Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:01 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:04 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pm
A 'theory' is more or less a made up version of what thing SHOULD be like.
It's stuff like this that make me think you must be troll -- or hopelessly uneducable. Maybe both.

How many times, in this thread, has the definition of "theory" been explained to you?

Yet there you go again, making the above preposterous claim -- just as if you never read a word anyone wrote.
Why do you say it is a 'preposterous claim'?

To you, is a 'theory' more or less a claim of what things ARE like?

Or, more or less a claim of what things SHOULD be like? That is, what things are THOUGHT to be like or are PRESUMED to be like?

Or do you use another way of expressing this?

Also, could you have presumed I used the word 'SHOULD' in a way that I might NOT have?

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Belinda » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:18 am

Ken, do you mean that a theory is part of some identifiable world-view(a metaphysic)?

If so, I can understand you. However there are some theories of physics which seem to be overarching all world views. Please don't challenge me to name those theories . I hope that someone who knows physics can name them.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:48 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Watch Ken ignore this. He’s so predictable. And retrodictable!

A theory is a model of the world that is consistent with empirically observed facts about it, and which makes predictions and retrodictions that are falsifiable.
WHY make predictions and retrodictions that ARE falsifiable?

WHY not just do that what shows, expresses, and explains the Truth of things?

Once again I will ask, WHY presume and make assumptions?
davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Special relativity is consistent with observed facts and it makes certain predictions — such as relativistic muon decay. Such decay is observed.
WHY tell us one of the certain predictions of special relativity, and then tell us that that prediction has already been observed?

IS muon decay a prediction, or has it been observed and is therefore a fact? One is part of a THEORY and the other is an actual FACT, in case you have not worked that out yet. Can or does an observed fact still stay as a theorized part of a theory?
davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
You would know all about this if you had read the link that I gave you TWICE.
What is it with you and Me reading what you want Me to. Even if I had read it twice, which if I recall correctly I have partly done just that, knowing trivial stuff like that is really rather pointless to what I want to show and express. Knowing what you want Me to know still does NOT have much to do with what I have been talking about.
davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Theories make retrodictions — predictions about the past. The theory of evolution retrodicts that we will never find a bunny rabbit fossil in the era of dinosaurs.
Are you still under some belief that 'evolution' could be falsified?

If so, do you also believe that some thing could or did create you and every thing else?
davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
So far we have not found one.
You really do have a very narrow view of things and live in a view small and narrow "world" hey? Are you somehow trying to suggest that just because in your era of living, which is a very backward way of life by the way, but that just because a rabbit fossil has not yet been found from the era of dinosaurs, then that proves or disproves, falsifies or verifies some thing?

What is it that you actually trying to say or suggest by stating, in the era, that is the greedy, war-torn, polluted era that you live in when this is being writing, when you say, So far no bunny rabbit fossil has been found in the era of dinosaurs?
davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm
Theory of Ken:

Empirical: doesn’t know anything.

Prediction: won’t ever know anything.

Retrodiction: has shown no evidence of knowing anything in the fossil record of this thread.
The stupider you see Me as being, the happier I become. The ease of being able to manipulate and use human beings like you, in order to show what it is that I am doing, is very satisfying.

By the way if you had noticed there is NOT much at all that I have ignored of yours, if any. But your assumptions and beliefs distract you a great deal from seeing and understanding what is actually taking place here. It is your own self made beliefs and assumptions, which is causing you to miss what is going on. Your own writings are showing and proving what I have been alluding to all along. Your attempts of trying to ridicule others also shows just how much you have actually missed.

Also, I would much prefer to know no thing at all and never know no thing at all, then ever believe any thing. The latter would prevent Me from learning, whereas the former NEVER even slows Me down from continually learning. I much prefer to always be OPEN and keep learning, than I would to ever believe I KNEW some thing, which inevitably would slow Me down and even prevent or stop Me completely from learning.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:04 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:00 pm
ken wrote:
A theory is more or less a made up version of what thing SHOULD be like
In science a theory is the highest form of classification there is.
If I recall correctly you have already told Me this, at least once.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:00 pm
A body of knowledge incorporating facts and laws that has been subject to the most rigorous examination possible.
I thought a 'theory' was more like a presumption of what the "world" might be like, AND, WAS open to future "rigorous examinations possible"?

The way you have written it here, are you proposing that a 'theory', is a body of knowledge that HAS already BEEN subject to the most rigorous examination possible?

If not, then what are you trying to propose?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:00 pm
Theories can still be falsified as nothing in science is ever proven but this does not mean they are made up
Ah, I was using the word 'should' to get people to make wrong assumptions, I did not even notice that the words 'made up' would also create the same result. The sublime way I express when I write even surpasses the writer, some times.

By the way, if human beings do not 'make up' theories, then were do theories originate from exactly?

Did a human being labelled "einstein", while working with other human beings, make up and/or create the theory of special relativity? Or, was that theory never made up?

What do you mean by 'nothing in science is ever proven'?

I thought 'science' was just the study of things, obviously by human beings. Can there actually be 'any thing IN science, itself'? If so, then what is that thing or things?

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Belinda » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:22 pm

Ken wrote:
if human beings do not 'make up' theories, then were do theories originate from exactly?
Do you believe that scientific theories are mind-dependent? Or not? Or to ask the question another way "How do we know what we know?"

It matters that science is differentiated from pseudo-science and metaphysics , and falsifiability is an important criterion for doing so.

I recommend David Chalmers's "What Is This Thing Called Science?" for beginners in philosophy of science.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:01 pm

ken wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:04 pm
I thought 'science' was just the study of things, obviously by human beings. Can there actually be 'any thing IN science, itself'? If so, then what is that thing or things?
Science is a method of observing and testing reality, and then scientists develop theories to explain what has been observed. A theory must take all observations into account, if it doesn't there could be mistakes and errors in the theory.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5634
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:16 pm

thedoc wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:01 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:04 pm
I thought 'science' was just the study of things, obviously by human beings. Can there actually be 'any thing IN science, itself'? If so, then what is that thing or things?
Science is a method of observing and testing reality, and then scientists develop theories to explain what has been observed. A theory must take all observations into account, if it doesn't there could be mistakes and errors in the theory.
This underlies science being fluid. Also, Ken, it happens all the time that science does study itself of which there are many examples as there is overlap between science and other branches of study and knowledge (in sales, I personally conducted studies that are considered revolutionary by some which has led to trade secrets).

PhilX 🇺🇸

surreptitious57
Posts: 3149
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:16 pm

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
A body of knowledge incorporating facts and laws that has been subject to the most rigorous examination possible
I thought a theory was more like a presumption of what the world might be like AND WAS open to future rigorous examinations possible

The way you have written it here are you proposing that a theory is a body of knowledge that HAS already BEEN subject to

the most rigorous examination possible
There is no point at which rigorous examination ever stops because that is not how science operates

Examination is continually ongoing so theories can be subject to it even after they become theories

surreptitious57
Posts: 3149
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:30 pm

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Theories can still be falsified as nothing in science is ever proven but this does not mean they are made up
By the way if human beings do not make up theories then were do theories originate from exactly
I mean made up as pertaining to fabrication not to origin which is what you mean

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:28 pm

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pm
Have you NOT made any presumption at all about what 'time' actually IS?
Fine. Time is the temporal separation between events.
Is that what 'time' actually IS, or is that just what you presume 'time' to actually be?

Also, how do you define 'temporal' here? You are aware that there is no actual physical separation between events, right? There are only perceived separate, temporary, events. Human beings have a tendency to separate the ONE and only event, and the ONE and only thing, into many labeled "separated" events, and things. This trying to separate the ONE event and thing, and seeing this as being separate, individual, and/or different events and things will become known as separatism, which will be the name (or label) given for any sort of racism, sexism, ageism, et cetera, or for any other form of labeling, categorizing, or stereo typing. When 'separatism', which is any form at attempting to make a separation in order to see one labeled thing as being worse or better than another labeled thing, is fully understood, then separatism will become eradicated.

If, however, you still believe that there is an actual physical separation between events, would you like to explain HOW, WHAT, and WHERE that actual separation lies?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
What is "it" that you say can be measured between two events?
It is time.
But you just stated that 'time' IS the temporal separation between events, right?

Now you are saying that you can measure the temporal separation between events, right?

HOW do you measure the 'temporal separation' between events, and, WHAT is the actual separation? Is there some sort of 'actual physical separation' or just a 'perceived separation'?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
It is like measuring the spatial width of your table with a tape measure. That would be a measure of spacetime in a spatial dimension. Time is the same sort of stuff as that, but in a different direction.
I see we have a great deal more to learn here.

Are you aware of any of 'obvious leo's' writings, here in this forum, about how, to leo, there is no (actual) space? Although leo professed to there being actual 'time', (which will be falsified) but to there being no actual 'space', which, in hindsight, was very relatively a new idea and is, (still to) be a rather controversial idea, in the era when this was written, but nevertheless there was still an accuracy in that idea that was not yet accepted at the time. Just as obvious leo was not at all open nor accepting to the idea that there could be no 'time' neither, neither were most human beings at all open nor accepting to the idea that there could be no 'space'.

To Me, that was NOT a measure of 'spacetime' in a spatial dimension. That was just the measuring of the width of an object called a "table" with another object called a "tape measure". What is 'spacetime' to you?

Also, what do you mean by time is the "same sort of stuff" as measuring the width of a table with a tape measure or the measuring of spacetime, but in a different direction? What 'stuff' are you actually talking about? And, what 'direction' are you referring to?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
You insist, with absolute certainty, that 'time' does things, like, dilates with speed, but you are clearly unable to explain and answer what 'time' actually is.
I didn't say is 'does' things. There is more or less of it if you measure in a different direction. That's me doing something, not time doing it.
Are you now saying that there is more or less of 'temporal separation between events' depending on the direction you measure it?

If yes, then how many different directions are there, and what are those directions called?
If no, then may you explain further?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
So, let Me see if I have this right, human beings assign certain things 'arbitrarily', or based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?
Most fine one that they find personally functional.
Although what you said may be true, the actual choice one finds personally functional may not be actually true, accurate, nor correct, am I right?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
On the universal scale, that's a very arbitrary choice.
WHY would you think 'on the Universal scale' it would necessarily be a very arbitrary choice?

The Universal scale is what shows the biggest and most accurate picture of ALL-THERE-IS. Could there really be a true arbitrary choice there?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pm
Have you NOT made any presumption at all about what 'time' actually IS?
Fine. Time is the temporal separation between events.
Is that what 'time' actually IS, or is that just what you presume 'time' to actually be?

Also, how do you define 'temporal'? You are aware that there is no actual physical separation between events, right? There are only perceived separate, temporary, events. Human beings have a tendency to separate the ONE and only event, and the ONE and only thing, into many labeled "separated" events, and things. This trying to separate the ONE event and thing, and seeing this as being separate, individual, and/or different events and things will become known as separatism, which will be the name (or label) given for any sort of racism, sexism, ageism, et cetera, or for any other form of labeling, categorizing, or stereo typing. When 'separatism', which is any form at attempting to make a separation in order to see one labeled thing as being worse or better than another labeled thing, is fully understood, then separatism will become eradicated.

If, however, you still believe that there is an actual physical separation between events, would you like to explain HOW, WHAT, and WHERE that actual separation lies?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
What is "it" that you say can be measured between two events?
It is time.
But you just stated that 'time' IS the temporal separation between events, right?

Now you are saying that you can measure the temporal separation between events, right?

HOW do you measure the 'temporal separation' between events, and, WHAT is the actual separation? Is there some sort of 'actual physical separation' or just a 'perceived separation'?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
It is like measuring the spatial width of your table with a tape measure. That would be a measure of spacetime in a spatial dimension. Time is the same sort of stuff as that, but in a different direction.
I see we have a great deal more to learn here.

Are you aware of any of 'obvious leo's' writings, here in this forum, about how, to leo, there is no (actual) space? Although leo professed to there being actual 'time', (which will be falsified) but to there being no actual 'space', which, in hindsight, was very relatively a new idea and is, (still to) be a rather controversial idea, in the era when this was written, but nevertheless there was still an accuracy in that idea that was not yet accepted at the time. Just as obvious leo was not at all open nor accepting to the idea that there could be no 'time' neither, neither were most human beings at all open nor accepting to the idea that there could be no 'space'.

To Me, that was NOT a measure of 'spacetime' in a spatial dimension. That was just the measuring of the width of an object called a "table" with another object called a "tape measure". What is 'spacetime' to you?

Also, what do you mean by time is the "same sort of stuff" as measuring the width of a table with a tape measure or the measuring of spacetime, but in a different direction? What 'stuff' are you actually talking about? And, what 'direction' are you referring to?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
You insist, with absolute certainty, that 'time' does things, like, dilates with speed, but you are clearly unable to explain and answer what 'time' actually is.
I didn't say is 'does' things. There is more or less of it if you measure in a different direction. That's me doing something, not time doing it.
Are you now saying that there is more or less of 'temporal separation between events' depending on the direction you measure it?

If yes, then how many different directions are there, and what are those directions called?
If no, then may you explain further?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
So, let Me see if I have this right, human beings assign certain things 'arbitrarily', or based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?
Most fine one that they find personally functional.
Although what you said may be true, the actual choice one finds personally functional may not be actually true, accurate, nor correct, am I right?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
On the universal scale, that's a very arbitrary choice.
WHY would you think 'on the Universal scale' it would necessarily be a very arbitrary choice?

The Universal scale is what shows the biggest and most accurate picture of ALL-THERE-IS. Could there really be a true arbitrary choice there?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
A 'theory' is more or less a made up version of what thing SHOULD be like.
I can see the others already really taking apart your biases displayed with that statement. Good to see they read enough of these posts to find gems like that one.
My supposed and presumed biases have NOT already really been taken apart at all.

The "gem" like that one, was written specifically to show future readers, other than those readers in the days when this is written, HOW easily some human beings can "see" things that are NOT even there at all. The reason human beings do this IS because of their already held biases, beliefs, and/or assumptions. I wrote that also specifically to show HOW easy, relatively, past human beings could be and are very easily manipulated by just writing things in a certain way.

Yours, and others, biases based, which are based within your, and others, beliefs, which are that I supposedly have an opposite view of what you, and they, believe is true is so very easy to expose, as just proven.

There are NO biases at all in what I wrote. The "gem" that I wrote is exactly what you would say, just in other words. You, and others, just see "biases" in what I wrote because you, and them, HAVE biases ALREADY.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Noax wrote:None or infinite, depending on what you mean by actual and real.
I was meaning actual and real in the sense that they actually exist, and are NOT just human conceived systems that can be moved around or juggled depending on an observer, and/or how they are feeling and/or thinking at any particular moment.

Does the answer have to none or infinite? Is there NO in between here?
OK, I think the answer is none then. Frames are not actual things as you seem to define them. I cannot think of any definition where there would be some number in between.
Okay.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
If you CONSIDER west to be in a certain direction, then to you it is real, is that what you are saying?
It depends on if I define something like a direction to be a real thing. Your description above seems to put it in the 'non-real human concept' category, so by that definition, west is not a real thing, and neither is any frame. I'm fine with that definition.
Okay.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Knowledge of it hinges on empirical observation, much in the same way that knowledge of it does not hinge on the ontological status of what time is.
So, to you, the knowledge of relativity hinges on empirical observation, right?

If yes, then what is 'relativity' exactly, which the knowledge of it hinges on empirical observation?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
You can say that time is not real. If so, then space isn't either, since it's the same stuff, just a human concept assigning some number to the distance between here and there.
In very simple terms that is just about what I would say.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
As for relativity, knowledge of it was gained through empirical observation, one observation of which was time dilation.
I thought A clock was observed to be different from another clock, depending on the speed that it was traveling compared to the other one. I did not know some human beings supposedly observed 'time', itself, dilate also. What did that thing called 'time' actually look like when it was observed in dilation?

I think for now we can both agree that separate objects called clocks were observed to be showing different readings after one clock traveled in one direction while another clock traveled in another direction RELATIVE to another clock which was considered and called stationary, by some human beings, but I think it might be a while before we can both agree about what time is and if it actually dilates or not.

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Non-relativistic views were falsified by the same observations.
Having views of some thing that may or may not be found to be true later on seems a rather ridiculous view to take, to Me. WHY not just remain open and view what IS, instead? One good reason for that is NO view could ever be falsified, and, ONLY the Truth is observed, seen, AND understood.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
The sphere is one of those un-real very human-centric things. It is different for every place and frame. What we call the Hubble sphere is in fact just our Hubble Sphere, meaning a sphere of radius R, centered on Earth (in perhaps comoving frame), where R is the the distance that when multiplied by the Hubble constant yields the speed of light. A pure mathematical construct, and has nothing to do with what is actually going on out there.
Anyway, yes, stuff that is moving fast enough towards us can outrun the receding radius and go into that sphere from outside. That does not change the radius. There is an event horizon somewhat further out, beyond which things can never be detected from here even given infinite time.
Thank you for answering honestly. Your answer was the very point I was getting at by My clarifying question.

Some times what people propose is NOT what the actual truth is.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
I gave a simpler one above, essentially the same one, but without reference to terms like peculiar velocity.
But to the uninitiated your first one could be very misinterpreted.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
More precisely, all clocks run at the same pace in the frame in which they are stationary.
But is there even an actual 'stationary'?

If not, then 'stationary' is only a human being perception, and just a way for human beings to look at things differently, and maybe differently from what they really are?

Human beings can and may imagine that they or other objects are stationary, but are they really?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
They measure the temporal distance in that frame, and not in another.
Is there really able to be actually different frames?

Or is there just different frames from which human beings can look through, or from within?

If you say there is actually different frames, then what are they depended upon?

Also do clocks really measure a temporal distance or any thing else for that matter, or are they just a human being devised invention, which was created to move or change at a certain measured rate?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Similarly a tape measure oriented east-west measures east/west distance but not north/south.
Are you trying to say that because a human being devised invention called a tape measure which was created with certain measurements can be orientated in certain ways that that is similar to there being supposedly actually different frames from which a clock can measure?

By the way, is there really an east-west and a south/north, or are they just terms used by human beings, on earth, to explain some things?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Orient it differently and it measures the same thing in a different direction.
There maybe perceived different directions in so called "space", but how many perceived different directions do you propose are there in the so called 'time'?

uwot
Posts: 4318
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:05 pm

ken wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:27 am
Science is meant to be about studying, what IS.
ken, as long as you believe that, everything you say will be complete bollocks. Science is about studying what happens; it is phenomenology rather than ontology.
ken wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:27 am
Making up theories or hypothesize about what COULD BE is just a form of making up assumptions, of which only certain human beings do.
Troll posted a link which explains the issue rather well. You could make less of a fool of yourself by watching it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Belinda » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:45 pm

Uwot wrote:
ken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:27 am
Science is meant to be about studying, what IS.


ken, as long as you believe that, everything you say will be complete bollocks. Science is about studying what happens; it is phenomenology rather than ontology.
I agree with uwot. I just want to say that Uwot's post well illustrates the meaning of the word 'phenomenology'.It's a word that still puzzles me. Does phenomenology always imply that it's the subject who interprets what happens? This has to be the case, and Ken's presumption that science is capable of studying what objectively IS, is a wrong presumption.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:48 pm

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Inertial frames are nothing more than a designation of a direction.
Is 'direction' the correct term to be using in relation to 'inertial frames' and 'time'? If yes, then how does different direction influence or change the outcome, and what do directions, themselves, have that changes the results or readings?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
So, when you say earth's clock is synced with alpha centauri's clock, what do both clocks read at the event of syncing?
The exact same time? Or,
Different times?
The syncing is not an event since the clocks are not in each other's presence. Hence a frame needs to be selected. In that frame, the clocks read the same time. Since A-C is effectively the same frame as Earth (for purposes of this exercise), then they stay synced in that frame.
Is that in the IMAGINED exercise? Because for all intensive purposes alpha centauri and earth could NEVER stay synced because they are both moving at different speeds, unless of course some human being arbitrarily wants to make the choice that they are in the same frame?

If "empirical evidence" has verified that traveling at different speeds results in so called "time dilation", then there would NOT be two clocks ever remaining synced unless of course there are two things, with a clock each, that move at the exact same speed.

To say some thing like, X is "effectively" the same frame as Y (for the purpose of this exercise), without making the actual empirical observations of what IS actually happening is to effectively predict, assume, or say what the actual outcome will BE.

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Noax wrote:It is the frame in which the simultaneity is considered. It is not something that happens or is caused.
When is simultaneity considered?
???? Whenever you want. The ordering of events is frame dependent, but not dependent on when one considers them.
Are there actual real, different and separate 'frames', or do human beings just give separate labels to perceived different 'frames'?

There are actual real, different and separate 'speeds' at which objects, of which human bodies are one of, can travel. But are each of those multitude of differing levels of 'speed' really different 'frames'?

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
If it is NOT possible, then WHY do we talk about?
You're the one why always talks about future technology.
Do I?

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Maybe they'll have something that accelerates all particles at once so the act is not even detectable to the traveler. Doing this without destruction of Earth (from the recoil) would be pretty awesome technology.
So would other things also be pretty awesome technology, but mentioning them here also would not really be on topic.

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
When I question what would happen if, and only IF, a traveler could travel at the speed of light? I am almost inevitably told that that is impossible so there is no use in talking about it.
Traveling at lightspeed is a mathematical singularity and not describable.
Of course traveling at lightspeed is describable. Every thing is describable. That is why we have language and a word for absolutely every thing.

As for that being a mathematical singularity, human beings can make any thing into any thing just by perceiving and thinking.

The word 'singularity' is used by human beings some times in order to stop looking any further and to stop talking about and describing what is unimaginable to some of those human beings.


Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
It is not a technological limitation.
Are you saying that traveling at the speed of light is not a technological limitation.


Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Noax wrote:The frame defines which event is simultaneous with the departure event. That event on A-C happens to be 3 days short of time 4.3 years on their clock.
WHAT EVENT, and WHY does that event, on alpha centauri JUST HAPPEN TO BE 3 days short of time 4.3 years on "their" clock?

Also, who is "their"?
AC's clock. It doesn't 'happen to be'. It will read 4.3 years when at the arrival event, and that clock takes a 3 day journey in traveler frame, so I subtracted.
That clock is only presumed to "dilate" or slow down compared to earth's frame, right? Or, to you, is that not only presumed to be true, but IS an unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed?

HOW do you KNOW what 'it will read', especially if the actual exercise has NOT yet been performed?

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
It's all just math.
AND the "maths" all depends on who is actually performing it.

NOT every one arrives at the same answers as you do.

Your answers appear to be contradictory and confusing. I am sure if you wrote the name of the actual thing instead of 'it' (will read) and described which event or what clock 'it' actually is instead of 'that' event, 'that' clock, or 'their' clock, then what you say would not be so confusing, to Me, and then I would not have to keep asking you clarifying questions.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
What do you mean by "negligible discrepancy"? In other words "by how much"?
Far less than the two-digit precision of our example.
What "two" clocks in earth frame if we synced "them" in that frame? Does "that" mean earth frame?
And, WHAT is "they" that stay synced?[/quote]

Your command of the English language is weak enough to render communication almost impossible. The two clocks are the AC one and the Earth one, as it was these two that you were asking about. 'that frame' means Earth frame, mentioned a few words earlier in the statement.[/quote]

Agreed. To you, it is solely I, whose command of the english language, which is rendering our communication almost impossible, right?

When you use 'it', 'their', 'that', et cetera how do I KNOW for sure WHAT you are actually referring to? Your use of 'it', 'their', et cetera is NOT always obvious what they are actually directed at or in relation to.

Or do you think and/or believe it would be better if I just always ASSUMED what you are actually talking about?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Noax wrote:He's moving in Earth frame. His clock logs less time in Earth frame. A clock that logs 70 days in 4.3 years is not able to stay synced.
And, according to you, earth's clock logs less time in "travelers" frame. A clock that logs 3 days in 70 days is not able to stay synced, is that right?
Yes.
But your maths does not seem to work.

Also, why do you keep repeating the exact same OBVIOUS things instead of just answering the question?

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Noax wrote:Yes, but only in Earth/AC frame.
But why ONLY in earth/alpha centauri frame?

Why not in earth/"traveler" frame or in alpha centauri/earth frame?
Other frames order events differently.
How can any person KNOW what another clock is logging if they are, as you say, "in another frame"?

What do you mean by 'other frames' and 'order events differently'?

WHAT 'other' frames, and, WHAT 'order' are you talking about?

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
How many frames are there, since both were present at that event?
Clocks were present at the event. Frames have no location.
Is this all just what you imagine would happen, or do you believe that this is what actually would happen, or is it both?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
If earth's clock and travelers clock were synced to zero at the departure event, then what was alpha centauri's clock synced to at the same departure event?
We said it was synced to the Earth clock in Earth frame.
Was alpha centauri clock synced the exact same, say for example as the exact same reading, or was alpha centauri clock adjusted in any other way from that reading.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
The AC clock was not present at the departure event.
Of course the alpha centauri clock was NOT present at the departure event. Alpha centauri is where the arrival event takes place and IS.


Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Noax wrote:The traveler clock changes 70 days between the two events because that's how much time elapses for the traveler.
But that is FROM the "travelers" frame. I am NOT asking about that. I am asking about WHY you can NOT give Me an answer as to what the "travelers" clock changes by between the two events from the earth's frame?
It changes by 70 days between those two events. It is not a frame dependent answer. So if you insist, it changes by 70 days in the Earth frame, or any other frame for that matter.
So, ALL other frames in the Universe are the same, except for the "traveller's" frame, is that right?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
But how come now the "travelers" brother is older when you said before the time passed on the earth's clock would only be 6.2 days from the "travelers" frame, of which would be 140 days on the "travelers" clock? How could the one who, you say, aged less, from the "travelers" frame, now be the older of the two brothers?
This is the right question. There is a third frame now for the return trip, and in that frame, at the AC event where the U-turn takes place, the Earth twin is already 8.6 years older than he was at the departure event.
ALL questions are the right question.

However, you have missed the point. BEFORE you said, the clocks on earth would be logging slower from the "traveller's" frame, thus human beings and the "traveller's" brother would have aged "slower" because it was the "traveller's" frame that was "stationary" and the earth frame which was moving. But now you are saying when the u-turn takes place, the earth twin is already 8.6 years older than he was at the departure event. Now there is two questions, instead of just one;
1. Is the earth twin already 8.6 years at the u-turn event at alpha centauri or at the arrival event back on earth?
2. You said before the earth twin is younger than the "travelling" twin, from the "traveller's" frame, but now you are saying the the earth twin is older than the "travelling" twin, from the "traveler's" frame when the "travelling" twin is back on earth. So, which one is younger than the other when the "travelling" one is travelling AND when that one is back on earth at the arrival event?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Are you proposing some thing magical happened? Is the "travelers" frame magically completely erased and "come back" into earth's frame? Or, is there some purely logical reason for what happens here that you will now explain to us?
Different frames order events differently. At the AC event (the U-turn), the Earth twin's age is 3 days in the outbound frame but 3 days short of 8.6 years in the return frame. Not magic, just a conceptual change about what time on Earth is simultaneous with some distant event that is not on Earth. It is real enough that the twin back home really is 8.6 years older in that return frame than he is in the outbound frame.
Are you saying that when a "traveler" moves AWAY from a 'certain position' that the clocks at that 'certain position' change slower and that things age slower there, from the "traveller's" frame, but the exact opposite happens when the "traveller" moves TOWARDS the same 'certain position, that is to say that the clocks and ageing process speed up doubly?

If so, then why does the earth twin age by 8.6 years at the u-turn event at alpha centauri, which is said to be a distance of 4.3 years away, and which takes the "traveler" about 4.3 years to travel there in earth's frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Also, is earth's clock and/or alpha centauri's clock dilated due to high speed in the traveler frame?
Of course. That's why the Earth twin ages only 3 days during each leg of the journey.
Did you not just say that the earth twin aged by 8.6 years, and in only one leg of the journey? If so, is this not contradictory?
Noax wrote: His clock logs only 70 days during the 4.3 year time it takes in that frame.
So, in earth's frame the time the trip takes is 4.3 years, right?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
If so, is this 4.3 years the same length of time from alpha centauri's frame?
Yes, since they're effectively the same frame. We're assuming that AC is stationary relative to our system, which to well over 2 digits of precision, it is.
This supposed "two digits of precision" between alpha centauri and the solar system is compared or relative to what exactly?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
And, what about from the moon's frame, jupiter's frame, this solar system's frame, the galaxy this solar system is in's frame, do they measure the time the trip took was about 4.3 years also? Or, do they read completely different readings, like maybe 70 or maybe 3.1 days too?
The frames of none of these things varies by anything near .001c, so no significant difference.
So, at what varied speed does any "significant" difference supposedly come in?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
What do you mean by 'we'?
You and I, since we decided that the two clocks would be synced in the Earth frame.
Remember, if, as you say, only 3.1 days pass, from travelers frame, on alpha centauri, then WHY would alpha centauri clocks read 4.3 years?
Because it already read 3 days short of that at departure time, in the traveler frame.
Did it? Why would alpha centauri clock read 3 days short of 4.3 years at departure time, in the "traveller" frame?

And, what did the alpha centauri clock read at departure time, in the earth frame?

What was the reading on the clock on alpha centauri and on the clock on earth, which 'we' decided would be synced in the earth frame?

And, is that the exact same reading at departure time? If so, and they are different from the "traveller" frame, at the departure time, then why so?
WHEN "traveler" is present at the event of arriving at alpha centauri what does the "traveler" read on the clock on alpha centauri?
1. 3.1 days
2. 70 days
3. 4.3 years
The third one.
So, what does alpha centauri's clock read when the so called "traveler" is present at the event of arrival on alpha centauri?
4.3 years.
Did you just NOT go through saying that earth clock and alpha centauri clock WERE synced at zero time at the departure event and stayed in sync?
No, I said they were synced in Earth/AC frame.[/quote]

So, how "out of sync" now are earth clock and alpha centauri clock from each other, in earth/alpha centauri frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
But now are you suggesting that alpha centauri clock was NOT synced with earth's clock, as alpha centauri clock supposedly already read about 4.3 years at the departure time?
Different frame.
WHAT is 'different frame'? And, WHAT is THAT frame different from exactly?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Or, did alpha centauri clock "jump" 4.3 years as soon as the "traveler" started moving or staying "stationary", however you want to word it?
It never jumped. No discontinuities.
You seem to like alluding to things more than I do. The difference is I do not stop asking clarifying questions.

So, HOW did alpha centauri's clock end up being on 4.3 years at departure event, when it was synced with earth's clock at ZERO, at departure even?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
When you say "synced" what do you actually mean? If for example two clocks are "synced", do they read the exact same time, or, do they read different times, depending on their distance apart from each other, or, some thing else?
I said they were synced in some frame, which does not imply synced in another.
When did you say, they were synced in SOME frame, which I agree OBVIOUSLY does not imply synced in another?

Also, do you think it might speed things up if you said in WHAT frame exactly clocks were synced, instead of just alluding to SOME frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Synced means they read the same time.
Okay. So, earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock are synced at ZERO, at departure event, in earth's frame, alpha centauri's frame, and in "traveller's" frame, is this right or wrong?

If it is right, then great. If, however, it is wrong, will you explain what is right, and which you say 'we' have decided. Again, I will go along with whatever YOU want to sync the clocks at.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
How can earth clock and alpha centauri's clock now be out of sync, when they were synced at departure event?
They're still synced in the Earth/AC frame in which they were originally synced.
So earth and alpha centauri's clocks are both are still synced in earth and alpha centauri's frame, is this right?

If yes, then that would mean that they both read 4.3 years, at arrival event, from earth and alpha centauri's frame, right?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
And when you say both alpha centauri clock and earth clock have logged 75 hours, "in the traveler frame", is that while the "traveler" was in its own frame or when the "traveler" was present at the event of arrival on alpha centauri?
It was during time between the departure and arrival at AC events, in the traveler frame.
So, at departure event all three clocks, that is "traveller's" clock, earth's clock, and alpha centauri were synced at ZERO, and somehow during the journey the "traveller's" clock, earth's clock, and alpha centauri's clock only logged 75 hours, from "travellers" frame, but at arrival event on alpha centauri where "traveller" is now back in earth and alpha centauri's frame does the earth clock and alpha centauri's clock read 4.3 years and NOT 75 hours, and what does the "traveller's" clock read? Also, does the age of the body of the "traveller" correspond with the "traveller's" clock, whatever that is, and do the ages of the bodies on earth and at alpha centauri correspond with the clocks on earth and at alpha centauri?

Also, if any of these clocks are different, then which one is RIGHT?

And, where and when does the actual transition from one so called "frame" to another supposed "frame" take place?

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Noax wrote:They're still in sync in Earth/AC frame. Earth clock also reads 4.3 years in Earth frame, since the trip took that long.
But is that not a "frame dependent" answer?
It is. Earth/AC frame was specified.
Earth/alpha centauri frame was specified in relation to what earth clock reads, right? You also said, since the 'trip' took "that long". But how long did the actual 'trip', itself, take? A 'trip' is usually in relation to the object, human being or thing, taking the trip and NOT usually relative to the departure point, destination point, nor any thing else.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Are you now saying the trip actually took 4.3 years?
In Earth/AC frame, yes.
What "frame" is the traveler in when they are at alpha centauri or earth?

And, how long did the trip take for this traveler when they are at alpha centauri or back on earth?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
Also how can earth clock "ALSO" read 4.3 years when you said alpha centauri clock reads 3.1 days?
Different frames
But did we not agree that they were synced in the same earth/alpha centauri frame. What is the "different frame" now?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
And if the "stationary traveler" returns to earth, at the same "stationary speed" will the twin back home be older or younger?
If the traveler remains stationary, Earth is moving away and will not come back. He will not ever return there. Something has to accelerate.
Was it you before who said some thing like that a human being can be "stationary" within a moving ship?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
But you also just said the twin back home had advanced by 4.3 years, so what did the earth clock advance by? 3 days or 4.3 years?

When the so called "traveler" is present at arrival event on alpha centauri what does earth clock read? 3 days or 4.3 years
Frame dependent questions.
Seems like you have many different frames, which are again all arbitrary, correct?

How about;
1. Traveler frame?
2. Earth frame?
3. Alpha centauri frame?
4. Earth/alpha centauri frame?

Is there any or many other frames that you can think of? If yes, how many and what are the name of some of them?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm
What would the "traveler" when present at the arrival event see alpha centauri's clock reading?
4.3 years. I've answered this at least 3 times just in this post now.
And, what would the clock on earth be reading when the "traveler" is present at the arrival event on alpha centauri?
Frame dependent question.
[/quote]

I just asked a plain, simple question, which then seems to be unable to be answered by some people. Okay so you want/need A "frame", HOW MANY different frames are there when the so called "traveler" is present at the arrival event at alpha centauri?

Could you just provide the name for some of those "frames", and then just give the answer, to as many as those "frames" as you can?

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:47 pm

Belinda wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 1:45 pm
Uwot wrote:
ken wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:27 am
Science is meant to be about studying, what IS.

ken, as long as you believe that, everything you say will be complete bollocks. Science is about studying what happens; it is phenomenology rather than ontology.
I agree with uwot.
So do I, and I must admit that interpretation of the word has then been used incorrectly. I don't believe relativity is what IS, I simply believe it is what happens, just like being hit by the bus being what will happen if I step in front of it, regardless of if the bus is what IS or not.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:54 pm

ken wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 12:28 pm
Time is the temporal separation between events.
You are aware that there is no actual physical separation between events, right?
There is very much physical separation between them. If you're going to ask me what time is, you need to use my definition of, among other things, what an event is, which is a point in Minkowski spacetime. Different points are physically separated in the same way that 2 is separated from 5 on the number line.
HOW do you measure the 'temporal separation' between events, and, WHAT is the actual separation? Is there some sort of 'actual physical separation' or just a 'perceived separation'?
The actual separation is called the interval. There is a fixed (frame independent) interval between any two events, but the temporal separation is frame dependent as is the spatial separation.
What is 'spacetime' to you?
A 4D structure as described by Minkowski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space.
Also, what do you mean by time is the "same sort of stuff" as measuring the width of a table with a tape measure or the measuring of spacetime, but in a different direction? What 'stuff' are you actually talking about? And, what 'direction' are you referring to?
The stuff is spacetime. The direction is the temporal one, however one arbitrarily chooses to orient it. The table is similarly a different width if you arbitrarily orient the tape at a different angle, thus making a different choice as to one of the spatial dimensions.
You insist, with absolute certainty,
I do this nowhere, about anything.
Noax wrote:There is more or less of [time] if you measure in a different direction. That's me doing something, not time doing it.
Are you now saying that there is more or less of 'temporal separation between events' depending on the direction you measure it?
Yes. I am not just 'now' saying that.
If yes, then how many different directions are there, and what are those directions called?
They're called inertial reference frames, and there is not a count of them.
Noax wrote:
So, let Me see if I have this right, human beings assign certain things 'arbitrarily', or based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?
Most fine one that they find personally functional.
Although what you said may be true, the actual choice one finds personally functional may not be actually true, accurate, nor correct, am I right?
If there is one that is actual and correct, the choice one find personally functional being that correct choice has a zero probability, especially since the choice that is personally functional is never inertial.
Noax wrote:More precisely, all clocks run at the same pace in the frame in which they are stationary.
But is there even an actual 'stationary'?
Irrelevant to the question above, but if there was, then a clock that was actually stationary would measure something that you could label 'actual time'.
If not, then 'stationary' is only a human being perception, and just a way for human beings to look at things differently, and maybe differently from what they really are?
No, not a human perception. Just a relation to a frame. Humans are not a necessary component of that relation.
Also do clocks really measure a temporal distance or any thing else for that matter, or are they just a human being devised invention, which was created to move or change at a certain measured rate?
Different ways to word the same thing, although I would say 'precise rate', not 'measured rate' which is just a circular description.
Are you trying to say that because a human being devised invention called a tape measure which was created with certain measurements can be orientated in certain ways that that is similar to there being supposedly actually different frames from which a clock can measure?
I have a hard time parsing that, but since the question is asking about something being actual, I'd have to say that no, I'm not trying to say that. I'm making no ontological claims one way or the other.
By the way, is there really an east-west and a south/north, or are they just terms used by human beings, on earth, to explain some things?
They are very real to anything on a spinning planet in that two people will independently arrive at the same coordinate system, but not real in the sense that north is a different direction for every person on Earth. So it depends on your criteria for something being real I guess.
There maybe perceived different directions in so called "space", but how many perceived different directions do you propose are there in the so called 'time'?
Why all the requests for a number like this? You seem to be able to perceive only one, so for you, just one, since you asked about perceptions. Try being a little more open minded.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest