Chasing the black holes of the ocean

James Putnam

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction applied to the length of objects along the direction of their motion.

James Putnam

John Merryman

Tom,

"There no independent frames, only independent observers."

I've been saying all perspective is subjective, that there is no such thing as an objective perspective and three dimensional space is only the coordinate system centered on the point of the observer.

Regards,

John m

Thomas Ray

"I've been saying all perspective is subjective, that there is no such thing as an objective perspective and three dimensional space is only the coordinate system centered on the point of the observer."

John, if every coordinate system converges on the observer, the observer's perspective is objective. That is, every observer's frame is equally valid. Once again, the math would inform you.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

"The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction (is) applied to the length of objects along the direction of their motion."

That's true, James. Again -- this is an effect of spacetime; length (space), combined with rate of change in time (motion). The contraction appears different for different observers in different states of motion, but the physics is locally the same for all.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"Again -- this is an effect of spacetime; length (space), combined with rate of change in time (motion). The contraction appears different for different observers in different states of motion, but the physics is locally the same for all."

"...this is an effect of spacetime..."

There is a theory that came along years after the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, called Relativity where a great many physicists came to believe that "Einstein's insight, using the tools of Minkowski space, was to demonstrate that spacetime -- unlike space or time alone -- is physically real." Beyond that belief, there does not exist any empirical evidence concerning the pliability or unification of space and time. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was applied only to objects, such as the Michelson-Morley interferometer and all bodies that had velocity with respect to the ether, even the Earth, but, not space and time.

Lorentz later, but still before Einstein's theory, did conclude that length contraction was not sufficient and added the need for a changing measure of time called 'local' time. All references to the measure of time refers only to the behavior of clocks. The 't' in physics equations has always represented cycles of mechanical activity of objects. Seconds are the units of a standard for cycles. Frequency is cycles(A) per cycles(B). Time, as a fundamental indefinable property is not accounted for in the Lorentz transform. Clocks are accounted for in the Lorentz transform. The 't' stands for tick.

"...length (space), combined with rate of change in time (motion). ..."

A measured length involves comparing a standard length with an object's length or perhaps just laying down the standard of length, combined with rate of change of mechanical motion of objects yields the number of cycles of a standard of change of mechanical motion of a standard object.

"...The contraction appears different for different observers in different states of motion, but the physics is locally the same for all."

Yes.

James Putnam

John Merryman

Tom,

"if every coordinate system converges on the observer, the observer's perspective is objective."

I see it the other way around. That three dimensional coordinate system is an illusion of objectivity, centered on the observer. Then you add the timeline as the progression of that observer.

Just for a moment, look at it from the outside in, in which you have a volume of a thermodynamic medium, say a pot of water and each molecule of water is an observer. As though it was a crowd of people milling about.

Now each person has a strong sense of equilibrium and objective, so the coordinate system and temporal sequence are instinctive. Yet there is no larger frame, unless you get their attention and point them in a particular direction, ie, if you give them all the same set of coordinates and thinking the same narrative.

Now consider how much belief systems are about defining the territory and attending to a group narrative. Think through all the religions, political movements, company mission statements, family histories, etc. Whether they lead you with hope, or herd you with fear, it's all about getting everyone on the same page.

Then the coordinate system usually converges on the king, or other such focal point.

So, not to convince you, but to try to explain why I don't see the coordinate system as actually objective and why I start thinking thermodynamics, such as where is the heat, the goal, the channeling, the money, the leverage, the feedback, the reaction/blowback, etc.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

John, the topic is foundational physics.

Tom

Thomas Ray

""...The contraction appears different for different observers in different states of motion, but the physics is locally the same for all."

Yes."

If you agree with that statement, James, there is no substance to your claim that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is not a measure of space and time.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

Eckard,

"I would like to explain as simply as possible my caveat against what I consider a very basic deliberate denial of logics: Can a genuine continuum be cut by removal of a single point from it?"

Just the opposite. Removal of a single point guarantees a continuum. Given the complex plane C with two poles at -oo and +oo, a compactification of the plane (C*) leaves one simple pole at infinity. All functions are therefore continuous to infinity.

" ... I say no. Removal of a piece of length zero from a line has not any effect."

What does "length zero" mean? How do you isolate a piece of it? (See Dedekind cuts.)

"Of course, this cannot be understood within a theory that considers the line as a set of separable points."

Separability is not a property of a continuous line.

"A number with actually infinitely much of digits is not even imaginable as accessible via these digits."

You are assigning dimensionality to dimensionless numbers.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

"Please lecture me: Is in SR the receiver of light considered the observer or is the observer someone elsewhere? Who introduced the notion observer into physics? To me, the notion observer is still ambiguous. Was there any reason not to use the unambiguous notion receiver?"

Eckard,

The notion observer *should* be ambiguous in a system of no preferred frame of reference.

As much as it pains me to quote a physics article from Wikipedia because I find so much of it in gross error, I applaud the contributor who wrote:

"The term observer in special relativity refers most commonly to an inertial reference frame. In such cases an inertial reference frame may be called an 'inertial observer' to avoid ambiguity. Note that these uses differ significantly from the ordinary English meaning of 'observer'. Reference frames are inherently nonlocal constructs, covering all of space and time or a nontrivial part of it; thus it does not make sense to speak of an observer (in the special relativistic sense) having a location. Also, an inertial observer cannot accelerate at a later time, nor can an accelerating observer stop accelerating."

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

" the topic is foundational physics."

The foundation of which is human perception of and interaction with its context.

We are linear. The context is not.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"We are linear. The context is not."

John, what the heck does that mean?

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

Sterilizing concepts of their sources makes them ideals, not absolutes.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Tom,

In that context, it means we are trying to fit our linear rationality, dimensions of space and time, into the non-linear context in which we exist. So we view this four dimensional configuration as foundational, when it is simply our model of context. We stand on the earth, thus 1, 2, and 3 space vectors, forward line, surface plane and height. Then we take change of form as the next vector. As I said, Poe was originally given credit for proposing duration as an "extension" of space. Poe was a narrator.

These vectors are not physically real, but are models.

(Yes, time might be considered a scalar, but that really does reduce it to the level of the proverbial spherical cow. Magnitude only, with no direction or motivating element. Like the cow lacking head and legs, it leaves time without direction or energy.)

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"Sterilizing concepts of their sources makes them ideals, not absolutes."

??? This is what you mean by, "We are linear. The context is not."?

Sorry, John, I just don't get it.

James Putnam

Tom,

""...The contraction appears different for different observers in different states of motion, but the physics is locally the same for all."

Yes.""

"If you agree with that statement, James, there is no substance to your claim that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is not a measure of space and time."

That is not the only solution! The other solution is discoverable by learning that which empirical evidence is communicating to us. It begins with fixing f=ma and advances making corrections to theory along the way even to fixing e=mc2. I can show that.

James Putnam

John,

I stated that, before Einstein, relativity type effects were observed in patterns of changes of velocity. There was no follow-up on that claim. So, here is one I want to mention: The ratio of electric charge to mass was known by cathode ray experiments. It was observed in the patterns of change of velocity at high velocities that the ratio decreased. It was concluded that this decrease was due to mass increasing with increasing velocity.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"I can show that."

Then, James, you would have a new theory that subsumes relativity and quantum mechanics, and makes new predictions --necessarily makes new predictions, because this new theory is bigger than the other two, more inclusive of physical phenomena. You would not have theory-free physics.

What do you predict, and how would it be demonstrated? What other experimental result wold prove it wrong?

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

There seems to be a deep strain of thought among theorists that ideal are absolutes, essentially platonism. The recurrent example I see is versions of Le Maitre's primal atom. This is applied to mathematical concepts, such as dimensions, measurements, etc, creating the assumption these concepts underlay physical reality, much as Plato viewed nature as imperfect examples of universal ideals. Then we get ideas like spacetime, where the interlocking nature of measurements of duration and distance, under conditions of velocity, acceleration, gravity, etc. are considered to be discoveries of this underlaying platonic reality of these ideal forms.

As a universal state the absolute lacks distinction, so form cannot be an absolute. Form arises when this "perfect" state breaks down and the parts(positives/negatives) start to interact.

Ideals, then, are not conditions of this bottom up process, but perceptions derived from a top down view that is seeking to find order and so isolates patterns out of the emerging situation.

As I keep saying, this conceptual reductionism gives you the skeleton, not the seed. The common features, not the processes which created them.

Did you happen to read the link I posted below; Sep. 29, 2013 @ 20:18? I found it quite revealing as a conceptual progression of how mathematical order was originally viewed. The assumptions carry through to today, in a seriously distilled form. Pattern as agency.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

James,

I'm not doubting you, but had not noticed that it was addressed to me.

Regards,

John M

« Previous Page Next Page »