A discussion on the Theory of Relativity, touching upon related questions, such as that of the qualification of science to describe the universe.
| Author | Comment |
| Princess Mushroom Mar 16, 05 - 8:25 PM |
Relativity, the Speed of Light and such
Conversation about Castle Mushroom has turned largely on the subject of Relativity of recent days. I have ben reading Lord Russell on the subject and find him (oddly enough) a bit of a muddlehead. He sets out to prove that time is relative to the motion of the observer, but only manages to demonstrate logically that the perception of time is so relative. Actually I believe that time probably is, owing to certain experiments, but Lord R certainly doesn't manage to convince me on logical (as opposed to empirical) grounds. At this stage I am finding it hard to understand why the speed of light should be so central to all this and why it appears to be a quasi-absolute. Can any of you clever pettes in the Club help? Or even if you can't you are welcomed to join in the conversation and ask any questions you may have. We may not have the answers, but at least we can chat it all over from an Aristasian point of view. |
| Jeannie Mar 17th, 2005 - 3:49 AM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such Relativity? I thought Aristasians were anti-scientific? |
| Lady Aquila Mar 17th, 2005 - 12:45 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such "Anti-scientific"? Well, that is a bit of a sweeper, as the girls would say. What precisely do we mean by such a statement? What do we mean by the word "scientific"? Do we mean the 19th-century mechanistic-materialistic world-picture that forms the basis of most people's day-to-day interpretation of the world, but which was already becoming redundant by the end of the 19th century and which relativity and quantum mechanics have completely overturned? By a "pro-scientific" person, do we mean the sort of person who declares that "there are no such things as ghosts or fairies" from a vague and general prejudice that anything that doesn't appear in a school textbook cannot exist? Do we mean a modern fundamentalist who fears astrology and homoeopathy from a strange, superstitious adherence to the story-book picture of 19th-century mechanist-materialism which was unknown to earlier Protestants and is discredited by modern scientists? What, in any case, is the Aristasian view? Well, it is true that a lot of Aristasians object to the use of the word "science" pure and simple (which means simply "knowledge") to describe a purely material discipline which was formerly known more accurately by such names as "physical science" or "natural philosophy". Aristasians oppose the rationalistic doctrine which states that our only sources of knowledge are the five senses and the action of the brain on the data provided by them. Some ill-educated people believe that this doctrine is "scientific" or even that it is the basis of "science". It is not. It is a creed or dogma professed by people known as rationalists or positivists. The only thing it has in common with material science is that that discipline (or group of disciplines) restricts itself to the sense-data and the workings of the reason upon them. No serious philosopher of science would claim that this in any way proves that the sense-data tell us all that exists, any more than an anatomist would claim that there is nothing outside the human body. Unfortunately, a large number of semi-educated people - including some unphilosophical scientists - believe that "science" proves that there is nothing beyond the material: which is rather like believing that plane geometry proves that there is no third dimension. Aristasia has no quarrel whatever with the claims of "science" within its own domain (always remembering that, according to the empirical philosophy on which this "science" is founded such claims can only ever be provisional and based on varying degrees of probability). We do deny all claims of "science" to pronounce on matters beyond its domain - as would any serious philosopher of "science". We may also analyse "scientific" questions from the standpoint of traditional philosophy and metaphysics, asking how they fit into the larger picture of the universe, physical and non-physical. And we do ultimately assert the primacy of metaphysics over science - the former being based on First Principles and the latter being only a series of provisional hypotheses based on our very limited human senses. In the last analysis, if "science" contradicts metaphysics, then "science" must clearly be wrong. But in fact much of the time it is right, as one would expect from a precise observation of the workings of the material world. When it is wrong, the errors often spring from confusing genuine perception and analysis with the doctrinal statements of rationalism and the emotional and mythologising needs of a rationalistic society. The theory of evolution is a case in point here. The story-picture provided by "evolution" is crucial to the modern world-myth, which is why the theory has resisted the radical overhauls that took place in other scientific spheres during the 20th century, adhering rigidly to a 19th-century model despite the overwhelming evidence against it. But here we are in the realm of pseudo-theology rather than "science". |
| Princess Mushroom Mar 18th, 2005 - 11:27 AM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such There was a young lady called Bright Who travelled much faster than light She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night. |
| Annya Mar 18th, 2005 - 12:59 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such A question. Relativity tells us that time and space are not constant but are variable according to the motion of the observer and the observed. The only constant is the speed of light which remains at 300 kilowongos per second in relation to the observer whether she is standing still, travelling toward it or travelling away from it. My question is: If space and time are relative, what is a kilowongo? And what is a second? How can one have an absolute value defined in terms of two other values that have already been declared to be relative? |
| Diana Mar 19th, 2005 - 6:15 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such Have you heard of the family Stein? There's Gert and there's Ep and there's Ein. Gert's poems are bunk, Ep's statues are junk And no-one can understand Ein. |
| Atomic Betty Mar 21st, 2005 - 8:07 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such Surely the point is, assuming we can take the scientists’ word for it, that the speed of light is always the same. Therefore time (e.g. seconds) and space (e.g. miles, please) have a fixed relationship to each other, however they are measured. Just as, say, x=3y whatever x and y may represent; or as a triangle is always a triangle however big it is. |
| Sushuri Novaryana Mar 21st, 2005 - 9:50 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such Miss Betty is undoubtedly correct here. I would recommend that those interested in understanding relativity and connected matters from an essentialist point of view consult Titus Burckhardt's brief but highly incisive comments on the subject in the relevant section of his essay "Cosmology and Modern Science", to be found in The Mirror of Intellect. We shall now attempt to develop those suggestive remarks a little further. The idea that light represents the sole measure of the manifest universe is, in a sense, fully in accordance with traditional doctrine. Those who have followed the Essentialist essays on the Aristasia site will have noted that the form-bearing light (sometimes symbolised by Dea standing upright on the lotus, or by the central point of the fora) is a primary representation of Essence. The quasi-absolute quality of light is, symbolically, perfectly correspondent to metaphysical truth. What may be an interesting irony here is that we may, in fact, be confronted with yet another example of the visible universe, as seen from our earth, representing the non-visible and Intelligible universe, but not necessarily mundane factuality. The most obvious traditional example of such representation is the apparent superiority in size and brightness of the sun to all other stars, the centrality of the earth and the hierarchical arrangement of the seven visible planets as representing the seven primary principles of being. These have long been dismissed as "false perceptions" by Rajasic science, whereas The Feminine Universe explains that while they may not be physically correct they correspond naturally and providentially to the real character of the universe (see the relevant chapter here). This may well also be true of the apparently quasi-absolute nature of light. Dr. Burckhardt notes: Do the experiments which are supposed to prove the constant character of the speed of light really get beyond the earthly sphere, and do they not imply both space and time as usually imagined by us? ... The astronomer who counts, by referring to the lines of the spectrum, the light-years separating us from the nebula of Andromeda, supposes without more ado that the universe is everywhere 'woven' in the same manner. Now, what would happen if the constant character of the speed of light ever came to be doubted— and there is every likelihood that it will be sooner or later — so that the only fixed pivot of Einstein’s theory would fall down? The whole modern conception of the universe would immediately dissolve like a mirage. Nonetheless, as we have said, the quasi-absolute quality of light as presented to our augmented senses (i.e. to our instruments) from our particular position in space-time does answer to an universal truth, just as the apparent centrality of the earth and the sovereignty of sun and moon, and the arraignment of the planets did. And this is because symbolism is woven into the very fabric of the perceptible universe, and, for us, into our ordained position therein. The symbolism of the visible cosmos presented to our unaided eyes was no more invented by our foremothers in the Age of Gold than were the stars and planets placed by them in their proper stead. Similarly, the quasi-absolute character of light in an otherwise "relative" universe (recall Plato's teaching on the Intelligible world of immutible perfection versus the sensible world - our physically perceived world - of flux and change; and recall that light is always and everywhere the symbol of transcendent Intelligence), while it may not be physically accurate beyond our own limited viewpoint, certainly symbolises truth, as do all the natural appearances of the world. The irony here is that while Rajasic (Newtonian) astronomy replaced traditional mythologised astronomy with a "modernist" demythologised astrology relativity, which overturns the apparent logic of the Newtonian world may well return us to a mythologised, that is to a symbolic, view of the world, though without in the least understanding what it is doing. |
| Sushuri Novaryana Mar 21st, 2005 - 11:02 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such A correction to my final paragraph above: The irony here is that while Rajasic (Newtonian) astronomy replaced traditional mythologised astronomy with a "modernist" demythologised astronomy; relativity, which overturns the apparent logic of the Newtonian world, may well return us to a mythologised, that is to a symbolic, view of the universe, though without in the least understanding what it is doing. |
| Diana Mar 22nd, 2005 - 11:32 AM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such Does the expanding universe fit into all this? And the big bang? |
| Miss Runcible Mar 22nd, 2005 - 12:46 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such I pers'nally think the Big Bang was a dreadful vulgar noise. I shouldn't have anything to do with it if I were you. |
| Princess Mushroom Mar 22nd, 2005 - 1:36 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such Delighted to have you at the Club, Miss Runcible. Are you by any chance related to the Runcible-Spoons of Hertfordshire? |
| Miss Runcible Mar 22nd, 2005 - 1:46 PM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such How do you do? To the best of one's knowledge there are no spoons in the family, although one had a great-uncle who was convinced he was a fork. Nasty business. To give the cognomen in full, one is the Hon. Agatha Runcible. But one only really writes that on envelopes. |
| Sushuri Novaryana Mar 25th, 2005 - 12:07 AM |
Re: Relativity, the Speed of Light and
such The so-called "Big bang" and the expanding universe are once again completely compatible (as far as they go) with traditional metaphysics. The manifestation of the material (or any other) universe is always depicted as radiating out from the Centre, which is itself without either motion or extension, being necessarily itself unmanifest. In physical terms, one would therefore expect the beginning of the universe to be a sudden expansion from a literally infinitesimal point, and one would expect it to continue to expand until its final dissolution (referred to in the Angelic Hymn as "The Night of Destruction" and by modern physics as entropy). Once again, whether these hypothesised phenomena correspond to the "actual physical facts" or to the symbolic accuracy of our ordained perceptions is a question which must be left open. In the end, there is probably no real distinction between the two things. The "actual physical facts", as our earthly experience and the Newtonian physics of the school textbooks teach us to imagine them, transpire, in the higher reaches of modern physics, to be no more than a faith in the universal applicability of mathematics, the axioms of which are no less inborn and "unprovable" (in empirical terms) than those of metaphysics. The "Big Bang" theory cannot account for the existence of either matter or form (some theories suggest that they "exploded" through from a negative or anti-matter universe, but even such a theory only takes the question a step back leaving us to wonder where the negative universe came from) for these are questions which material science is, by definition, powerless to answer; just as plane geometry cannot envisage the pen which draws its figures because to do so would involve the third dimension, and it would cease to be plane geometry. However, if material science acknowledges its own inherent limitations and does not purport to be giving "an explanation of the origin of the universe" but merely a description of its procedure, then the "Big Bang" and the expanding universe would seem to be entirely accurate descriptions and are much as any metaphysicist would expect them to be. |
