## 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?

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

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:01 am
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.

The apparent contradiction is relativity.
Exactly! It's not even a paradox, it's a flat out contradiction!

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?
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.
DID YOU, OR DID NOT NOT, read the two links I gave you that explain the resolution to this so-called "paradox?"

YES OR NO?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pm
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pm If 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.
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.
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
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:14 am
davidm wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pm
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pm If 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.
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.
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?
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!

Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:14 am
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.
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?
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!

Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
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!

Also, did you see the video I posted that was of Cynthia whitney talking about galilean relativity applying to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:26 am
davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 am
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?
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!

Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
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!

Also, did you see the video I posted that was of Cynthia whitney talking about galilean relativity applying to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory?
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?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:26 am
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!
No! Each would see the other's clock TICKING SLOWER -- not in synchrony!
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

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!
And I have already sufficiently rebutted both of those posts. Read my posts again.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:32 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:26 am
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!
No! Each would see the other's clock TICKING SLOWER -- not in synchrony!
You have just stated otherwise. Re-read your post and my rebuttal.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:44 am
davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:32 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:26 am
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!
No! Each would see the other's clock TICKING SLOWER -- not in synchrony!
You have just stated otherwise. Re-read your post and my rebuttal.

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

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:43 am
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!
And I have already sufficiently rebutted both of those posts. Read my posts again.
'Why would I wade through your rubbish yet again?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 am
Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:14 am
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.
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?
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!

Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
Look at the boldfaced.
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

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

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:48 am
davidm wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 am
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?
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!

Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
Look at the boldfaced.
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!

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

### Re: Relativity?

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.'
You're such a dummy! Thanks for the laughs!