Search found 1891 matches

by ken
Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 am
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. Well yes, hence the principle, special and general theory of relativity. You seem adamant that some sort of clocks are impervious to time dilation. Do you have any evidence that this is so? If it takes a certain period (of "time") to travel a cert...
by ken
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:39 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

No human has travelled at anything like light speed; the current record is, from memory, something like 23 000mph. Even at that speed, the effects relativity are much too slight to be observed by a human being. However, atomic clocks are accurate enough to demonstrate the effects of time dilation a...
by ken
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:37 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

Are you suggesting here that what an observer sees travelling at close to the speed of light has been demonstrated? No human has travelled at anything like light speed; the current record is, from memory, something like 23 000mph. Even at that speed, the effects relativity are much too slight to be...
by ken
Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:59 am
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

Actually, I should qualify the above. It depends which way round the Earth the clocks are flying. Clocks that fly eastwards tick slower, compared to one on the ground; whereas they tick faster when flying westwards. There's a perfectly simple explanation for this in the blog/book. https://willijbou...
by ken
Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:47 am
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. Well yes, hence the principle, special and general theory of relativity. You seem adamant that some sort of clocks are impervious to time dilation. Do you have any evidence that this is so? Yes. A digital clock that runs off batteries will tick aw...
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me! IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on! Maybe because, in the grand scheme of things, you and uwot's answer is NOT really that satisfactory at all. Jus...
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:02 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

I'm not suggesting that classical entanglement is the same as, or a proper analogy to, quantum entanglement. My point is that just as information or communication cannot transcend light speed in classical entanglement, so too it will not do so in quantum entanglement. Are you 100% absolutely sure o...
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:40 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

As uwot has explained at least twice, as is explained in his book, and as is explained in the two links I gave you that you refused to read, here is how it works: The observer on the embankment judges the train’s clock to be ticking slower and his own clock to be ticking normally. NOT ALL observers...
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:51 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

I read the section 'how does time work?' and I have a question. If stickgirl is on an embankment and stickman on a train, wouldn't stickgirl see stickman's light-clock take an extra distance? If so, would the reverse also happen for stickman looking at stickgirl? Or not? I think not, because if I'm...
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pm
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

Nobody travelling with one of these clocks finds it to be moving slower. Right. For the traveler, the clock ticks just as it did on earth. So, for the traveler, a trip would actually take just as long as it would on earth? Everybody measures that a moving clock is moving slower. Right. Wrong. Not e...
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:57 am
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

Honestly, davidm cannot understand the difference between a paradox and a contradiction. Also, he likes to change the logic whenever it suits him. He just said 'yes' in answer to my post, but when I introduce glass trains, his mind can't comprehend it because it's a contradiction and not a paradox....
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:56 am
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

Yes, that's correct. No one can see their OWN time dilation or length contraction -- that's called Galilean relativity -- as has ALSO been explained to you! Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course. Look at the boldfaced. Yes,...
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:47 am
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me! IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on! And I have already sufficiently rebutted both of those posts. Read my posts again. 'Why would I wade through yo...
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:45 am
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

Therefore, if the trains were made of glass, then we have a contradiction. They would both see, and not see, each other's clocks in synchronicity! Einstein's Relativity is subjective as heck! No! Each would see the other's clock TICKING SLOWER -- not in synchrony! Not every observer would see that....
by ken
Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:44 am
Forum: Philosophy of Science
Topic: Relativity?
Replies: 604
Views: 6366

Re: Relativity?

And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me! IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on! Maybe because, in the grand scheme of things, you and uwot's answer is NOT really that satisfactory at all.