Relativity?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 pm

Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
ken wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:57 am
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm

You and I age at the same pace and yet we're not the same age (probably).
Obviously. WHY would you even bring such a thing into this discussion?
Obviously, yes, but it directly counters your assertion above. Word it more carefully.
I agree I could word things far more carefully. Could you also do that? Could you follow that order also? Is there any writer or speaker that could NOT word things more carefully?

What you wrote does NOT directly counter My assertion because I did NOT assert what you say you THOUGHT I was asserting.

If I had written it more carefully, then I would have stipulated that I was talking about THE TWINS that you were talking about and which I was obviously REPLYING to. I could have also carefully made it much more clearer that I was talking about two bodies that were already the same age or began at the same time. If I had worded it more carefully like that, then would have you answered My clarifying question regarding How could two bodies be of differing ages if they age at the same pace AND IF THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME AGE? If you would have answered that question then, then what is your answer now?

I noticed you did not answer My other clarifying questions again also.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Surely, considering we WERE talking about TWINS, you KNEW the 'two bodies' I was referring to was in regards to the twins AND you were just acting as if you did not notice this.
I know what you mean, but that is just making unbacked assertions.
What was the actual unbacked assertion that you saw I was supposedly making?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Two things born simultaneously do not age in parallel if they don't stay together.
.

How much actual evidence is there for this?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
There is zero evidence that they would. Your intuition is based on people who always stay together.
You really lose Me some times. WHY are you going down this path? What intuition are you talking about? I have NOT based any thing on people who always stay together. Are there two people who have ALWAYS stayed together? I have NOT previously observed that. Also, WHAT EVIDENCE is there that two things born "simultaneously" do not age in parallel if they do not stay together? And, what are they using to base measurements upon?

If you do NOT provide any evidence can I then also say that there is zero evidence that they would NOT age in parallel if they do not stay together?

What I WAS basing things on, which was NOT what you thought, was in regards to the answer, to the question WHAT could be possibly used as a bench mark to measure if a human body ages more or less slowly than another?

So, what is the answer to that question?

Another body, like a human body twin, is NOT some thing that could be accurately used to measure if one body has aged more than another. Unless of course there were obvious signs of YEARS of difference between the two, of which I have NOT yet seen any evidence of nor for. Even then that would NOT be an accurate assessment that SPEED was the actual cause of the slowing down of one of the bodies ageing. There are just to many variables to take into consideration, to jump to that single conclusion. The only supposed "evidence" I have seen comes from the saying, "If one twin was travelling and the other twin stayed, then what WOULD happen would BE ...".

For information purposes that is NOT evidence. That is JUST what is ASSUMED would happen. ASSUMING some thing will happen does NOT mean that it will happen.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
If you are going to make assumptions try and base them on some thing factual, and NOT just your perception.
Yes, please do.
Can you provide any examples of when I have supposedly done that?

Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
If your sole argument is intuition, it carries no weight here.
Well it was NOT, so that conclusion is totally wrong.
WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?
You said it was obvious.
I said WHAT was obvious?

If you do NOT provide the "it", then we, others, have NO idea what you are referring to and talking about.

For example the "it", which I said was obvious, may have well been extremely obvious and NOT have any thing to do with "intuition" as you suggest it did. Evidence is needed in order for us to see what "it" actually is that you are talking about and referring to.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
I saw no other evidence produced.
No other evidence for WHAT EXACTLY.

Without WHAT the "it" is we do NOT know what you saw no other evidence produced "for".

Look, if you want to know the mechanics of relativity (like questions about how far away A-C is in other frames or how to compute the age of the twins given a trip description, read an intro text on relativity. [/quote]

Making assumptions about twins ageing differently is NOT some thing I want to know. What I want to KNOW is HOW does any person KNOW what WILL happen if NO experiment has been done yet?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
If you want to know why it must be like that, and that the naive model you have been pushing cannot be the case, most texts have a section up front about how it was worked out from only one empirical piece of evidence: The invariant speed of light.
And there My friends is what I thought was the case but did not know for sure.

It takes only ONE "empirical piece of evidence" for a whole lot of other assumptions to be made, about what else WOULD happen, and then a whole bunch of followers BELIEVING all else that is written AFTER the "evidence" is provided. Then the "IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK" being used as MORE "evidence" for people to back up and support what the believers and followers are now believing IS true. A whole lot of misinterpret and misguided information was turned into a great "mess", through religious texts, you would think that
through scientific texts things would have changed somewhat. But alas there is not that much difference at all. Just take the first few words written in just one book, "In the beginning ..." Through the power of belief, and from the faith of followers, some people with either or both religious and scientific views still, to this day, believe that there was A BEGINNING. It only takes three misinterpreted and mistaken words, at the very start of a book, for generations after generations of human beings to be continue following, and believing in, some thing, which could be completely and utterly untrue.

Anyway, I do NOT want to know "why it must be like that". I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIEVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL.

The sun was once said to revolve around the earth and it could have also been expressed "why it must be like that" although to some others it was obviously NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL.

Also, I have NOT been pushing any model, naive or not, at all. I have NO model. I much prefer to just observe, look at, see, and understand what IS, instead. If, by asking clarifying questions, and the answers that are given, or not given, are showing ANOTHER model, which is coming to light, or being "pushed", as you call it, then all well and good. Maybe things are being revealed by themselves. We will just have to wait and see what actually is revealed.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
The absolute-time view you are pushing would result in variable speed of light being measured depending on if one was stationary or not. That's what disproves it, not assertions about how old twins would be after this implausible trip.
I am NOT pushing an absolute-time view at all. To even just think that is ridiculous. Besides the fact that I could NOT care less at all if the speed of light was variable or not because either way it still fits in perfectly with every thing else I want to say, the actual fact is, from what I have observed the speed of light being invariable makes more sense than a variable speed of light. So, the actual thoughts that lead to how and why you assumed and/or came to the conclusion that I was, or even would be, pushing an absolute-time view that would result in variable speed of light ONLY you would KNOW.

Once again people jump to the "implausible trip" response when they either have to LOOK AT what would happen at that speed or when My clarifying questions become to much for them. Also, just asking questions in regards twins would be IS NOT asserting any thing. I have waiting for the true and right answers, which in and of themselves, would show and assert what IS correct.

I have NO idea if a traveling twin would age less, more, or not at all compared to the other one that did not leave. I have NOT yet seen any evidence for any thing regarding this SO I will just remain OPEN. I am certainly NOT going to believe some thing WILL happen just because some people say it WILL. When the tests and experiments are performed, if they are, only then will I be able to look at and see what the ACTUAL results are.

Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
Yes. Same thing. One stays put and traverses pretty much zero distance.
How does you propose one "stays put" AND "traverses more distance"?
Sorry, that was not what I meant to say.
Would you like to now be told, "Word it more carefully"?

Or, would you prefer that I totally accept that ALL human beings make mistakes, especially when wording things, and that I totally understand and accept that you just made a mistake? One of the very reasons I ask clarifying questions is so that I can better understand WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS that people are expressing AND meaning.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Yes, more space is more distance. In any frame, the younger twin traverses more space/distance, even the frame where he stays put at first.
A "younger" twin can only be, AFTER a trip, right?

Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
No. 4.3 years to go from Earth to A-C in that frame, assuming that both are reasonably stationary in that frame, which they are.
Making assumptions about being reasonably stationary is really rather ridiculous considering they are NOT reasonably stationary. What would you propose they could be "reasonably stationary" relative to?
Relative to the mutual center of gravity. Reasonable means I gave the distance to 2 digits of precision, and the two star systems will still be 4.3 LY apart after that time, and said mutual center of gravity would not have accelerated to the point that altered the result.
[/quote]

But if the two star systems are in the galaxy labelled "milky way", and that galaxy is said to be 'moving' at 1.3 million miles per hour, then words 'reasonably stationary' is really a VERY RELATIVE expression, right

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 pm
I agree I could word things far more carefully. Could you also do that? Could you follow that order also? Is there any writer or speaker that could NOT word things more carefully?

What you wrote does NOT directly counter My assertion because I did NOT assert what you say you THOUGHT I was asserting.
You asserted something and I'm not going to agree to it if it isn't properly qualified. Yes, one was simply an omission of a detail we both knew about, but the other one (twins must be the same physiological age) is wrong, and is based on countless instances of the same data point and no others.
I have tried to word things most carefully, specifying a frame whenever necessary for instance.
How could two bodies be of differing ages if they age at the same pace AND IF THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME AGE? If you would have answered that question then, then what is your answer now?
We're concerned that you're paying no attention to the answers being given because you imply here that no answer to how they can be a different age has been given. There are 50 pages of examples where this is not the case, so those demonstrate how. Actually read a few of them.
What was the actual unbacked assertion that you saw I was supposedly making?
That twins must be the same age.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Two things born simultaneously do not age in parallel if they don't stay together.
. How much actual evidence is there for this?
Again, 50 pages of answers to this. You're apparently not going to accept my answer given again. If you deny the answer, justify the denial. Repeated asking makes no progress. No, we lack the resources and technology to accelerate such a person without killing him. The evidence was verified in multiple more reasonable ways.
Humans make terrible clocks, but we have done experiments with terrible clocks (radioactive samples for instance) at insane relative speeds, as well as accurate clocks at relatively low speeds.
I have NOT based any thing on people who always stay together. Are there two people who have ALWAYS stayed together? I have NOT previously observed that. Also, WHAT EVIDENCE is there that two things born "simultaneously" do not age in parallel if they do not stay together? And, what are they using to base measurements upon?
There have been thus far zero humans that have left the general frame of their home planet. You repeatedly point this out to me, but when I point it out to you, you balk.
What I WAS basing things on, which was NOT what you thought, was in regards to the answer, to the question WHAT could be possibly used as a bench mark to measure if a human body ages more or less slowly than another?
I didn't say that. They age at the same pace (one year per year, which doesn't even have a unit), but need not be the same age. The traveler twin has existed for less duration than the Earth twin. They both age at the same pace which is 1. What could possibly be used as a benchmark is perhaps the watch on his wrist.
Another body, like a human body twin, is NOT some thing that could be accurately used to measure if one body has aged more than another.
Correct. Bodies make lousy clocks. Good for long term, but lousy on the fine precision. Yet you seem bent on accepting tests on only this poor choice of verification. They've used such lousy clocks in tests, but ones that are a lot easier to get up to speed.
For information purposes that is NOT evidence. That is JUST what is ASSUMED would happen. ASSUMING some thing will happen does NOT mean that it will happen.
This pretty much sums up your whole argument. The counter point is to assume otherwise, that humans are the sole physical process that does not age according to the duration it has existed. You're right. I have no evidence against that assertion. You'd have to come up with a different way to predict the age of somebody not on Earth, and absent that backing of your alternate view, it carries no weight.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
If you are going to make assumptions try and base them on some thing factual, and NOT just your perception.
Yes, please do.
Can you provide any examples of when I have supposedly done that?
No, I can't, which is why I mentioned it.
Look, if you want to know the mechanics of relativity (like questions about how far away A-C is in other frames or how to compute the age of the twins given a trip description, read an intro text on relativity.
Making assumptions about twins ageing differently is NOT some thing I want to know.
You asked quite a list of questions about it in the prior post to which I answered. Why ask if you don't want to know? All those answers I gave can be had from standard texts.
What I want to KNOW is HOW does any person KNOW what WILL happen if NO experiment has been done yet?
Relativity has been well verified by empirical tests. Are you asserting otherwise (denial of the tests), or do you suggest (again) that human aging is the sole physical process that does not proceed at a pace corresponding to the duration of existence? Or have I somehow missed what you're suggesting? I cannot think of a third option. You'll probably deny the latter, so it must be denial of the tests, in which case I simply invite you to perform them yourself.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
If you want to know why it must be like that, and that the naive model you have been pushing cannot be the case, most texts have a section up front about how it was worked out from only one empirical piece of evidence: The invariant speed of light.
And there My friends is what I thought was the case but did not know for sure.

It takes only ONE "empirical piece of evidence" for a whole lot of other assumptions to be made, about what else WOULD happen, and then a whole bunch of followers BELIEVING all else that is written AFTER the "evidence" is provided. Then the "IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK" being used as MORE "evidence" for people to back up and support what the believers and followers are now believing IS true.
Not so. The speed of light suggested the theory since the absolute model did not predict it. The verification came from further falsification tests, all of which have passed. No book was written before then.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
You said it was obvious.
I said WHAT was obvious?
If you do NOT provide the "it", then we, others, have NO idea what you are referring to and talking about.
This for instance:
Anyway, I do NOT want to know "why it must be like that". I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL.
Said in caps no less. Must be true.
Also, I have NOT been pushing any model, naive or not, at all. I have NO model.
This is why you're not being taken seriously. No model cannot compete against a model that makes good predictions. Your naive view works for someone who stays on/near Earth, and you since you will never need otherwise and are not in charge of devices that need a better model, it works for you. But then why are you here pushing it as some sort of alternate truth to which you're 'open minded' only because you refuse to examine it more closely.
I have NO idea if a traveling twin would age less, more, or not at all compared to the other one that did not leave.
Yes, we've noticed this.
I have NOT yet seen any evidence for any thing regarding this SO I will just remain OPEN. I am certainly NOT going to believe some thing WILL happen just because some people say it WILL. When the tests and experiments are performed, if they are, only then will I be able to look at and see what the ACTUAL results are.
Confirming my suspicion above. Denial of evidence it is. Admittedly, that's better than humans not aging over the duration of their existence.

This is why davidm brought up the jumping into the sun example. Nobody has tried that either, so according to the argument you are using here, you consider there to be no evidence that it would be a harmful thing to do. You consider it an act of open mindedness and not willful ignorance to suggest that one might survive that act.
Indeed, nobody has done just that, so no direct evidence. But complete denial of indirect evidence (sun appears really hot, and ken is not the sort of creature that survives such temperatures (also not directly verified)) would be willful ignorance. "Of the tens of billions of people who have ever lived, not one has died by falling into the sun. Therefore, being open minded, it is OBVIOUS that falling into the sun is not fatal."
So why the denial of the indirect evidence of relativity and yet (presumably) not denial of the sun fatality evidence? You said I never asked questions of you. I just did there.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Yes, more space is more distance. In any frame, the younger twin traverses more space/distance, even the frame where he stays put at first.
A "younger" twin can only be, AFTER a trip, right?
Hard to parse that. The twin that makes the trip is younger when the two meet again. When not in each other's presence, the assessment of which is younger is ambiguous as is the assessment of which one made the trip. Remember the specific traveler frame example: Traveler is stationary and ages 70 days. The Earth twin travels on spaceship Earth, and ages 75hours.
But if the two star systems are in the galaxy labelled "milky way", and that galaxy is said to be 'moving' at 1.3 million miles per hour, then words 'reasonably stationary' is really a VERY RELATIVE expression, right
If the galaxy is said to be moving at 1.3 million mph, then whoever says that is referencing some frame in which it moves at that speed. I was speaking of the frame of the local exercise, where the two systems are stationary enough to have their separation distance printed in a book. Different frame than this other one you just referenced.
The two systems are reasonably stationary in that frame, and the galactic core moves in that frame at about 40% of the speed you reference, so it was not the solar frame being referenced by whoever quoted the 1.3mmph figure.
Last edited by Noax on Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

davidm
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:43 pm

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 pm
I have NO idea if a traveling twin would age less, more, or not at all compared to the other one that did not leave.
Really Ken? NO idea? Scroll back several pages where, in answer to my "clarifying question," you definitively stated that the twins would have aged the SAME -- no difference on their clocks.

Now, suddenly, you have NO idea? :?

OuterLimits
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by OuterLimits » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:43 pm

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:38 am
What frame is alpha centauri in, if it is not in some frame with the traveler?
Frames are adopted to make calculations; they are not found to exist using some empirical method.

"What frame is alpha centauri in, if it is not in some frame with the traveler?"
Pick your frame based on your needs. In Galilean / Newtonian relativity, space is different but time remains the same. You can ask "what time is way over there right now" Einstein showed that you can't ask that any more. The closest you can do is specify a frame and then use that frame to come up with an answer. Someone else adopts a different frame and comes up with a different answer.

What time is it right now on A-C ? It depends first of all if you accept that there is such a thing. If you accept that there is such a thing, then you have to adopt a frame. The most intuitive frame would be one in which Earth and A-C are both approximately unmoving. The frame of a traveler is different and will yield a different answer regarding what time it is over there right now.

The frame that the traveler adopts for his calculations will probably be the one in which he is at rest. Perhaps that's what you mean about which one is he IN? Of course other people might adopt that frame for their calculations, or they may dispense with the very idea that it is some particular time at some remote location, since it is a headache. The Galilean / Newtonian version of that idea has been debunked, essentially.

