Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Good god.

Relativistic effects show up at a certain fraction of light speed, not AT effing light speed!

Please try to educate yourself.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:27 am
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:19 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:33 pm

Space and time are not spacetime.
Space and time are spacetime.
Then that means that Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity are not opposed. :/
Er, who ever said they were opposed??

They're not opposed. It's just that Galileo knew nothing about electromagnetism and the invariant propagation of light in all inertial frames. I'm sure if we could bring him to today in a time machine (and Newton too) and introduce both to Einstein, they would grok it all immediately and would be full of wonder and delight.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Newton, for example, was particularly perplexed by the "force" of gravity. He wondered what the hell this force was.

He would thank Einstein for explaining how it's not a force at all.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:42 am
Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:28 am
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:15 am

No, just the opposite. It is a verifiable prediction of special relativity that any object with rest mass (i.e., everything except photons) CANNOT move at the speed of ligtht.

You really should try to do some reading and study, maybe take a class, before going on like this.
I already know this. For the sake of the Twin's Paradox, we must assume that we can travel at C. Therefore, it's a wasted thought-experiment in your eyes since it has no true relation to reality.
The Twin's (Non!) Paradox does NOT ASSUME THAT THE TWIN IN MOTION CAN TRAVEL AT C! It only postulates (correctly) that in principle, a twin in a space ship can travel at a substantial fraction of c, and then relativistic effects show up.

Please stop. This is becoming even more boring and ridiculous than ken's posts.
Which is something that is impossible. We cannot travel at an appreciable fraction of c such that the Twins Contradiction is possible. And,in case you didn't know, there are versions of the Twin's Contradiction that do indeed have one of them travelling at c.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:34 am
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:42 am
Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:28 am

I already know this. For the sake of the Twin's Paradox, we must assume that we can travel at C. Therefore, it's a wasted thought-experiment in your eyes since it has no true relation to reality.
The Twin's (Non!) Paradox does NOT ASSUME THAT THE TWIN IN MOTION CAN TRAVEL AT C! It only postulates (correctly) that in principle, a twin in a space ship can travel at a substantial fraction of c, and then relativistic effects show up.

Please stop. This is becoming even more boring and ridiculous than ken's posts.
Which is something that is impossible. We cannot travel at an appreciable fraction of c such that the Twins Contradiction is possible. And,in case you didn't know, there are versions of the Twin's Contradiction that do indeed have one of them travelling at c.
:?

Yes, we can, in principle, travel arbitrarily close to light speed. Building such a craft, and successfully operating it, is almost certainly impossible. But that does not affect the principle -- we can do a thought experiment of what would happen if such a craft could near the speed of light.

And, NO, there are NO versions of the "Twin's Contradiction" (It's not a contradiction) that have one of the twins traveling at C, except versions mooted by IDIOTS.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

i didn't imagine this thread could become a bigger train wreck than the evolution thread. Boy, was I wrong!

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Viveka, did it ever cross your mind that you have no idea what you are talking about? just askin'. :?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

So, according to Viveka: "We cannot travel at an appreciable fraction of c such that the Twins Contradiction [sic] is possible."

BUT, sez Viveka: we can have a twin traveling at c.

Viveka, please shut up.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:57 am i didn't imagine this thread could become a bigger train wreck than the evolution thread. Boy, was I wrong!

:lol:
And I was right.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:02 am
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 am
davidm wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:23 pm

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...
Are you suggesting here that what an observer sees travelling at close to the speed of light has been demonstrated? If so, when did this supposedly occur, and what was the name given to that person?
uwot wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:02 am
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 amObviously 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).
Is it also true that NO single person was also actually involved IN any of the experiments where they personally purported that time slowed down and/or length contracted?
uwot wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:02 amBut 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.
Where did that idea arise from? Why did you start thinking that way?
uwot wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:02 am
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 amIf 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.
Every thing being relative to the observer is just naturally obvious. NO need for a theory, experiments, nor tests. [/quote]

What I find funny is people stating that they KNOW what an observer sees when travelling close to the speed of light. That is one test that surely has not yet been done, or has it?
uwot wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:02 am
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 amLet us say on a Universal perspective...
In which case, you are contradicting your own assertion above.
NO I AM NOT.

You are just assuming that, BEFORE any clarification was made.
uwot wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:02 am
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 amWHY, 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.
And so that in itself means I am NOT understanding what is going on? Was that what also led another to assume and believe that I am also to thick to understand any thing at all as well?
uwot wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:02 am
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 amCould 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?
Because what I see may be actually false. This is the reason I ask clarifying questions instead of just stating what I see as being what is right and true, like what others do here.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:21 am
ken wrote:
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
But do things without a brain nor a nervous system experience any thing anyway? Could these things really "experience" time?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:36 am
ken wrote:
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
The only possible single frame of reference would be a so called God perspective where absolutely everything could be
seen at the same time but that has got nothing at all to do with Special Relativity which is what is being discussed here
Okay, so from YOUR perspective, different observers with different perspectives, having different views, has nothing at all to do with special relativity, is that right?

From My perspective absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with each other. To Me the Universe works in this way of every thing interacting with every thing in some way, which is what makes the Universe continually change in some way, shape, and form.

Being able to see the truths and the falsehoods in things like special relativity is easier done by not rejecting some thing completely without the full and complete knowledge of it first.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
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
But do things without a brain nor a nervous system experience any thing anyway? Could these things really experience time?
No is the answer to both of those questions and so saying photons do not experience time is more a figure of speech than anything else
It is just a convenient phrase and therefore not one to be taken as literal but it is a valid way of describing the phenomenon in question
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
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
The only possible single frame of reference would be a so called God perspective where absolutely everything could be
seen at the same time but that has got nothing at all to do with Special Relativity which is what is being discussed here
Okay so from YOUR perspective different observers with different perspectives having different views has nothing at all to do with special relativity

From My perspective absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with each other. To Me the Universe works in this way of every
thing interacting with every thing in some way which is what makes the Universe continually change in some way shape and form
Different observers with different perspectives has got everything to do with Special Relativity and I never said otherwise
And everything in the Universe is directly or indirectly connected to everything else and it is in a constant state of change
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:54 am
Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:34 am
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:42 am

The Twin's (Non!) Paradox does NOT ASSUME THAT THE TWIN IN MOTION CAN TRAVEL AT C! It only postulates (correctly) that in principle, a twin in a space ship can travel at a substantial fraction of c, and then relativistic effects show up.

Please stop. This is becoming even more boring and ridiculous than ken's posts.
Which is something that is impossible. We cannot travel at an appreciable fraction of c such that the Twins Contradiction is possible. And,in case you didn't know, there are versions of the Twin's Contradiction that do indeed have one of them travelling at c.
:?

Yes, we can, in principle, travel arbitrarily close to light speed. Building such a craft, and successfully operating it, is almost certainly impossible. But that does not affect the principle -- we can do a thought experiment of what would happen if such a craft could near the speed of light.

And, NO, there are NO versions of the "Twin's Contradiction" (It's not a contradiction) that have one of the twins traveling at C, except versions mooted by IDIOTS.

Yes, we can do a thought experiment even though it is impossible. That's my whole point.
Post Reply