Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: human perception and Albert Einstein's special relativity

  1. #1 human perception and Albert Einstein's special relativity 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    The train experiements have observers on the bank and one on the train. In one lightning strikes the front and back of the train at the same time, but do both observers see simultaniety? In the other a beam of light in the train is sent from the floor to the roof mirror and back again -- but how do both observers see the light if the light moves at the same speed c for both?

    These experiments are all very well but the assumption is the speed of light is constant for both. However in 'the day of the roses' or in news about the day when a concrete slab fell on a train in sydney australia granville in about 1978.
    The thing is, a man in the carriage saw the roof of the train fall on him in slow motion -- how?
    One idea is that the brain processes some of the pictures that enter but not all of them -- in say one meter of light in a ray entering the mind. Say there are 1000 pictures in the meter but usually we only process say ten of those pictures and we all process ten. But this man, in a life-or-death battle processed maybe 999 /1000 pictures and saw the carriage collapse slower.
    The point is, the speed of things is dependent on how fast we process information about them.
    Even the speed of light, is a matter of processing light that gives us information about a passing ray.
    Reality is as real as the information amount the observer gleans from it.
    The speed of light is very slow if gleaning is much, reality plastic. Reality is then near 9 degrees on the nest and the observer in charge at 81 degrees, 81 on the simple-lever end.
    If gleening is little, reality is hard and difficult to shape.
    If the observer in the former case is on a spacecraft, the observer is fast and the galaxy small. Buckminster Fuller introduced the idea of the shrinking globe -- and now we have the shrinking galaxy or less-optimistically the shrinking solar system.
    Response to some comments:
    The relative ratio would not change -- thats a fair comment. I suppose what I am saying is if the bank observer chooses to increase his processing rate, then whatever it is he sees, whatever, it is what he alone sees. In that case the simultaniety of the lightning flashes and the time light moves up and down in a train.... what can one say?
    One can say I wish Albert Einstein had the train-crash perception experience, then history would be totally different, his conclusions totally different. He would have said maybe 'How did I see the concrete slab fall slower if light speed is constant?'
    I suppose Im saying that the individuals perception is king regardless of 'processing rate' or not. I mean if the bank observer wanted to see the same as the train man, he could. If I am saying 'anything is possible', then the science of simultantiety or time dilation or length contraction is meaningless -- and, that's, not necessarily a bad thing; cause how useful are the ideas anyway? Not very.
    There is no proof that they will ever be useful.
    But in altered states of consciousness, anything becomes possible, and that notion we can perceive differently is, potentially at least, extremely useful.
    The point is, we only perceive the same, in the above case process at the same rate, because we learn to process incomming data at the same rate; we hence think c is a constant. We think c is a constant, not because it is a constant but because we process information from the world at the same rate. Were in effect, not really saying c is constant as we are saying we process the same way.
    See? The mind accepts some of the data coming in through the senses but ignores much of it too.
    Science is consolidating the way the majority perceives and that is anti-progressive, whereas the search for truth is the search for the best-possible way of perceiving, the best-possible way of behaving. You see as long as science merely reinforces current perception, then science cannot progress. This will manifest as making better TV sets and rockets but not as products capable of taking us out of the solar system.
    You see when one knows, there is nothing left to know -- and nowhere left to go. Science at present is merely adding to the detail of what we already know. So one actually has to perceive a different way from the majority to actually come up with different ideas and products. Science is mereely adding to the detail of the way we already perceive and not attempting to improve the way we perceive.
    There is endless room for improvement, but not much more left in the way we already perceive life.
    Each civilization for example had its own way of doing-perceiving life, for example the Ancient Egyptian culture was vastly different to ours: their pyramids our skyscrapers and rockets: their manner of doing-perceiving and ours -- were currenly stuck with rockets and scyscrapers as they were stuck with pyramids... and their civilization floundered as will ours unless we take up the challenge to transform. (my opinion)
    Extra: The idea of c being constant and then the observer moving relative to the speed c ..... This idea of c constant is an assumption from which all other thinking must follow -- and that's not a good thing because c speed depends on the observer. The observer can see c faster or slower depending on how much of the information incomming about its speed he wants to recognise.
    Then their is no ceiling and no one speed upon which every other speed is relative -- and hence no order in the universe at all?
    No I mean the observers speed c is the observers speed c -- whatever speed it is for him: 400 million metres a second or 1000 or whatever. Hence the order observer 400 sees is a different order from what observer 1000 sees and so on -- and so they can all see to the level of sophistication they want to see.
    What I mean is, the universe is composed of a number of relative maximums and not merely the one maximum c.
    Does anyone get my drift?
    EINSTEINS TRUE LEGACY?
    Realativity of comparison was his first message, and then he presented general and special relativity -- a choice?
    If anyone wants to develop the inventions they have my permission, as long as they put my name on each inevntion and in all documents: Joshua One Stone.
    In the salt battery, I thought cubic crystals sandwiched between sheets with a resin injected between, and the sheets holed of course.
    So the solution always has some free salt crystals in it because always has to be totally saturated.
    Its quite easy to develop these as big as two story buildings or as small as a car battery, or smaller.
    In development of high charge from deaccelerating-acce;lerating light, the thig that matters is slowing the light down gradually because the more gradual the higher the end charge. In that case, thickness of the light-conducting medium counts as well.
    I was in a building with tinted glass. The sun was coming in. My pointed finger got near the glass and I was shocked -- example of how general the phenomenon is.
    Why doesnt it work with ordinary glass? because the glass isnt thick enough to slow the light down enough? Probably. The tinting slows the light down then, so at the far face has to accelerate more.
    So the light that escapes absorbs charge near the glass surface, and the glass there is "positively charged".
    At the other surface, the light gives charge to the air to enter into the glass. For this reason, the far face must be isolated from the air, or the air circles around.
    Theoretically, if you have a long thick tube and a long thin tube, and join them with an insulator at the middle, then current flows from thick to thin when a fluid flows at speed through them? Because each pipe is frictioned differently? Or where the pipes change dia. the fluid takes charge from the thick pipe to speed up? At the end of thin thin pipe the fluid goes out and slows so gives charge to the thin pipe, and their is your circuit. However, the pipes might need to be insulated from the air.
    What if we put a vacuum in a glass box? Then the light has to accelerate more from the inside glass surface.
    Now as to the UV idea, It seems the true idea is the electron goes to the heavier gold and the positve o. goes to the lighter complement the platinum -- each to seek maximum rest: lowest energy state. (Because we know that the table of elements is a list with a middle near iron and complements either side of the middle: like a nest.)
    Hence we could put the gold on top and the platinum under it in the vacuum because then the O2 will reform in the shade and circulate around -- sound good?
    Now there is an easier way to make a vacuum as long as we get out of the pump idea stalemate. The idea is use a jet in a pipe to pull the air out either directly and along the gravity plane, or pull it out with a venturi. So vacuum depth would depend on the speed.
    For the battery, I thought cast the ceramic with grooved metal plates with screw cuts on the other side, then you screw the top and bottom containers on the thick ceramic pipe and they pinch the salt divider and hold it in place off-center to allow more room for the gas -- of course. My only worry is that the ceramic to metal joint has only shear strength.
    The caps are funnelled in shape to fill to the brim and a T put in and welded shut; each end filled separately. The batteries have the gas end up of courcse.

    You could use kero, but the olive oil appeals to a true greenie and pastor in it mkes a nice soup.
    Who cares about the science give it a go. If we wait for science to give a green light the future will never happen.
    Einstein sad in a metaphorical way we should generalize as individuals and not seek concensus agreement: each to his own god his own c. But if we try to reach c with concensus, our mass will increase horrendously and we will never reach c: the rocket analogy. Not only that we will contract and squash up and when we get back our friends will all be dead. Scince was founded by individuals who worked alone, and happened to come up with the same results. But that concensus was And never will be important. So when we over-emphasized concensus, we killed the creativity and stifled progress; so the golden age of science rapidly passed, and stultifying concensus set in.
    And that is what Einstein said.
    All of us moving together toward c in thought, is mass, is never reaching c. The more we know the harder it will get to ensure consensus.
    So remember Cold Fusion? The issue of concenus agreement does NOT guarantee truth. What are we the Catholic church or something and the Inquisition? Lets lighten up live and let live and progress.
    Someone said 'there is nothing more painful than the birth of a new idea' -- it doesnt have to be.
    Some people feel its their job to monitor others and keep the consensus, but really its not their job, they just feel its their job because of social pressures.
    Like some people feel they need to be watched to keep their tone high -- like an athelete and his coach -- that also is just how you feel because of social pressures.
    But beyond the need to be coached and to coach is the reality of a group of individuals each with his own absolute c.

    I dont need no credit or fame or money nor anything. Thats not even my real name.


    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: human perception and Albert Einstein's special relativit 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
    The train experiements have observers on the bank and one on the train. In one lightning strikes the front and back of the train at the same time, but do both observers see simultaniety? In the other a beam of light in the train is sent from the floor to the roof mirror and back again -- but how do both observers see the light if the light moves at the same speed c for both?

    These experiments are all very well but the assumption is the speed of light is constant for both. However in 'the day of the roses' or in news about the day when a concrete slab fell on a train in sydney australia granville in about 1978.
    The thing is, a man in the carriage saw the roof of the train fall on him in slow motion -- how?
    One idea is that the brain processes some of the pictures that enter but not all of them -- in say one meter of light in a ray entering the mind. Say there are 1000 pictures in the meter but usually we only process say ten of those pictures and we all process ten. But this man, in a life-or-death battle processed maybe 999 /1000 pictures and saw the carriage collapse slower.
    The point is, the speed of things is dependent on how fast we process information about them.
    Even the speed of light, is a matter of processing light that gives us information about a passing ray. Later.
    The speed at which the brain processes pictures has no relevance to either of the above experiments.

    In the first, we are dealing with how each observer considers two flashes of light coming at him from different directions. Each considers both flashes as coming towards him at the same speed while the flashes close on the other observer at different speeds( he is rushing towards one flash and running away from the other). This is what leads to the conclusion they make as to whether the events which caused the flashes were simultaneous or not. Changing the "perception speed" of the observers would not change this. They might conclude that the speed at which the flashes approach might be not be the same for each observer, but this would change the speed of light coming from both directions and woudn't change the relative speed between the light as seen by either observer.

    In the second, the observers are comparing the light bouncing back and forth in a light clock moving with respect to themselves to the the light bouncing back and forth in a light clock at rest to themselves. Again, changing their speed of perception would change the rate at which they might measure the light bouncing back and forth, but it would not change the ratio between their clock and the moving clock. If he sees his clock tick twice for every one tick of the other clock, it doesn't matter how fast he perceives the clocks as ticking, he will still note the same 2 to 1 ratio.


    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: human perception and Albert Einstein's special relativit 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
    The train experiements have observers on the bank and one on the train. In one lightning strikes the front and back of the train at the same time, but do both observers see simultaniety? In the other a beam of light in the train is sent from the floor to the roof mirror and back again -- but how do both observers see the light if the light moves at the same speed c for both?

    These experiments are all very well but the assumption is the speed of light is constant for both. However in 'the day of the roses' or in news about the day when a concrete slab fell on a train in sydney australia granville in about 1978.
    The thing is, a man in the carriage saw the roof of the train fall on him in slow motion -- how?
    One idea is that the brain processes some of the pictures that enter but not all of them -- in say one meter of light in a ray entering the mind. Say there are 1000 pictures in the meter but usually we only process say ten of those pictures and we all process ten. But this man, in a life-or-death battle processed maybe 999 /1000 pictures and saw the carriage collapse slower.
    The point is, the speed of things is dependent on how fast we process information about them.
    Even the speed of light, is a matter of processing light that gives us information about a passing ray. Later.
    The speed at which the brain processes pictures has no relevance to either of the above experiments.

    In the first, we are dealing with how each observer considers two flashes of light coming at him from different directions. Each considers both flashes as coming towards him at the same speed while the flashes close on the other observer at different speeds( [b]he is rushing towards one flash and running away from the other[/b]). This is what leads to the conclusion they make as to whether the events which caused the flashes were simultaneous or not. Changing the "perception speed" of the observers would not change this. They might conclude that the speed at which the flashes approach might be not be the same for each observer, but this would change the speed of light coming from both directions and woudn't change the relative speed between the light as seen by either observer.

    In the second, the observers are comparing the light bouncing back and forth in a light clock moving with respect to themselves to the the light bouncing back and forth in a light clock at rest to themselves. Again, changing their speed of perception would change the rate at which they might measure the light bouncing back and forth, but it would not change the ratio between their clock and the moving clock. If he sees his clock tick twice for every one tick of the other clock, it doesn't matter how fast he perceives the clocks as ticking, he will still note the same 2 to 1 ratio.
    Can you explain how a stationary frame moves away from or toward light?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: human perception and Albert Einstein's special relativit 
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Can you explain how a stationary frame moves away from or toward light?
    It does so when viewed from a different frame that is in motion in relation to it, due to the constancy of c. The "moving" frame sees the stationary frame moving in relation to it, but all light propagates from a point at rest in relation to the observer, so from the "moving" frame the stationary frame must be moving in relation to the place the light propagates from!

    If a moving objects flashes a light, that light propagates from a place that is at rest in relation to the observer, whether that be an observer in motion in relation to the object, or at rest in relation to it.

    Everyone sees light propagate at ~300,000 km/s in relation to themselves. Others motions in relation to that speed cause the relativity of simultaneity. And it works both ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: human perception and Albert Einstein's special relativit 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Can you explain how a stationary frame moves away from or toward light?
    It does so when viewed from a different frame that is in motion in relation to it, due to the constancy of c. The "moving" frame sees the stationary frame moving in relation to it, but all light propagates from a point at rest in relation to the observer, so from the "moving" frame the stationary frame must be moving in relation to the place the light propagates from!

    If a moving objects flashes a light, that light propagates from a place that is at rest in relation to the observer, whether that be an observer distant to the object and at rest in relation to it, or an observer in the object itself!

    Everyone sees light propagate at ~300,000 km/s in relation to themselves. Others motions in relation to that speed cause the relativity of simultaneity. And it works both ways.
    Very good.

    Now apply this good reasoning from the view of the train at rest with the T/E experiment. You will then see SR is false.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I did so years ago. SR is not false. The lights are both simultaneous, and not simultaneous, depending on whether you are on the embankment or on the train. And the same would be true the other way round, if the experiment was done the other way round.

    I think it is better the other way round, with the flashes of light occurring at each end of the train, simultaneously to an observer sitting in the middle of the train. Then it is the observer on the embankment for whom the flashes are not simultaneous.

    There is no absolute simultaneity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    chinglu is just trying to get someone to pay attention to him. His topic on the subject was moved to pseudoscience so he's spamming here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    I did so years ago. SR is not false. The lights are both simultaneous, and not simultaneous, depending on whether you are on the embankment or on the train. And the same would be true the other way round, if the experiment was done the other way round.

    There is no absolute simultaneity.
    Let's see your math.

    I consider those that cannot produe math to support their conclusions as flat earthers.

    You must prove from the context of the train frame at rest, that it sees the flashes as not simultaneous.

    Now, I will help you. This will not include any information from the view of the embankment since no frame can impose its views on another frame.

    Let me see your math. otherwise, you will need to retract.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    chinglu is just trying to get someone to pay attention to him. His topic on the subject was moved to pseudoscience so he's spamming here.
    This is pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    chinglu is just trying to get someone to pay attention to him. His topic on the subject was moved to pseudoscience so he's spamming here.
    I note you did not produce any viable math to support your conclusions.

    Is that normal for you folks?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Chinglu, it is you who have presented that math, every time you refer to Einstein's original text. I can do no better than Einstein himself.

    The train considers itself at rest, so the embankment is moving in relation to the train, but the lightning flashes that hit the embankment propagate from a place at rest in relation to the train. Therefore the flashes of light will reach the observer on the embankment at different times, from the frame of the "stationary" train.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Chinglu, it is you who have presented that math, every time you refer to Einstein's original text. I can do no better than Einstein himself.
    I did present the math.

    Yet, you have no math to present from Einstein for the T/E experiment, can you explain that? Now, if you have the math, for T/E from Einstein, present the link and everyone will laugh at me because I am wrong. I will wait.



    Oh, well, why not present the math Einstein omitted and let's see what happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Einstein omitted no math. You, however, have added nonsense, through your own misconceptions, that STILL prevail. I will waste no more time on your petty, misguided, lonely quest. I look forward to seeing you receive your Nobel prize, should you be found correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Einstein omitted no math. You, however, have added nonsense, through your own misconceptions, that STILL prevail. I will waste no more time on your petty, misguided, lonely quest. I look forward to seeing you receive your Nobel prize, should you be found correct.
    Oh, provide the link for the T/E experiment for the math.

    you claimed it now support your claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    What are you talking about? It's ALL in here: http://www.bartleby.com/173/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    What are you talking about? It's all in here: http://www.bartleby.com/173/
    There is no math for T/E.

    There is only flat earth conclusions without math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Hmm, there seems to be a lot of math in the version I am reading, but no mention of a flat Earth. You need to start at section 1 and work your way through to the end, by which time you should have a deep understanding of the math of the T/E. The real meat begins in section 9, BUT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE PRINCIPLES explained from section 1 onwards, in order to know how to apply that math.

    What I cannot understand is why you cannot understand. The Relativity of simultaneity is completely obvious to anyone who understands the postulate that c is constant. What is your problem?

    Do you disagree that the speed of light is constant to all inertial frames? If not, why do you disagree with the relativity of simultaneity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Hmm, there seems to be a lot of math in the version I am reading, but no mention of a flat Earth. You need to start at section 1 and work your way through to the end, by which time you should have a deep understanding of the math of the T/E. The real meat begins in section 9, BUT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE PRINCIPLES explained from section 1 onwards, in order to know how to apply that math.

    What I cannot understand is why you cannot understand. The Relativity of simultaneity is completely obvious to anyone who understands the postulate that c is constant. What is your problem?

    Do you disagree that the speed of light is constant to all inertial frames? If not, why do you disagree with the relativity of simultaneity?
    Good, it is all settled then.

    Present the math for the T/E experiment that proves the train will not see the strikes as simultaneous in the context of the train frame.

    That means produce t'A and t'B when at rest with the train.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Present the math for the T/E experiment that proves the train will not see the strikes as simultaneous in the context of the train frame.

    That means produce t'A and t'B when at rest with the train.
    Detailed mathematics for the scenario were already presented in the other thread. But since you are crazy, you have avoided reading it. Now stop polluting this thread,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    Present the math for the T/E experiment that proves the train will not see the strikes as simultaneous in the context of the train frame.

    That means produce t'A and t'B when at rest with the train.
    Detailed mathematics for the scenario were already presented in the other thread. But since you are crazy, you have avoided reading it. Now stop polluting this thread,
    Wrong.


    I am the only one that provided detailed math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Wikipedia is more than good enough for you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz...ion#Derivation
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Wikipedia is more than good enough for you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz...ion#Derivation
    so, what in your brain fails to understand I am right and you are wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    so, what in your brain fails to understand I am right and you are wrong?
    The part which is connected with reality and is rational.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu
    so, what in your brain fails to understand I am right and you are wrong?
    The part which is connected with reality and is rational.
    Yea, you certainly cannot believe you can compete with me.

    Show your math.

    Why is that such a problem in this thread. i have never seen so many cowards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •