## 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?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:26 am
OuterLimits wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:15 am
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm Let's assume time changes because of time dilation and length contraction. Now, would that mean that the distance/time travelled would be different for each light clock thus making it 'tick' faster or slower? If so, then that means that the following still stands: "If we relied upon a light-clock to tell us time, I don't see how the light-clock is a real manifestation of a real time. No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change."
Person A says that person B is moving and their clock ticks slower than A's.

Person B says that person A is moving and their clock ticks slower than B's.
So which one is right? That's a flat out contradiction! B<A, A<B. You can't have both at once.

So ... you did not read the two links I gave you that explains how this is resolved, did you? Just amazing! Such aggressive ignorance!
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:01 am
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:30 pm

You STILL don't get it? Utterly astonishing!

As has been explained to you in detail, via example of the light clock, time would NOT change if the speed of light changed! Time slows precisely BECAUSE the speed of light does NOT change!

Did you really not read or understand my post on a hypothetical marble clock vs. a light clock?
Let's assume time changes because of time dilation and length contraction. Now, would that mean that the distance/time travelled would be different for each light clock thus making it 'tick' faster or slower? If so, then that means that the following still stands: "If we relied upon a light-clock to tell us time, I don't see how the light-clock is a real manifestation of a real time. No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change."

Hopeless!
That's what you say because you do not understand my argument. If you did, then you would realize I am right.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

I gave you TWO LINKS that explain the resolution to the so-called twin's paradox. DID you, or DID YOU NOT, effing READ THEM?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:32 am
davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:01 am
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm

Let's assume time changes because of time dilation and length contraction. Now, would that mean that the distance/time travelled would be different for each light clock thus making it 'tick' faster or slower? If so, then that means that the following still stands: "If we relied upon a light-clock to tell us time, I don't see how the light-clock is a real manifestation of a real time. No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change."

Hopeless!
That's what you say because you do not understand my argument. If you did, then you would realize I am right.

Such aggressive, cocksure cluelessness!

You have no argument! You don't know what you are talking about!

See above. Did you read the links I evidently wasted time giving you, or not?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

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

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:26 am
So which one is right? That's a flat out contradiction! B<A, A<B. You can't have both at once.

It's just amazing! You started this thread, and a quick review shows that uwot gave you the answer to the above in the thread's very first reply! On Oct. 11!

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:31 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:26 am
OuterLimits wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:15 am

Person A says that person B is moving and their clock ticks slower than A's.

Person B says that person A is moving and their clock ticks slower than B's.
So which one is right? That's a flat out contradiction! B<A, A<B. You can't have both at once.

So ... you did not read the two links I gave you that explains how this is resolved, did you? Just amazing! Such aggressive ignorance!
Do you understand what 'ticks slower' means? It means that we cannot rely upon light clocks for 'time keeping' because regardless of how fast they tick due to time dilation and length contraction, they do not exhibit 'time' unless the speed of light itself is changed. Do you understand this?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:52 am
davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:31 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:26 am

So which one is right? That's a flat out contradiction! B<A, A<B. You can't have both at once.

So ... you did not read the two links I gave you that explains how this is resolved, did you? Just amazing! Such aggressive ignorance!
Do you understand what 'ticks slower' means? It means that we cannot rely upon light clocks for 'time keeping' because regardless of how fast they tick due to time dilation and length contraction, they do not exhibit 'time' unless the speed of light itself is changed. Do you understand this?

Keep making a fool of yourself, if you enjoy it.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:52 pm
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf anything, in Einstein's gedankenexperiment,I've been wondering if we have a train with a light-clock on it, and a man with a light-clock on the embankment what would happen? The light-clock would work by cycles of being reflected once up and once down for one full cycle. Now, when the train starts moving, does it, or does it not have the same time as the embankment clock?
What you have to remember is that special relativity describes what observers see when they pass each other with uniform relative velocity. If they continue with that uniform velocity, they will never know what the other's clock says, because they will simply be getting further and further away from each other.
So if I am looking at a clock that supposedly measures time, then when I close my eyes time suddenly stops? The fact that they cannot see each other's clocks does not mean it has any physical relevance. If the train were made of glass, would that make a difference?
uwot wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:52 pm
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf it does, then relativity is wrong because of simultaneity and non-relativity and regardless of motion the clocks would be in synchronicity.
If the conditions of special relativity are broken, so that the clocks stop their uniform motion and can be brought back together, then in all likelihood they will tell different times. That's the woefully misnamed 'Twin's Paradox', which was confirmed by Hafele-Keating and every subsequent test.
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf it doesn't have the same time, then there's a contradiction since both clocks are set to be at the same time regardless of motion.
Are you assuming that there is some absolute time? Tell you what; read my blog: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Better still, buy the book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1521884722
There HAS to be absolute time, otherwise the speed of light wouldn't be what it is. It's not the ticks of the clock that count, it's the speed of light!
Last edited by Viveka on Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:52 am
Nobody travelling with one of these clocks finds it to be moving slower.

Everybody measures that a moving clock is moving slower.

On person finds another's clock is moving slower and vice versa.

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.

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

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:52 am
davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:31 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:26 am

So which one is right? That's a flat out contradiction! B<A, A<B. You can't have both at once.

So ... you did not read the two links I gave you that explains how this is resolved, did you? Just amazing! Such aggressive ignorance!
Do you understand what 'ticks slower' means? It means that we cannot rely upon light clocks for 'time keeping' because regardless of how fast they tick due to time dilation and length contraction, they do not exhibit 'time' unless the speed of light itself is changed. Do you understand this?
This is complete gobbledygook. What the hell is wrong with you?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am There HAS to be absolute time, otherwise the speed of light wouldn't be what it is. It's not the ticks of the clock that count, it's the speed of light!
No! It's just the opposite! There is no absolute time, BECAUSE the speed of light is invariant!

Did you or did you not read my post on light clocks and marble clocks?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am
So if I am looking at a clock that supposedly measures time, then when I close my eyes time suddenly stops?
Who the hell said that? Where do you get this shit?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

OuterLimits wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am
Nobody travelling with one of these clocks finds it to be moving slower.
Then 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 Everybody measures that a moving clock is moving slower.

On person finds another's clock is moving slower and vice versa.