Relativity

Perception and motion are two different things, I believe.... like a stick half-way in the water, the stick underwater appears to bend, but in reality does not. There is a different law of physics working here, light bends in water, the stick hasn't bent but the light refracting from the stick does. And so with the small stone, also its my belief that the stone doesn't maintain the same velocity but drops straight down(at least would in a vaccum) from the point of release.

What is demonstrated is the relativity of observations to points in space. There are two kinds of simultaneity. Physically causal simultaneity and observational simultaneity.

You might expand on that distinction.

Thank you for asking.

Simultaneity of distant events can be physically defined by equally timed reflection of light, because the speed of light is absolute. For experimental purposes, physical (causal) simultaneity of multiple events could be similarly enforced by equal length wires through which electrical signals are sent to cause simultaneous events.

Observationally, which is what philosophy generally cares about as phenomena, the sequence and spatial orientation of these events will vary depending on the position of the observer. This will be true, even when ignoring all other environmental and observer created factors. The possibility of all observations can be visually graphed, and the graph for two related events will resemble a field of iron filings in the presence of a bar magnet. There will be a plane of simultaneity dividing the events.

But if I carry the wires around that send the signals, then I will experience two differring simultaneities! One causal (Einsteinian), the other relative to position.

-- Updated Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:44 pm to add the following --

Perception and motion are two different things, I believe.... like a stick half-way in the water, the stick underwater appears to bend, but in reality does not.

Appearance and reality. Which one is real?

According to Galileo, a steadily moving ship is also standing still. It is both moving and not moving at the same time. There is no absolute fact of the matter, nor is one possible.

According to Penrose's Andromeda paradox, the distance to the Andromeda galaxy depends on the motion of the onlooker. There is no absolute distance, nor is one possible.

What we think of as reality seems to depend on our special perspective.

"Appearance and reality. Which one is real?"

reality is:

'...something that exists independently of ideas concerning it....'

and appearance as:

"..the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting...."


To which I would add:

1) All reality contains appearances, yet

2) All appearances are not-reality

1) All reality contains appearances, yet

I would be more inclinded to state "all appearnaces are contained in reality". How would you define, all reality? Are you assering reality is objective?

2) All appearances are not-reality

This would depend on whose reality we are refering to.

Reality = Objectivity + Subjectivity; where the subject qualifies its object.

A stationary person [person A] stands upon a steadily moving train. They extend their arm out of a window, and drop a small stone. Due to inertia, the stone maintains the same velocity as the train, but gradually falls to the Earth.
Another person [person B] stands along the railway embankment and views the stone as it falls.
[Person A] sees the stone fall along a linear path, whereas [person B] sees the stone fall along a parabolic path.
What path did the stone actually take? Is it safe to say that the stone took neither or both paths?
The path taken by the stone varies according to one’s point of reference. However, the absence of an ultimate reference point results in an intriguing revelation; motion is not absolute.
What is motion?

You miss a factor in your equation, "wind resistance", thus the stone won't drop straight down due to inertia.

So the stone will drop in a fairly parabolic line from both views.

I think you are thinking of special relativity, with people traveling at light speed example.

What if we look at the matter in terms of...

force is the cause of motion thus, that which has a force(s) acted upon it is in the motion the force(s) cause it to move, when determining the motion of any seperate bodies one must equate the effect of the forces acting upon that which is considered the "body in question"

so I guess in the matter of the stone and train and 2 guys thing, the guy standing by the tracks is in the motion he is in due to being on earth(cause it's revolving and whatnot), the guy in the train is in the motion of the train and the motion caused by being on earth, and the stone is in the motion caused by gravity and earth and the effects of being dropped out of the window and inertia and all that (just figure whateverall is put into the equation)

um...any thoughts?