The Relativity of Existence Between Objects as a Function of Space, Time, and Velocity: Response to commenter A Mom

“Still don’t get the relative age in relation to speed thing.”

Hi A Mom,
I have an example that might help. I’m staring at a coffee mug right now, so we’ll just use that as the object in the example. For all my examples, by the way, the “object” and the “self” are the same thing…so if I use those terms interchangeably, you understand that they are the same thing. Object and self are realized ultimately at the subatomic level, but for my purposes (philosophical purposes…which are the most important to humanity), we can assume that any self or object is anything which is separated from anything else by “space”; and even more literally, separated by “space” as observed by a self-aware consciousness (which is, I argue, the only way by which anything can actually EXIST).   In my fight against Calvinism, the “self” I’m most interested in is the human being. The human being being the very epitome of ACTUAL, and LITERAL self, due to his awareness of SELF via his observation of OTHER.  (Nothing else, except God, can “observe” anything, and so outside of man, there is no existence at all; and yes, I argue…literally.  Existence does not occur without consciousness.  Take that atheists.  I’ll debate any of you right now on this.  Existence, in the words of the great Ayn Rand, is axiomatic.  And it can only be by God and by extension man (who IS consciousness) that anything exists.)

Moving on.

In this case, we’ll make the object the coffee mug.

Okay. Take a coffee mug and put it on the table. Sitting there, nice and still. Take a picture of it. That’s you “slow moving” object. Your still object. Next, take the mug and drop it on the floor….take a picture of it while it is moving (before it hits the floor and gets coffee all over your cat). Make sure you use an old camera with a real slow shutter speed so that the mug looks like a blurry line.

Put the picture of the blurry mug next to the clear, still mug.

Define “moment”. Moment is a timeless instance of existence…it is the POINT where the object exists, in stasis, no longer a function of the timeLINE (moving time).

Next, create a visual of a moment for the static mug and a visual of a moment for the moving, blurry mug. In other words, use your imagination to put the still mug in the moment next to a 3D “cutout” of the blurry, moving mug from the picture…having the exact same dimensions and cubic volume as the still mug.

So, you have two mugs sitting next to each other. One is still and the other “moving”…both the exact same size and dimensions, because they are both captured in the singular MOMENT of existence when the picture was initially taken.

What is the observable difference between the two? Well, one looks like a solid, normal mug. The other looks like a “blurry” mug…or rather, an opaque mug, right. It doesn’t look solid. So…what does that mean? It means that for the blurry/opaque mug, at the MOMENT the picture of it was taken, while it was accelerating to the floor, more light was able to pass through it.

Okay…why is that?

Well, simple. Because at that MOMENT, it occupied less space than the still mug….in the same moment. Relative to the still mug, there wasn’t as much of it THERE. It is still a whole mug, but the velocity of the mug, added to it in the moment means that it doesn’t take up as much “space” as the still mug. And if it isn’t THERE in the same amount as the still mug, then the mug cannot be “aging” as much as the still mug either, relatively speaking.

Moving objects exist in LESS space and time than still objects, which is why they are “younger” relative to the still object.

This is the underlying premise of Einstein’s example of the person on earth versus the person traveling out and back at light speed. When they arrive back at the same moment of “spacetime”, the faster object is younger because at light speed, it simply doesn’t use as much space or time to EXIST.

Does this help? Or have I made it worse?

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “The Relativity of Existence Between Objects as a Function of Space, Time, and Velocity: Response to commenter A Mom

  1. One of the things that ages you is gravity. Extreme g-forces caused by travelling at the speed of light can only be mitigated so much by inertial dampeners — that’s why they’re called inertial dampeners not inertial undoers. Which means, the person traveling at light speed for 10 minutes will actually age MORE than the person living on earth for 10 years, because of the extreme g-forces pressing against them. Haha, I got you. So the person traveling at lightspeed for 10 minutes would only age slower if they had complete inertial undoers, which is not physically possible.

  2. Hi James,

    Hmmm…I’m afraid that you are incorrect on this. Gravity is a form of acceleration. Acceleration is related to velocity. And it has been proven experimentally that the faster an object travels, the “younger” it is relative to slower objects (the slower the passage of time). They have done experiments with atomic clocks positioned at different altitudes here on Earth. Consistently, the clocks positioned closer to the surface of the Earth (or on the surface) run slower than the clocks positioned further away from the Earth’s surface.

    Also, I think you are confusing two issues. “Aging” as you mean it in your example doesn’t really have anything to do with the “passage of time”. It has to do with physiologic changes in the human body due to environmental stressors. If we were to take your example even more literally, any human being hurled into the great oblivion at the speed of light would be vaporized, and thus, contrary to your assumption, would age LESS quite absolutely, because they’d be dead.

    If you look at astronauts on the space station, studies have shown that the LACK of gravity actually causes a more rapid deterioration of their body’s tissue and organs, similar to the aging process here on Earth. In other words, less gravity seems to equal a more rapid aging process physiologically speaking.

    And when you look at how the “passage of time” applies to them, they are actually .007 seconds younger than people on earth, due to the speed by which they are orbiting. .

  3. James and all,

    Thanks for the advice regarding settings. I have changed the timezone so that it corresponds to eastern standard. Also, I’ve modified the comments settings to make their appearance on the thread less random.

    I don’t know…hope this will work.

  4. I was being half-way facitious. “‘Aging’ as you mean it in your example doesn’t really have anything to do with the ‘passage of time’.” That’s kind of my point. Conventional wisdom associates aging with time, but there is a lot about aging that’s really related to lifestyle and environmental factors. Just ask Methusalah. Lol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s