Relativity?
Re: Relativity?
And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me!
IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on!
IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on!
Re: Relativity?
DID YOU, OR DID NOT NOT, read the two links I gave you that explain the resolution to this so-called "paradox?"Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:01 amThen how in the world CAN they be moving slower? If A sees his clock ticking normally, and so does B in his own train, then it suffices to say that they are in synchronicity if each one could see into the other's train, right?OuterLimits wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am
Nobody travelling with one of these clocks finds it to be moving slower.
Exactly! It's not even a paradox, it's a flat out contradiction!OuterLimits wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am Everybody measures that a moving clock is moving slower.
On person finds another's clock is moving slower and vice versa.
The apparent contradiction is relativity.
That's an awfully subjective account of what is supposed to be objective science. LIkewise, in that respect it is the same with Einstein's trains and observers.OuterLimits wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am If we are both on different ships passing one another on a foggy night, we see each other moving, and cannot know which one of us is moving.
Is that a contradiction?
YES OR NO?
Re: Relativity?
But yet when the ground observer sees his own clock, and the one in motion looks at her own clock, his and her clocks are in synchronicity, even if they cannot see each other's clocks, no? Because neither one, looking at their own clocks, sees their own time dilation or length-contraction, no?davidm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pmI think this is the source of your confusion.
The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
Re: Relativity?
Yes, that's correct. No one can see their OWN time dilation or length contraction -- that's called Galilean relativity -- as has ALSO been explained to you!Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:14 amBut yet when the ground observer sees his own clock, and the one in motion looks at her own clock, his and her clocks are in synchronicity, even if they cannot see each other's clocks, no? Because neither one, looking at their own clocks, sees their own time dilation or length-contraction, no?davidm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pmI think this is the source of your confusion.
The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
Re: Relativity?
Therefore, if the trains were made of glass, then we have a contradiction. They would both see, and not see, each other's clocks in synchronicity! Einstein's Relativity is subjective as heck!davidm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 amYes, that's correct. No one can see their OWN time dilation or length contraction -- that's called Galilean relativity -- as has ALSO been explained to you!Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:14 amBut yet when the ground observer sees his own clock, and the one in motion looks at her own clock, his and her clocks are in synchronicity, even if they cannot see each other's clocks, no? Because neither one, looking at their own clocks, sees their own time dilation or length-contraction, no?davidm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pm
I think this is the source of your confusion.
The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
Also, did you see the video I posted that was of Cynthia whitney talking about galilean relativity applying to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory?
Re: Relativity?
DID YOU, OR DID NOT NOT, read the two links I gave you that explain the resolution to this so-called "twin's paradox?"Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:26 amTherefore, if the trains were made of glass, then we have a contradiction. They would both see, and not see, each other's clocks in synchronicity! Einstein's Relativity is subjective as heck!davidm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 amYes, that's correct. No one can see their OWN time dilation or length contraction -- that's called Galilean relativity -- as has ALSO been explained to you!Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:14 am
But yet when the ground observer sees his own clock, and the one in motion looks at her own clock, his and her clocks are in synchronicity, even if they cannot see each other's clocks, no? Because neither one, looking at their own clocks, sees their own time dilation or length-contraction, no?
Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
Also, did you see the video I posted that was of Cynthia whitney talking about galilean relativity applying to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory?
YES OR NO?
Re: Relativity?
No! Each would see the other's clock TICKING SLOWER -- not in synchrony!
Re: Relativity?
And I have already sufficiently rebutted both of those posts. Read my posts again.davidm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:07 am And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me!
IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on!
Re: Relativity?
Re: Relativity?
I stated otherwise? Where? Point it out!
DID YOU, OR DID NOT NOT, read the two links I gave you that explain the resolution to this so-called "twins paradox?"
YES OR NO?
Re: Relativity?
'Why would I wade through your rubbish yet again?Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:43 amAnd I have already sufficiently rebutted both of those posts. Read my posts again.davidm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:07 am And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me!
IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on!
Re: Relativity?
Look at the boldfaced.davidm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 amYes, that's correct. No one can see their OWN time dilation or length contraction -- that's called Galilean relativity -- as has ALSO been explained to you!Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:14 amBut yet when the ground observer sees his own clock, and the one in motion looks at her own clock, his and her clocks are in synchronicity, even if they cannot see each other's clocks, no? Because neither one, looking at their own clocks, sees their own time dilation or length-contraction, no?davidm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pm
I think this is the source of your confusion.
The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
Re: Relativity?
Honestly, davidm cannot understand the difference between a paradox and a contradiction. Also, he likes to change the logic whenever it suits him. He just said 'yes' in answer to my post, but when I introduce glass trains, his mind can't comprehend it because it's a contradiction and not a paradox. Paradox is used for things like 'a self-arising universe' while a contradiction would be a 'a car and not a car at the same time' or 'A>B, and B>A, therefore, there is a contradiction.'
Re: Relativity?
Yes, it's correct that no one perceives his OWN CLOCK slowing, or his OWN LENGTH contracting! As has been explained to you, this is Galilean relativity -- no one in constant uniform motion (inertial frame) can perform an experiment to distinguish from a rest frame!Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:48 amLook at the boldfaced.davidm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 amYes, that's correct. No one can see their OWN time dilation or length contraction -- that's called Galilean relativity -- as has ALSO been explained to you!Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:14 am
But yet when the ground observer sees his own clock, and the one in motion looks at her own clock, his and her clocks are in synchronicity, even if they cannot see each other's clocks, no? Because neither one, looking at their own clocks, sees their own time dilation or length-contraction, no?
Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
You are such an ignoramus! You know NOTHING, yet babble on!
One last time:
DID YOU, OR DID NOT NOT, read the two links I gave you that explain the resolution to this so-called "twin's paradox?"
YES OR NO?
If you don't answer this question, you'll get no more responses from me.
Re: Relativity?
You're such a dummy! Thanks for the laughs!Viveka wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:51 am Honestly, davidm cannot understand the difference between a paradox and a contradiction. Also, he likes to change the logic whenever it suits him. He just said 'yes' in answer to my post, but when I introduce glass trains, his mind can't comprehend it because it's a contradiction and not a paradox. Paradox is used for things like 'a self-arising universe' while a contradiction would be a 'a car and not a car at the same time' or 'A>B, and B>A, therefore, there is a contradiction.'