eon_rider

Hi,

This is eon_rider and I love science - mostly S/GR and Q.M.

The more I read about it, the less I realize I know. (Hate when that happens.. )

I only made it past first year university calculus so go easy on the maths.

But heavy on concepts is fine. I can usually visualise things well.

Thanks and really appreciate the outstandingly intelligent scientists here.

best to all,

eon_rider

So now you've cleared it all up. cheers.

no seriously. Point taken....I think.

PS. Love the Avatar. Space Ghost is cool.

Thanks. That's helpful and clear.

very best

eon_rider

Is this thought experiment valid or workable?

IF we visualize our galaxy in a very large Galaxy CONTAINER.

Is it possible that our galaxy (in the container)

is travelling at the speed of light?

IF observed from the reference frame

of a second galaxy moving opposite to ours?

Within our galaxy container, all solar systems including ours

behave normally. This is a question about the scalability of a reference frame

Is this thought experiment valid?

Or have I confused something or many things...lol?

Thanks,

Could it be?

that the two ships think they are standing still. No movement. What-so-ever.

No funky gravity. Everything is normal, as long as they are in the same frame of reference.

The two ships do however see the observer flying by them at the speed of light like a shooting star.

I'm not sure.

The second says that art, science and religion are all part of life, but they are distinct. That in no way implies that relativity will influence any of the other branches. The first statement does not follow from the second, and in the sense that he identifies separate branches, there would seem to be some contradictory aspect to the statements.

I'm here to learn so I have to mostly agree with a pro. Thank you.

"They are distinct. That in no way implies that relativity will influence any of the other branches."

As to the above, my apologies, as I can't say I agree 100 percent here, but 90 percent agreement is pretty good.

In practice, (at work) many physicists see no connection. It would have little bearing in the lab. Fair enough. We don't want to mix the two. We ARE at work.

But outside of work, (perhaps over the dinner table) I know some reputable scientists who draw connections.

Understandably so.....Because what they confirm experimentally in the areas of S/GR and Q.M. affects them philosophically - affects their world view in some smaller or greater way.

These are respected and working scientists. When a profound discovery in science changes our understanding of "space/time", then many scientists world views or personal philosophies also change in some way. They write about it. They talk about it, and I read about it, and listen to it on things like the BBC's latest radio show "In Einsteins Shadow"

Don't you have professional friends (not on the fringes, but main stream) who at home make a few small tiny connections between science and a personal philosophy(At least informally?)

In the sense that he identifies separate branches, there would seem to be some contradictory aspect to the statements.

aren't branches a part of a whole? How can one recognize or speak of a branch (a segment/slice/portion/whtever) in total isolation to the tree? (the whole thing that the branch is connected and a part of?) I think Einstein was attempting to inspire here the connections.

But, respectfully, In the end.

It does not matter.

I must defer (submit - yield) to your expertise.

You are the pro! I am not.....so thanks for your help and clarification.

Originally Posted by eon_rider

 

"That's interesting..."invariance theory"...cool!

I'd think relatives can exist in potential (as you put it) to other relatives."

 

Nicholas wrote:

"That's the point. Relatives don't exist in potential to other relatives.

In other words relatives cannot be absolutes.

Huh?...I'm confused. Sorry...but after you wrote

"That's my point"

I expected to read two identical or very similar statements..LOL

I thought during the lorentz transformation the absolute is recongnized as a relative and absolutes and relatives are dynamic depending on your frame of reference. I thought this was clear.

But no worries. It's all good. I've probably misunderstood.

I'll study on.

best and thanks.

You're right.

That was too loose a comparison.

EDITED TO ADD:

I should ask, do you mean the below two statements do not mean the same thing?

1) Thats is said often but Einstein and others have comented that the incredible implications of S/GR will naturally branch out into all aspects of our lives including philosophical relativism.

2) "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."

A.E.

If so you are still right but I think statement 1 is a subset of statement 2...

Agreed? If not please clarify what two statements are not the same and why.

But only if you want to....best.

Mathematics is a language, and philosophical relitavism has little to do with S/GR.

"Mathematics is a language."

Agreed. Cheers....but,

"philosophical relitavism has little to do with S/GR"

Thats is said often but Einstein and others have comented that the incredible implications of S/GR will naturally branch out into all aspects of our lives including philosophical relativism. (justly or unjustly so)

"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree."

A.E.

I think its hard to completely isolate science from philosophy these days.

One can do it 99 percent of the time but 1 percent of the time the connection is justified.

I'm not saying anything new here.

I'm not pushing for some connection.

But many great scientists in the last 100 years have made comparisons and drawn connections between science and philosophy. No need for me or anyone else to refute or accept this. Just read what these scientist say themselves.

EDIT: At this point i should say I'm no professional scientist.

I'm just an engineer, and arm chair enjoyer of QM and S/GR

But I hope this site is not only for those with Ph.d's.

Lol

all the best.

very cool thread....sorry for butting in, but I'm learning alot...

Thanks

Einstein never said "everything is relative."

He thought it was a thoroughly bad name

and considered calling it invariance theory

instead.

That's interesting..."invariance theory"...cool!

Relatives only exist in potential to absolutes.

I'd think relatives can exist in potential (as you put it) to other relatives...

Nothing is absolute. But the universe still works just fine.

Things only appear to be absolute but are still relative phenomena.

(or subjective' date=' or "observer affects observed" or incomplete etc)

Edited to add:

As I understand it, Albert Einstein implied that anything called an absolute must be [b']incomplete[/b] at the very moment someone says "this or that" anything is an absolute fact or complete truth.

More specifically Einstein said:

 

"Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring complexes of sense impression... we attribute to them a meaning — the meaning of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we associate with it"

I don't think Einstein says here that "everything is relative" but it appears to me that he definitely says every concept or scientific theory references only a portion of reality at best.

Even if we unify all of science via String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity, still that accepted "TOE" must be incomplete in reference to the totality of reality it attempts to explain or unify.

On the other hand that TOE theory (just an example) could still "incompletely" reference our reality outstandingly well