Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

artisticsolution
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Relativity?

Post by artisticsolution » Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:28 pm

thedoc wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:58 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
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.
What is this "real truth of life" that you see but real Scientists don't see, most of us understand that Creationists only see the world through the filter of their Mythology, like Peacegirl only sees the world through the filter of her Daddy's writings. If it's in the Bible it's got to be true, if it's in Seymour Lessans Book it's got to be true, if it wasn't true he would have said so, like the Bible says it's the infallible word of God. (Actually it is, it's just that people have fucked up the interpretation).
OMG! You used the "F" bomb!!!

I guess it's okay now...seeing as your president cusses. All I'm waiting for now is you to find a scripture in the bible that condones cussing. Cause we all know it's in there waiting to be found. One can twist the bible into any interpretation that suits their fancy at any given moment!

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:48 pm

artisticsolution wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:28 pm
thedoc wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:58 pm

What is this "real truth of life" that you see but real Scientists don't see, most of us understand that Creationists only see the world through the filter of their Mythology, like Peacegirl only sees the world through the filter of her Daddy's writings. If it's in the Bible it's got to be true, if it's in Seymour Lessans Book it's got to be true, if it wasn't true he would have said so, like the Bible says it's the infallible word of God. (Actually it is, it's just that people have fucked up the interpretation).
OMG! You used the "F" bomb!!!

One can twist the bible into any interpretation that suits their fancy at any given moment!
And that is why there are so many contradictory interpretations of the Bible and a lot of them are just wishful thinking.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:53 pm

artisticsolution wrote:
Mon Oct 23, 2017 2:28 pm
I guess it's okay now...seeing as your president cusses. All I'm waiting for now is you to find a scripture in the bible that condones cussing. Cause we all know it's in there waiting to be found. One can twist the bible into any interpretation that suits their fancy at any given moment!
Some will say that the 2nd commandment tells us not to cuss, but it specifically says to not take the Lord's name in vain, and that would mean do not use the word God or anything that means the same in a curse.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:03 pm

davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:43 am
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:34 am
davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:29 am


This babble means nothing. Can you clarify?
Your attempts at deflecting away from your inability to answer very simple questions is not helping you.
Only you are deluded enough to imagine this. Uwot and I have answered all your questions, repeatedly.
You answered that one observer sees one thing and another observer sees another thing. My question is, HOW LONG DOES A TRIP TAKE, to travel four light years travelling at the speed of light?

Your synchronized explanations do NOT work. You are just looking at what supports your own already held views, which, by the way, are solely based on the observations that, self-labelled, "scientists" have made. You are just one of many followers of "science" just like there are many followers of "religion". The inconsistencies in both observations can be very easily seen and distinguished. BUT if you are only going to accept what others, called "scientists", see as being only what is true, right, and correct, then there is nothing I can do for you. You are on your own path, following whoever you want to believe.

To SHOW WHY your, copied from others, answer is NOT correct and HOW the mistake is made, I NEED you to answer the actual questions I ask. NOT the questions that you are PERCEIVING to be asked. If people want to understand the reason WHY scientific "facts" do NOT add up together to form ONE unified picture, then we NEED to look at things properly. The flaws AND the truths in both scientific "facts" AND religious texts can be very easily seen and understood.

From the outset I have influenced in a certain way the responses I get here in order to provide more examples of HOW the Mind and the brain actually work. What I am saying I want you to see and understand here is of no real importance, this will come to light soon enough. What it is that I am showing here, to others, is what is far more important.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:05 pm

thedoc wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:37 am
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:48 am
People called "scientists" do the exact same thing also. Although people believe they may not do it, it will soon be realized just how much they all, subliminally, do it.

People who call themselves scientists may like to think and/or believe they do that, but the actual truth is more revealing.

And gain the process you describe is an extremely very cumbersome and very long drawn out process, especially compared to the much easier, simpler, and quicker way to find and discover what the actual truth IS.
"People who call themselves scientists" you've just identified your self as a science denier and a creationist, there's no point in trying to tell you anything, you'll just deny it.
You have once again allowed an assumption to take over and control any critical thinking you previously had.

By the way your assumption could not be any further from the actual real truth.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:06 pm

thedoc wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:42 am
davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:27 am

uwot and I have answered all your questions, repeatedly.
Apparently Ken didn't like your answers, so he'll ask again till he gets the answers he likes.
I await patiently for an answer to THE question I asked.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:09 pm

thedoc wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:45 am
davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:28 am
In the case of evolution, the data came first, and the theory later.

With respect to relativity, the theory (mostly) came first, and supporting data later.
And data continues to come in to support both theories and usually data that appears to disprove the theories, is recanted over time.
Once again, nothing really, including truth, can get in the way of a theory that is ALREADY assumed or believed to be true.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:19 pm

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

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:23 pm

ken wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:03 pm

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


That's correct. That's how it is.
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. Which perspective are you asking about? Whichever perspective you are asking about, the answer has been given repeatedly.

I suggest scrolling back up and rereading the thread.
Your synchronized explanations do NOT work.
Oh? Why's that, genius? Edumucate us lesser sods! :lol:

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:22 pm

uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
The mathematical description of physics, of what was once seen to happen, was the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
Although cartography is basically the art of depicting a demonstrably spherical Earth on a 2D page, flat-earthers aside, there has been no serious attempt to describe the world as flat since Anaximander, in about 500BC. It is true that the Ptolemaic model is a mathematical description of a geocentric universe, and the reason it was so successful is that it is reasonably accurate; it actually predicts what can be seen with the naked eye very well.
My point WAS and IS that mathematical descriptions of physics can and do sometimes get shown to be wrong, false, and/or inaccurate. This applies for in the past, at present, and into the future (if human beings will persist on making supposed or proposed explanations instead of just looking at what IS).
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
Obviously when human beings look at things differently the mathematical description of physics changes.
More to the point, it is when technology advances and enables human beings to see things that were previously invisible to them, that our understanding, and with it our mathematical descriptions change; as was the case with Galileo's telescope.
EXACTLY. AND exactly what I was and am saying.

AND, this advancement in being able to observe more physical things will continue to happen as advancements in technology get better. So, that is WHY I question people when they say "current" observations are actual facts and truths.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
If you are under some sort of belief that the mathematical description of physics, in this day and age, is, ultimately, absolutely accurate and thus will not change, then you have another thing coming.
As davidm has pointed out, I am under no such illusion.
And, you are not the one who clearly states "current understanding" is absolutely accurate, like davidm does. But although you do not clearly state it that way, you sublimely or subconsciously write it that way.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
I have asked numerous times, How long would a trip take to travel 4 light years away? What is the MATHS for that?
Well, a light year is about 9.5 trillion km. That’s like driving around the world 240 million times.
Who cares?
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
Driving non-stop at 100 kmph, that would take over 10 million years. I'm quoting myself there: it's all in my book which you can buy here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1521884722
The obvious greed that has been instilled in the people, of this day and age, is blindingly obvious. Thankfully by the time what I am writing is being better understood greed will be on its way out or better still has already been completely extinguished.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
If you are allergic to spending money, you can read a slightly different version in my blog: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
I have read some already, and there are some inconsistencies in there also.

Also, was the emotive driven word "allergic", in relation to spending money to buy YOUR book, put in there on purpose to cause affect in Me or some people to give you money for your views, for what is after all just some absolutely free to produce thoughts, or did you not do that with conscious purpose?

Did you do that on purpose or is greed so ingrained within you now that you did not even notice you were doing it?

Offering up a free version of your views somewhere else was a kind gesture, but you could have also provided them here, like the rest of us are doing.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
The maths is simple: multiply 9.5 trillion by 4, and divide by what ever speed you wish to know about.
You KNOW what speed I have been referring to, but once again you want to ignore that so as to deflect away from the answer I am seeking. The reason for this is because that answer is inconsistent with already "observed facts" that those labeled "scientists" have previously made, which always seem to coincidentally fit in with and suit a previously made theory.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
Whatever the answer, that is how long it will take from the point of view of people on Earth.
Again it is back to point of view of people.

What about people on other planets? If there were, what would the point of view of those people be?

I do NOT even want to begin explaining HOW and WHY there are apparent different observations made between the one travelling and others if people, themselves, do not want to give honest answers of what they, themselves, see is the answer.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
However, what myself and others are pointing out is that events take longer to happen the faster you are moving, for the simple reason that I have illustrated my book and explained several times in this thread.
To state that 'events take longer' is to presume that that is an actual fact.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
If you choose not to read it, that is entirely up to you, but please don't tell me I haven't explained the very thing I have gone to considerable pains to explain.
The only things that you have explained are the very things you have read. You have just rewritten them in your own words.

One only needs to go to the original source for you are trying to explain. The inconsistencies in the original source are there to be seen as they are in your own words.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
You have NOT yet given one straightforward answer. There can NOT be two or more mathematical answers to one mathematical problem can there?
The thing is, there can be any number of mathematical models which describe the same phenomenon.
Yes there can be any number of human MADE mathematical models, which describe the same phenomenon. But My question was, can there be two or more mathematical answers to one mathematical problem?

Again, another case of NOT answering My question but rather answering some perceived question.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
You have only provided conflicting answers, and, other people have provided even further different answers than you have.
Other people have their own interpretation of special relativity, which is entirely their prerogative. Granted that can lead to confusion, but I'm confident I have been consistent with my responses.
Yes you have been consistent by responding that different observers have different views, which ultimately is the truth. But that does NOT answer the actual question I have been asking, which is, HOW long does a trip take, that travels four light years travelling at the speed of light?

That is the part that you have been giving conflicting answers.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
I can NOT show what does NOT conform with the maths when the maths is not conforming with its own self.
The mathematical model we are discussing is time dilation due to special relativity, which entirely conforms with the observed data.
Which, by the way, the conflicting observed "data" supposedly conforms special relativity only AFTER the theory was proposed.

What is actually observed does NOT yet conform with what has been previously observed.

This is because what people observe and see is distorted by what they are already viewing, assuming, and/or believing to be is true.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
I am the One saying to look at what IS the Universe by looking at what It does.
As it happens, that is exactly what physicists do.
If you believe that is the case for one and ALL, then the ability of belief, itself, to distort truth are readily being shown right here and now.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
What you apparently don't understand is that there are generally 3 parts to a physical theory.
1. The phenomenon. The universe behaves in a way that physicists would like to understand; so the make repeated observations, to ensure that they are seeing something that happens consistently.
"Behaving in a way", that some people would "like to understand", has an unconscious or sub-conscious effect on what will be seen and observed.

Being labelled a "physicist" does NOT give that one any more nor any special powers nor ability than another one has.

Assuming or believing that those people labelled "physicists" are some how more than another person is a distortion of truth.

Why not just look at and observe how the Universe actually behaves instead of the Universe behaves in a way that would like to be understood?

HOW the Universe actually behaves can already be very easily seen and understood.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
2. The mathematical model. Having satisfied themselves that they are investigating something real, they will measure it. They will tweak the parameters, alter the conditions and take a huge number of readings. Then they will sift the data, trying to find patterns which they can describe with numbers.
And forever more they will be "tweaking", "altering", "sifting", and "trying" to find patterns, which they can describe with numbers. When the truth is what they are actually looking for is already being observed and can already be seen and understood. That is once they discover or learn HOW to do it.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
3. The metaphysical model. Once they are happy that the mathematical model actually works, they may or may not claim that the premises of the mathematical model actually refer to something that 'exists'. So for instance, Einstein argued that 'spacetime' is a spongey sort of stuff that is warped by the presence of matter. Many physicists are wary, even hostile, to any attempt to say that mathematical models accurately describe reality. Partly because, as the history of the Ptolemaic model shows, doing so has a habit of making fools of believers, and partly because whether a mathematical model is 'true', makes no difference to whether it works. "Shut up and calculate!" as various physicists since Bohr are alleged to have said.
The very reason I question every one about WHY believe any thing is because in just believing one is being extremely foolhardy.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
It is human beings who try to make models of what the Universe does, or more correctly make models of what It 'should' do.
It is only nutcases who try to tell the universe what it should do.
Which, it could be argued, is what people who speak for "science" (and "religion") continually try to do.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
It is plainly obvious WHY human beings are continually changing the 'models', instead of just looking at what the actual truth IS the first time.
But you human beings need to remain open before the can begin to come to understand this.
You human beings? What planet are you from?
I write in a certain way, for a particular reason.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:41 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:27 am
ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:

The red shift of galaxies and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be observed occurring just after the Big Bang. Red shift is caused by objects moving further away not only in distance but in time too. The Big Bang is still occurring because the Universe is still expanding and so it is not just an event that happened in the past but one that is also happening now

If ken travels in his spaceship at the speed of light to a planet four light years away and then travels straight back to Earth he will not have aged at all while everyone on Earth will have aged by eight years. If someone is travelling at the speed of light technically they cannot be engaging in time travel because they will not actually be experiencing any time. So time travel is more about travelling to locations in the past or the future
The reason I asked how do human beings know how long ago some thing happened was because the measurements are
taken using light. You say light takes no time to travel if this is so then nothing happened previously. It ALL happens NOW
It ALL happens NOW from the reference frame of light travelling in vacuum because in that state photons do not experience time.
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 experience time?

As far as i am aware only human beings and a few other species experience events occurring.

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:27 am
But from the reference frame of human beings however everything does not happen instantaneously.
What happens if a human being could travel at the speed of light in a vacuum? If they could how would things happen for them?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:27 am
Both of these exist simultaneously since there is no one single unique reference frame that applies equally to all objects or observers in the Universe and which is what Special Relativity demonstrates
That EVERY thing is relative to the observer is a fact that can very easily be seen and understood. I have even stipulated this with absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. Special relativity does not need to be known of to understand this.

Also are you absolutely sure that there is no one single unique reference frame that applies equally to all objects or observers?

I have already, on quite a few occasions, actually stated one possible single unique frame of reference. But like as what happens what I write is not actually noticed and recognized, or just gets dismissed or rejected.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:42 pm

thedoc wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:30 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:27 am
It ALL happens NOW from the reference frame of light travelling in vacuum because in that state photons do not experience time. But from the reference frame of human beings however everything does not happen instantaneously. Both of these exist simultaneously since there is no one single unique reference frame that applies equally to all objects or observers in the Universe and which is what Special Relativity demonstrates
Well said, some people cannot grasp that there are different reference frames for different observers, they think that all observers must be in the same reference frame.
Does any person in this thread think this?

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:48 pm

Don't you have a anything better to do than spam this forum with your bullshit?
ken wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:22 pm
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
The mathematical description of physics, of what was once seen to happen, was the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
Although cartography is basically the art of depicting a demonstrably spherical Earth on a 2D page, flat-earthers aside, there has been no serious attempt to describe the world as flat since Anaximander, in about 500BC. It is true that the Ptolemaic model is a mathematical description of a geocentric universe, and the reason it was so successful is that it is reasonably accurate; it actually predicts what can be seen with the naked eye very well.
My point WAS and IS that mathematical descriptions of physics can and do sometimes get shown to be wrong ...
Oh what a brilliant insight, genius! Uwot has VERY PLAINLY SAID THIS, particularly with his analysis of Ptolemy v. Copernicus, and so have I! There's even a name for predicted theory failure, the pessimistic meta-induction, which I have also talked about. Moreover, we know that general relativity and quantum mechanics, one or both, must FAIL in some domain because they are IN CONFLICT.
This applies for in the past, at present, and into the future (if human beings will persist on making supposed or proposed explanations instead of just looking at what IS).
Tell us, O genius, what IS, then, and how you know.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
Obviously when human beings look at things differently the mathematical description of physics changes.
More to the point, it is when technology advances and enables human beings to see things that were previously invisible to them, that our understanding, and with it our mathematical descriptions change; as was the case with Galileo's telescope.
EXACTLY. AND exactly what I was and am saying.
Which no one has denied. Do you have a point?
AND, this advancement in being able to observe more physical things will continue to happen as advancements in technology get better. So, that is WHY I question people when they say "current" observations are actual facts and truths.
BUT WE DON'T SAY THAT.
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
If you are under some sort of belief that the mathematical description of physics, in this day and age, is, ultimately, absolutely accurate and thus will not change, then you have another thing coming.
As davidm has pointed out, I am under no such illusion.
And, you are not the one who clearly states "current understanding" is absolutely accurate, like davidm does. But although you do not clearly state it that way, you sublimely or subconsciously write it that way.
BUT HE DOES NOT SAY THAT, NOR DO I.

Enough for now. It is increasingly difficult for me to stomach your trash, as it is for me to stomach the racists, sexists and evolution deniers here. Maybe I'll wade through the rest of your bilge later. Your ad homs and slander of uwot are really contemptible, but in addition to being utterly ignorant you are also utterly shameless. He is much more of a gentleman than I am, though, so he'll probably look at your insults and shine it all on.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:56 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:10 am
ken wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am

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.

.
When I ask you clarifying questions, in another thread, you say that you do not want to talk with Me and that you are not going to respond to Me again. Yet when you want to highlight some thing in regards to Me you then quickly respond to my post.

Obviously you do NOT read what I actually write, or you have forgotten.

I have on numerous occasions, which you are well aware of, stated that I neither believe or disbelieve any thing. And, I do not want to assume any thing. What I write is just My view, which could be right, wrong, or partly right and wrong.

What I write is just a view I have. If what I write above is wrong or partly wrong, then just show that. If you disagree with it, then just show what part you disagree with and most importantly WHY you disagree.

That surely is not to hard for you to do. Hopefully you will do it, so then I can obtain a clearer and truer view of things.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:02 pm

ken wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:41 pm

What happens if a human being could travel at the speed of light in a vacuum? If they could how would things happen for them?
How many times do we have to answer this quetion?
That EVERY thing is relative to the observer is a fact that can very easily be seen and understood. I have even stipulated this with absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. Special relativity does not need to be known of to understand this.
But then we get this:
Also are you absolutely sure that there is no one single unique reference frame that applies equally to all objects or observers?
No, we are not ABSOLUTELY SURE of this, but the point of relativity is, there is no evidence for such a frame, and tons of evidence against it. If there were such a frame, then things would NOT BE RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER -- which you just agreed to above! You have NO IDEA what you're talking about! :lol:
I have already, on quite a few occasions, actually stated one possible single unique frame of reference. But like as what happens what I write is not actually noticed and recognized, or just gets dismissed or rejected.
Oh, HAVE you? Well, for us dummies, please reiterate what that unique frame of reference is-- which would automatically invalidate your agreement, above, to the fact that there IS no such frame! :lol:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests