Relativity

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?

Perception of relative motion? Go on, Dellaire , you tell us in your usual lucid style

Next, should we consider what reality is? And if so should we start from the point of view of physics or the point of view of psychology?

I think reality is independant of human perception, and I also believe that human percepton does not constitute reality, even if it is very very real to the subject.

I feel compelled to inform you all that Albert Einstein devised this scenario, so I ought not to take credit for it.
Anyway, let's continue with the inquiry.
The trajectory that the stone takes is relative to one’s ‘body of reference’ [the train or the railway embankment]. In a mathematical framework, more or less, a ‘body of reference’ refers to a coordinate system.
Thus, the concept of ‘space’ altogether loses its meaning. Thereby, ‘space’ must be redefined, as Einstein said, as ‘motion relative to a body of reference’.
Now, let’s take into account the aspect of ‘time’ and ‘simultaneity’.
Let’s imagine that two lightning strikes transpire simultaneously. One stroke occurs at [A] and the other at [B].
A stationary person stands at [M]; the midpoint. A train is heading toward [B].
Due to the propagation of light, an equal amount of time will transpire as light traverses [AM] and [BM]; the stationary person will perceive the two lightning strikes as occurring simultaneously. However, those on the train will perceive lightning stroke [B] as occurring before lightning stroke [A].
Therefore, ‘time’ is relative, as well. How interesting.

So time and space are both relative to the observer's perception of time and space. Okay. But how then can we have the Greenwich meridian, or Greenwich mean time, for instance?These are measurement criteria with which a huge number of people agree, set their clocks by and navigate the globe by.I think this is so although I stand to be corrected.
Do Americans set their clocks by someother standard, for instance? I don't know.If Americans, or New Zealanders , do ster their clocks by some other measurement criterion than Greenwich mean time, does this prove that time and space are relative to the perception of the observer?

Greenwich Mean Time is used primarily in the United Kingdom.

Solar time, relative to the position of the Sun, still varies according to where one is on the Earth. I’m not referring to time as in what’s on a wristwatch; I’m not talking about the apparent motion of the Sun.

I was essentially trying to describe how two events may be simultaneous for a stationary observer; but may not be simultaneous for an observer in motion.

I understand about relativity Dellaire, and I appreciate your illustrations because I need to be reminded.

I suspected that Greenwich mean time was local to British territory, and arbitrary . Now I find out from you that this is so. I was trying to find out if any measurement criteria at all are universal instead of local and arbitrary.

But the Speed of Light is still the same, no?

I feel compelled to inform you all that Albert Einstein devised this scenario, so I ought not to take credit for it.
Anyway, let's continue with the inquiry.
The trajectory that the stone takes is relative to one’s ‘body of reference’ [the train or the railway embankment]. In a mathematical framework, more or less, a ‘body of reference’ refers to a coordinate system.
Thus, the concept of ‘space’ altogether loses its meaning. Thereby, ‘space’ must be redefined, as Einstein said, as ‘motion relative to a body of reference’.
Now, let’s take into account the aspect of ‘time’ and ‘simultaneity’.
Let’s imagine that two lightning strikes transpire simultaneously. One stroke occurs at [A] and the other at [B].
A stationary person stands at [M]; the midpoint. A train is heading toward [B].
Due to the propagation of light, an equal amount of time will transpire as light traverses [AM] and [BM]; the stationary person will perceive the two lightning strikes as occurring simultaneously. However, those on the train will perceive lightning stroke [B] as occurring before lightning stroke [A].
Therefore, ‘time’ is relative, as well. How interesting.

This example does not show that time is relative. It does show that our perception of time is relative however. If a stationary person stands at an exact midpoint between two events and perceives them simultaneously then the events did occur simultaneously (or at least as close to simultaneous as perception allows), this is proved mathematically.

But if a person observes two events anywhere other than the exact midpoint, if their perception of them is simultaneous, then the event did not occur simultaneously (proven by mathematics). And it would be possible for them to view an event that didn't occur simultaneously as if it did.

The speed of light is constant, but its trajectory can be warped by a gravitational force.

Suppose that ultimately reality was essentially indivisible. There would be no time or space since there are no separate objects to be relative to one another in space or time. In an indivisible whole no individual objects actually exist but there could be phenomena that are continuous with the whole if the whole is not perfectly uniform and is dynamic. In such a reality areas of differing "density" could constitute fundamental phenomena which might then interact to produce more complex phenomena.