The start of the journey, when the traveler is at the earth, is an event. It exists in all different frames, but what time it is "at the same time" in A-C depends upon the frame which is adopted for calculations, or one may simply dispense with the idea entirely.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:31 pm

That was a more thorough answer than my terse "all of them".
It is spot on. Thanks O.L.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am

Ken, here are links to where I previously assembled recent inconsistent/contradictory statements you made. I’m adding some comments after each one now, since you didn’t seem able to recognize any contradictions for yourself. I suggest (for clarity and continuity) that you read all the way through this post before responding. If you don't, you're going to be responding to fragments only, rather than considering the bigger picture being communicated/shown to you.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:16 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:06 am
all people distort the actual truth, and/or are completely blinded from the actual truth, because of and by their own previously held assumptions and beliefs
(If ALL people do this, that includes you.)
Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.
(Oh, I guess it doesn’t include you.)
Did you assume, think, or believe that what I said would apply to all people but not to me?
(That’s what you appear to have just said above.)
I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve any thing, IN GENERAL, ALWAYS, FOREVER MORE, et cetera. FULL STOP.
(And now you’re saying it again.)
the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.
(Okay, so that’s what you're saying the Truth IS.)
I do not recall telling people how some thing "is"
(You just did.)
there is One single view, which can fathom ALL. That view is made up of ALL views. From this vantage point ONLY is the view point from which I talk about.
(Again, you’re saying what IS.)
I do not recall ever saying "how it is".
(You just did.)
there is NO THING that I am aware of "that must be agreed upon and accepted by all". The fact is I have been saying the very opposite of that.
(You just said that the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.)
When, and if, there are any distortions and inconsistencies in what I write... /...I will be the first one to acknowledge and them and correct them.
(You’ve been unable to see them.)
I do not see that My absolute phrases necessarily contradict what else I have said.
(Right... you do not see... no matter how many times or ways someone points it out to you... and despite your claim that you want to learn how to communicate better.)
Here’s another recent example of inconsistency that was shown to you regarding your communication...
ken wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
The truth of Life is all around. People are looking at and seeing it all the time. But they are distorting that view or being blinded from it completely because of the way they are thinking.
Lacewing wrote:So are they seeing it all the time, or are they being blinded from it completely? Which is it?
You see, Ken, you said you want to learn to communicate better, but if you're unwilling or unable to see/recognize the inconsistencies and how they break down the communication, then I don’t know what part of communication you are truly willing to improve... because you are showing resistence to valid feedback.

It’s my impression that you seem to obsess over each sentence, without noticing the connections and influences of other related statements. This could be why you don’t notice that one thing you say right now, doesn’t match or flow with something else that has been said. You may be seeing truth in the statement of that single moment, but that alone does not reflect the broader message being discussed/delivered. In other words, it’s like you’re looking at water droplets, when someone else is looking at the ocean. There are so many relationships and connections that are necessary to recognize and build-on for good communication... yet you seem to be intent on defining and picking at individual pieces as if nothing else exists beyond them in that moment, and that’s not representative of broader concepts.
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Any idea of what the 'reasons' are or could be?
Any idea of what the 'reasons' are or could be, FOR WHAT EXACTLY?
Ken, that question you mistakenly attributed to me (above) was yours... and I already answered you... so, here, you are questioning your own question.
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Don't you think that there's a broader view than that of the individual?
I KNOW that broader OPEN view beyond just human beings perspectives.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
From that broader view, wouldn't there be beauty and magnificence in all of creation?
OF COURSE.
I’ve explained that this (above) is where I’m coming from when I speak of love, humor, and entertainment. So why do you frame it like this (below):
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
As I pointed out previously if you find the abuse and the killing of children over money, greed, and power entertaining to you, then so be it. I just do NOT find that entertaining.
What are you trying to accomplish, Ken, by saying something so absurd about me? You take it down to such a dense level. Such as you did again, below:
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
BUT standing back there "behind the curtain", as you would say, and looking out at the ugliness and destruction going on is NOT real pleasant, to Me anyway.
I don't view myself as standing behind a curtain watching all of the horrors go on, Ken. I’m acknowledging that it’s all part of creation... which is like looking behind the curtain of this dramatic world... and I’m focused on LOVING it MORE THAN being intoxicated by it. It’s just a perspective! I am continually ENGAGED with it.

Your misrepresentations of what I’ve said are based on YOUR assumptions and misunderstandings. And when you talk about the hate within me, it shows that you have NO IDEA... and you are projecting. I’ve clearly explained to you “where I’m coming from”... and at times you say you feel or want the same... but then you’ll mischaracterize it later in regard to me, apparently when it suits your argument.

There’s a saying: “When you can learn to love Hell, you’ll be in Heaven.” I think that shows an attitude of acceptance and love for ALL that is, without condition. That doesn’t mean being detached and indifferent.
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
Being "behind that curtain" alone is a pretty lonely feeling, which is ALL I have experienced.
I think that’s an illusion of your own making. Isn’t everyone an equal part of totality/one -- acting out their trips on this Earth stage -- but all are divine? “Looking behind the curtain” is just a way of saying that one is looking beyond the illusion of and for onesself. There is not some holy/divine place that only some can go, or that all should go. We’re already doing a divine, magnificent dance of creation in all kinds of forms.
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
Now, is the time, that I want to SHARE HOW to obtain the broader view with ALL others. By only showing HOW to obtain that broad open view, and NOT showing nor telling what they have to do, allows them to do what they want.
Okay, go ahead... show HOW without showing or telling WHAT they have to do.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:15 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
You know what I have a problem with. If no one has ever traveled at the speed of light, how could they possibly 'know' that it was the ultimate speed? I'm sure it's just a theory, while actual 'knowledge' has absolutely noting to do with it! You know, empirically!
Spheres, me old mucker,
Thanks, that somehow makes me feel good! And you're me old mucker too. ;-)

what we know is that our best theories imply that the energy of a particle with rest mass,
Rest Mass?? But in fact everything is always moving, right? So how can it be described as rest mass?

atoms and whatnot, increases with velocity. In practice, this means that to accelerate such a particle requires increasing amounts of energy, until, at light speed, the energy required is infinite.
But then there are theoretical tachyons that are said to travel faster than light. And the Cosmic Inflation theory states that the universe grew by a factor of 10 to the 16th power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so from the central point of expansion outward in all directions the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light. Of course they just theorized that to make their math work. Speculation, or real science? ;-) Obviously the pull of a black hole is greater than the speed of light or light could escape it.

