Poll: Is Anything Possible?

[Zacharine]

Snip

Unless we wish to begin discuss Lorentz Transformations (something which I admit I have little experience in, and even less experience in english terminology of it), I suggest we leave four-vectors alone. However, since you declaration of Minkowski-space reference for the rulers I will deal with.

You set the event spacial vectors close to eachother. Why? To get an impressivly small sounding difference in measurement, that has nothing to do with the fact that there is a difference. And my argument has been that with sufficient difference in the timelike v(0) vectors of two events, an observer that is event 2 would measure the foot-long object that is event 1 as 13 inches long.

To put it simply: you chosen as an example specifically limited four-vectors, precisely because if we unbind the fourvectors, the possibility to measure a 13 inch foot exists.

Precisely why we have Lorentz Transformation: to make sense of and combine the reference grids in the odd cases such as this, as you said. Without it we would be hard-pressed to explain hypothetical observations such as this, or the very real observations we do make of celestial objects.

We seem to be talking of two slightly disconnected things: I argue that it is possible to measure a 13inch long foot (thereby, for the observer, making the foot-long object be 13 inches long), you argue that the foot-long object is always 12 inches long and only our perception of it changes.

Almost as if we are saying the same thing, but from a completely opposite viewpoint.

EDIT: the difference here seems to stem from me saying that there is no absolute frame of reference, whereas you hold the only practical frame (that being our own) as the default basis to compare things to.

 

[Hicerion]

Don't know if it was said already, but a quote from Batman:

"Many things are improbable, but nothing is impossible."

 

[Eternalsun]

Yeah anything is possible. unless your talking about it actually physically happening. in your dreams anything can happen.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

The speed at which this dissolves into futility it staggering. If nothing is impossible, and everything is possible, there is no frame of reference to have a conversation at all. I appreciate the Cartesian doubt, but there comes a point where it is an exercise in semantics as opposed to an exercise of dispelling entrenched paradigms.

Or, in normal English:
This discussion is becoming pointless really quickly. If nothing is impossible, and everything is possible, then this question is entirely pointless, and shouldn't generate as much discussion as it has. You keep saying 'alternate dimensions make everything fine', and we keep saying 'even so, there are limits', so this has become a game of people trying to find a loophole in your rules rather than a thread of people letting their imaginations wander, free of the rules of this world.

Sorry, I'm usually the one with the posts using sufficiently obscure English to deter several readers...

Thank you, I suppose. I felt that my statements were imbued with exceedingly accurate word choice for the purpose of succinctly expressing my stance on the matter. If that is interfered with by that word choice being inappropriate for my audience, then it was, naturally, a mistake on my part.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

The speed at which this dissolves into futility it staggering. If nothing is impossible, and everything is possible, there is no frame of reference to have a conversation at all. I appreciate the Cartesian doubt, but there comes a point where it is an exercise in semantics as opposed to an exercise of dispelling entrenched paradigms.

i may sound stupid saying this but.. did you chose those words intentionally so that NO-ONE would have the foggiest idea of what youre on about!?

In short, no. That was not my intention.

 

[AwesomeNinjaPowers]

Anything is possible unless proven without a shadow of a doubt, and there are always doubts =D

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

*snip*


EDIT: the difference here seems to stem from me saying that there is no absolute frame of reference, whereas you hold the only practical frame (that being our own) as the default basis to compare things to.

Yes I think we are in agreement on 90% of the things. No there is no absolute frame, that should be implicit when I gave two examples of frames, yourself, or the galaxy to facilitate measuring. And it was our own frame that allowed us to notice the distortion in first place and that relying on it would lead us to increasing error
But the difference was never there, the difference is you said 1 foot as the unit of measure will change (why not the inch thou?), and I said just the 1 foot object (not the unit) will "change".

 

[Gigano]

Wasn't this answered centuries ago?

"I think, therefore I am"...

Illusions as the world may be, I at least must be real to ponder it, and thus it is impossible that I do not exist, whatever "I" may be.

So no, anything's not possible. A thought without a thinker, for instance.

If we keep to what may exist in the physical world, then in abstract theory everything can exist, and for all practical purposes humans need worry about none of it, apart from that which they have scientific or empirical indications for actually do exist.

 

[ComptonEffect]

'I think therefore I am' isn't technically correct, it presupposes the I.

Wasn't this answered centuries ago?

"I think, therefore I am"...

Illusions as the world may be, I at least must be real to ponder it, and thus it is impossible that I do not exist, whatever "I" may be.

So no, anything's not possible. A thought without a thinker, for instance.

If we keep to what may exist in the physical world, then in abstract theory everything can exist, and for all practical purposes humans need worry about none of it, apart from that which they have scientific or empirical indications for actually do exist.

'I think therefore I am' isn't technically correct, it presupposes the 'I'. It's akin to saying 'it rains therefore it is', wherein reality the 'it' is just a grammatical placeholder rather than a real, corporeal entity (i.e. 'it' doesn't exist itself).

As for saying 'we can't disprove anything' (i.e. magic), that's a logical fallacy called the appeal to ignorance. When you make an assertion something exists you have to be able to prove it does or it's a meaningless statement. The burden of proof is upon you because you're asserting the existence of something beyond the ontological benchmark.

As for things that are impossible... you can't have an unmarried bachelor, that's just a fact of logic. Such a thing would be impossible.

EDIT: Oooh, just thought of another. Something cannot be blue and not blue... that's the law of the excluded middle.

 

[Zacharine]

But the difference was never there, the difference is you said 1 foot as the unit of measure will change (why not the inch thou?), and I said just the 1 foot object (not the unit) will "change".

Did I say that? I was pretty out of it yesterday.

Hmm, fact-checking time. *begins browsing the thread back* I'll be back soon.

EDIT: let's see, i've said (regarding the 1 foot lenght) that:

"Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists, as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother."

"But time is relative, dependant upon the speed of the observers relative to eachother. Hence, if observers move at different speeds, they measure a different lenght by using that formula."

"But since all speeds are relative to eachother, who can say what the objective reality is? I measure something, someone else moving at .4c measures something else, who would arbitate as to which one of us is wrong or right?

No-one, because as long as we made our measurements stringently, we are both right."

"an observer that is event 2 would measure the foot-long object that is event 1 as 13 inches long."

" I argue that it is possible to measure a 13inch long foot (thereby, for the observer, making the foot-long object be 13 inches long)"

And your own statement of

"What does speed have to do with lenght in this case?! Relativity is an ilusion and leads to measurement errors of time and space, but the real/absolute time and space keep the same. "

I'm sorry, but I must ask you to clarify and either provide the quote where I said that, or at least the post number from where you inferred that. Because I am honestly a bit confused.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

But the difference was never there, the difference is you said 1 foot as the unit of measure will change (why not the inch thou?), and I said just the 1 foot object (not the unit) will "change".

Did I say that? I was pretty out of it yesterday.

Hmm, fact-checking time. *begins browsing the thread back* I'll be back soon.

EDIT: let's see, i've said (regarding the 1 foot lenght) that:

*snip*

In your defense you didn't say yourself, but that's what was being discussed, you didnt track back enough:

There are many things that can't happen by definition, like having a 13 inch foot, or a circle with 4 corners.

The former can happen if we change the definition of a foot(when I am king of everything I will do it to scare the triscadecaphobians).

We will not even have to change definition. Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists, as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother.

It's implicit when we talk about definition that we are refering to the foot as measuring unit.

 

[Zacharine]

There are many things that can't happen by definition, like having a 13 inch foot, or a circle with 4 corners.

The former can happen if we change the definition of a foot(when I am king of everything I will do it to scare the triscadecaphobians).

We will not even have to change definition. Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists, as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother.

It's implicit when we talk about definition that we are refering to the foot as measuring unit.

My first quote was taken from that same precise post.

"We will not have to change definition" was in response to crudus' comment that a 13 inch long foot can exist as soon as we redifine foot.

And notice how I say we will not need to change the definition of foot as lenght measurement unit for there to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches.

So, I'm still a bit confused.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

There are many things that can't happen by definition, like having a 13 inch foot, or a circle with 4 corners.

The former can happen if we change the definition of a foot(when I am king of everything I will do it to scare the triscadecaphobians).

We will not even have to change definition. Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother.

It's implicit when we talk about definition that we are refering to the foot as measuring unit.

My first quote was taken from that same precise post.

"We will not have to change definition" was in response to crudus' comment that a 13 inch long foot can exist as soon as we redifine foot.

And notice how I say we will not need to change the definition of foot as lenght measurement unit for there to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches.

So, I'm still a bit confused.

No you are not confused. Saying a "13 inch foot exists" and "to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches" is not the same thing is it? But now that you replaced it I think we finally are in agreement 100%.

 

[the_tramp]

It's impossible to lick your own elbow(I kid, I kid!)

Real answer:
It's impossible to say with 100% accuracy what you will be doing tomorrow.

 

[Totenkopf]

Everything is possible, it's just a matter of likeliness.

 

[Thrashgrinder]

Like the great twat once said. "Its impossible to eat the himalayas" so yes impossible exists

 

[Zacharine]

There are many things that can't happen by definition, like having a 13 inch foot, or a circle with 4 corners.

The former can happen if we change the definition of a foot(when I am king of everything I will do it to scare the triscadecaphobians).

We will not even have to change definition. Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists[/b,] as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother.

It's implicit when we talk about definition that we are refering to the foot as measuring unit.

My first quote was taken from that same precise post.

"We will not have to change definition" was in response to crudus' comment that a 13 inch long foot can exist as soon as we redifine foot.

And notice how I say we will not need to change the definition of foot as lenght measurement unit for there to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches.

So, I'm still a bit confused.

No you are not confused. Saying a "13 inch foot exists" and "to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches" is not the same thing is it? But now that you replaced it I think we finally are in agreement 100%.

Ahh, now I see. You see, I take this as an implicit statement in all my posts:

All measurement by its very nature is dependant upon the relative speed of the observer in relation to the object measured. Therefore, there is no absolute lenght.

So, with enough speed difference, a foot long piece will measure 13 inches therefore, to the measurer, the footlong piece is 13 inches long. Making it a 13 inches long foot.

Again, we hit the frame of reference problem. I say there is no such thing as absolute frame of reference, therefore any and all measurements of lenght are provisional to the measurers frame of reference. Therefore, to the measurer, in his own frame of reference, truth is that foot is 13 inches long.

Finally managed to wrap my head around that in english. So our difference is that while we both agree that differences is measurement exist because of relativity, I say that to the observer, in his own untransformed frame of reference, reality is just as he has observed: a particular object the lenght of a single (12in)foot is 13 inches long.

 

[sunburst]

All measurement by its very nature is dependant upon the relative speed of the observer in relation to the object measured. Therefore, there is no absolute lenght.

So, with enough speed difference, a foot long piece will measure 13 inches therefore, to the measurer, the footlong piece is 13 inches long. Making it a 13 inches long foot.

But if the item being measured is 13 inches long according to the one measuring it, you can no longer say it is 1 foot long. You just said there is no absolute length. Why is this item's status as being 1 foot long somehow exempt from that?

 

[Zacharine]

All measurement by its very nature is dependant upon the relative speed of the observer in relation to the object measured. Therefore, there is no absolute lenght.

So, with enough speed difference, a foot long piece will measure 13 inches therefore, to the measurer, the footlong piece is 13 inches long. Making it a 13 inches long foot.

But if the item being measured is 13 inches long according to the one measuring it, you can no longer say it is 1 foot long. You just said there is no absolute length. Why is this item's status as being 1 foot long somehow exempt from that?

It is not. However, when the item was constructed, it was done sone in the same frame of reference as the item.

Therefore the item is 1 foot long from it's own frame of reference, but not necessarily form an outsiders.

Therefore, to an outsider, it would appear and thus be, longer or shorter, depending on their four-vector differences.

And perhaps I should clarify between the concept of a foot as 12inches long unit of lenght, and between physical measurement of lenght an object has.

To me, measurement unit is a concept of lenght. In the case of a foot, it is 12 inches, as measured from the frame of reference of the object to be measured. The actual lenght, to an observer, is dependant upon relativity.

Therefore, an object that measures from it's own frame of reference 1 foot, is of lenght X to any observer, and would thus be a 1 foot long object, that measures (and thus is to the obeserver) of X inches in lenght.