about relativity.

Exactly the same principle applies to your spacecraft example: time dilation in one frame, length contraction in the other.

Later footnote: It follows there is no need for your imagined fragmenting of the universe, since all reference frames continue to agree on physical outcomes. In the muon example, this is the number that make it to the Earth's surface. It is only the measurements of time and length which may not agree.

 

[quant]

Quant:
Space and time are not independent. We all travel through spacetime. Changing one changes the other.

Note, you are fighting a lost battle: time dilation has been experimentally confirmed .

Read up on muon decay experiments. Muons have a specific life span. When traveling at relativistic speeds, muons live longer from our perspective, as seen here on Earth.

Relativity is one of the most rested theories in the history of science and it has never failed. In fact, we are communicating using technology that depends on it being correct. My phone and your phone have corrective software that compensates for relativistic motion in satellites.

If you plan to make your own theory, it's going to have to correctly predict everything as well as relativity does. You've got your work cut out for you there.

Hopefully from a purely epistemological point of view, it remains debatable as to whether a destination can be 10 km and 250 km distant to two people starting from the same point, at the same time and travelling by the same path to the same destination. I think it is my right as a free thinker to contest this claim of SR that a destination can be 10 km away and 250 km respectively for two people starting from the same point at the same time and following the same path.. Do you see what I am getting at?

Muons might very well be affected by time dilation and length contraction. However it is a dodgy theory because the muon is after all a charged particle (the claim that it has low interaction despite being a charged particle is an oxymoron surely). Isn’t it possible that muons travelling through a depth of 36,000 ft of closely packed particles ($$2.7 x 10^{19}$$ particles per cubic centimetre (i.e., the atmosphere). There is every chance that muons detected close to earth’s surface are the result of secondary interactions resulting from the original muons decay or interaction with other particles?Be that as it may and despite claims that every precaution has been made to ensure that the original muons are followed through the atmosphere, the claim lacks credibility.

Lastly, yes, I do have a better theory than both relativity (special and general relativity) and quantum mechanics too, much better.

 

[DaveC426913]

a destination can be 10 km away and 250 km respectively for two people starting from the same point at the same time and following the same path.

But they are not following the same path. And therein lies your error.

They are following very different paths through spacetime, where we all exist.


Look, travelling from Las Vegas to Los Angeles can easily be a 1,000 mile trip - if you account for the third spatial dimension.

Imagine Alice going straight across the surface, and experiencing a 250 mile journey. Now imagine Bob, in a ballistic rocket that rises up out of the atmosphere and back down to LA - an easy 1,000 mile journey. Notice the shadow of Bob's spaceship as observed by Alice. For every mile Bob travels in his ship (in 3 dimensions), Alice observes him travelling only a fraction of a mile across the surface (in 2 dimensions).

Four dimensional spacetime is merely an extension of three dimesional space.

 

[quant]

But they are not following the same path. And therein lies your error.

They are following very different paths through spacetime, where we all exist.


Look, travelling from Las Vegas to Los Angeles can easily be a 1,000 mile trip - if you account for the third spatial dimension.

Imagine Alice going straight across the surface, and experiencing a 250 mile journey. Now imagine Bob, in a ballistic rocket that rises up out of the atmosphere and back down to LA - an easy 1,000 mile journey. Notice the shadow of Bob's spaceship as observed by Alice. For every mile Bob travels in his ship (in 3 dimensions), Alice observes him travelling only a fraction of a mile across the surface (in 2 dimensions).

Four dimensional spacetime is merely an extension of three dimesional space.

But that is not in the problem. The problem states that if two entities start from the same place, at the same time and travel at different speeds they will travel different distances to the destination. One will reach the destination after 10 km and the other will reach the destination after travelling 250 km. IT IS NOT AN ILLUSION. You have to face up to that, it is in now way a perception, although it may be argued that this is the case. This is where the fallacy arises, you cannot have weird theories of space and time and still live in the everyday world.

 

[exchemist]

But that is not in the problem. The problem states that if two entities start from the same place, at the same time and travel at different speeds they will travel different distances to the destination. One will reach the destination after 10 km and the other will reach the destination after travelling 250 km. IT IS NOT AN ILLUSION. You have to face up to that, it is in now way a perception, although it may be argued that this is the case. This is where the fallacy arises, you cannot have weird theories of space and time and still live in the everyday world.

Yes, but the one for whom it is only 10km will be the one whose clock appears, to the other who sees a 250km distance, to be running very slowly. So either he goes a short distance at a normal rate of time, or he goes a long distance but his clock runs slowly so it doesn’t take so long. The two options produce exactly the same result.

 

[DaveC426913]

But that is not in the problem. The problem states that if two entities start from the same place, at the same time and travel at different speeds they will travel different distances to the destination. One will reach the destination after 10 km and the other will reach the destination after travelling 250 km. IT IS NOT AN ILLUSION.

That is correct.

You have to face up to that, it is in now way a perception, although it may be argued that this is the case. This is where the fallacy arises, you cannot have weird theories of space and time and still live in the everyday world.

That its definitely true.


You know what else is true? You can't hope to understand how the world works by not bothering to read up on how it works, and making up your own ideas instead.

 

[Pinball1970]

That is correct.


That its definitely true.


You know what else is true? You can't hope to understand how the world works by not bothering to read up on how it works, and making up your own ideas instead.

I started the thread but it now seems to going where plenty of men have gone before and failed.
You guys are dealing with it so I'll leave you to it.