We also know that machines such as the LHC use colossal amounts of energy to accelerate particles to within sniffing distance of the speed of light. On top of that, we know that no particle has ever been observed exceeding c.
But of course anything traveling beyond the speed of light couldn't be seen, right.

But then, you know all that. As far as 'proof' goes, it's the old 'can't prove a negative'. We can only prove that superluminal speeds are possible, by discovering something which does travel faster than light. Some physicists are trying to build a case based on entanglement, but there's a bit of work to do yet.
Yeah those spooky old twin particles popping in and out of existence, affecting one another over great distances. Sounds like a fiction, but then who knows.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Also, as to time dilation, in fact, there is no such thing as a stationary clock. One just cannot certainly exist, as there is no way to know that any thing or position in three dimensional space is necessarily stationary; relative to what? ;-)
True dat.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
How could we possibly know that we aren't currently traveling at the speed of light.
Because we observe light moving faster than us.
Yes, but my point, (though cryptic, so as to cause one to think), is that our "relative" speed (frame of reference) should either add or subtract to to the speed of light to varying degrees, depending upon relative trajectories. Such that how could the actual speed of light be necessarily known, as we humans don't live in a vacuum and are constantly moving in many directions at once.

So say we are traveling in this direction:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
We send EME in both this direction:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
and that direction:
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since lights max speed is determined as if from a fixed stationary point in space the EMR we send in this direction
-------------> should seem slower to us, also moving in that direction. And the EMR we send in this direction
<------------ should seem faster to us moving away from that direction.
So around our globe EMR would appear to us to be traveling at different speeds depending upon it's relative trajectory to our planets, not considering our spin. Where as, from a truly fixed point in space, if that could ever actually be determined, we could then finally see it's actual speed. Which actually could be determined, if we sent EMR in all directions and it's speed was constant in them all. Then we would know we were stationary relative to the entire universe. Yeah?

I mean the max speed must be related to the medium, else I'd just be like saying, "that chevy nova with a 283 v8 can't travel as fast as that challenger with the 440 RT V8." Which would seem to indicate that something could travel faster than the speed of EMR. Space is not a true vacuum, close, but no cigar! But if the medium determines the speed of all things, then it might as well be EMR that is that one thing that can achieve that max. Either the thing in and of itself limits it's max speed or the medium in which it travels limits it's speed, there are no other options. If otherwise, name it?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Does the fact that we are in fact traveling at some unknown speed, relative to what, either subtract or add to our measured speed of light...
No. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that it doesn't matter how fast you are moving relative to a source of light, the speed you will measure doesn't change.
Right, so that would surely seem to indicate, that EMR in and of itself is restricted to that speed.

(It won't be c, because that's the hypothetical speed of light in a vacuum, but there's no such thing as a vacuum. The measured speed will be a product of c and the refractive index of whatever medium you happen to be in, be it air, water, glass, an old sausage, whatever.)
While this speaks of the medium's affect on it's speed.

So considering both of these facts it's has to be the medium that restricts EMR's top speed. Where 'medium' is understood to be inclusive of the 4 forces as well as any others that might be present, i.e., dark matter, dark energy, etc.


SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
...I mean to say, that as measured on another heavenly body, it may have a different speed altogether...
Which will be a product of c and the refractive index of whatever gunk they have in their atmosphere.
Yep!
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Let's face it, our understanding of physics is certainly earth centric, which dosen't necessarily say much, universally speaking.
Maybe; but until we find some evidence that physics works differently somewhere, there is no reason to suppose it does.
Not exactly, as supposing things is the reason we've learned as much as we have. Which is not to say that simply supposing things is anything close to the final words on any matter.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Uwot, what say you, my friend? ;-)


Oh and...

Happy Holidays to all!

If you don't celebrate any upcoming Holiday, simply celebrate the diversity of life, as the gift it certainly is.
And to you, Spheres.
Alright, my brother from the UK. You are from the UK, right? I's been quite a while, but I seem to remember such. But then I'm getting foggier by the day. ;-)

Regardless, have a good one!!

davidm
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:15 pm

Rest mass is what an object has when it is stationary relative to an observer. It does not have to be absolutely at rest — nothing is.

The superluminal expansion of the universe has nothing to do with special relativity and does not contradict it.

Tachyons are a theoretical prediction of some models of general relativity; again, nothing to do with SR.

No info exchange between entangled particles in QM = no violation of SR.

Your example of light traveling slower or faster in a moving frame depending on what direction it is measured is exactly what light does not do … the whole point of SR …

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:19 pm

davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:15 pm
Rest mass is what an object has when it is stationary relative to an observer. It does not have to be absolutely at rest — nothing is.

The superluminal expansion of the universe has nothing to do with special relativity and does not contradict it.

Tachyons are a theoretical prediction of some models of general relativity; again, nothing to do with SR.

No info exchange between entangled particles in QM = no violation of SR.

Your example of light traveling slower or faster in a moving frame depending on what direction it is measured is exactly what light does not do … the whole point of SR …
Yes, but that wasn't the important part, that seems to have went right over your head! Care to comment on the part that deals with the causal of lights constraint? Can't find that in someone else's work huh? Yeah I thought so.

I'm thinking on getting a myna bird for my wife for Christmas, what do you think David? ;-)

Happy Holidays my friend!

davidm
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:01 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:19 pm
Care to comment on the part that deals with the causal of lights constraint?
I've no idea what this means. Can you elaborate?

davidm
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:04 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:19 pm
Can't find that in someone else's work huh? Yeah I thought so.
So, like Ken, you think that relativity is like religious dogma that people read and pass on without understanding?
I'm thinking on getting a myna bird for my wife for Christmas, what do you think David? ;-)
Maybe she can get you an education in return.

I notice, like Ken, you fail to respond to any of my responses to your claims. Just throw out insults and BS.

uwot
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:49 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:15 pm
...my point, (though cryptic, so as to cause one to think), is that our "relative" speed (frame of reference) should either add or subtract to to the speed of light to varying degrees, depending upon relative trajectories. Such that how could the actual speed of light be necessarily known, as we humans don't live in a vacuum and are constantly moving in many directions at once.

So say we are traveling in this direction:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
We send EME in both this direction:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------->
and that direction:
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since lights max speed is determined as if from a fixed stationary point in space the EMR we send in this direction
-------------> should seem slower to us, also moving in that direction. And the EMR we send in this direction
<------------ should seem faster to us moving away from that direction.
This is precisely the assumption that the Michelson-Morley experiment was based on and, as davidm points out, it is precisely the result they didn't find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson ... experiment
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:15 pm
So around our globe EMR would appear to us to be traveling at different speeds depending upon it's relative trajectory to our planets, not considering our spin. Where as, from a truly fixed point in space, if that could ever actually be determined, we could then finally see it's actual speed. Which actually could be determined, if we sent EMR in all directions and it's speed was constant in them all. Then we would know we were stationary relative to the entire universe. Yeah?
Nah. What the M-M (and every subsequent) experiment showed is that whatever space is made of, it is not a static medium that carries light waves; the so called luminiferous ether. Einstein's initial response, in special relativity, was to dispense with the ether, and treat space as if it were empty, so that photons move through a vacuum. As Einstein quickly realised, special relativity is based largely on a set of mathematical simplifications which have bugger all to do with reality; a point which is lost on some of the contributors to this thread. Anyway; Einstein then developed general relativity, based on the idea that space is a medium that is 'warped' by the presence of matter. In effect, this allows for the refractive index of space to change, and with it the speed of light; which is precisely what the bending of starlight (gravitational lensing) confirms.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:15 pm
I mean the max speed must be related to the medium, else I'd just be like saying, "that chevy nova with a 283 v8 can't travel as fast as that challenger with the 440 RT V8." Which would seem to indicate that something could travel faster than the speed of EMR. Space is not a true vacuum, close, but no cigar! But if the medium determines the speed of all things, then it might as well be EMR that is that one thing that can achieve that max. Either the thing in and of itself limits it's max speed or the medium in which it travels limits it's speed, there are no other options. If otherwise, name it?
Well, that's exactly what I have done in my blog and book. https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
You are from the UK, right?
Right.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Regardless, have a good one!!
Thank you. You too.

ken
Posts: 1972
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:42 pm

Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
But the traveler is going some where. The traveler is going from earth to alpha centauri.
Do you even know what an inertial reference frame (IRF) is?
No.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
The frame of X is the frame in which X is stationary. Our traveler is stationary by definition in his own frame,
Now I do know how you define 'inertial reference frame'. Thank you.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
something that is true even in your view.
What do you think My view is?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
While going nowhere, A-C takes 70 days to come to him.
From who's perspective?

A traveler who sees that they are stationary and see alpha centauri moving towards them, right?

We all just have to remember that not ALL observers see things that way. But IF a traveler wants to observe that way, and wants to look at things that way, then yes that is what they will see, and understand. But not all of us do this.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
The 70 day part is where we apparently differ.
That all depends on if we are talking about 'inertial reference frame', from the definition you just gave. I NEVER knew of that definition before. I just used the word 'traveler' in My questions, and if and when I used words like 'inertial frame' I was using that from and with a different and WRONG definition, which obviously was ALL My fault.

But let us use your 70 day scenario, and let us say one day is 24 hours. If the traveler sleeps once for eight hours each day, eats and urinates three times each day, and defecates and showers once per day, then how often does the traveler sleep, eat, urinate, defecate, and shower when alpha centauri "moves" closer to them?

AND, would those answers be different from what a human being on earth, and/or on alpha centauri, would observe?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
It would take 4.3 years perhaps in your view, and perhaps somebody's clock is not measuring actual time due to not being actually stationary.
ALL of My questions from now on will be in relation to travelers and distances, and NOT any inertial frame of reference, unless otherwise stipulated. It is the 'inertial reference frame' that causes the contradictory, inconsistent, and confusing views people form regarding this. ALL My questions will be 'frame independent'.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm
and he is doing a poor job of chasing this photon which is receding from him at lightspeed as it must.
So, again the photon is traveling faster than the traveler but the photon takes longer than the traveler to take the trip, according to you, right, depending on which frame one is in?
The comment above was expressed in the frame in the traveler since it states that he is stationary. Yes, the photon is faster than him since it is light travelling at lightspeed and the guy is stationary.
But IS the traveler stationary or only said to be stationary?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
It reaches A-C in about 35 days (halfway point) since A-C is coming towards the stationary traveler at near lightspeed.
So, only from the perspective of a "stationary traveler" this is said to be what is observed? Just to make it clear that is NOT what I would observe. But, I do NOT observe all the same things that human beings do. For example I do NOT observe alpha centauri coming towards the traveling traveler and observer.


Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
I am pretty sure this questioning and answering discussion would be a lot easier if people could just imagine that human beings and clocks COULD travel at the speed of light. If any person wants to stay with that imagined scenario, then please acknowledge that so then I could ask you the very simple question, and following clarifying questions.
A human, or any other object with rest mass, cannot reach that speed, but can (and is) arbitrarily close to it.
I KNOW that is consistently pointed out when discussing this subject.

When I write the word IMAGINE, does that word get completely overlooked? If so, WHY?

What is it with human beings and NOT being able to IMAGINE? Have some of you completely lost the ability to IMAGINE?

Also, it is PRESUMED that a human being, or any object with rest mass, can not reach the speed of light. Just like it was once presumed that other speeds could not be reached also. Just about every thing human beings have created, done, and reached was once presumed impossible nor could be reached, that is until it is.

Do any human beings wonder WHY they have not created and reached what it is that they ALL truly want, and deserve? The reason IS because human beings do NOT use IMAGINATION to its full ability. Instead of IMAGINING, human beings are consistently BELIEVING. BELIEVING is NOT being OPEN, and, being OPEN is where IMAGINATION comes from. The very REASON WHY human beings are stuck living the way they are, nowadays, is because of a lack of IMAGERY.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
In the muon experiment, in the frame of the muon, it is born as in the upper atmosphere and has a life expectancy of only a fraction of a milisecond, enough time for light to move a few tens of meters.
Besides the fact that this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what I have been saying and want to question, what you have just said here just further verifies what I observe, have said regarding things, and how every thing is relative to the observer. How the observer looks will depend if they are able to see how every thing fits together perfectly to form a big true picture of what IS, or if they are still looking for what IS that picture.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
The humans below are moving so close to the speed of light that they actual hit the muon before it dies, in numbers impossible if they had to actually move the 100 km that separates the muon from the ground in a non-relativistic view. So humans have been measured at greater than .999c. Nothing says they can't.
Accelerating one from one frame to a significantly different one is not impossible but simply beyond the energy resources available to us. Humans are heavy. Easier to do it with more lightweight things. So yes, the twin experiment has been done, but humans are not accurate enough clocks to measure the difference. The high speed descriptions are not something that are within our resources.
You are so OFF TRACK now, which honestly I am not following, this is becoming nearly unbelievable. Your assumptions and/or beliefs have led you so far astray from what I have been actually discussing and questioning that your reply here, to what you quoted Me as saying, is nearly beyond understanding.

Maybe if you read what I wrote again, you would KNOW what I am looking for. In case you still do NOT KNOW what I am looking for, it is human beings who want to stay with that imagined scenario. If you do NOT want to, then you are NOT what I am looking for.

Further to this, I did NOT follow how your conclusion, "So yes, the twin experiment has been done, ..." followed on from what you had previously written. And, if "humans are not accurate enough clocks to measure the difference", then why use human beings for the twin experiment, and, if they are not accurate enough, then why try to now use them as "verification" and/or "proof" for what you assume or believe is true?

If, as you propose, "humans are not accurate enough clocks to measure the difference", then what that really means is NO actual twin experiment has been done, nor finalized, right?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Physical processes dilate with motion.
'Motion', relative to WHAT EXACTLY?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
This has been demonstrated.
To who?

Has it been demonstrated to you via first hand experience? Or, did you just read this in a book and/or hear it from others?

If it is the latter, then are you just accepting things on what other people tell you?

Also, does you using the word 'demonstrated' mean that this an indisputable proven fact, which would also, to you, mean that there really is no use discussing it any further?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Human aging is a physical process,
Agreed.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
unless you declare that the human body, alone among all physical processes in the universe, is immune to this and is special.
A very stupid thing to think, assume, and/or say. WHY did you write that?


Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
The scenario where a human twin goes to another star is imagination since we currently lack the resources to actually do that. It would take far longer than the life of the occupant.
But, according to you, and contradictorily the occupants age would slow down with "stationary traveling" speed, so the faster the occupant goes to another planet, (or, as you would say, the faster an occupant stays stationary and the other planet goes to the occupant) the occupants life would slow down, or "extend", and therefore the trip could NOT take longer than the life of the occupant, right?

You, in your "current" time, might actually believe that you lack the resources to travel to another star, or lack the resources to get the star to travel to you, but you do NOT lack the resources, the only thing you lack is using the resourcefulness of imagination.

The scenario where one human twin actually leaves earth, travels, and comes back would actually reveal if the age of one of them slows relative to the other. Until then it is only an assumption.

Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm
After about 10 weeks, Alpha-Centauri comes to him,
Is that what REALLY happens? OR ONLY APPEARS to happen to the traveler?
Really happens.
So, a traveler does NOT move, and other things move towards to a traveler, is that what you believe is correct?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
There is no 'appear' in relativity.
What you see, is what 'appears', to you.

What I see, is what 'appears', to Me.

Both 'appearances' might NOT be the same, so what is seen is ONLY what 'appears' to that one, who is the observer and thus the one seeing.

Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. That includes 'relativity', itself.

What noax tells Me what I would see, some times, is NOT what I would see.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
The thought experiments do not involve perceptions. The 'observers' are instruments that detect signals and distance and such.
What do you mean "thought experiments" do not involve perceptions?

Think about it.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Also, if an actual physical experiment has NOT taken place, then there is NO actual physical 'observer', nor instrument, to give an actual verified response. Therefore, what is said to happen is only a guess.
In a thought experiment, also, there is NO actual observer, nor instrument, there is only one who is thinking, what might happen. That one is presuming what will happen.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
For example, if somebody on A-C watches the incoming traveler who is going fast and whole clock is dilated to a slower speed, they will in fact experience his clock going extra fast due to doppler effect (blue shift). They can't see what the clock says 'now' since the clock is not 'here'.
That is ONLY what might happen. You are ONLY presuming that is what would happen. That is ONLY your assumption, which is based solely on your own past experiences. Without first hand experience you can NOT accurately tell Me what will be seen, and, even with first hand experience you can only tell Me what you saw. You still can NOT accurately tell Me what I would see.

Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Also, has the actual test been carried out and the actual person doing the experiment verified that this is WHAT HAPPENS?

This is only what is assumed to happen because it has NEVER been tested, right?
Nobody has been accelerated to .999c relative to Earth if that is what you're asking, but the experiment has been done at lower speeds, yes. And verified.
That was NOT what I was asking.

What was the name of that experiment that has been done at lower speeds, which you say was verified?

And, what was the name of the human being who done the experiment at lower speeds and who you say verified that experiment?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
By the way you also lose Me when you say things like, "... while Alpah-Centauri makes the trip". How and when does alpha centauri MAKE the trip?
By it being over there (69.93 light days distant), and 70 days later, it being here.
This is something like being in a airplane going from LA to New York in 4 hours. The airplane represents the inertial frame and is stationary, and you the passenger are relatively stationary within it. But New York comes to you as the Earth rotates below you. New York is the thing moving in that Frame. LA moves away as well. Similarly, it is AC that comes you the traveler in the travelers frame where he is by definition stationary. Clocks are stationary in the frame of the wall on which they rest.'
Okay, now, I understand that an 'inertial frame' is stationary. But if noax wants to speak accurately, then noax will have to change the word 'you' here. Noax can speak accurately for noax, and whoever allows noax to speak for, ONLY. BUT what noax says above here is NOT what I observe, see, and understand.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Also, are there any links to where any person has actually experienced that occurring? Or, is that just is what is assumed to occur?
There is no special experience to it. You do it every day (see the muon description).
I do "what" every day?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
The experience of the traveler is sitting in the confines of a box for 70 days, perhaps watching movies. There is no extraordinary experience to it.
Is there such a thing as an 'extraordinary experience', to you?

If not, then WHY do you use such a term?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm
Is not traveling at a constant speed of .999 c an inertial frame?
No, it isn't. It is a speed, not a velocity, and one without reference. .999c relative to S (the reference) in the direction of A-C from Sol (the vector, required to define velocity) defines an inertial frame. The 'traveler' would be stationary in that frame and thus no time dilation. To him, the Earth guy is the traveler.
This is only another assumption, right?
This is not even untrue in your view. [/quote]

I am curious now to know how you KNOW what My view IS, AND, also to know what you think My view IS.

Will you provide details of both?

I will await your response here BEFORE I provide a clearer perspective of My view, which by the way might be completely opposing what you think or assume.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
No, this definition of frames has been around since before Galileo, since before they knew light had a speed. It is simply a mathematical definition of coordinates. There's no fact/not-fact about it, except the part about dilation, which relativity introduced.
And the part about 'dilation' was "verified" by one experiment involving two planes traveling in opposite directions around the earth, right?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Have any actual experimental tests been carried out with human beings as the 'traveler'?
So humans are special?
Human beings are no more (nor no less) special then any other thing.

Why did you ask such a question?

I can NOT see a link between your response and My question, besides that you are making some sort of assumption about what My question was in relation to, which by the way was probably totally WRONG, again. But we will NEVER know until you tell us what you were assuming in order to ask such a question.

In case you did NOT notice the answer that I was seeking, to My actual question, was ONLY a 'yes' or 'no' answer.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
It works for everything but human aging process?
If no actual experiment has been done with human beings, then the answer is no. Your questioning, based on your presumptions, have NOTHING to do with what I asked. Maybe if you think about WHY you assume that I am thinking some thing, then that might tell WHY your assumptions are so very WRONG and INCORRECT.

WHAT is the 'it' that you are asking if 'it' supposedly works for every thing but human aging process?

You ask questions, based on your assumptions, AND you write them in a way that I have to guess as to what you are referring to.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Is that what you propose?
Is WHAT 'that' what I supposedly proposed?

I did NOT propose any thing here. I asked a clarifying question that a 'yes' or a 'no' answer was ALL that was needed.

By the way the answer to your question here would probably be a NO, but that is ONLY based on an assumption of what you might be assuming, which would be a very foolish thing of Me to do, if I so did.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:27 am
You just accept what is written in a book because it has supposedly all already been tested and verified, right?
Those guys ran the tests. I haven't personally flung my atomic clock around, and yes, I accept the findings of those who have.
So, no matter what THEY told you, as long as it sounded believable enough, you would just accept those findings, is that right?

Have you ever considered that some times people word things in a way, which sound believable, in order to get others to accept and/or follow them and what they say?

Could you be just another one of those multitude of followers and/or believers of others?

This is not to say the ones who want to be followed or believed are doing this consciously nor manipulatively. They, themselves, could also be so deceived that they actual believe what they, themselves, are saying is true and correct, without ever actually looking for nor actually just looking at what IS ACTUALLY true and correct.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
By the way what are you proposing here has be empirically falsified?
Absolute time.
Your answer has NOTHING at all to do with My question.

AND, what do you think I am proposing here EXACTLY?

To Me, it is very obvious how people have worded things, to make what they believe to be true, so that they appear believable to others.

The very reason WHY some people say what WOULD be observed in particular reference frames is because of the way terms like 'reference frame' has been used and taught in order to show support for what some people BELIEVE is true, right, and correct.

Also, if you are proposing that 'absolute time' has been empirically verified as absolutely true and correct, then what IS 'absolute time'?
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
If empirical data demonstrates some thing, then it is best to accept that. But the "empirical data" that you use here does NOT demonstrate what you are presuming and presupposing happens.
The data is fixed light speed.
AND, just as I said, the "data" you use, which, is fixed light speed, does NOT demonstrate what you are presuming and presupposing happens.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
If you deny that, fine, measure otherwise and rock the world. If you cannot follow your view to a non-fixed lightspeed, then you're just unwilling to think through your own model. It isn't hard and doesn't even require math.
Again, you are so way off track that it is no wonder, and thus totally understandable, to Me anyway, WHY you are NOT seeing what I am actually writing and saying.

What assumptions you used that led you to arrive at such a conclusion as this, though, really only you would know.

davidm
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:21 pm

ken wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:42 pm

ALL of My questions from now on will be in relation to travelers and distances, and NOT any inertial frame of reference, unless otherwise stipulated. It is the 'inertial reference frame' that causes the contradictory, inconsistent, and confusing views people form regarding this. ALL My questions will be 'frame independent'.
There are no "frame independent answers" if by this you mean, "two frames in relative motion that will agree on an objective time and space." But of course this has been explained to you.

davidm
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:23 pm

What is frame independent in the speed of light, from which all the rest follows: time dilation, length contraction, etc. But this has also been explained to you. Again and again. In every way imaginable.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests