Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:48 pm

With regard to the differences between the depictions of the two stick figures in the animation:

Assume the traveling dude enters a spaceship in the rest frame that is 200 feet long in the horizontal direction.

Now assume he is flying over the ground-frame dude at 99.99 percent the speed of light.

The ground dude will judge (correctly) that the space ship flying past overhead is three feet long.

Relativity! Pretty cool, huh? 8)

Walker
Posts: 6426
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Walker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:19 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:50 am
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:17 am
I agree wholeheartedly that WHILE a human body was travelling at the speed of light, if they could, then for that person there MIGHT a perception outside of the body that no time was passing. But, to Me, from when that human body was last at rest, before travelling at the speed of light, if it could, up to when it was at rest again, after travelling at the speed of light, if it did, then the days or years that that body took to travel the distance that it did, at the speed of light, then that is how much that body would have aged by. And, if for example that body was in front of a mirror when they were travelling, then for that person they would see a normal rate of change. If this is not correct, then why not?
Ken, keep on the track:
Keep on what track?

Is that the same track that people have been on for years now and which is not really leading people closer to any actual new discoveries as of late? It is also the same track that is still being disputed and disagreed with?

Why not leave that well-trodden, ambiguous, maze of a track and just move onto a track that actually leads us into discovering new and further knowledge instead?

I have heard of experiments that were done, and when those experiments are fully looked at and the biases that played a part before and during the experiments were done are fully looked into also, then further knowledge will be discovered. But for now, if you want to stay on this boring track and look at this once again, we can.
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
If the twin in the fast spaceship could see his earthwalking brother, the brother would be moving very quickly. Super speed.
Allegedly.

Also, in what direction is the "fast" spaceship supposedly travelling?
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
If the earth walker could see his flying brother, he would appear motionless.
Or, that brother would appear to be in fast motion, especially considering that brother is in a "fast" spaceship.
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
For the flyer, everything on the spaceship appears normal.
If you say so.
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
For the walker, everything on earth appears normal.
Again, if you say so.
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
When the flyer returns, he looks as he did when he left.
How far did this flyer go? For how long was this flyer gone? And, how fast was this flyer "flying"?
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
However, the earth walker is old and gray, on his last legs.
The earth walker could have been relatively "old", ('old' has no actual meaning if it is not in relation to some thing else) grey, and on their "last" legs before brother flyer went flying.

I forget the name of story, but here’s a great plot. A starship pilot lands on earth for some downtime. He goes to a public place and gives a child a rare space gem. It’s red, and he tells her where it’s from. He then leaves for his next flight to the stars. I think he’s flying goods. It’s the usual short flight. He picks up another gem and returns to earth for his time off. He goes to the park. He does the same thing with another kid. He gives the gem to a kid. Then, he does something else that he didn’t do the first time. He somehow finds the first kid. She is now a woman, and she has thought of him all of her life. For awhile he has a very good friend, until his next trip to the stars.
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
Many of the details escape me because I read it when I was a kid. But that’s the gist. It was a kid’s story, so don’t get weird.
What do you mean by "don't get weird"?

And, quite a few people in this forum might tell you that I can not get weird as I was already weird before.
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
So, what do you think, Ken?
The thinking in this head right now is, 'I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say by that "great" plot.
Not that track. Sheesh.
That's the old track that leads to the station of, "Huh?"
There's a side rail, called Duh.

This is the science forum.
Give us a world, not the same old end of the line.

Please provide us with a synopsis of the experiments that you referenced that were designed to verify the theory of relativity, and qualify their validity.

If you can't or won't, no problemo.

However, one request. Refrain from the questions just this one time when educating, can'ting, or won'ting. So you can see what it feels like, and the reality of looking within for answers.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:29 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am

If the twin in the fast spaceship could see his earthwalking brother, the brother would be moving very quickly. Super speed.
This is not right.

The twin in the space ship, traveling at constant uniform motion (inertial frame) would judge himself at rest with respect to the earth, which from his frame would be moving. If he looked at the earth, he would judge his time to be ticking normally, while clocks on earth were ticking slowly.

Walker
Posts: 6426
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Walker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:35 pm

davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:29 pm
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am

If the twin in the fast spaceship could see his earthwalking brother, the brother would be moving very quickly. Super speed.
This is not right.

The twin in the space ship, traveling at constant uniform motion (inertial frame) would judge himself at rest with respect to the earth, which from his frame would be moving. If he looked at the earth, he would judge his time to be ticking normally, while clocks on earth were ticking slowly.
This is the beauty of no questions, just reasoning.

Positions are stated and considered carefully.

Reasoning follows. Not, what did you mean?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:59 pm

davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:41 pm
I read Heinlein when I was a kid; I would also say he penned the best (and most accurate) time travel story ever written, "All You Zombies." I believe the full text can be found online.
I read a lot of Science Fiction till the Genre started to be saturated with sword and sorcery, when it became too difficult to find good SciFi I stopped looking. I would read Asimov, Heinlein, Clark and others. George R R Martin is a good example, he wrote some really good SciFi and then started the "Game of Thrones" series and I stopped reading his work.

Walker
Posts: 6426
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Walker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:00 pm

”Ken” wrote: The thinking in this head right now is, 'I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say by that "great" plot.
Ken, here’s a real example of dilating time.

Remember the story of the pilot who traveled to the stars, that you don’t comprehend?

I read it when I was a kid, and my life then became a metaphor of the story, without ever consciously thinking of the story, in this sense:

Our kids were kids just last week. Now they are adults, impressive and independent.

We gave them treasures. They have thought of us all their lives, and they will when we’re gone. Now that they are grown and we are equals, we are friends. For awhile.

Just like the story.

Now, you tell me something significant, that you have witnessed.

Take your time. I’m going on vacation and you’re not invited.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:02 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:35 pm
davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:29 pm
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am

If the twin in the fast spaceship could see his earthwalking brother, the brother would be moving very quickly. Super speed.
This is not right.

The twin in the space ship, traveling at constant uniform motion (inertial frame) would judge himself at rest with respect to the earth, which from his frame would be moving. If he looked at the earth, he would judge his time to be ticking normally, while clocks on earth were ticking slowly.
This is the beauty of no questions, just reasoning.

Positions are stated and considered carefully.

Reasoning follows. Not, what did you mean?
"Just reasoning" leads to Ivory Tower thinking and a detachment from reality.

Walker
Posts: 6426
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Walker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:05 pm

Well, you can thank the inherent limitations of the venue for that.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:20 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:35 pm
davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:29 pm
Walker wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am

If the twin in the fast spaceship could see his earthwalking brother, the brother would be moving very quickly. Super speed.
This is not right.

The twin in the space ship, traveling at constant uniform motion (inertial frame) would judge himself at rest with respect to the earth, which from his frame would be moving. If he looked at the earth, he would judge his time to be ticking normally, while clocks on earth were ticking slowly.
This is the beauty of no questions, just reasoning.

Positions are stated and considered carefully.

Reasoning follows. Not, what did you mean?
The observer in the moving frame, provided it is an inertial frame (in constant uniform motion) is perfectly entitled to think of himself at rest, and the earth itself moving with respect to him. Therefore, if he looks at the earth, he sees clocks (and everything else) slowing down on the earth; meanwhile an earth observer would determine that he is at rest with respect to the spaceship, and it is the ship's clocks that are slowing.

If it were the case that the traveling frame saw everything on earth going at "super speed," this would not only violate special relativity ("no preferred frame") but also Galilean invariance -- in a frame in constant uniform motion, there is no experiment that you can perform that will tell you whether you are at rest with respect to your surroundings or in motion.

But surely both clocks cannot be slowing?

As uwot mentioned earlier, in order to resolve this, the spaceship person and the earth person will have to meet up again in the same frame and compare their clocks. If they don't, then the question of whose clock is *really* running slower has no meaning.

But for them to meet again, the space traveler will have to slow down, turn around, travel back to earth, slow and then stop. When he does these things, he is no longer in an inertial frame. He is in an accelerated frame. This makes all the difference.

Disussion here.

uwot
Posts: 4153
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:02 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
This may be a ridiculous clarifying question but what do you mean by "At the speed of light, there can be no photon exchange?"
It's yer basic Pythagoras. Imagine the two atoms moving parallel to each other. Suppose they are 3mm apart. Now imagine they have moved 4mm, so that where they were, and where they are now, define the corners of a rectangle which is 3mm by 4mm. In order to pass from one atom to the other, a photon has to take a diagonal path the cuts the rectangle into two right angled triangles. From Pythagoras, we know that the length of that diagonal path is 5mm. If the atoms are travelling at the same speed as the photons (which as davidm points out; they can't, but never mind), then the two atoms and the photon, will all travel 4mm. In other words, the photon cannot reach the target atom.
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
Do you think photons only travel one way in the whole entire Universe?
I may be crazy. But not that crazy.
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
To Me, it would not matter if at rest or travelling at the speed of light or any thing in between, photons are travelling in all directions. So, it would not matter at all if travelling at the speed of light there will obviously be light coming from the opposite and from all other directions also, at the speed of light too. There will be photon exchange no matter what because light photons travel in ALL directions. This is because there is a light source in ALL directions in the Universe. Therefore , there will be a metabolic event that happens always that will cause the ageing process, no matter if traveling at the speed of light or at rest, or anywhere in between.
Yeah. Somewhere up-thread, I said something about collisions; so yes, things travelling at the speed of light will hit other stuff. But the normal interactions that occur between the atoms that make up, for instance, a human body, will not happen.
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
uwot wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:47 am
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:17 am
What do you mean for the atoms nothing happens?

The atoms are still travelling between objects at the speed of light, so that is what is happening, is this wrong?
Fair enough. The atoms get from one place to another, but the types of interactions, the exchange of photons, for example, that take place between atoms at sub-light speed, simply cannot happen; if light speed really is the limit.
I do not know what you are trying to get at here?
More or less what I said above.
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
uwot wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:47 am
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:17 am
I agree wholeheartedly that WHILE a human body was travelling at the speed of light, if they could, then for that person there MIGHT a perception outside of the body that no time was passing. But, to Me, from when that human body was last at rest, before travelling at the speed of light, if it could, up to when it was at rest again, after travelling at the speed of light, if it did, then the days or years that that body took to travel the distance that it did, at the speed of light, then that is how much that body would have aged by.
What experiments like Hafele-Keating, and relativistic muon decay (more wiki for you: .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dila ... _particles ) is that speed does affect the rate at which things happen.
What actual evidence is there for this? The supposed evidence I have seen does not add up.
Well, there's Hafele-Keating et al, and muon decay, as per the link provided. If you can show why it doesn't add up, the Nobel Prize is in the post.
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
To Me, photon exchange still happens and according to you photon exchange is the basis for all chemical reactions.
The key word is exchange. You are quite right that the universe is awash with photons, and that atoms will collide with them, but those sort of collisions are not the same as the interactions that make a collection of atoms a coherent entity, such as a human body; much less a living, or thinking one.
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
Are you capable of imagining IF a human being with a functioning brain was traveling at the speed of light and looking at them self in mirror?
Yup, before I've even brushed my teeth.
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
IF you are capable of that, then what would be happening? Would that human body continue to age, or would it just stop ageing but continue to live, or would it just stop ageing and also stop breathing and stop pumping blood?
It would be a collection of atoms, all travelling in the same direction. The only interactions that could occur, would be with the atoms behind. All 'normal' processes would cease. I also happen to think that consciousness would, at least, be suspended and probably terminated, because, I suspect, consciousness is a pattern of brain states, and the chance of the same brain state re-establishing itself once it had been so catastrophically interrupted are about the same as dropping a skip load of cards from a mountain top, and dealing everyone on the planet a Royal Flush. (This is a completely made up statistic, and I will happily defer to anyone who can be arsed to do the sums.)

uwot
Posts: 4153
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:15 pm

davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:48 pm
The ground dude will judge (correctly) that the space ship flying past overhead is three feet long.
As an aside, have you ever calculated how long a three foot long spaceship would appear, once you have applied the Lorentz transformations?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:41 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:51 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:34 pm

What other ways besides from personal experience can knowledge be acquired?
If you listen to other people, you don't have to make the same mistakes to learn not to do it. It's called learning form others.
Learning from others comes from personal experience. Listening to others is a personal experience.
thedoc wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:51 pm
You can look at the evidence and figure out why things are the way they are.
The very first problem with this is, How much of an already view or belief does a person hold BEFORE they look at the so called "evidence"? Remember the "evidence" you are saying you can look at is some times not actually true and real evidence. Some times people only see what they want to see. Also, you can look at, and for, "evidence" that only supports what you already believe is true, without even realizing that this is what you are actually doing.

I am pretty sure ALL adults have had some personal experience of knowing people who will NOT look at evidence, even when it is put in front of them. Their beliefs will just not allow them to look at and see the evidence. The same unfortunate thing happens in the opposite way, when people believe some thing to already be true, these people will "find" evidence, for their already held view or belief, that is not even actually there and/or is not even actual evidence.
thedoc wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:51 pm
Astronomy and Paleontology do this all the time.
"Astronomy" and "paleontology" do NOT do any thing. They are just names given to the study of some things, which obviously 'the study of some thing' is ONLY what human beings can do. So, again only from personal experience is how knowledge is acquired.
thedoc wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:51 pm
You can learn from what others have discovered in the past, there is a popular phrase, "I can see far because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.
And, that is very true. Probably more true than people really realize yet, but again this learning comes from personal experience. For example if you did NOT experience, by "standing on the shoulders" of what others have discovered, then you would NOT have acquired knowledge of it. Only from the personal experience, of learning from others, is how you can acquire knowledge.
thedoc wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:51 pm
I don't have access to a large telescope or a particle accelerator or go on dinosaur digs, but I can read the reports of those who have this equipment or have done that.
Reading reports is a personal experience.

Whatever comes through any of the five senses of the body is a personal experience.

If a human body did not experience, see, hear, feel, smell, taste, any thing, through any of the five senses, then HOW could it learn and/or acquire any knowledge? Personal experience is the only way I observe how knowledge can be acquired.

Through the personal experience of seeing and reading, you acquire knowledge.
Through the personal experience of hearing and listening, you acquire knowledge.

By the way, and further to this, you can gain access to a large telescope or a particle accelerator or go on dinosaur digs. If you really wanted to do any of these things, then you would find a way to gain access to them.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:43 am

ken wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:41 am
Personal experience is the only way I observe how knowledge can be acquired.
Through the personal experience of seeing and reading, you acquire knowledge.
Through the personal experience of hearing and listening, you acquire knowledge.
We have a significantly different definition of "personal experience", you define it as any way that you acquire knowledge, and I define it as whatever you have done yourself, not including what you have learned from others.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:25 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:52 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:38 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:05 am


Were I travelling at the speed of light then it would take no time at all
And were I a stationary observer it would take eight and a half minutes
Although it MIGHT APPEAR to have taken no time for an observer travelling at the speed of light to travel that distance, to YOU how much time did it take?

You do KNOW the difference between what APPEARS to have happened and what ACTUALLY did happen, right?
You seem to think there is some ABSOLUTE TRUE TIME independent of reference frames. There isn’t! That is the whole point.
That is a fairly big assumption made considering here I only asked two questions. It is also a completely wrong assumption that you just made. I am NOT the one who is saying TIME STOPS, it is others who are saying that. I certainly do NOT think that there is some ABSOLUTE TRUE TIME. I, in fact, see that there is no such thing as time at all. 'Time' is just a given label to the measurement scale used to partly explain occurring events.

To back up briefly, I think everyone should drop talk of “if a human (clock, dog, rocket ship, whatever…) could travel at the speed of light, what would it experience or how would it behave?” No object with mass can travel AT the speed of light. What can be discussed is what happens when an objects travels at relativistic velocities; i.e., ever closer to the speed of light.

Okay let us do that then.

A human being with a clock is traveling in a ufo at the closest speed to light speed as possible, let us say it is 99% of the speed of light, from earth to a planet 3 light years away. How long would the trip take? And, what happens to that human being, would it age more slowly and need to eat, drink, urinate, and defecate at a slower than usual rate than it did when it was at "rest" on earth, or would it just behave at the normal rate as it did on earth, or some thing else? And, what happens to the clock, would it slow down compared to when it was on earth, or would it keep moving at the same rate as it would on earth, or some thing else?

davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:52 pm
Did you not look at this video?
Yes I did, that was what a light clock would "look like", which also can mean, "appears to behave like" from the ground frame perspective of the one who is not moving, is that right?
davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:52 pm
In the moving reference frame, there is one tick of the light clock.
There is one tick of the light clock from which observer and reference frame?
davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:52 pm
In the ground frame, there are three ticks of the light clock.
There are three ticks of the light clock from which observer and reference frame?
davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:52 pm
Now imagine that each tick of the clock represents ten years. This is true for both reference frames.
Okay I am imagining that.

