Relativity?

[davidm]

Surreptituous57 is the only one that has provided some responses that will lead to further questioning by Me, in order to show what it is that I want to show, in regards to travelling at the speed of light.

Then go ahead and show it, Genius! Who's stoppin' ya?

[ken]

That is 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.

The above statement is also an assumptive belief.

Yes! That is your belief, Ken.

That is NOT My belief. Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. I have made this quite clear already, right? What I wrote above is My view, which could be partly wrong or completely wrong. In fact absolutely every thing I write is just a view, which could be right, wrong, or partly wrong.

Additionally, you often seem to imply that you are not as limited/distorted in the ways that other people are.

Do I? How do I imply that?

However, if such ideas are your OWN beliefs, does that mean you are seeing yourself as above/beyond your own beliefs?

Such "ideas" are NOT My own beliefs, so nothing else can be taken from that.

He also seems to be implying (like peacegirl) that he knows "the actual and real truth of Life."

Yes, he often seems to imply that.

Did it ever occur to you to clarify, instead of just continually assuming?

Thought experiment, Ken: Is not everything part of the actual truth of life?

In a sense that could be very well true.

This is like asking a theist: "What is NOT of God?" What does not belong? What does not fit? What is not a perfect part of the whole? Who decides that... and why do they decide that?

WHAT exactly is like asking a person labeled "theist", and WHY is this like asking a person labeled "theist"?

Could you not wait for My answer BEFORE you started making assumptions and jumping to conclusions?

[ken]

I've already answered this question -- several times. Scroll back and look for the answers. Good luck!

It doesn't matter how many times you answer him, you can go on forever giving clarifications until your blue in the face, and he'll still demand more clarifications and more answers from you. So good luck trying to reach any mutual agreement or conclusion about anything in this discussion.

.

Reaching mutual agreement is about one of the most simplest things in life to do. If a person wants to reach agreement is another matter.

And, yes I will keep asking clarifying questions to people who keep responding in a way as though they KNOW the absolute answers. I do this so that either they will come to realize that they in fact do not know the absolute answer or that in fact do know the answer and by clarifying enough times then they will eventually be able to demonstrate the absolute answer.

I am NOT here to provide nor show answers. I am here to learn how to be able to express better the way in showing how others how they, themselves, can find the answers by themselves.

[davidm]

And, yes I will keep asking clarifying questions to people who keep responding in a way as though they KNOW the absolute answers.

No, we do not do that. We merely tell you, accurately, what our current best theories describe. Neither I nor uwot nor anyone else that I know of here has denied that theories can change. That is that is the whole point of science!

I do this so that either they will come to realize that they in fact do not know the absolute answer or that in fact do know the answer and by clarifying enough times then they will eventually be able to demonstrate the absolute answer.

No one here has claimed to know "absolute answers.'

I am NOT here to provide nor show answers. I am here to learn how to be able to express better the way in showing how others how they, themselves, can find the answers by themselves.

HA HA HA HA, you have repeatedly claimed to know the truth!

[ken]

Thought experiment: how long does a trip take over a distance of four light years traveling at the speed of light?

I've already answered this question -- several times.

Haven't we all?

What was your answer?

The "real truth of Life" is that something is definitely going on.

So, you do KNOW the 'real truth of Life'. See, already knowing it is NOT hard at all.

We can observe it, measure it and describe it mathematically to incredible precision, but we cannot say for certain what the cause is.

We supposedly can not say for certain what cause of WHAT is?

As Kant pointed out, there is the phenomenon and the noumenon; the first we can see, the second we can only guess at.

We do NOT only have to guess at. We CAN also remain open and see It for what It really IS.

[davidm]

What was your answer?

Why do you snottily insist on people giving you yet again the same answers that they have already repeatedly given you?

We do NOT only have to guess at. We CAN also remain open and see It for what It really IS.

What is it? Really?

[thedoc]

By the way, people who call themselves "creationists" are just the same as the people who call themselves "scientists", in that they all have their own predetermined set of views and beliefs, which is what the actual things are that is stopping them all from seeing the actual and real truth of Life.

No, this is wrong, a Creationist tries to prove his predetermined set of values and beliefs no matter how much he has to distort the evidence or lie. Scientists set their own personal beliefs aside and looks at what the evidence tells them and draw conclusions from the evidence even if it contradicts what was believed before looking at the evidence. And if it does the Scientist will change beliefs according to the evidence. Quite different from a Creationist who will do or say anything rather than change beliefs according to the evidence

If you believe that ALL people labelled "creationists" and ALL people labelled "scientists" behave the way you say here, then you will be sadly mistaken.

ALL human beings behave differently, depending on their thinking. ALL human beings have different thoughts. ALL people are different.

Perhaps a small minority of scientists and creationists behave as you imply buy they have very little to no effect on the rest of the professionals who are in the fields of endeavor.

[thedoc]

I've already answered this question -- several times.

Haven't we all?

What was your answer?

To the observer on Earth it will take 4 years, for the observer on the ship, it will depend on how fast they are traveling.

[thedoc]

I do this so that either they will come to realize that they in fact do not know the absolute answer or that in fact do know the answer and by clarifying enough times then they will eventually be able to demonstrate the absolute answer.

No one here has claimed to know "absolute answers.'

There are no "absolute answers" only approximations till better data is available, and then there are better approximations.

[ken]

Theories are not assumed or even believed to be true. They are held provisionally to be true, so long as they match (model, with predictions and retrodictions) the observed data -- which relativity theory does splendidly. No empirical refutation of special or general relatively has ever been spotted, while confirmatory data continues to pile up -- most recently the first direct observation of gravitational waves, a prediction of general relativity.

Buy of course you think you know more than me, uwot, thedoc -- to say nothing of Einstein himself!

Where is this assumption coming from?

What do you mean by 'know more'? And, do you honestly believe that ALL people know the exact same?

Of course different people 'know more' than others do. This is usually dependent upon of the age of the body. However, the age of the body has no bearing on the truth, or not, of what a person actually knows, or thinks they know.

Go ahead, genius, tell us what's really going on! Spill it!

What is going on is the predictableness of outcomes.

I find it humorous how often the "observed data" matches perfectly, or splendidly, with previous predictions. Observatories are created with technology used to build instruments specifically made in order to observe what is predicted to happen, anyway. A butterfly flaps its wings, which will cause a ripple effect, but some may doubt that that this effect could ever be detected on the other side of the planet for example. While others would say that one day observatories could be created with instruments that will finally detect these ripples. Obviously ALL motion causes a ripple (or wave) throughout the Universe. Creating instruments to measure those waves just takes a while. Call those "waves" whatever you like but obviously with the coming together of two physical particles (or bodies) a "wave" will be created changing the shape and form of the Universe. That is HOW the Universe is in constant-change. Constant-change is HOW the Universe is always being created.

What I also find funny is how human beings can be so easily manipulated. They create what is also believed to happen. Take 'jesus christ' for an example, some people believed that a "king" (or "lord") will be born, and in turn, so turned one human being into that desired one. The same applies with scientific theories, some people believe that a theory could be true so they set out (unintentionally in some cases) to create the very experiments that will prove they are true. They have, in turn, so turned one theory into the desired one.

The way human beings think and behave (and misbehave) is extremely funny to watch and observe at times. Although, at other times, what they are really doing to themselves, and to the planet that they actually NEED for their continued survival, is sad to watch and observe. They spend far more time trying to prove what they assume and believe to be true is right, and far more time on obtaining completely and unnecessary stuff, then they do on just living, observing, and enjoying what time they have in this one and only Life.

[ken]

You answered that one observer sees one thing and another observer sees another thing.

That's correct. That's how it is.

If you insist 'that is how it is', then there is nothing more to discuss with you. You already believe that you KNOW what the actual truth is.

Obviously to be so sure of this supposed "fact" you have first hand experience of being in both frames of reference, which would be the only true way of having such incredible knowledge of KNOWING 'that is how it is'. Otherwise your knowing here in regards to this is based solely on your faith and belief in 'what others say'.

If your answer for ALL questions is going to be "one observer sees one thing and another observer sees another thing", then there is nothing to dispute nor disagree with. As I continually state, Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer, and, if this is incorrect show Me otherwise. However if you are NOT going to use that answer for other clarifying questions, then WHY use it for this question I have been asking?

WHY are some of your answers based on differing perspectives but other answers are not?

My question is, HOW LONG DOES A TRIP TAKE, to travel four light years travelling at the speed of light?

The answer, as uwot, thedoc and I have repeatedly explained, depends ON WHOSE PERSPECTIVE.

Let us say on a Universal perspective, if you knowing WHOSE PERSPECTIVE is necessary before you are able to answer that question.

Which perspective are you asking about?

I OBVIOUSLY have NOT been asking from any perspective.

Whichever perspective you are asking about, the answer has been given repeatedly.

Obviously I have NOT been asking FROM WHOSE PERSPECTIVE. Can you read the actual words I asked in that question? Is there any thing about any one or from any perspective in the question? The question was asked the way it was for the very reason that I am looking for the answer, NOT many differing answers.

The reason for Me doing this will become obvious, when the answer is given.

If there is no one correct answer or if you do not know what the one correct answer is, then just say so. So we can move on.

By the way, WHY were you assuming I was asking that question depending on a whose perspective answer? Was that any thing at all in that question that led you to making that assumption?

I suggest scrolling back up and rereading the thread.

WHY?

Would you take your own advice here?

WHY, from your perspective, it is always Me who is NOT understanding what is going on here?

Could it, in any way, be you that is NOT understanding what is actually going on here?

Could I be using words in a certain way to evoke from others a response that I am seeking in order to show and prove what it is that I see as being the truth. Could I, in fact, be doing the very thing I say human beings do when they construct observations and instruments to measure the very thing that see as being the truth already anyway. Just more to think about while we await your answer.

Your synchronized explanations do NOT work.

Oh? Why's that, genius? Edumucate us lesser sods!

Why do you have a 'lesser than' or 'more than' attitude when it comes to having knowledge and knowing?

Have your previous experiences, throughout education, society, and/or family life, instilled in you that having more or having further knowledge than another means that one is 'more than' another? If so, then I feel sorry for you, and for the others that have gone through and/or are going through the same as you.

Why do you frequently put a 'laugh out loud' at the end of questions you ask Me? Is it because you are not open to any thing other than what you already presume is the truth, and are laughing at the ridiculousness that there could be any thing else other than what you assume or believe to be true, or is it for some other reason?

Your explanations do not work because of the way you say they are synchronized. You are saying the clocks are synchronized before one travels and the other remains on earth.

Does a tick-tock clock that is synchronized with a light-clock, BOTH of which are travelling in the same ufo, change their rate of change at the exact same (synchronized) rate, or at different rates, or does one not change at all while the other does, or does some thing else happen?

[Lacewing]

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.

That is your belief, Ken.

Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

So, in the first sentence, where you said all people, you considered yourself excluded? Such a statement does not apply to you? If so, please explain why it applies to all people but not to you.

What I wrote above is My view, which could be partly wrong or completely wrong. In fact absolutely every thing I write is just a view, which could be right, wrong, or partly wrong.

So, YOU have views, whereas other people have assumptions and beliefs that blind them and distort the actual truth? Why would you make this distinction?

Additionally, you often seem to imply that you are not as limited/distorted in the ways that other people are.

Do I? How do I imply that?

See above.

Did it ever occur to you to clarify, instead of just continually assuming?

I've just done that. It seemed so obvious from your words, I didn't think I was assuming.

Thought experiment, Ken: Is not everything part of the actual truth of life?

In a sense that could be very well true.

So, when you say that people are not seeing the actual truth of life, that gives the impression that YOU DO see SUCH A DISTINCT THING (or why would you say it?). We're all here living out our vast and amazing collection of experiences. How many prophets, preachers, sages, gurus believe that they uniquely see some "important actual truth" that others don't? If the sacred flows through all -- which would make the most sense -- then it would appear to be sheer fantasy and ego that drives some to set themselves apart from the whole as unique seers.

I'm listening to tribal drums while I write this. It makes me want to run outside amongst the trees in the moonlight. There is SO MUCH SPIRIT available in every moment. People can do whatever they want. It's all available. Fantastic!

[uwot]

You answered that one observer sees one thing and another observer sees another thing.

That's correct. That's how it is.

If you insist 'that is how it is', then there is nothing more to discuss with you. You already believe that you KNOW what the actual truth is.

It's not really about belief; it is a demonstrable fact, which has in fact been demonstrated...

Obviously to be so sure of this supposed "fact" you have first hand experience of being in both frames of reference, which would be the only true way of having such incredible knowledge of KNOWING 'that is how it is'. Otherwise your knowing here in regards to this is based solely on your faith and belief in 'what others say'.

...by Hafele-Keating, for example, and thousands of experiments since. It is true that no single person was a witness to all those experiments, and that therefore some degree of trust is required ('faith' is over-egging it). But the idea that everyone who claims to have found evidence that supports the theory of relativity are all deluded, or involved in a conspiracy, is barely conceivable, given the huge number of people involved.

If your answer for ALL questions is going to be "one observer sees one thing and another observer sees another thing", then there is nothing to dispute nor disagree with. As I continually state, Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer...

You and Einstein then. That, in a nutshell, is the theory of relativity.

Let us say on a Universal perspective...

In which case, you are contradicting your own assertion above.

WHY, from your perspective, it is always Me who is NOT understanding what is going on here?

Because that is the hypothesis best supported by the overwhelming weight of evidence.

Could I be using words in a certain way to evoke from others a response that I am seeking in order to show and prove what it is that I see as being the truth.

You could, but if you have the courage of your convictions, why not just say it?

[surreptitious57]

If I recall correctly I asked you some thing similar to this before if photons do
not experience any thing anyway then why talk about photons not being able to experience time

Because they travel through time it is important to state that they do not actually experience time
Everything experiences time apart from anything that travels at the speed of light such as photons

[surreptitious57]

What happens if a human being could travel at the speed of light in a vacuum

If they were travelling perpetually at the speed of light in vacuum like a photon
they would have zero rest mass and be timeless and probably be infinite as well