jamest wrote:...

Newton's conception of space and time was absolute, whereas Einstein's was relative.

...

jamest wrote:I've been informed that it came out of my rectum.

Which if you think about it, is quite impressive.

hackenslash wrote:

Thommo wrote:I'd encourage you to think a bit more clearly than this. I told you that a 2-dimensional triangle can have any number of different 1-dimensional measurements taken of it. This was in analogy to a 4-dimensional object also allowing any number of 1-dimensional measurements to be taken of it.

We can have a single object defined in 4-dimensions that allows for multiple differing measurements along some particular axis in exactly the same way we can have a 2-dimensional triangle that allows for multiple differing measurements. The "fixed" i.e. invariant description of the object simply requires more information than a single measurement along some axis, establishing that some particular quantity varies does not establish that there is no underlying invariant - in fact there is.

This is, IMO, the nub of the whole issue (setting aside the wibble about an imperfect model being superseded by another imperfect model implying that the world is somehow not real).

This goes back nicely to a post I linked to early in the thread, which was apparently not looked at by the OP, namely this one. In that post, I talk about precisely why, on the relativistic view, time slows down for observers in motion, and I presented the following example, borrowed from Brian Greene's excellent The Elegant Universe, with a hastily cobbled-together image for illustrative purposes which, in light of Thommo's work above, seems apposite here:



It's particularly appropriate here because it directly relates the relativistic view with exactly what Thommo is describing in his chosen example. Here's the accompanying text:

hackenslash wrote:We have two cars. Now, imagine that they both hit the start line at exactly the same time, and exactly the same speed. You can see that the lower car is going in a straight line from start to finish. The upper car is taking a diagonal run from start to finish. The upper car will take slightly longer, because it's travelling through two dimensions at once, while the lower car is only travelling through one. In this model, travel through the second dimension takes away slightly from travel through the first dimension, so it takes longer to travel the same distance.

Now, if you think about time as akin to a spatial dimension as I described in my earlier post, and think about this analogy, you can see how relativity deals with this. The maximum speed you can travel is the speed of light. If you think of time as like a spatial dimension through which you are travelling at the speed of light, you can see the issue clearly. This speed limit applies to ALL dimensions, which means that if you're travelling through one dimension at light speed, you must be standing still in all others. So, when you travel through space, you are reducing the amount of travel through time. This is why time slows when you are in motion. It is also why photons don't age, because they move at light speed, meaning that their travel through time is nil.

In the example given here, it's pretty easy to see that, if the car's journey is measured only in a single dimension, namely directly between the start and finish points (in space only), we'll get a result that james would be happy with, and so would Newton. The problem being, of course, that the car is patently traversing more than one dimension in the latter case, which means that the observer in the car will not agree on the distance travelled, because his measurements are taking two dimensions into account at once, while jimmy's measurements are not.

Similarly, when we measure the length of a single side of a triangle in a fixed frame, we'll agree on the length. When two different observers, one static and one travelling along the length of the triangle, make the same measurement, they will not agree on the length of the side. What they will agree on, however, is the spacetime distance traversed, because that distance is invariant.

This is what james has been attempting to wibble his way toward avoiding, namely that it is a categorical error to attempt to separate dimensions in the manner he is doing.

What I find incredibly interesting is the glaring contradiction in james' approach here. First, he spends entire threads banging on about 'metaphysical evidence' and how empirical evidence cannot be used for or against metaphysical constructs, and then goes on to attempt to employ physics in support of his metaphysics, in a crystal-clear case of cognitive dissonance.

So, james; can empirical evidence be used in metaphysical contexts or not? Enquiring minds wanna know.

Onyx8 wrote:You could respond now: he'll see it upon his return.

Onyx8 wrote:Not if I know Hack.

jamest wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Not if I know Hack.

I wouldn't expect him to read every post of every thread that he's missed over the course of a month, nor to respond to every one in which he's involved. So I don't want to waste a good hour thinking and responding to his post if there's a good chance he'll miss it or put it at the bottom of his 'must respond to' list. On the other hand, if somebody else would like to take up his sword, I'll make the effort.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Not if I know Hack.

I wouldn't expect him to read every post of every thread that he's missed over the course of a month, nor to respond to every one in which he's involved. So I don't want to waste a good hour thinking and responding to his post if there's a good chance he'll miss it or put it at the bottom of his 'must respond to' list. On the other hand, if somebody else would like to take up his sword, I'll make the effort.

No. He will not miss your post. Guarantee. Get to it while it's fresh in your mind. If that sort of thing is even possible in YOUR mind.

Onyx8 wrote::silenced:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:Not if I know Hack.

I wouldn't expect him to read every post of every thread that he's missed over the course of a month, nor to respond to every one in which he's involved. So I don't want to waste a good hour thinking and responding to his post if there's a good chance he'll miss it or put it at the bottom of his 'must respond to' list. On the other hand, if somebody else would like to take up his sword, I'll make the effort.

No. He will not miss your post. Guarantee. Get to it while it's fresh in your mind. If that sort of thing is even possible in YOUR mind.

My mind is expansive. It cost me £500.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:
I wouldn't expect him to read every post of every thread that he's missed over the course of a month, nor to respond to every one in which he's involved. So I don't want to waste a good hour thinking and responding to his post if there's a good chance he'll miss it or put it at the bottom of his 'must respond to' list. On the other hand, if somebody else would like to take up his sword, I'll make the effort.

No. He will not miss your post. Guarantee. Get to it while it's fresh in your mind. If that sort of thing is even possible in YOUR mind.

My mind is expansive. It cost me £500.

I spent more than that on stale bread for my backyard zoo, this year.

Onyx8 wrote:Once you understand that space cannot be separated out from space-time you will see where you have it wrong.