Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
ken wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:51 pmAre you one of those people who insist that 'time' is an actual, real thing?
Not sure what you mean by that. It is not an object that you can set on the table, but you probably don't mean that.
That is not what I meant but at least we are getting closer.
What is 'time', itself, to you?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmIs 'time' itself dependent upon a frame?
The measure of it between two events is frame dependent.
When you say the measure of "it", did you mean the word 'time'?
If so, then what do you mean by, "The measure of time between two events"?
If, for example, you had said, "The measure of THE time between two events", then I could better understand this. Although it does sound clumsy it makes more sense, to Me anyway. I understand the words 'the time' usually refers to the actual measurement, itself, taken. But when you say, "The measure of time between two events" I do NOT understand what is it EXACTLY that is being measured? How does one measure 'time', itself? And, what is 'it' [time], itself, that one is measuring?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmTime itself, probably not, but it depends on what you mean by that.
What I meant when I asked the question, "Is 'time' itself dependent upon a frame?" was, Is 'time', itself, dependent upon a frame.
Maybe after you answer the question, What is 'time', itself, to you? (that is, if you do,) then you will better know and/or understand what I meant.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmNoax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 amThere is no way to objectively sync the two clocks.
Is that because 'time' itself is NOT an actual, objectively, real thing?
No, It's because it is otherwise ambiguous. It would be like asking if Mars is west of Jupiter.
Of course mars is NOT west of jupiter. In the Universe there is NO west, nor east, nor south, nor north, nor up, nor down, nor left, nor right, et cetera, et cetera. Only a human being's perspective, relative to earth, would consider and ask such a meaningless question.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm Depends on the spatial frame, a definition of which arbitrary direction is considered west.
How many actual and real spatial frames are there?
By the way are 'frames' actual real things, or just words used to fathom things in conceptual thinking?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm The ambiguity doesn't carry implications of such relations being real or not.
I did and do NOT observe any ambiguity here.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm Similarly, relativity does not hinge on the reality of time, or the lack of reality.
What does 'relativity' hinge on, to you?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmNoax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 amyes, but they'd read exactly the same in the Earth frame.
'WHAT' would read exactly the same in the earth frame?
The two clocks mentioned in the quote above.
But if you do NOT put in the actual quote in that your reply or answer is referring to, then I, and some others, have to go back and find it, if we are to be absolutely clear about what is being mentioned here.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmAre you saying here that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock would read exactly the same,
No. I said they would read the same
in the frame of Earth. That's what it means to synchronize them in that frame.
I know what is meant when you say synchronize them in that frame.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmwhich would differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler? If so, then is the traveler ahead or behind those two clocks reading exactly the same?
I guess that depends on what he sets his clock to. The quoted bit above didn't specify.
But it was clear that the traveler's clock was set to earth, at the departure event. It was clear before and considering you do NOT add the quote, we will again have to look back to verify if you are telling the truth or not.
It is becoming more clearly obvious that when My clarifying questions get further and further into this, your answers seem to be somewhat more and more unclear and staggered. You seem to want to answer some, but not others, or you do NOT put the quote in, that the question was referring to, or you seem to forget what we were talking about.
I really hope some one will want to just imagine and look at a very simple and straight forward scenario, which I suggested earlier, instead of this becoming near impossible scenario. I am trying to understand what others view, but some say the traveler ages more slowly but another states the people on the planet ages more slowly, and these different views are supposedly from the exact same "frame". I am sure there are other scenarios that do NOT involve the traveler not really moving but really sitting stationary, where planets or star systems are moving towards or away from this supposed "sitting still stationary traveler" and one where star systems and planets move 4.3 light years in just 70 days but the people on the planet only age 3.2 days in the exact same time. All very confusing, especially when others state that it is the traveling one, from that frame, who ages less than the stationary one, but the stationary, or the moving one, depending on who is telling the story changes from ageing slower than others to ageing quicker than others.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmNoax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 amEarth, A-C, and the traveler are in all frames at all times. You can't easily exit a frame. You'd have to leave the visible universe.
Could that even be done?
Sure. Objects move from inside the Hubble Sphere to outside it. This is easy since the sphere is shrinking.
It would also be easy if the sphere is expanding. Also, what do you mean by the 'hubble sphere' is shrinking? Is that what is really happening, or is that only how it appears to be happening?
But, anyway, when you say, "
You'd have to leave the visible universe" I thought you were referring to Me, or others. I did NOT know that when you say "you" that you are referring to non-human objects.
The reason I asked, Could that even be done?, is because it would be virtually impossible for a human being to leave the 'visible universe' because wherever the human being is the size of the 'visible universe' would be roughly the exact same, depending upon deterioration of eyesight and of visibility of course, right?
But for just plain odd objects to leave the visible universe, then that obviously would be very easy indeed.
By the way is the 'visible universe' the same as the 'observable universe'? If it is, then the 'observable universe' is larger than the 'hubble sphere', so objects could move from inside the hubble sphere to outside of it and still be in the observable or visible universe.
It is a bit of a misrepresentation. Inertial frames are valid only locally, and that distance is hardly local.[/quote]
Hardly local to who? Some human beings may only look "locally" but others look at
what IS, instead.
What IS valid EVERY WHERE IS
what IS. If some people only look "locally", (wherever that may be), then that is a very narrow view of ALL THERE IS, and thus all they will have is a very narrow view of things.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm Special relativity simply does not cover that case, and one must apply GR rules for a description of what it means to exit the sphere like that.
Sounding more like special relativity really does have bugger all to do with
reality more and more.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmSo, the "traveler", who is now sitting "still", waits 70 days, according to the "traveler's" accompanying clock, for a distant object, which was about four light years away, to traverse towards and reach the waiting sitting "still traveler", right?
No, the object was a bit less than 70 light days away. But otherwise, yes.
That answer is subject to either the still-moving stationary traveler or the object "traveling" at .999c, right? It is just that it was not properly qualified in THIS quote here.
Also, before the traveler set off the distance they were about to "embark" on was just over for light years and not just under 70 light days, right?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmIf so, and while that sitting "still traveler" awaits supposedly only 70 days for earth and alpha centauri to both traverse and cover a distance of four light years, the clocks on both earth and on alpha centauri supposedly only changed by 75 hours according to the "traveler", is this correct?
Yes, except again for the four light year reference.
But the traveler can only verify this when the traveler is with one of the clocks, correct?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm Earth and AC both move a little under 70 light days of distance in that time.
Yes, My MISTAKE.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmIs this an assumption made about 2017 years after a person labelled jesus was born or is it an indisputable fact that will exist forever more?
Neither.
If it is neither, then what is it?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm'You', were the one, who had previously stated that if the (earth and alpha centauri) clocks are synchronized in earth frame (clocks on earth), then the two clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler, AND, you clarified this by saying yes in an above quote in your reply here, when I had previously asked you about this.
Yes. That made no mention of the traveler clock. His was not one of the two.
That is right, the traveler's clock is not one of the two OTHER clocks. The traveler has their own clock, a third clock, right?
Considering we were talking about the traveler's clock being synchronized with earth's clock at departure event, the traveler's clock and earth would have been synchronized and in the same frame on earth, and the earth and alpha centauri clocks are synchronized together in the earth frame, then that would mean the travelers clock, earth's clock, and alpha centauri's clock would have been synchronized the same also, correct?
If the three clocks are the same at departure event, then when did the earth and alpha centauri clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler?
Was it just after departure, during acceleration, during "rest" at .999c, during deceleration, or at some other point or time?
Also, if at acceleration (and/or deceleration) the traveler is not in 'inertial frame' does that mean that the traveler is ageing slower than the people on earth and the traveler's clock is "ticking" slower than the earth and alpha centauri clocks? If so, then what happens if the traveler is only in an inertial frame of reference for say 1 minute or 30 days for example, then how does that effect the ageing and/or physical dilation processes, relative to the differing frames of references?
For example earth and alpha centauri would be in "stationary" or inertial frame during the traveler's acceleration and deceleration periods, right? But when the traveler was constantly still-moving .999c, then the traveler would be in constant still-moving inertial frame? If this is right, then we would have to be changing our 'frame of reference' and views of what is happening, right?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmSo, what you are saying now is at the start of the "trip" the "traveler's" clock is set to the same time with earth's clock, which is in essence the same time as alpha centauri's clock, right?
Those two clocks (Earth & A-C) are synchronized only in Earth frame, if they decided to synchronize them that way.
OF COURSE it would be IF THEY DECIDED TO SYNCHRONIZE THEM THAT WAY.
But you know full well that that was NOT was I was asking NOR referring to.
I was SAYING and ASKING, if the travelers clock is synchronized to earths clock, at the start of the trip in the traveler frame, and alpha centaur's clock is synchronized to earth's clock also, then the three clocks must be synchronized the same, right?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmAnd that is zero time, is that right? The three clocks are synchronized to show and are all reading the exact same zero, to the "traveler" frame, correct?
The AC clock is reading a bit over 4 years ahead in traveler frame. That clock is not synced with Earth clock in that frame.
WHY is the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock reading a bit over four years ahead in traveler frame if the traveler clock is synchronized to the exact same as the earth clock BEFORE the trip begins?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm... if they do, between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock if at some stage from the "traveler's" frame there was zero difference between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock?
There is only negligible discrepancy between those two clocks in Earth frame if we synced them in that frame. They stay synced.
So, when and why does traveler's clock become out of sync? Remember the traveler's clock was synced with the earth clock when the traveler and earth were in the same frame, which was also synced with alpha centauri's clock, which you just stated stays synced with earth's clock.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmNoax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am The traveler clock reads 70 days at the event of AC and the traveler meeting. Note the use of the word event here.
Yes I did notice the word 'event' here. Is there any thing in particular you wanted to mention about that?
Terminology. It means a definition of both a place and time when something happens, in this case the meeting of the traveler and AC.
Thank you for making that absolutely clear and understood.
I just wish you would do the same for other things you say.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmNoax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 amAt that event, Earth is not present, so the Earth clock reading is a frame dependent thing. It reads 4.3043 years in Earth frame since AC is that far away and the traveler was nearly light speed. It reads 3.1 days in the traveler frame.
So, from earth frame, earth's clock changed by 4.3043 years, but, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock changed only by 3.1 days, correct?
Right. In Earth frame, A-C is 4.3 light years
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm If so, then from earth frame how much does the "traveler's" clock read? What does the "traveler's" clock read in the earth frame?
That's not a frame dependent question because the traveler is present at that event.
What do you mean by that answer?
The traveler is present at WHAT event? Or, did you mean the traveler is NOT present at that event? Meaning at earth?And, how does that not make a frame dependent question? I specifically asked from earth's frame. Are you saying you can only give answers from the traveler's frame? If not, then will you clarify here?
If you can give Me an answer from traveler's frame regarding the change on earth's clock, then why can you NOT give Me an answer from earth's frame regarding the change on traveler's clock?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm His clock reads 70 days in any frame at that second event.
I thought the traveler's clock would read just over 4.3 years from earth's frame and/or alpha centauri's frame because from those frames that is how long it would take a traveler to take a trip from earth to alpha centauri at .999c, is this right?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm The first event when Earth and traveler parted.
What do you mean here?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am3.1 days, since we synced it to Earth clock in traveler frame. The two still must read the same.
So, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock changed by and thus reads 3.1 days, right?
No, if those two clocks were synchronized in Earth frame, they'd not be synchronized in travler frame.
But both were synced with traveler clock at departure event.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm They're out of sync by about 4.3 years in the traveler frame.
So, what does earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock read now at arrival event, from traveler's frame?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm From alpha centauri frame, what does alpha centauri's clock read, and, from alpha centauri frame what does the "traveler's" clock read?
A bit of a list of things unspecified here,
IF there is a bit of a list of things unspecified here, then WHY DO YOU NOT ASK FOR CLARIFICATION
before you start making up assumptions and providing answers to those assumptions?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm but if the Earth and AC clocks were syncronized in Earth/AC frame, AND time was zero at the first even (departure), then the traveler clock reads about 70 days at the 2nd event and the AC clock reads 4.3 years plus about 40 hours.
But why would the traveler's clock read about 70 hours, from alpha centauri frame, and alpha centauri clock reads 4.3 years plus from alpha cenatauri frame, when before, and correct Me if I am wrong here, which no doubt you will anyway, you said that only 3.1 days past on alpha centauri because it was the traveler who was at rest and alpha centauri was moving?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm That's 75 hours the clock logged and about 4.296 years of Earth and AC being out of sync.
What is "THE" clock, which has logged 75 hours?
And, how can earth and alpha centauri clocks now be out of sync when you have said, they stay synced?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 amzero at the departure event, and reading 70 days at the arrival event.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm Are you saying that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock "ticked" slower, in the "traveler" frame, than the "still traveler's" clock did? If so, is this because the "traveler" was the one "at rest" because earth and alpha centauri were the ones moving? If that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?
Yes, you actually expressed that correctly. Time is dilated for moving things. In the traveler frame, it is the other clocks that are moving.
Therefore, the clock on alpha centauri would read about 3.1 days, from the traveler's frame, but would be reading 4.3 years plus, from alpha centauri's frame, right?
And, the traveler's clock would read about 70 days, from the traveler's frame, and you have already stated that the traveler's clock would be reading about 70 days from alpha centauri frame also, right?
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmAlthough I can accept and agree with this, you did NOT provide any subsequent readings for us to look at. (For example I can accept and agree that how long a piece of rope is, is twice the distance of half its length. But if NO actual answer is being provided, then there is no thing to look at.) The readings I have for half way and for at the end are much different than the reading you, davidm, uwot, and thedoc would have.
You found something that addresses this question?
Yes
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm I have no links for the halfway question. It's just that there is no magic than happens more at the front or the back half. If nothing is accelerating, the progressing of all clocks in all frames is steady.
But you have more or less stated that clocks change, all by themselves, at speed.
That sounds rather magical, to Me, anyway.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmSince you and them are supposedly NOT in contradiction at all with each other,
I never claimed that.
I never claimed that you claimed that.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pmWould this also mean that you, davidm, uwot, and thedoc are also absolutely right here?
We're just parroting our education.
Yes you are certainly doing that.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm Your posts seem to question the validity/existence of the falsifications behind that education. Not a bad thing always.
I do not see much wrong with questioning, especially questioning that which seems to not make much sense at all, and especially questioning that which does contradict and is inconsistent with that that does make a whole lot of sense.
Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm I was taught that a camel stores its water in its hump. Somebody actually thought to test that hypothesis and it was falsified, but only after all these books taught otherwise.
Therefore My point exactly. If people do NOT continually question what textbooks say, then others would still be believing things that are completely untrue, just like people are still doing in this day and age.