Thanks D. I can look up Wikipedia or any other source. I was hoping you would illuminate me, and I don't mean that sarcastically. In fact I did read up on the time dilatation and all I find in it is something that is regularly misinterpreted by everyone, imo.
I understand that, depending on your measuring tool and conditions, the results will vary. If my meter stick is half as long as yours, it will take me twice as many measurements (and probable longer time) to measure the same distance! That the point is that this doesn't change the absolute length of the object measured.
If time is entirely an arbitrary result of our tools and conditions, then time is not a real entity but a relative measurement which means space can be defined by simple geometry without any time in it (in fact, a perfect vacuum should have no time in it since nothing changes).
The reason I asked how did Einstein define the speed of light is because in it there must be time. And since it is a constant (in vacuum), then which time did he use (knowing that space is not just vacuum)? How can the speed of light be a constant (absolute) if the time is relative?
This is like the photon particle theory of light. Electromagnetic radiation behaves like waves and particles at the same time. The former is shown by the diffraction pattern, and the latter by reflection. Obviously it is both wave and particle like (in our reference world), but the true nature of it is incomprehensible to us at this stage of our evolutionary capacity, and it may never become.
So, with all due respect to the minds that created the quantum and relativity science (they were no gods and their work is not divine, and therefore they shouldn't be treated as such), I think they themselves didn't understand it any more than we do.
We only know about it because our working models account for it, the way Potlemy's navigational system works to this day regardless of the erroneousness of his geocentric framework. I think it's best to leave these concepts out of rational discussions.
We necessarily see the world as it is from our perspective and our limitations. It doesn't mean that's how it really is. Only how we see it. That's' the world we have to live in. We can never say it's how the world really is. More importantly, we must never believe it!
Just as snails have to live in theirs; to them gravity means very little, but surface tension means a heck of a lot more then to us! To each his own. I prefer to live in here and now, within my capacities. That's the only reality I know.
Very much appreciate your post, and it is a fascinating subject.
That the point is that this doesn't change the absolute length of the object measured.
The measurement of a Lorentz contraction is real. I think it depends on whose frame of reference you take as "real" giving meaning to the term relativity. There's a lot more to this subject, some paradoxes and rigidity debates.. I'm way over my head pretty quick. But I see your point, I think. The object itself has not "changed."
The reason I asked how did Einstein define the speed of light is because in it there must be time.
You make me think of this result of relativity: From the reference point outside, say "at rest," how much time passes on an object raveling at the speed of light?
but the true nature of it is incomprehensible to us at this stage of our evolutionary capacity, and it may never become…We only know about it because our working models account for it.
I think you can draw a parallel with the part of theology we are discussing. Incomprehensible but capable of being more "known" using models.
For example, I see this in St. John Damascene:
"But the knowable belongs to one order, and the utterable to another; just as it is one thing to speak and another thing to know. Many of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of God we use the terms sleep, and wrath, and regardlessness, hands, too, and feet, land such like expressions."The best thinkers or philosophers among scientific greats are aware of this, incomprehensibility and modeling, to evidenced by their writings on it outside pure science.
That's good spiritual direction also. :)
From the reference point outside, say "at rest," how much time passes on an object raveling at the speed of light?Einstein used this thought experiment: Imagine you are traveling on a beam of light away from and looking back at a clock tower. Do the hands of the clock move?
I dunno if I can answer properly but the answer may lie somewhere here:
The speed of light is the same for all observers. It's independent of the motion of the light source and of the frame of reference of the observer. So maybe "which time did he use" is irrelevant.
How can the speed of light be a constant (absolute) if the time is relative?
Time is inseparable part of spacetime and space involves mass/gravitation. LIght has no mass. The speed of light constant is more generally the speed of all mass-less particles, which includes light.
Maybe the answers to your questions are in there somewhere; thanks for the question.