think relatively

[Bungielad]

Im wondering if think relatively is the same as the other relativelys such as general and special relatively? ??

For example.....if a moterbike is coming at me down the road and I know it is travelling towards me, is it my responsibility to move out of the way because he might hit me or does the motorcyclist know im there allready and knows to move out of my direction? If relatively is correct then my view of the cyclist tells me that the speed it is travelling could hit me if I don't move out of the way fast enough but what if the driver of the bike has already thought about this and changed his speed? ?? Does thought relativity come into the other relativaties that are known? ?

[Qualia]

It looks more like a comparison, with the hidden second premise included in red. Something like, "is it my responsibility to move out of the way because he might hit me or do I assume that the motorcyclist knows im there allready and knows to move out of my direction?" Or again, "my view of the cyclist tells me that the speed it is travelling could hit me if I don't move out of the way fast enough but what if I assume the driver of the bike has already thought about this and changed his speed?"

It is the morning and my brain is slow, so I apologise if I haven't understood you correctly....but I'm not convinced that the example given above is strictly an example pertaining to the theory of relativity.

[gkec]

The rules for general and special relativity are derived mathematically. What you or the motorcyclist do or think is not. So no.

[Bungielad]

What if I put it another way. ....if im standing on the ground and I see a plane above me in the sky, the plane seems to be travelling slow, or if I was on the plane looking out of the window, the ground below me seems to be moving slow but if hypothetically speaking I could be within the same altitude as the plane as it passed me it would be travelling at high speed, surly this is a case of my position in relation to the moving object which in that case is how my eyes and thoughts perceive a certain thing in relation to where I am! Or has this already been covered in genera or special relatively?

[AlexB67]

What if I put it another way. ....if im standing on the ground and I see a plane above me in the sky, the plane seems to be travelling slow, or if I was on the plane looking out of the window, the ground below me seems to be moving slow but if hypothetically speaking I could be within the same altitude as the plane as it passed me it would be travelling at high speed, surly this is a case of my position in relation to the moving object which in that case is how my eyes and thoughts perceive a certain thing in relation to where I am! Or has this already been covered in genera or special relatively?

The first question in the first post, not sure I follow, it seems rather philosophical to me So not sure I can even attempt an answer, but in the second post I am perhaps under the impression, (though I may be misreading it ), that perhaps you are confusing special relativity with normal common sense relative motion, and reference frames, the latter can be explained just using standard Newtonian Mechanics ( using Galilean Transformations ), and the fact that distant object just appear to move more slowly to the viewer. anyway, you don't need special relativity for those kind of arguments to explain them, or in the techo babble as they say, the so called Lorentz transformation are only needed when speeds are of the order of the speed of light, observing aero planes and such, good old Newton will do just fine .

[Cath]

Relatively speaking, it's somewhat hotter than it was it was 2 weeks ago, to darned much hotter.

My advice is to jump out of the way of the bike, no matter what relativity might say, the riders eyes might be on a relatively different heading to yourself.

[Qualia]

Thanks for the clear up, Bungielad.

The situation is reminiscent of that classic example of 'a walk inside a train'. You inside will observe yourself walking rather slow, while an observer outside will add the velocity of the train to your walking and say that you inside the train are walking fast relative to the ground. I think this led Galileo to the relativity principle of motion

Now by analogy, you've painted a similar observation, but this time leading to a relativity principle of scale. I have no idea if Einstein was aware of this principle but I believe Nottale has been on the case.

[ronin]

More like The Darwin Awards.

If you assume that they have seen you you must also presume that they are a) going to avoid you, can avoid you. Inherent is also that they do not presume that you are not going to walk out regardless.

Walking out to test it has to result in failure eventually, and that removes genes from the gene pool hence Darwin Awards.

Where "Relativity" comes into it is beyond me.

[gkec]

Thanks for the clear up, Bungielad.

The situation is reminiscent of that classic example of 'a walk inside a train'. You inside will observe yourself walking rather slow, while an observer outside will add the velocity of the train to your walking and say that you inside the train are walking fast relative to the ground. I think this led Galileo to the relativity principle of motion

Now by analogy, you've painted a similar observation, but this time leading to a relativity principle of scale. I have no idea if Einstein was aware of this principle but I believe Nottale has been on the case.

It is indeed a variation of a walk inside a train but I the observation of speed at a distance appearing "slower" is parallax.

[goodricke1]

you inside the train are walking fast relative to the ground. I think this led Galileo to the relativity principle of motion

I didn't know they had trains in Galileo's day

[cotterless45]

I think they had different time rates. I am convinced that time is not constant and that there are different states of time;

boilingtime.......slow

weekend time.....fast

shoppingtime......slow

buswaitingtime......slow

holidaytime........fast.

Time thus flows from fast to slow, making some events longer than others in the continuum,

Nick.

[Qualia]

I think they had different time rates. I am convinced...there are different states of time;

Ay, I think you're right, Cotterless and what you've highlighted is probably existential time; something Kant, Satre and Heidegger really tried to get to grips with, namely, the dilation and contraction of time within the inner-body. A Being towards Death. Time’s duration is presented as sometimes lasting longer and sometimes shorter according to the degree of the contraction or dilation of innerbody time, according to the state of mind. When one is happy time flies, time is amplified, when sad, time becomes concentrated and dense and slow although time itself as the abstract - as Chronus - remains uniform, a background to which these fast and slow motions can be related to.

Interestingly, it appears Einstein may have taken his lead from Kant's philosophical enquiries on time and with the advent of Heidegger in 1927 (perhaps taking his lead from Einstein), the uniformity of time in Beings who have a knowing of their Being as a Being-Towards-Death, time was now something physically and conceptually uncontrolable and therefore any notion of uniform time was just a useful convention to use in day to day life.

With the advent of this 'atomic time' (for want of a better word), philosophical discourse gradually moves away from the seeking of the fixed and permanent and is now expressed as a liberation towards more fruitful styles of probability in which there is no uniform way of being and time, and no doubt the possibility in which time may not even exist as we as a species conceptualise it

[Bungielad]

Another way to think about it is......you have arranged to meet a friend at a certain time, say 3 o'clock, you have nothing to do until you meet your friend but your friend has loads of things to sort out before your 3o'clock meeting.

While you sit around clock watching and bored out of your mind, time seems to take for ever to reach 3 o'clock.(or at least that is what you think)

Your friend on the other hand has been so busy that he doesn't realise how fast the time has passed ( or at least that is what your friend thinks) and 3 o'clock comes around far to quick.

Time has not changed for either of your but, the difference in what one person thought to another is a matter of time difference within your own thoughts.

Bungielad.

[Macavity]

Perhaps the greatest college / uni shock is that they teach (only) Special relativity before (if ever) General relativity...

As my undergrad (Yorkshire Lass) mate Sharon said: "Can't be bothered wi' all these problems wi' b****** clocks on!"

[Watchman]

Ay, I think you're right, Cotterless and what you've highlighted is probably existential time; something Kant, Satre and Heidegger really tried to get to grips with, namely, the dilation and contraction of time within the inner-body. A Being towards Death. Time’s duration is presented as sometimes lasting longer and sometimes shorter according to the degree of the contraction or dilation of innerbody time, according to the state of mind. When one is happy time flies, time is amplified, when sad, time becomes concentrated and dense and slow although time itself as the abstract - as Chronus - remains uniform, a background to which these fast and slow motions can be related to.

Interestingly, it appears Einstein may have taken his lead from Kant's philosophical enquiries on time and with the advent of Heidegger in 1927 (perhaps taking his lead from Einstein), the uniformity of time in Beings who have a knowing of their Being as a Being-Towards-Death, time was now something physically and conceptually uncontrolable and therefore any notion of uniform time was just a useful convention to use in day to day life.

With the advent of this 'atomic time' (for want of a better word), philosophical discourse gradually moves away from the seeking of the fixed and permanent and is now expressed as a liberation towards more fruitful styles of probability in which there is no uniform way of being and time, and no doubt the possibility in which time may not even exist as we as a species conceptualise it

We all know about the question "Why does it seem to take longer to get to a place than to get home?" The answer may just be - because it does. Again into perception/reality. If a set amount of time, say an hour, seems to go faster or slower depending on what you are doing, then to all intents and purposes it does in fact go slower or faster since what you perceive is in fact truly reality, to you.

Also - Macavity, reading your posts is like reading equations!

[Ronnie67]

Time does play tricks with us, for example. If you went on a date, say with a girl or boy you have wanted to be with for the first time, then on your date time seams to speed up because yuou are having a good time, but if you was somewhere you was not keen on the time slows down, so what seem 1hr, could be stretched to feel like 4hrs

[ollypenrice]

You're describing line of sight effects or parallax, as Qualia says. A classic case in astronomy would be the retrograde motion of Mars, which does not, of course, stop in its orbital tracks, hit reverse for a while and then gas it in the right direction again! It looks as if it does, though.

Just once in 23 years I wasted a school summer holiday decorating and fitting out a new house. The tedium made every day drag and the six weeks seemed to go on forever. Then came the nightmare, going back to school and feeling that I left the place five minutes ago and had a year to go before the next detox! It was the bleakest moment of my life.

Olly

[Daddystu]

We all know about the question "Why does it seem to take longer to get to a place than to get home?" The answer may just be - because it does. Again into perception/reality. If a set amount of time, say an hour, seems to go faster or slower depending on what you are doing, then to all intents and purposes it does in fact go slower or faster since what you perceive is in fact truly reality, to you.

However, a reality common to us all is that the rate of the earths rotation doesn't give 2 hoots about our 'perception' of time.

[ollypenrice]

However, a reality common to us all is that the rate of the earths rotation doesn't give 2 hoots about our 'perception' of time.

Is this entirely true? There is no such thing as an hour. There is only an hour as measured by an observer, whose reference frame determines how that hour will compare with the hour of an observer in a different reference frame. However, this is not psychological time, which I think you were talking about.

We all know about the question "Why does it seem to take longer to get to a place than to get home?" This is an interesting psychologial question and I can propse at least two answers;

1) On the return journey we first pass through the places we encountered last on the outward leg. We unwittingly associate these places with a long journey time and are surprised, despite ourselves, to find them coming up earlier. We may 'know' this to be illogical but our impressions aren't logical.

2) As we near the start of our original journey we are usually entering home territory or territory we know well. It may form part of what we think of as 'home' and so we have a feeling of being 'almost there' well before we really are there. Conversely the end of the outward leg often takes us into unknown territory with associated anxieties about how to find the exact spot. The stress builds, while on the return leg the stress diminishes. Anxiety makes time drag, security does the reverse.

I haven't a clue whether these suggestions are correct or not.

Olly

[Daddystu]

Is there any such thing as time? Is it not merely a construct of the human brain designed to help us understand/measure physical changes in our surroundings?

[ollypenrice]

Is there any such thing as time? Is it not merely a construct of the human brain designed to help us understand/measure physical changes in our surroundings?

I certainly don't think we understand it, even if it exists outside our perceptions or it does not. EInstein delivered the first great shock to our notion of time and I think the next will come from quantum theory. Come it will, from wherever. I feel sure of that.

Olly