Explanation Amplified: Time thought of as Relative Motion

[sjastro]

Thank you sjastro. I am honestly trying to be polite like I try to do most of time, but math a lot simpler than that is beyond me as I have stated in the original posts and numerous times after that; maybe others will get something out of it. But now that you're here if you would like to could you please give your analysis in words and without math of the following quote, I would really appreciate it. I just want to get others' understanding on my ideas in ways that I can understand.

Here is a simple explanation I gave in another thread that leads to the Schwarzschild metric.

It requires some preliminary work on the use of metrics and Einstein’s field equations before going on to the main issue.
This will kept to the most basic level and as maths friendly as possible.

Firstly the concept of a metric.
You have heard of the saying the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
This is only true in flat space and can be mathematically expressed using Pythagoras theorem for a right angle triangle. C²=A²+B².
In this case C is the distance, A and B being the horizontal and vertical distances respectively.
In x-y coordinates with segments dx and dy the equation is ds²=dx²+dy².

ds²=dx²+dy² is known as a metric.
In 3D the metric is ds²=dx²+dy²+dz²

On the surface of a sphere, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line but an arc.
In this case the metric is ds²=r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ) where r is the radius of the sphere, θ, Φ are the latitudinal and longitudinal angles respectively.

These metrics are spatial metrics, however since relativity uses spacetime there is an extra time term c²dt² where c is the speed of light.
The metrics for space time are the difference between the time term and the spatial terms.
Hence in 2D spherical spacetime the metric becomes ds²=c²dt²-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ).

Now let’s look at the Einstein field equations.
They look like this

Rₐₑ - (1/2)gₐₑR + Λgₐₑ = -(8πG/c^4)Tₐₑ

This equation tells us of the relationship between gravity and spacetime.
When gravity is absent (no mass) spacetime is flat otherwise gravity curves spacetime.
The right hand term indicates the presence of matter.

The metrics are the solutions to the field equations.
Mathematically the field equations are virtually impossible to solve directly.
Mathematicians and physicists have constructed metrics using “educated guesses” which are plugged into the field equations.
If the metric is an exact solution, the field equations breakdown into simpler equations that can be directly solved.

One form of “educated guess” is to construct a metric based on spherical symmetry.
This is based on a simple observation that objects fall radially in a gravitational field.

One such metric has the form.
ds²=(1+f)c²dt²-dr²/(1+f)-r²(dθ²+sin²θdΦ) where f is a general function.

When f=2MG/c²r this leads to the Schwarzschild metric which has led to the concepts of gravitational bending of light, gravitational time dilation and blacks holes.
It also explains the irregularities in the orbit of Mercury.

Hope this helps.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It doesn't matter what amount of motion (frame) you have, you are always somewhere within the minimum and maximum. So when I say something takes a long time I am referring to within the context of the minimum and maximum. That thing I am referring to takes a long time because it is closer to the maximum than whatever else I am talking about.

But because velocity is always relative to some specified frame, there is no 'absolute point of view' - there is no absolute minimum and maximum, and you're only at some velocity with respect to some particular reference frame. So your statement says nothing useful.

For example, you can be stationary with respect to spaceship A, and also be moving at 2/3 the speed of light with respect to spaceship B, and at 200mph with respect to spaceship C. The occupants of each spaceship will all measure the speed of light to be the same, despite their wildly different velocities with respect to each other. To spaceship A your time is normal; to spaceship B, your time is fairly dilated (and vice-versa); to spaceship C your time is dilated too little to notice.

Is it commonly understood that time dilation is caused by a higher requirement of energy the closer something is to the speed of light?

No, it is commonly understood to be a consequence of the relative velocity. If the speed of light is constant for all observers, velocities cannot be linearly additive, something has to give. What gives is that space contracts in the direction of travel and time is dilated. So from a 'stationary' frame, the length of a fast-moving object is contracted and its time is slowed, and from the frame of the fast-moving object, the stationary frame is contracted and its time is also slowed. This is the reciprocity of special relativistic time dilation.

why do people make all this fuss about frames, is it not easier just to focus on the object in question's speed relative to the speed of light and not worry about everything else?

No, because motion is relative (that's why it's called 'relativity'); the point of frames of reference is to be able to compare relative motion. No matter how fast you travel relative to an observer in some frame of reference, you'll both measure the speed of light to be the same. There is no absolute motion.

I guess the point of the two above quotes is why are frames important? The absolute reference point is the minimum and maximum, zero and the speed of light. Isn't it more complicated to figure out how things move relative to each other rather than an absolute reference point?

For the last time, there is no absolute reference point.

I believe that space time curvature is misinterpreted time dilation phenomenon that alters the trajectory/wavelength/whatever of the time dilated object.

You can believe whatever you like, but you're more likely to be correct if you understand the basic physics.

I strongly recommend taking a basic course in Physics with Special Relativity. There are plenty of free introductory courses online.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Hope this helps.

Thank you sjastro. From what I can tell the part of the video at 1:39 seems to hit on a point that I have been trying to make.

I am going to make an analogy. From time to time I have attempted to learn programming and have made small games, but I think this will make for a good analogy.

The point I am attempting to make is that time thought of as a fourth dimension is like an abstraction for understanding the altering of trajectory, wavelength, and other movement. Just as a multidimensional array in programming is an abstraction to help a programmer understand how the program's data is stored. The thing is time is not actually a fourth dimension it's just relative motion, just like a multidimensional array is actually more or less a normal array.

But because velocity is always relative to some specified frame, there is no 'absolute point of view' - there is no absolute minimum and maximum

The occupants of each spaceship will all measure the speed of light to be the same, despite their wildly different velocities with respect to each other.

No matter how fast you travel relative to an observer in some frame of reference, you'll both measure the speed of light to be the same. There is no absolute motion.

For the last time, there is no absolute reference point.

I would assume if something is the same for all observers that it could be considered an absolute reference point, don't you? The speed of light is what I have been calling the maximum.

So from a 'stationary' frame, the length of a fast-moving object is contracted and its time is slowed, and from the frame of the fast-moving object, the stationary frame is contracted and its time is also slowed. This is the reciprocity of special relativistic time dilation.

Reciprocal Time Dilation in Special Relativity

Edit: To further clarify I think this excerpt from Wikipedia puts it in a way I can understand very well perhaps it will make the point clear to you and others as well.

"While this seems self-contradictory, a similar oddity occurs in everyday life. If two persons A and B observe each other from a distance, B will appear small to A, but at the same time A will appear small to B. Being familiar with the effects of perspective, there is no contradiction or paradox in this situation."

So using the example from above both people far away from each other will appear small to each other, but this does not mean both people are small nor does either's view point represent what is actually happening. What is actually happening is that they are two people standing far away from each other.

Likewise a person on a planet and a person on a space ship moving away from the planet at half the speed of light both see each other as moving away from each other at half the speed of light. But what is actually happening is that the space ship is moving away from the planet at half the speed of light and the planet is moving however fast the planet is moving.

I think the above link is a good answer to what you are referring to. The thing is if something is closer to the speed of light than something else its time will have slowed because it is closer to the speed of light than the other thing. In this way the speed of light can be thought as an absolute reference point. The closer you are to the speed of light the more you are time dilated and the further away the less you are time dilated, is this not true?

 

[sjastro]

Thank you sjastro. From what I can tell the part of the video at 1:39 seems to hit on a point that I have been trying to make.

I am going to make an analogy. From time to time I have attempted to learn programming and have made small games, but I think this will make for a good analogy.

View attachment 272209

The point I am attempting to make is that time thought of as a fourth dimension is like an abstraction for understanding the altering of trajectory, wavelength, and other movement. Just as a multidimensional array in programming is an abstraction to help a programmer understand how the program's data is stored. The thing is time is not actually a fourth dimension it's just relative motion, just like a multidimensional array is actually more or less a normal array.

I have absolutely no idea how this is even a relevant analogy.
This has been discussed before where time is not relative motion.

In my next post I will discuss the most controversial outcome from the Schwarzschild metric.
I hope you don't see this as derailing your thread as it provides another example of the power of mathematics and how it is required to have a fundamental understanding of science.

 

[Ohj1n37]

In my next post I will discuss the most controversial outcome from the Schwarzschild metric.
I hope you don't see this as derailing your thread as it provides another example of the power of mathematics and how it is required to have a fundamental understanding of science.

I have absolutely no idea how this is even a relevant analogy.

I mean this with all due respect.

Look dude, if we don't understand each other please don't bother. I would like to discuss things not get into an argument where both parties have no idea what the other one is talking about.

I do appreciate your contributions. I would just like to prevent any future discussion that does not add to the conversation and if we don't understand each other that is going to cause more problems than it solves.

Edit: It's frustrating that I am not being understood. To my understanding that analogy made sense, but maybe your next post if you would like to still make one will explain why it doesn't in way I can understand.

 

[sjastro]

To complete the outcomes from the Schwarzschild metric was Einstein’s most radical idea that gravity bends light.
This earned Einstein the reputation of being a crackpot until the effect was confirmed by observation.

We can use a couple of the equations used in post #39 on the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit.
dr/ds = (r²/b)(dr/dϕ) and du²/dϕ² + u = MG/c²b² + 3MGu²/c².
dr/ds = (r²/b)(dr/dϕ) which reduces to dϕ/ds = r²/b.

A photon travels along a null geodesic in which case ds = 0.
Hence dr/ds → ∞ as ds → 0; this implies b → 0.

As a result we set b = 0 in the equation du²/dϕ² + u = MG/c²b² + 3MGu²/c² which becomes;

du²/dϕ² + u = 3MGu²/c² (A)

A solution to the equation du²/dϕ² + u = 0 is uₗ = sin(ϕ)/R
Substituting this into the right hand side of the equation gives;

du²/dϕ² + u = 3MG/c²R²(1-cos²(ϕ))

The solution is u₂ = (3MG/c²R²)(1 - (1/3)cos(2ϕ))

The complete solution for (A) is;
u = uₗ + u₂ = sin(ϕ)/R + (3MG/c²R²)(1 -(1/3)cos(2ϕ)) (B)

The reason why 1/R and 1/R² are used as constants instead of R and R² is because
u = 1/r.
In this case R is the radius of our Sun and the closest approach distance for the photon.

For a photon to approach the Sun and graze it from a very large distance r, as r → ∞,
u → 0; also since the angle ϕ the grazing photon makes with the Sun is very small
sin(ϕ) ≈ ϕ and cos(2ϕ) ≈ 1, (B) reduces to;

ϕ = -2MG/c²R

The total deflection by symmetry ϕₜ of the photon is;

ϕₜ = 4MG/c²R

Plugging the values for the Sun’s mass M and its radius R gives;
ϕₜ = 1.75” which agrees with observation made by measuring the deflection of starlight near the Sun’s limb during solar eclipses.

 

[Ohj1n37]

To complete the outcomes from the Schwarzschild metric was Einstein’s most radical idea that gravity bends light.

The bending of the star's light again can be understood with just time dilation. Think of the sun’s gravitational field as varying densities of water. The water gets ever more dense as you get closer to the sun. Just like water can refract light by slowing it, the sun’s strong gravitational field dynamically slows the light’s trajectory bending it around the sun. Einstein being mathematically minded mistook this bending of light as the bending of space time, but with the understanding of what time actually is, relative motion, all that is needed to understand the bending of the light’s trajectory is the dynamic slowing of the light’s motion as it moves into different strengths of the sun’s gravitational field.

How is this different from what I said other than you have just said it in a much more complicated way?

My ideas assume that from what I understand of Einstein’s math is that it is correct, but the interpretation of said math is incorrect.

So when you just show the math to me I assume it is correct, it does not disprove my point as far as I can tell.

Finally using this understanding of time and time dilation space time phenomenon can be understood without the need for space time.

I will say I could have worded this point a little better. Time dilation and space time phenomenon do not need a literal fourth dimension.

And this is where the programming array analogy comes in, the fourth dimension is an abstraction used to more easily calculate what is happening, but is not what is actually happening. Time is actually the following,

The idea is that there is no past, no future, there is only now; time is better thought of as relative motion.

Fair warning I am not well versed in mathematics and would kindly ask from refraining from such terminology.

Now this is what I wanted to prevent. I do not want to get in an endless argument where we go on forever not understanding what the other one is saying. So if you can not describe to me why what I have said is incorrect without going on with a bunch of math I would ask you to please leave it at that. I mean really dude in the original post I even said what I quoted just above. What are thinking? This guy says he doesn't understand math, maybe I should help him understand with a bunch of math. Anyway I am not mad at you or anyone; I have no idea what your motives are. More than anything I am maybe a little frustrated.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would assume if something is the same for all observers that it could be considered an absolute reference point, don't you? The speed of light is what I have been calling the maximum.

It's not an absolute velocity, it's a relative limit. It's the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion. So it's no use for comparing their relative motion.

No matter how fast you go relative to another observer, you will each measure the speed of light to be 186,000 mi/s in all directions. If you measure the speed of light to be 186,000 mi/s when you're in Earth's orbit, then you accelerate until you're travelling at 100,000 mi/s relative to Earth, you'll still measure the speed of light to be 186,000 mi/s both in the direction of your travel and in the other direction.

The thing is if something is closer to the speed of light than something else its time will have slowed because it is closer to the speed of light than the other thing. In this way the speed of light can be thought as an absolute reference point. The closer you are to the speed of light the more you are time dilated and the further away the less you are time dilated, is this not true?

You can't say one thing is closer to the speed of light than another thing without picking a reference frame in which that is true; otherwise, all you can say is that each object sees the other moving at the same velocity. Motion is not absolute, it's relative.

It's strange and counter-intuitive, but that's how it is. There is no absolute space or time or motion, and everyone measures the speed of light to be the same relative to them, regardless of their velocity relative to anyone else.

 

[Ohj1n37]

No matter how fast you go relative to another observer, you will each measure the speed of light to be 186,000 mi/s in all directions. If you measure the speed of light to be 186,000 mi/s when you're in Earth's orbit, then you accelerate until you're travelling at 100,000 mi/s relative to Earth, you'll still measure the speed of light to be 186,000 mi/s both in the direction of your travel and in the other direction.

You can't say one thing is closer to the speed of light than another thing without picking a reference frame in which that is true;

The speed of light in a vacuum being the same for all observers doesn't mean you are required to pick a reference frame to determine if something is closer to the speed of light. Something moving at half the speed of light is closer to the speed of light than something moving at a quarter of the speed of light regardless of any reference frame you pick, is this not true?

I will quote what I have said before perhaps that is what you are confusing.

Edit: To further clarify I think this excerpt from Wikipedia puts it in a way I can understand very well perhaps it will make the point clear to you and others as well.

"While this seems self-contradictory, a similar oddity occurs in everyday life. If two persons A and B observe each other from a distance, B will appear small to A, but at the same time A will appear small to B. Being familiar with the effects of perspective, there is no contradiction or paradox in this situation."

So using the example from above both people far away from each other will appear small to each other, but this does not mean both people are small nor does either's view point represent what is actually happening. What is actually happening is that they are two people standing far away from each other.

Likewise a person on a planet and a person on a space ship moving away from the planet at half the speed of light both see each other as moving away from each other at half the speed of light. But what is actually happening is that the space ship is moving away from the planet at half the speed of light and the planet is moving however fast the planet is moving.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The speed of light in a vacuum being the same for all observers doesn't mean you are required to pick a reference frame to determine if something is closer to the speed of light. Something moving at half the speed of light is closer to the speed of light than something moving at a quarter of the speed of light regardless of any reference frame you pick, is this not true?

No - half of the speed of light with respect to what? Closer to the speed of light with respect to what?

I've explained how it works as best I can. If you still don't understand what I mean, I don't think I can help further; if you don't want to accept my explanation that's your choice.

 

[sjastro]

How is this different from what I said other than you have just said it in a much more complicated way?

This was shown to be wrong in post#10.
The analogy of using refraction to explain the bending of light is wrong as the degree of refraction depends on the wavelength of light.
An example of this is when light passes through a prism.

The observed bending of light is independent of wavelength which is what one would expect from gravitational bending.
Furthermore the Hipparcos mission for accurately mapping the position of celestial objects had to compensate for light bending 90⁰ away from the ecliptic as the Sun’s gravitational field extends well beyond any possible refractive effects of solar plasma.

So when you just show the math to me I assume it is correct, it does not disprove my point as far as I can tell.

If the maths is incorrect the predictions would be wrong.

I will say I could have worded this point a little better. Time dilation and space time phenomenon do not need a literal fourth dimension.

And this is where the programming array analogy comes in, the fourth dimension is an abstraction used to more easily calculate what is happening, but is not what is actually happening. Time is actually the following,

Its one thing to say your ideas are a reinterpretation of Einstein’s idea but the harsh reality is they are not because you can’t show for example the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit is 43” per century or the gravitational bending of light near the Sun is 1.75”.
This is where the maths comes into the picture.

Now this is what I wanted to prevent. I do not want to get in an endless argument where we go on forever not understanding what the other one is saying. So if you can not describe to me why what I have said is incorrect without going on with a bunch of math I would ask you to please leave it at that. I mean really dude in the original post I even said what I quoted just above. What are thinking? This guy says he doesn't understand math, maybe I should help him understand with a bunch of math. Anyway I am not mad at you or anyone; I have no idea what your motives are. More than anything I am maybe a little frustrated.

I have no hidden motives.
This is a public forum and I will answer in the best way I see fit.
You may not like the maths but that’s your opinion and is not necessarily representative of the readers of this thread.

 

[Ohj1n37]

No - half of the speed of light with respect to what? Closer to the speed of light with respect to what?

I've explained how it works as best I can. If you still don't understand what I mean, I don't think I can help further; if you don't want to accept my explanation that's your choice.

This was shown to be wrong in post#10.
The analogy of using refraction to explain the bending of light is wrong as the degree of refraction depends on the wavelength of light.
An example of this is when light passes through a prism.

I have no hidden motives.
This is a public forum and I will answer in the best way I see fit.
You may not like the maths but that’s your opinion and is not necessarily representative of the readers of this thread.

Okay well I think I have realized we are now talking in a circle. FrumiousBandersnatch you can't seem to understand that if something is the same for all observers it is an absolute. Like dude just google, is the speed of light in a vacuum an absolute. So guess what, when something is moving half the speed of light it does not need to be relative to anything, it's moving at half the speed of light; not sure how it can get much more simple than that. I understand the relative part and that was explained with the quote below.

sjastro for some reason you don't realize analogies are not exactly identical to what they trying to explain and on top of that you have this need to make every other post a bunch of formulas that I have told you I do not understand. This is why I wondered what your motives were, are you really trying to help me, someone who says they don't understand that, or are you trying to make yourself sound smart and feel good? And on top of that this forum's group of cheerleaders has to apply some participation stickers to about every post you two make. Which if you two reply to this I am sure more than likely they'll do proving my point. My God, it's like I am back in high school, people really never do grow up.

So while I have not learned if my ideas are correct or incorrect (you may think what you want; I believe they have validity), I have learned internet forums are a bad place to find anyone of any real help. I am not mad at you two or anyone. I am disappointed, but at the same time I have some form of peace because I have realized at this point I have done what I can to try to find someone to talk to about my ideas. I am a twenty-eight year old man with multiple disabilities who mostly stays at home usually only leaving to go to church. I would like to find someone I could talk to who enjoys talking about relativity. I thought, hey maybe the christian forums would be a good site to make some friends and talk about relativity... nope, because the internet is a place to be rude. If you don't believe me go look at all the other threads I've made in the discussion and debates topic. I wanted someone to share my ideas with and discuss them, someone who might be able to understand, but more often than not I have been met with rude behavior.

Edit: To further clarify I think this excerpt from Wikipedia puts it in a way I can understand very well perhaps it will make the point clear to you and others as well.

"While this seems self-contradictory, a similar oddity occurs in everyday life. If two persons A and B observe each other from a distance, B will appear small to A, but at the same time A will appear small to B. Being familiar with the effects of perspective, there is no contradiction or paradox in this situation."

So using the example from above both people far away from each other will appear small to each other, but this does not mean both people are small nor does either's view point represent what is actually happening. What is actually happening is that they are two people standing far away from each other.

Likewise a person on a planet and a person on a space ship moving away from the planet at half the speed of light both see each other as moving away from each other at half the speed of light. But what is actually happening is that the space ship is moving away from the planet at half the speed of light and the planet is moving however fast the planet is moving.

I think the above link is a good answer to what you are referring to. The thing is if something is closer to the speed of light than something else its time will have slowed because it is closer to the speed of light than the other thing. In this way the speed of light can be thought as an absolute reference point. The closer you are to the speed of light the more you are time dilated and the further away the less you are time dilated, is this not true?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... FrumiousBandersnatch you can't seem to understand that if something is the same for all observers it is an absolute. Like dude just google, is the speed of light in a vacuum an absolute.

I don't think you understand what the popular use of 'absolute' means in this context - it is not standard physics terminology, i.e. it doesn't refer to a fixed coordinate system - it refers to some frame relative to an observer; IOW it is the 'absolute' limit for speed of relative motion.

So guess what, when something is moving half the speed of light it does not need to be relative to anything, it's moving at half the speed of light; not sure how it can get much more simple than that.

Guess what, to say motion is 'not relative to anything' is incoherent in relativity; that's Newtonian mechanics, it requires an absolute rest frame (and therefore absolute space and time) none of which exist in relativity. This is what makes relativity different from Newtonian mechanics; it is a postulate, you won't make any progress until you understand that.

This is what Einstein said in his 1905 paper:

"... the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies."​

...I thought, hey maybe the christian forums would be a good site to make some friends and talk about relativity... nope, because the internet is a place to be rude. If you don't believe me go look at all the other threads I've made in the discussion and debates topic. I wanted someone to share my ideas with and discuss them, someone who might be able to understand, but more often than not I have been met with rude behavior.

I hope you're not suggesting that I or sjastro have been rude in this thread - you've been treated with considerable patience and politeness here, so that implication is unwelcome.

 

[SelfSim]

... I thought, hey maybe the christian forums would be a good site to make some friends and talk about relativity... nope, because the internet is a place to be rude. If you don't believe me go look at all the other threads I've made in the discussion and debates topic. I wanted someone to share my ideas with and discuss them, someone who might be able to understand, but more often than not I have been met with rude behavior.

'Rudeness' is a relative term, and is not really 'an absolute thing'. There has to be a context in order for rudeness to acquire an agreed meaning.

(Special) Relativity (SR) theory is the context where 'the speed of light' acquires its specific meaning in physics. Ideas which attempt to remove it from that context, usually end up undermining its specific meaning in that context. SR is a highly useful context in astrophysical environments .. in fact, 'usefulness' is its specific intent.

I think the 'rudeness' you conclude here, may be because the physical context of 'the speed of light' actually has a context of objective evidence underpinning it, whereas absolute physical frames of reference, when conceiving the universe, doesn't.
I think where you may be coming from, might actually posit the exact opposite of that(?) Ie: actually embraces the existence of some absolute reference frame(?) .. And hence 'rudeness' is concluded solely by yourself, because your belief based posit conflicts with one of the key theoretical (and objectively evidenced) principles of SR.

'Rudeness' is a very one-sided determination here, I think.

 

[Yttrium]

So guess what, when something is moving half the speed of light it does not need to be relative to anything, it's moving at half the speed of light; not sure how it can get much more simple than that.

But how are you measuring your speed? You can't measure it against light, which is always moving at the speed of light relative to you. You have to measure it compared to some other physical object. There are no tick marks in space that you can count as you're zooming by.

And if you're moving toward another object and measure that you're closing the distance at half the speed of light, both you and the object still see light moving at the speed of light.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But how are you measuring your speed? You can't measure it against light, which is always moving at the speed of light relative to you. You have to measure it compared to some other physical object. There are no tick marks in space that you can count as you're zooming by.

And if you're moving toward another object and measure that you're closing the distance at half the speed of light, both you and the object still see light moving at the speed of light.

I don't think that he realizes that an object moving at "half of the speed of light" will still measure light as moving at the speed of light relative to him. regardless of which direction it comes from. That is the sort of thing that really messes with the mind of someone stuck in Newtonian space.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think that he realizes that an object moving at "half of the speed of light" will still measure light as moving at the speed of light relative to him. regardless of which direction it comes from. That is the sort of thing that really messes with the mind of someone stuck in Newtonian space.

I looked back over my posts wondering how I'd failed to point this out, but found that I'd tried to explain it in almost every one... I get the feeling he is too caught up in his own ideas to think carefully about what he is being told.

 

[SelfSim]

I looked back over my posts wondering how I'd failed to point this out, but found that I'd tried to explain it in almost every one... I get the feeling he is too caught up in his own ideas to think carefully about what he is being told.

The belief in God requires the concept of absoluteness.

What's interesting for me here is, that concept produced an exclusionary conclusion, under the guise of 'the rudeness' of others(?!)