Two spaceships in opposite direction at near c

[Vandam]

This is where the problem lies. You believe that combining the information from three separate charts on to one diagram creates or reveals additional meaning about reality.

You simply do not get it. Of course there is more to reality than different observations (charts)!
Let me give you an analogy.
A draftsman showes you a bunch of technical drawings. Lots of sheets of paper. Two-dimensional drawings.
You say: "Awesome! 2D drawings is what architecture is about. Nothing else."
An architect has a glimp at it and says:
"The 2D drawings are fine, but... they are all 'only" sections and elevations/façades of a building. The building is reality, your 2D drawings only observations. Let me quickly sketch you the 3D perspective of the house so that you can grasp what you are working on."
Draftsman reaction: "All this 3D stuff is ridiculous.'
... Sigh.
But what then happens is even more pathetic: the more the architect explains how it all works, the more the draftsman holds tight on his 2D drawings. But that's normal behavior. Draftsmen are very good technical experts, they protect what they are good at. But they are, or become very seldom good architects.

Oh yes, sorry,... architects are probably philosophers, artistic lunatics. Isn't it?

(By the way: our two eyes capture 2D images. 2D observations. Are you going to tell me there is no 3D building out there to be observed?)

 

[ghwellsjr]

Let me give you an analogy: A movie maker hands you an old 2D movie (on film). Instead of watching the movie using a projector and a screen, you cut the film into the individual frames and then you stack them one next to the other and you claim that you have discovered the 3D reality of the movie and anyone who actually watches the movie is stuck in a 2D world.

 

[Vandam]

The difference is that I give you an explanation where the 2D drawings come from. You do not tell me where de 2D frames come from.

 

[ghwellsjr]

But your 4D block universe explanation of "reality" with regard to relativity is just a philosophical opinion. This has been explained to you and bobc2 so many times, I'm surprised you're still promoting it.

 

[K^2]

Vandam, the 4D space contains no information that's lost in a 2D section here. All of the physics of SR can be described in arbitrary N+1 space. You get identical time-dilation and space-contraction effects with absolutely identical formulae and absolutely identical explanations for any natural N. This is a 2D problem. One time and one coordinate.

 

[Dale]

Vandam, as you admitted in 37 both ghwellsjr's text and drawings are correct. The fact that they don't conform to your preferences is a matter of little consequence.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thread is starting to veer away from physics. It is now done.

Zz.