Relativity

[Cypress]

A very common philosophical view, and misunderstanding of the theory of relativity, is that relativity plays around with commonsense ideas of space and time and makes everything relative.

In the early 1900s, people were using Einstein’s theory of relativity to justify relativistic morals and relativistic aesthetics—all kinds of fields far from science.

Physics is about trying to understand an underlying objective reality, and that reality should not depend on one’s point of view or frame of reference.

The speed of light is one quantity that doesn’t depend on your point of view, but more fundamentally, the laws of physics do not depend on your point of view.

The numbers obtained when using the laws of physics, at least for some quantities—such as spatial differences or temporal intervals—do depend on your point of view. Other numbers don’t—such as, for example, the speed of light..

The individual measures of space and time are different in two different frames of reference, but you can combine them to get something that is objectively real: the invariant space-time interval. Space-time is invariant, which means that it doesn’t depend on your point of view; it doesn’t change with your frame of reference

It might bother you that events simultaneously in one frame aren’t simultaneous in another and that there are different time intervals between different events. However, neither of these concerns turns out to be a problem for causality. The space-time interval is one example of a relativistic invariant.



Source credit, Richard Wolfson, professor of physics

 

[Lightbringer]

A very common philosophical view, and misunderstanding of the theory of relativity, is that relativity plays around with commonsense ideas of space and time and makes everything relative.

In the early 1900s, people were using Einstein’s theory of relativity to justify relativistic morals and relativistic aesthetics—all kinds of fields far from science.

Physics is about trying to understand an underlying objective reality, and that reality should not depend on one’s point of view or frame of reference.

The speed of light is one quantity that doesn’t depend on your point of view, but more fundamentally, the laws of physics do not depend on your point of view.

The numbers obtained when using the laws of physics, at least for some quantities—such as spatial differences or temporal intervals—do depend on your point of view. Other numbers don’t—such as, for example, the speed of light..

The individual measures of space and time are different in two different frames of reference, but you can combine them to get something that is objectively real: the invariant space-time interval. Space-time is invariant, which means that it doesn’t depend on your point of view; it doesn’t change with your frame of reference

It might bother you that events simultaneously in one frame aren’t simultaneous in another and that there are different time intervals between different events. However, neither of these concerns turns out to be a problem for causality. The space-time interval is one example of a relativistic invariant.



Source credit, Richard Wolfson, professor of physics

Just make your point pissant.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

This is my take on relativity.

We can't choose our relatives,

but we can choose which ones we speak to.

I'll bet that Dr. Einstein himself did that.

 

[Cypress]

Just make your point pissant.

I only invest time discussing these topics with people who post in good faith.

 

[Commander Dutch]

I only invest time discussing these topics with people who post in good faith.

Which excludes anyone who is a Trumper or political extremist.

 

[Commander Dutch]

This is my take on relativity.

We can't choose our relatives,

but we can choose which ones we speak to.

I'll bet that Dr. Einstein himself did that.

My take is similar to what Einstein himself allegedly said:
One minute talking to a pretty girl is too short, but one minute sitting on a hot stove is too long.

Like most human relations, it's a matter of perspective.

 

[Cypress]

Which excludes anyone who is a Trumper or political extremist.

The tangent that peaked my interest is that early 20th century post-modernists used Einstein's relativity to argue for relativism in morality, art, aesthetics. But they were actually misinterpreting Einstein. Beneath the concept of different measurements occurring in different inertial reference frames, there is an invariant, consistent objective reality underlying the theory of special relativity.

 

[Cypress]

This is my take on relativity.

We can't choose our relatives,

but we can choose which ones we speak to.

I'll bet that Dr. Einstein himself did that.

My extended family is really tiny, so I feel it would be a shame to not be connected with them all. Luckily none of them are jerks as far as I can tell.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

My extended family is really tiny, so I feel it would be a shame to not be connected with them all. Luckily none of them are jerks as far as I can tell.

Something about which to be grateful, then.

 

[IBDaMann]

In the early 1900s, people were using Einstein’s theory of relativity to justify relativistic morals and relativistic aesthetics—all kinds of fields far from science.

Although Darwin's theory of evolution is not science, it was nonetheless used in this same manner, to justify radical social changes and for killing programs deemed "undesirable" and countless other arbitrary social, organizational, governmental and demographic changes.

Physics is about trying to understand an underlying objective reality,

Nope. Physics is focused on only one thing: predicting nature. If there is something you merely wish to understand better, perform research until you are satisfied that you understand it sufficiently.

However, I see that you have taken sides against Niels Bohr in the legendary Copenhagen interpretation. Would you care to support your position? Niels Bohr was a pretty smart guy.

The individual measures of space and time are different in two different frames of reference, but you can combine them to get something that is objectively real

Nope. Different reference frames cannot somehow be combined.

the invariant space-time interval.

There is no such thing.

Space-time is invariant, which means that it doesn’t depend on your point of view; it doesn’t change with your frame of reference

You really need to define/specify what "it" is. I agree with your statement if you are using my definition/understanding of "it" but I have no way of reading your mind.

It might bother you that events simultaneously in one frame aren’t simultaneous in another

Time dilation.

and that there are different time intervals between different events.

Incorrect. Exactly the same amount of time passes. Time is simply passing at a different rate.

The space-time interval is one example of a relativistic invariant.

This is gibberish.

Source credit, Richard Wolfson, professor of physics

Maybe Wolfson should take a few English courses and peruse the dictionary a bit more often. He uses erroneous wording.

 

[Cypress]

Although.......

Bulverism
Non sequitur fallacy
Hasty generalization fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

 

[IBDaMann]

Beneath the concept of different measurements occurring in different inertial reference frames,

Did you mean to write "separate but equivalent measurements"?

there is an invariant, consistent objective reality

If there is, it cannot be known completely. There will always be uncertainty and incompleteness. Ergo, we also must consider the Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg models as well.

 

[Cypress]

Ergo, we also must consider the Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg models as well.

Bulverism
Non sequitur fallacy
Hasty generalization fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

 

[IBDaMann]

Bulverism
Non sequitur fallacy
Hasty generalization fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

Aaaaah, so you readily confess to your cowardice and your intellectual pretender status. That was rather disappointing.

Very well, flee like all the other cowards, and let me know if Wikipedia has any new interesting WOKE wikis.

 

[Cypress]

Nope. Physics is focused on only one thing: predicting nature.

Spoken like someone who never set foot in a university level science class!

The geocentric modified Ptolomaic system of epicycles was perfectly adequate for predicting planetary motions.

But scientists care about getting things right. We live in a heliocentric system, not a geocentric system

 

[BidenPresident]

Aaaaah, so you readily confess to your cowardice and your intellectual pretender status. That was rather disappointing.

Very well, flee like all the other cowards, and let me know if Wikipedia has any new interesting WOKE wikis.

Multiple Forum Name Fallacy

Into The Night of Ignorance Fallacy

Full Of Shit Fallacy

 

[Cypress]

Aaaaah...

Bulverism
Non sequitur fallacy
Hasty generalization fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

I only engage posters that contribute in good faith.

You followed me around claiming I lied about reading a book, but when your claim blew up in your face you ran away from the thread -->
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...y-of-you-are-Christians&p=5597945#post5597945

 

[IBDaMann]

Everybody, look at who simply can't post in good faith.

Bulverism
Non sequitur fallacy
Hasty generalization fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

Too funny. You have tipped your king.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I only engage posters that contribute in good faith.

Let me correct that for you:

You only engage posters that agree with you or as uneducated as you. This is why you dropped out of grad school. It was too hard.

The funniest thing is 99% of your OP's are nothing but quotes from someone else (because you don't understand the topics yourself). And you keep posting stuff about SCIENCE but I don't believe I've ever seen you post anything even remotely mathematical about these topics.

You like the woo-woo nobody knows end of stuff. That's why you love that Quantum Mechanics abuse by the New Agers. They are like you and don't understand the technical topic either but it sounds super duper cool and science-y. Now it's time to leverage relativity...another mathematically intense topic you don't truly understand but can leverage to sound cool

 

[Commander Dutch]

The tangent that peaked my interest is that early 20th century post-modernists used Einstein's relativity to argue for relativism in morality, art, aesthetics. But they were actually misinterpreting Einstein. Beneath the concept of different measurements occurring in different inertial reference frames, there is an invariant, consistent objective reality underlying the theory of special relativity.

While I agree, all bets are off when dealing with human beings since most of our perceptions are...wait for it...relative.

This forum is a perfect example considering the human extremes of Left and Right with the extremes accusing each other of being the most extreme. There is a range of measure in between extremes and placement on that scale is relative to a person's individual perspective. There are our genetics, but mostly our cultural upbringing influencing our perspectives along with other psychosocial factors such as economic class, particular state and/or region, and birth order. All these variables create unique individuals.

People are unique individuals, but social groups can be understood through statistics, both general perspectives and trends. Again, human relativity plays a part. How do we measure the "truth" of Putin's invasion of Ukraine and using Russian lives as cannon fodder versus the Western perspective of defending aggression and individual liberty as a Universal measure? We can only do it from a human perspective. Ergo, relative to humans.

My two most memorable parts of the movie "Gandi" were the last lines* and the advice Gandi gave to a Hindi man who had murdered a baby because it was Muslim. The advice was to adopt an orphan (there were plenty) and raise it Muslim. Why? So he'd learn a perspective relative to Muslims. Gandi understood human perspective was the path to peace.

*after being shot by, Nathuram Godsem, a Hindu nationalist: "Oh God. Oh God."