6 ms·

Exactly my thought reading that. That question, "Can you find out? Hell no," is relativity in a nutshell. If you really grasp what that means, the whole deal fr

by Cushman 13y ago

Exactly my thought reading that. That question, "Can you find out? Hell no," is relativity in a nutshell. If you really grasp what that means, the whole deal from simultaneity to time dilation to curved spacetime all falls out more or less intuitively. (Of course it was harder to work out the first time :P) Most people implicitly believe that there must be some privileged reference frame, if not mine necessarily than at least one very close to mine, and for good reason. (I'd go so far as to say that most people believe explicitly that there is a privileged reference frame, and that it is an intelligent agent called God, but leave that alone for now.) Even if they do get past this statement with a, "Uh, okay, I guess so..." they probably have not actually adjusted their entire world view to account for that powerful fact, and if they seem to understand what you have told them it is likely that they have simply memorized the right answer. Not that there's anything wrong with trying.

ars 13y ago
> I'd go so far as to say that most people believe explicitly that there is a privileged reference frame, and that it is an intelligent agent called God ????? Why do you assume God is a physical being inside the universe? (Do people really think that?) God created the universe - God is outside it. Like God is the computer and the universe is the program. God isn't at rest/not at rest. The concept doesn't even apply.
- Cushman 13y ago
  In the United States it is the majority opinion (vocally, anyway) that God is a real thing with both interest and power to intervene in both historical and day-to-day events. As to why? A lifetime of indoctrination and social pressure. The same reason anyone believes anything, I suppose.
  - ars 13y ago
    Really? The majority opinion is that God is a physical being that lives inside the universe? I know there are some religions that believe that, but they are hardly the majority. The concept of "reference frame" doesn't even exist for a non-physical being.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      I can't rigorously defend something I don't think is true, but I stand behind my previous statement as it is.
      - ars 13y ago
        Your previous statement might be true - and also has nothing to do with a "universal reference frame". A god that intervenes has nothing to do with whether or not the God is physical. I suspect you are reading things into what people believe without actually understanding what they believe. i.e. that it's actually you that believes God has a reference frame, not that the majority of people in the US do.
        Cushman 13y ago
        Well, I'm not that interested in the theology of an interventionist God because it's not a very exciting fairy tale to me. But as I understand it God is omnipresent and omnipotent and either those things mean a physical presence that is everywhere at once or they mean nothing at all. That is precisely the thing proscribed by relativity. I'm sure one could define God down into some kind of good-vibes field that could logically exist in our universe, and that's all good with me. But it's not what most Americans profess to believe. In any event, discard it if it offends you; it's completely irrelevant to the topic, which is super-cool physics.
        ars 13y ago
        > mean a physical presence that is everywhere at once Everywhere at once means "no privileged reference frame". (Kind of like how light, from the point of view of light itself is everywhere at once, and light also has a the special privileged reference frame of no reference frame at all.) You were the one who claimed the most people believe in a privileged reference frame based on God. Not me. Now you are backpedaling from that claim - which is fine, because not only do most people not believe that, it doesn't even make any sense. And I agree that this should conclude the religious digression of the main topic. Not that there is a whole lot more to talk about, unless you want to talk about (argue with?) my comment above on light.
- danbruc 13y ago
  ????? Why do you assume »God created the universe - God is outside it.« (Do people really think that?)
  - ars 13y ago
    Because you can not create something and be inside it (i.e. be made of it) at the same time.
    - danbruc 13y ago
      My point is more that believing God created the universe is not really an obvious thing to believe. Why not just believe that the nobody created the universe and it has been around forever? Or that the universe emerged out of »nothing«? No? That can not possibly be true? How could something be around forever? And how could something so complex and beautiful as the universe with all the fancy stuff inside emerge out of »nothing«? No way. But wait, it is no problem for God to be around forever? It is no problem to have an entity, powerful enough to create a whole universe, without explaining where it came from? Or should we just introduce a super-god that created God? Unfortunately this just shifts the problem to the next level and we are again back at square one. Besides that you can obviously build a house and enter through the front door after you finished it.
      - ars 13y ago
        Wait. When did this morph into an argument of the existence of God? I thought we were talking about God being some sort of preferred relativistic reference frame. > Besides that you can obviously build a house and enter through the front door after you finished it. You did not enter the material house - you entered the empty space that was already there, which the material of the house surrounds. If you want to use the analogy you must actually change your physical body to be made of wood and nails.
        danbruc 13y ago
        Discussing God as a reference frame seems to naturally evoke the question if he exists. And I am definitely more comfortable discussing whether God exists or not than if he may be a (preferred) (inertial) reference frame; probably one of the strangest things I have ever thought about. Yes, the analogy with building a house is not really strong but on the other hand the whole question if God - if he exists - exists inside or outside the universe (read spacetime) is difficult to say the least. What is outside of space? What is outside of time? Out of what is God made? And how does this affect his possibility to interact with the universe? Is he even able to interact? Now that I got your point with being something and building the same thing, self-organizing systems come to mind - that's probably as close as you can get to being something and building the same thing. This does not address where the matter for the system come from so it is more self-shaping than self-building but ad hoc that's the best I can think of.
- chc 13y ago
  Most people do not think it through that way. They probably don't think God is a physical being, and they probably don't have a very specific idea about his location, but they definitely think he is viewing the universe, wherever he is.
  - ars 13y ago
    Fine, but if he's viewing the universe he is not inside the universe - i.e. he doesn't have a reference frame.
    - chc 13y ago
      This is your assertion, not theirs.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    Most people do not think it through that way. I suspect that not thinking it through that way is a precondition for truly believing in God for most people. That is to say, most people who start out believing in God and who attempt to think this through would give up their belief in God on the way - or, instinctively realizing that and being made uncomfortable by the thought, they would automatically shy away from the whole logic of it. After all, explaining the world is not really what belief in God seems to be about. It seems to be more about some kind of warm fuzzy feeling that people get from it.
jules 13y ago
> That question, "Can you find out? Hell no," is relativity in a nutshell. If you really grasp what that means, the whole deal from simultaneity to time dilation to curved spacetime all falls out more or less intuitively. (Of course it was harder to work out the first time :P) You cannot deduce relativity from the knowledge that you can't find out whether you're moving. In Newtonian physics you can't find out whether you're moving either. The essential ingredient is that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. Furthermore curved spacetime is by no means trivial; that's general relativity. It took Einstein himself 10 additional years before he got from special to general relativity, and more still to really develop it.
- Cushman 13y ago
  I sort of meant "given experimental observations it all seems quite intuitive", not "you can derive it all a priori". No offense intended to the hard work of Einstein and others :)

by Cushman 13y ago

ars 13y ago

> I'd go so far as to say that most people believe explicitly that there is a privileged reference frame, and that it is an intelligent agent called God ????? Why do you assume God is a physical being inside the universe? (Do people really think that?) God created the universe - God is outside it. Like God is the computer and the universe is the program. God isn't at rest/not at rest. The concept doesn't even apply.

Cushman 13y ago
In the United States it is the majority opinion (vocally, anyway) that God is a real thing with both interest and power to intervene in both historical and day-to-day events. As to why? A lifetime of indoctrination and social pressure. The same reason anyone believes anything, I suppose.
- ars 13y ago
  Really? The majority opinion is that God is a physical being that lives inside the universe? I know there are some religions that believe that, but they are hardly the majority. The concept of "reference frame" doesn't even exist for a non-physical being.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    I can't rigorously defend something I don't think is true, but I stand behind my previous statement as it is.
    - ars 13y ago
      Your previous statement might be true - and also has nothing to do with a "universal reference frame". A god that intervenes has nothing to do with whether or not the God is physical. I suspect you are reading things into what people believe without actually understanding what they believe. i.e. that it's actually you that believes God has a reference frame, not that the majority of people in the US do.
      - Cushman 13y ago
        Well, I'm not that interested in the theology of an interventionist God because it's not a very exciting fairy tale to me. But as I understand it God is omnipresent and omnipotent and either those things mean a physical presence that is everywhere at once or they mean nothing at all. That is precisely the thing proscribed by relativity. I'm sure one could define God down into some kind of good-vibes field that could logically exist in our universe, and that's all good with me. But it's not what most Americans profess to believe. In any event, discard it if it offends you; it's completely irrelevant to the topic, which is super-cool physics.
        ars 13y ago
        > mean a physical presence that is everywhere at once Everywhere at once means "no privileged reference frame". (Kind of like how light, from the point of view of light itself is everywhere at once, and light also has a the special privileged reference frame of no reference frame at all.) You were the one who claimed the most people believe in a privileged reference frame based on God. Not me. Now you are backpedaling from that claim - which is fine, because not only do most people not believe that, it doesn't even make any sense. And I agree that this should conclude the religious digression of the main topic. Not that there is a whole lot more to talk about, unless you want to talk about (argue with?) my comment above on light.
danbruc 13y ago
????? Why do you assume »God created the universe - God is outside it.« (Do people really think that?)
- ars 13y ago
  Because you can not create something and be inside it (i.e. be made of it) at the same time.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    My point is more that believing God created the universe is not really an obvious thing to believe. Why not just believe that the nobody created the universe and it has been around forever? Or that the universe emerged out of »nothing«? No? That can not possibly be true? How could something be around forever? And how could something so complex and beautiful as the universe with all the fancy stuff inside emerge out of »nothing«? No way. But wait, it is no problem for God to be around forever? It is no problem to have an entity, powerful enough to create a whole universe, without explaining where it came from? Or should we just introduce a super-god that created God? Unfortunately this just shifts the problem to the next level and we are again back at square one. Besides that you can obviously build a house and enter through the front door after you finished it.
    - ars 13y ago
      Wait. When did this morph into an argument of the existence of God? I thought we were talking about God being some sort of preferred relativistic reference frame. > Besides that you can obviously build a house and enter through the front door after you finished it. You did not enter the material house - you entered the empty space that was already there, which the material of the house surrounds. If you want to use the analogy you must actually change your physical body to be made of wood and nails.
      - danbruc 13y ago
        Discussing God as a reference frame seems to naturally evoke the question if he exists. And I am definitely more comfortable discussing whether God exists or not than if he may be a (preferred) (inertial) reference frame; probably one of the strangest things I have ever thought about. Yes, the analogy with building a house is not really strong but on the other hand the whole question if God - if he exists - exists inside or outside the universe (read spacetime) is difficult to say the least. What is outside of space? What is outside of time? Out of what is God made? And how does this affect his possibility to interact with the universe? Is he even able to interact? Now that I got your point with being something and building the same thing, self-organizing systems come to mind - that's probably as close as you can get to being something and building the same thing. This does not address where the matter for the system come from so it is more self-shaping than self-building but ad hoc that's the best I can think of.
chc 13y ago
Most people do not think it through that way. They probably don't think God is a physical being, and they probably don't have a very specific idea about his location, but they definitely think he is viewing the universe, wherever he is.
- ars 13y ago
  Fine, but if he's viewing the universe he is not inside the universe - i.e. he doesn't have a reference frame.
  - chc 13y ago
    This is your assertion, not theirs.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  Most people do not think it through that way. I suspect that not thinking it through that way is a precondition for truly believing in God for most people. That is to say, most people who start out believing in God and who attempt to think this through would give up their belief in God on the way - or, instinctively realizing that and being made uncomfortable by the thought, they would automatically shy away from the whole logic of it. After all, explaining the world is not really what belief in God seems to be about. It seems to be more about some kind of warm fuzzy feeling that people get from it.

jules 13y ago

> That question, "Can you find out? Hell no," is relativity in a nutshell. If you really grasp what that means, the whole deal from simultaneity to time dilation to curved spacetime all falls out more or less intuitively. (Of course it was harder to work out the first time :P) You cannot deduce relativity from the knowledge that you can't find out whether you're moving. In Newtonian physics you can't find out whether you're moving either. The essential ingredient is that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. Furthermore curved spacetime is by no means trivial; that's general relativity. It took Einstein himself 10 additional years before he got from special to general relativity, and more still to really develop it.

Cushman 13y ago
I sort of meant "given experimental observations it all seems quite intuitive", not "you can derive it all a priori". No offense intended to the hard work of Einstein and others :)