> You sound surprised that I asked a good
>question (for a change)... :-}

Not at all. I just felt that it was a very insightful and meaningful question. You saw something that didn't make sense to you, postulated a possible answer, and asked a question that would help you discover the "correct" answer. That's a good question in my book.

>> This leads right into the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
>>contraction, which is also figured by using
>>gamma (since space and time are really "the
>>same"). I'm still fuzzy on how this works, but
>>this is what I understand: An object in motion
>>reletive to a viewer will contract by a factor
>>of 1/gamma in the frame of reference of the
>>viewer and in the direction of the motion.
>
> So, basically, it's the same as the parallax
>effect, but on a much grander scale?

What parallax effect are you talking about? Stellar parallax, where distant stars seem to move against the background when viewed from different parts of the Earth's orbit? If so, then I don't think this is the same thing. I don't really have a good explanation for it, but I know it's not just an observational anomoly. It's something that, in one frame of reference, is absolutely true. It doesn't just "seem" to contract, it *does* contract in some real way.

>
> The only way it makes sense to me is if time
>moves in waves. Four-demensional waves, perhaps
>- but waves nonetheless.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. Care to explain?


>
> > It is most definitely not just "our
>>perception" of time or anything else that is
>>changing in Relativity. The biggest trap you
>>can fall into when trying to learn Relativity
>>is saying "this is just an illusion" to thinks
>>like time dilation and length contraction.
>
> Just out of curiosity (and I know I'm going to
>regret asking this) - the ToR is a consideration
>of what relative to what? Or just in general? If
>the latter, I would assume perception to be of
>primary importance, as that is our relation to
>what takes place. But, since you say it is not a
>perceptional thing, then what is relative, and
>to what?

Another good question. You're on a roll. Relativity theory is all about "reference frames" or "frames of reference." Basically, every observer constitutes a frame of reference, but you can easily define a frame of reference independant from any observer.

I have my own frame of reference. I constitute an "inertial reference frame" (as far as Special Relativity is concerned) as long as I'm not undergoing an acceleration. But, acceleration can only be measured *relative* to something else. So, even though as I sit here on the Earth I am undergoing an acceleration because of the near-circular orbit of the Earth around the sun, if you take the frame of reference of me *relative* to the Earth, I am motionless (or nearly so--my fingers are moving after all ;-) in that reference frame. Hense, we can consider that an inertial reference frame. However, I can easily pick a frame of reference on the surface of Venus where there are (as far as we know) no observers present. I can say that I am in motion at such-and-such a velocity with respect to the surface of Venus, or that Mars is undergoing an acceleration with respect to the Sun.

Choosing your reference frames is one of the important parts of Relativity. Generally speaking, what you do is choose something that you consider to be "motionless" and measure your velocities and accelerations against that. The surface of the Earth serves as our everyday "motionless" point, even though we're in reality whipping around the cosmos at some un-Godly speed while on our dear old planet. When you talk about the solar system, you generally use the Sun as your reference point. In galactic coordinates, you'd probably use the galactic core.

But the important thing to remember is that you *always* have to pick a frame. There *is* no "absolute" frame of reference. All measurements of speed and velocity and acceleration and even time and distance *must* be made by first defining your reference frame--because your numbers will come out different if you use two separate reference frames.

Another thing to remember is that Special Relativity makes *no* distinction between inertial reference frames. All are equally valid. Therefore, if I go out in a space ship towards Alpha Centauri at fifteen percent the speed of light (.15c), *you* can say that I am moving at .15c with respect to you, but *I* can also say that you and the whole Earth is receding from me at .15c--and I'd be just as right as you, as far as SR is concerned. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to find the apparent paradox in that statement with respect to time dilation ;-)

I know I've said a lot, but have I answered your question?