Common Sense vs The Theory of Relativity

[TrueBeliever37]

P1 and P2 are emitted into space at the same time.

P1 travels X distance in 1 hour.

P2 travels Y distance in 2 hours.

But distance Y is not distance Xx2.

"This makes no sense!" one cries.

Because one does not realize that the space they are traveling through is expanding. And P1 and P2 can only travel through that space at the max speed that the space is expanding. But as they both do so, that distance is increasing as the space is expanding. So the distance P2 travels is greater that twice the distance that P1 traveled. Even though the amount of time P2 traveled is exactly twice the amount of time P1 traveled.

This is not illogical, or really even "nonsensical". We just have to be able to envision ALL the variables. A lot of people forget that space itself is warped and bent by gravity, and is also constantly expanding. So as P1 and P2 travel through it, they do not take the simple logical linear path that we envision. Because they are traveling through that undulating and ever-expanding space.

Thanks for responding. You have given me something to think about for a while. At least it does appear to be some kind of an explanation.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Yes, for light it does, but not for the observer external to the light.

If an external observer saw it take time, then it took time.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Only to the observer, not to the photons.



It shows you are not understanding reletivity.

Saying I don't understand relativity is a cop out. If it involved time for an observer, then time was involved. This can't be the answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Saying I don't understand relativity is a cop out. If it involved time for an observer, then time was involved. This can't be the answer.

No. It is an observation. Light speed is special. Matter cannot travel at it. if you were in the dead of space no matter what speed you weree accelerated to from the Earth ones the acceleration was over and you were just coasting there would be no sense of speed. If you had no windows you could not tell if you were moving or not. Do you understand that?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

P1 and P2 are emitted into space at the same time.

P1 travels X distance in 1 hour.

P2 travels Y distance in 2 hours.

But distance Y is not distance Xx2.

"This makes no sense!" one cries.

Because one does not realize that the space they are traveling through is expanding. And P1 and P2 can only travel through that space at the max speed that the space is expanding. But as they both do so, that distance is increasing as the space is expanding. So the distance P2 travels is greater that twice the distance that P1 traveled. Even though the amount of time P2 traveled is exactly twice the amount of time P1 traveled.

This is not illogical, or really even "nonsensical". We just have to be able to envision ALL the variables. A lot of people forget that space itself is warped and bent by gravity, and is also constantly expanding. So as P1 and P2 travel through it, they do not take the simple logical linear path that we envision. Because they are traveling through that undulating and ever-expanding space.

So at what speed is space expanding compared to light?

How could anything we calculate ever be accurate if the distances we use are changing at such a rapid rate?

Even when they are using some kind of problem as an example to prove something unless this was taken into account the answer would be wrong.

Let's say they are saying something is 2 light years away. It's not really true, because it is constantly getting farther away. Before they could even finish the calculation the distance has changed. That is a problem.

In your example if the distance P2 travels is greater than twice the distance P1 traveled as you said, then it is impossible for the time P2 traveled to be exactly twice the amount of time P1 traveled. Otherwise that would mean P2 traveled faster than the speed of light for some part of its journey. Or the speed of light wasn't constant.

 

[The Hammer]

If it involved time for an observer, then time was involved.

Not necessarily

This can't be the answer.

And yes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If an external observer saw it take time, then it took time.

Okay, I'm going to try and use a useful analogy used by Professor Brian Cox as I remember it. Hopefully it will explain the issue.

First, I want you to imagine a ball of light. No matter what, this ball of light travels at a constant speed of exactly 1 metre per second, which it can do in any direction, indefinitely. Even bumping into an object will just cause it to bounce off but not lose any speed whatsoever.

Now, place that ball in a metal box that is exactly one metre tall, and imagine the ball bouncing inside of that box from the top to the bottom. Each time, it is travelling one metre up and one metre down, each time taking one second to go from the bottom of the box to the top, and then from the top of the box to the bottom. If you were looking at the ball of light through a small window on the side of the box, that is undeniably what you would see.

But, now, imagine we place that box on the back of a train heading east to west, and we place you on a hill to the south watching the train travel. Obviously, the speed of the ball hasn't changed - it is still bouncing inside the box at 1mps, moving directly up and directly down. However, from your position relative to the train, this is no longer the case, because the ball of light is now actually travelling east to west in addition to up and down - it is moving diagonally.

So, if we agree the ball moves exactly 1mps, and the box it is in is exactly 1m from top to bottom, how is it possible that the ball still continues to move and touch the bottom and top of the box respectively in 1 second intervals, considering that to do so - now that it is travelling diagonally within a box that is 1m tall - this means it should be taking longer than 1 second to reach the top/bottom of the box, because obviously if you travel between two things 1m apart but while moving diagonally, you'd obviously take longer than if you did in a straight line.

If you can understand how the ball, moving in a box at 1mps, can still be moving at exactly that speed yet, from a certain position, actually be said to technically travelling faster than 1m, as it MUST do if it is travelling diagonally, then you can understand how relativity is not contradictory to our experience of reality. It's just a really weird part of it.

 

[Eddi]

There is only one thing I am going to say about this thread:

 

[Alien826]

 

[ChristineM]

If an external observer saw it take time, then it took time.

For the last lime, not for the photon, I'm not repeating myself again.

Saying I don't understand relativity is a cop out. If it involved time for an observer, then time was involved. This can't be the answer.

No, saying you are not understanding reletivity is exactly as it seems from your posts.

But it is the answer. That's the thing about relatively.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Okay, I'm going to try and use a useful analogy used by Professor Brian Cox as I remember it. Hopefully it will explain the issue.

First, I want you to imagine a ball of light. No matter what, this ball of light travels at a constant speed of exactly 1 metre per second, which it can do in any direction, indefinitely. Even bumping into an object will just cause it to bounce off but not lose any speed whatsoever.

Now, place that ball in a metal box that is exactly one metre tall, and imagine the ball bouncing inside of that box from the top to the bottom. Each time, it is travelling one metre up and one metre down, each time taking one second to go from the bottom of the box to the top, and then from the top of the box to the bottom. If you were looking at the ball of light through a small window on the side of the box, that is undeniably what you would see.

But, now, imagine we place that box on the back of a train heading east to west, and we place you on a hill to the south watching the train travel. Obviously, the speed of the ball hasn't changed - it is still bouncing inside the box at 1mps, moving directly up and directly down. However, from your position relative to the train, this is no longer the case, because the ball of light is now actually travelling east to west in addition to up and down - it is moving diagonally.

So, if we agree the ball moves exactly 1mps, and the box it is in is exactly 1m from top to bottom, how is it possible that the ball still continues to move and touch the bottom and top of the box respectively in 1 second intervals, considering that to do so - now that it is travelling diagonally within a box that is 1m tall, this means it should be taking longer than 1 second to reach the top/bottom of the box, because obviously if you travel between two things 1m apart but while moving diagonally, you'd obviously take longer than if you did in a straight line.

If you can understand how the ball, moving in a box at 1mps, can still be moving at exactly that speed yet, from a certain position, actually be said to technically travelling faster than 1m, as it MUST do if it is travelling diagonally, then you can understand how relativity is not contradictory to our experience of reality. It's just a really weird part of it.

That ball is still moving up and down in the box. You have simply added another vector to its movement due to the box moving on the train.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

For the last lime, not for the photon, I'm not repeating myself again.



No, saying you are not understanding reletivity is exactly as it seems from your posts.

But it is the answer. That's the thing about relatively.

I understand your talking points. I just think they are wrong. It took time for that photon to travel the rest of the distance, no matter how many times you say it doesn't.

Not understanding what someone is saying and disagreeing are two different things.

 

[ChristineM]

I understand your talking points. I just think they are wrong. It took time for that photon to travel the rest of the distance, no matter how many times you say it doesn't.

Whatever you believe, I don't really care. There is no point in continuing

 

[Sumadji]

Sorry @TrueBeliever37
Are you familiar with the double slit experiment? Is this book you're reading your first dip into Einstein? I'm posting the wiki link, but there will be lots on Google

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is deep stuff, probing into the energy nature of reality. It's fine to not understand Einstein. But a person shouldn't reject Einstein for that reason alone?

I hope the thread continues in a polite way because others are reading

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Sorry @TrueBeliever37
Are you familiar with the double slit experiment? Is this book you're reading your first dip into Einstein? I'm posting the wiki link, but there will be lots on Google

Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is deep stuff, probing into the nature of reality itself. It's fine to not understand Einstein. But a person shouldn't reject Einstein for that reason alone?

I hope the thread continues in a polite way because others are reading

I want to keep things polite. it just seems as if some people want to imply that there is a problem with you personally when you question or disagree with something. Questioning things is how Einstein himself came up with his ideas. I think I do understand much of what he is saying - I just disagree with how some of it could even be possible.

I think Einstein was brilliant. I just think there are some problems with the conclusions that have resulted. Which is why I wanted to discuss it.

The double slit experiment is fascinating. Even there though, some think that the results are different when you observe it. But its possible that the results are changing because the monitoring itself changes them somehow.

 

[PureX]

So at what speed is space expanding compared to light?

That's not a logical question. Space is expanding. Light is simply traveling through it. So as space expands, it takes light longer and longer to travel through it RELATIVE to how long the light traveling through it, took, previously. This is how two objects traveling at the speed of light can become disassociated with each other in time. And it's not just the expansion of space that can cause this. It's also the warping and bending of space that happens because of the effect that gravity can have on space (and therefor on the time light takes to move through it).

The complexity of all this might make our heads spin a bit, but none of it is actually illogical. It's just complicated because there are several key elements effecting the other key elements in different ways: time, space, motion (and gravity).

How could anything we calculate ever be accurate if the distances we use are changing at such a rapid rate?

If we can account for all the variable's effects on each other, our calculations can be accurate. We have gotten quite good at it over shorter distances, like those within the solar system. We can launch a very small object and land it in a very small target area, on Mars, or the Moon, or even much further and trickier places like one of Saturn's moons.

Even when they are using some kind of problem as an example to prove something unless this was taken into account the answer would be wrong.

Perfection is not the measure of truthfulness. It's important that we all understand this. A good and honest man is not a perfect man. Nor should we judge the former by the latter. Science is not perfect, and it never will be. We guess, and then we try to test our guesses, and then do it again. And again. And hopefully, each time we get a little closer to the truth of things.

If God created this universe, He did an AMAZING job of it! And it's doubtful that any mere humans will ever grasp the full extent of it. So of course it will appear quite inexplicable, to us. But it's NOT incoherent. Of that we can be sure, just by looking at it.

Let's say they are saying something is 2 light years away. It's not really true, because it is constantly getting farther away

Yes, but the measurement that we call a "light-year" includes that expansion. So "light-years" are always getting longer as the universe continues to expand. Planet "X" is 50 "light-years" away. And remains so, even as those light-years are getting longer.

If we change our definition of a "light-year" to a specific instant of distance, then that distance will instantly become inaccurate as the space it measured in that instant has expanded the very next instant. And so one after that. (Which is why we don't use those specific instantaneous distances as our measuring tool.)

Before they could even finish the calculation the distance has changed.

Yep.

That is a problem.

Not really. Think of a measure of distance like a measure of temperature. The actual temperature in any given time and place in the universe both varies, and fluctuates, greatly. But we still find our chosen increments of measure very useful because they can still provide us with a relationship between freezing and boiling for many different liquids, and provide us with a predictable conflagration flashpoint for many different materials, the parameters within which we humans can survive, and beyond which we cannot, ... and so on.

These are all very good things for us to know.

 

[ChristineM]

Okay, I'm going to try and use a useful analogy used by Professor Brian Cox as I remember it. Hopefully it will explain the issue.

First, I want you to imagine a ball of light. No matter what, this ball of light travels at a constant speed of exactly 1 metre per second, which it can do in any direction, indefinitely. Even bumping into an object will just cause it to bounce off but not lose any speed whatsoever.

Now, place that ball in a metal box that is exactly one metre tall, and imagine the ball bouncing inside of that box from the top to the bottom. Each time, it is travelling one metre up and one metre down, each time taking one second to go from the bottom of the box to the top, and then from the top of the box to the bottom. If you were looking at the ball of light through a small window on the side of the box, that is undeniably what you would see.

But, now, imagine we place that box on the back of a train heading east to west, and we place you on a hill to the south watching the train travel. Obviously, the speed of the ball hasn't changed - it is still bouncing inside the box at 1mps, moving directly up and directly down. However, from your position relative to the train, this is no longer the case, because the ball of light is now actually travelling east to west in addition to up and down - it is moving diagonally.

So, if we agree the ball moves exactly 1mps, and the box it is in is exactly 1m from top to bottom, how is it possible that the ball still continues to move and touch the bottom and top of the box respectively in 1 second intervals, considering that to do so - now that it is travelling diagonally within a box that is 1m tall, this means it should be taking longer than 1 second to reach the top/bottom of the box, because obviously if you travel between two things 1m apart but while moving diagonally, you'd obviously take longer than if you did in a straight line.

If you can understand how the ball, moving in a box at 1mps, can still be moving at exactly that speed yet, from a certain position, actually be said to technically travelling faster than 1m, as it MUST do if it is travelling diagonally, then you can understand how relativity is not contradictory to our experience of reality. It's just a really weird part of it.

I watched that, much better explanation than i can give.

 

[Alien826]

I understand your talking points. I just think they are wrong. It took time for that photon to travel the rest of the distance, no matter how many times you say it doesn't.

I suggest a large dose of humility.

I don't understand these things either, at least to the point of being able to explain them to you. But I accept them as being the best explanations available now. Why? Because much more intelligent people than I formulated the math, which was then demonstrated to be true (meaning that they made accurate predictions) by observation and experiment. To add to that, many, also intelligent, people have tried to show that the theory is false and failed. Sometimes we have to trust that someone else thinks better then we do.

Does that mean that the theory is the final word? Absolutely not. Newton was considered to have achieved that degree of certainty, then Einstein came along with a better idea (better because it made better predictions). It is quite possible that Einstein will also be shown to be wrong at some future time, but whatever new theory emerges it will have to make predictions to the same level of accuracy as Einstein, then improve on it, just as Relativity did to Newtonian physics.

What do I mean by "humility"? It's not a put down, just a suggestion that you accept that relativity is the best theory we have currently, also accept that you don't understand it, and then if you wish attempt to educate yourself on why. I also suggest that an internet discussion forum is not the best place to do so.

 

[Eddi]

Since when has common sense been useful for understanding the mysteries of the cosmos?????

That is not what common sense is for, that is not what it can do

I don't understand physics either but that doesn't mean others can't

 

[TrueBeliever37]

If God created this universe, He did an AMAZING job of it! And it's doubtful that any mere humans will ever grasp the full extent of it. So of course it will appear quite inexplicable, to us. But it's NOT incoherent. Of that we can be sure, just by looking at it.

Yes, but the measurement that we call a "light-year" includes that expansion. So "light-years" are always getting longer as the universe continues to expand. Planet "X" is 50 "light-years" away. And remains so, even as those light-years are getting longer.

If we change our definition of a "light-year" to a specific instant of distance, then that distance will instantly become inaccurate as the space it measured in that instant has expanded the very next instant. And so one after that. (Which is why we don't use those specific instantaneous distances as our measuring tool.)

I do believe God did an AMAZING job in creating the universe.

I'm not sure I'm on the same page with you on your 2nd paragraph above. How can light-years get longer? It is a set time and distance that light travels in a year. The speed is constant. For what you are saying to be true, wouldn't the speed be increasing?

You were making my point about calculations being instantly inaccurate in your last paragraph.

Please respond to my last part of post #65 regarding your example.