Now suppose that a class of phenomena arose within the whole that was sensitive, in some way, to a limited range of other phenomena within the whole. In other words, imagine that these sensitive phenomena could "see" a limited range of other phenomena within the whole. To the sensitive phenomena the phenomena that they could detect would seem to them to be separate objects separated by space (the aspects of the whole not detected by the sensitive phenomena) between them. This would also constitute the advent of time since the sensitive phenomena could appear to move between the objects and they would appear to move closer and further away from each other. Such movements would take time.

With the appearance of sensitive phenomena time, space, and motion would occur simultaneously. Their ability to detect only limited aspects of the whole would be responsible for the appearance separate objects, time, space, and motion. Note, these qualities would only be apparent to the sensitive phenomena and would not be features of the indivisible reality itself.

Could it be that we are such sensitive phenomena and that objects, time, space, and motion are simply artifacts of our limited perceptions of an essentially indivisible whole?

Suppose that ultimately reality was essentially indivisible. There would be no time or space since there are no separate objects to be relative to one another in space or time. In an indivisible whole no individual objects actually exist but there could be phenomena that are continuous with the whole if the whole is not perfectly uniform and is dynamic. In such a reality areas of differing "density" could constitute fundamental phenomena which might then interact to produce more complex phenomena.

Now suppose that a class of phenomena arose within the whole that was sensitive, in some way, to a limited range of other phenomena within the whole. In other words, imagine that these sensitive phenomena could "see" a limited range of other phenomena within the whole. To the sensitive phenomena the phenomena that they could detect would seem to them to be separate objects separated by space (the aspects of the whole not detected by the sensitive phenomena) between them. This would also constitute the advent of time since the sensitive phenomena could appear to move between the objects and they would appear to move closer and further away from each other. Such movements would take time.

With the appearance of sensitive phenomena time, space, and motion would occur simultaneously. Their ability to detect only limited aspects of the whole would be responsible for the appearance separate objects, time, space, and motion. Note, these qualities would only be apparent to the sensitive phenomena and would not be features of the indivisible reality itself.

Could it be that we are such sensitive phenomena and that objects, time, space, and motion are simply artifacts of our limited perceptions of an essentially indivisible whole?

TFindlay, yes, and if you look again at the indivisible whole you can understnd that the separable phenomena, us, are also parts of the indivisible whole. The reason for this is that the whole cannot be whole unless it encompasses everything.

There could be other, unconscious, entities that are separable parts of the whole and which are also necessarily wholistic for the same reason, i.e. that the whole cannot be whole unless it necessarily encompasses what can otherwise be viewed as separable entities.I am trying to explain the dual aspect theory of existence: please not to be confused with Cartesian dualism !
****************************************************

To revert to the original topic of relativity: are the theories of relativity falsifiable? If so what sort of evidence would falsify them?

TFindlay, yes, and if you look again at the indivisible whole you can understnd that the separable phenomena, us, are also parts of the indivisible whole. The reason for this is that the whole cannot be whole unless it encompasses everything.

There could be other, unconscious, entities that are separable parts of the whole and which are also necessarily wholistic for the same reason, i.e. that the whole cannot be whole unless it necessarily encompasses what can otherwise be viewed as separable entities.I am trying to explain the dual aspect theory of existence: please not to be confused with Cartesian dualism !

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. We may be an indivisible reality experiencing itself as entities in a contingent and relative universe.

To revert to the original topic of relativity: are the theories of relativity falsifiable? If so what sort of evidence would falsify them?

If reality is ultimately indivisible then relativity itself is an artifact of perception, not a feature of reality itself.

TFindlay, yes, and if you look again at the indivisible whole you can understnd that the separable phenomena, us, are also parts of the indivisible whole. The reason for this is that the whole cannot be whole unless it encompasses everything.

There could be other, unconscious, entities that are separable parts of the whole and which are also necessarily wholistic for the same reason, i.e. that the whole cannot be whole unless it necessarily encompasses what can otherwise be viewed as separable entities.I am trying to explain the dual aspect theory of existence: please not to be confused with Cartesian dualism !

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. We may be an indivisible reality experiencing itself as entities in a contingent and relative universe.

To revert to the original topic of relativity: are the theories of relativity falsifiable? If so what sort of evidence would falsify them?

If reality is ultimately indivisible then relativity itself is an artifact of perception, not a feature of reality itself.

Christianity may possibly adapt to this scenario which actually does accord with modern science and philosophy and which has ethical implications that are in the main consistent with all the world class religions,and not only Christianity.
If Christians dispense with the transcendence of God and retain and magnify the immanence of God the scenario as briefly summed up by Tfindlay can be understood by means of myth and praxis as well as intellectually.