# Absoluteness and relativity.

1. Jul 7, 2004

### Michael F. Dmitriyev

We live in the world where these concepts has the various interpretations. Anyone can have an own understanding about their origin and mutual connections. But, at least, one question remains open - what of these is a primary?

Michael

2. Jul 7, 2004

### Michael F. Dmitriyev

To receive the answer on this question it is necessary to find out two thing:
The first
- Whether can relativity cause an absoluteness.
The second
-Whether can absoluteness cause a relativity:
To be more physics than philosophy, we’ll examine these concepts at a concrete physical embodiment.
In the best way the SPEED has approaches and we come back to the theory of relativity, but on the other hand.
In this case we’ll try to find out
1) Whether can a relative speed cause an absolute one
2). Whether can an absolute speed cause a relative one.

Michael

3. Jul 9, 2004

### Michael F. Dmitriyev

A photon as a carrier of force has the maximal speed by definition –nothing can move faster then its carrier, since the speed of carrier of force is absolute.
As the concept of speed means movement of some observable object we should take into account presence or absence of mass at this object. Mass defines relative speed which will have an object as a result of application of force. Hence mass is the reason of relativity.
What the reason is?

Michael

4. Jul 9, 2004

### bozo the clown

ok..., what does that all mean in English.
tx

5. Jul 9, 2004

### Michael F. Dmitriyev

You are the first who don’t understand me. My regrets.

Michael

6. Jul 11, 2004

### Michael F. Dmitriyev

It seems strange, but the reason is the equivalence of speed of carrier of force (photon) and of internal speed of mass.
Two absolute speed at their interaction does cause the relative speed of objects.

7. Jul 11, 2004

### Lama

Dear Michael F. Dmitriyev,

The relative and the absolute can be also complementary concepts.

for example:

In an excluded-middle reasoning two opposites are simultaneously contradicting each other, and the result is no middle.

In an included-middle reasoning two opposites are simultaneously preventing/defining each other, and the result is a middle.

The best known example is the duality of a photon, which has both a wave and a particle properties that preventing (the measurement of its accurate place prevents the accurate information about its momentum, and vise versa) and defining (one property cannot exist without the other) each other.

For example, please see this picture: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/comp.jpg

As you see the two black profiles and the white vase are clearly preventing/defining each other.

Maybe my paper http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/No-Naive-Math.pdf is somehow related to the subject of your thread.

Lama

Last edited: Jul 11, 2004
8. Jul 14, 2004

### Muddler

I know it might sound strange, but might it be imaginable, that there is something else despite absoluteness and relativity?
Maybe "reality" is somewhere in between (or beyond).
We are experiencing, that something like absolute values are very hard, if not impossible, to measure in experimental physics.
Though the concept of relativity adds more possibilites of calculation, you still need absolute values of something to start with.
So what do we get?
Obviously, our concept of (and need for?) absoluteness is not a physical reality.
Even relativity, as precise as it is, might not be the ultimate tool to describe "reality" (what ever that may be...).
So what is the next step? Will there ever be a theoretical tool to deal with the "chaotic" behaviour nature confronts us with?
I don't know.
Or have we already reached the limit of the universe's calculability?

9. Jul 14, 2004

### terrabyte

or maybe there is an absoluteness that cannot be achieved due to our limited existence, forcing us to uphold what we know and observe. which is relativity.

10. Jul 14, 2004

Dear Doron,