Okay, I have already worked out where people are getting their misconceptions from.
davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:52 pm
Imagine the two dudes above are twins.
Okay imagined.
davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:52 pm
When the traveling twin leaves earth, he and his twin brother are 30 years old. Now he returns to earth and the twins compare their clocks.

Question: how old is each twin now?
Do you want Me to give you the answer that you believe is correct and the one that is written in those books that you put your faith in and also believe are correct, OR, would you like Me to ask you some clarifying questions so that some thing newer can be looked at, and, maybe some thing more truer can be discovered, OR, do you want Me to give what I observe is the answer?

The choice is yours.

We can read these, many times expressed, examples and keep repeating them but that does NOT make them more truer. Instead, WHY do we not look at new things and see if newer knowledge comes to light and thus is seen, discovered and found?

Also, all of what you said here is a good attempt to divert away from what I was asking and trying to get to, but if you think I am just another puppet that will only follow that what has been and is continually taught, then you have another thing coming. How many times a light clock reflects back and forth at rest, compared to a moving target, to Me, has no bearing on how long a trip actually takes. That light clock example sounds like just another attempt to provide some sort of "evidence" for some thing that was already believe to true prior.

Let us look at some new examples, which I have been asking already and have been waiting for answers to, but as most attempts at showing new things, human beings generally will think and/or say "That is NOT possible" and so disregard any thing BEFORE it even gets looked at. If you can provide me with an answer that would be great, but if you are unable to answer My questions because you are incapacitated by your own beliefs, then so be it. Now, If a "normal" clock, and NOT a light clock, is traveling at closest as possible to the speed of light, then does it slow down or does it tick away at the human made rate that it did prior to taking the trip? Whatever your answer is, can you then explain how this is possible?

By the way, a "normal" clock ticks at a rate, which was set by human beings, of 1 tick, being one second, 60 ticks being one minute and there are 60 minutes being for 1 hour. Do you know what types of clocks I am talking about here? These clocks are set, whereas light clocks are used to measure some thing entirely different. "Normal" clocks are set to light, or more precisely the speed of light, and are used to tell, what is generally called, the "time". Whereas, light clocks are used for showing or "proving" a basic feature of special relativity, and I am not sure of what else they are used for? Maybe you can help Me out here?

If you want to look at more than just what is taught in the literature of today, then we can. But if you just want Me to give you the answers that are found in the literature of today, then you are not getting it from Me. You already have and are holding onto those answers anyway. You certainly do NOT need Me to support your own beliefs. By the way if you do not want to look at some thing new and just continue on holding onto and insisting that what the literature, of the day that you are living in, states is true, right, and correct, then just remember that you would be one of those who would keep insisting that the sun revolves around the earth, if you were living in those days, because that is what it says in the book of that day, and the example you would use as "evidence" for this belief is by saying some thing like, "Just look at what the sun does in relation to you the observer on earth". A huge reason most human beings can NEVER find the truth of things is because they look solely from a human being perspective and expect the truth to fit in with what they already think, see as, and/or believe is true.

Think about, from the moving reference, how many ticks of the light clock there are? What is your reply to that?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:36 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:10 pm
thedoc wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:08 pm
davidm wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:52 pm

You seem to think there is some ABSOLUTE TRUE TIME independent of reference frames. There isn’t! That is the whole point.

To back up briefly, I think everyone should drop talk of “if a human (clock, dog, rocket ship, whatever…) could travel at the speed of light, what would it experience or how would it behave?” No object with mass can travel AT the speed of light. What can be discussed is what happens when an objects travels at relativistic velocities; i.e., ever closer to the speed of light.

Did you not look at this video?

In the moving reference frame, there is one tick of the light clock.

In the ground frame, there are three ticks of the light clock.

Now imagine that each tick of the clock represents ten years. This is true for both reference frames.

Imagine the two dudes above are twins. When the traveling twin leaves earth, he and his twin brother are 30 years old. Now he returns to earth and the twins compare their clocks.

Question: how old is each twin now?
This is a relatively simple math problem, the space traveling twin would be 40 years old and the Earth bound twin would be 60 years old.
Correct. I don't think Ken is grokking this, though. :?
What that video is implying, and wants you to see and understand, is VERY simple to understand. What most people do not grok though is the way they are manipulated into believing things, which may in fact NOT even be true.

You are just expressing what has been taught to you, without even giving any consideration into looking at some thing else. The very reason WHY it took human beings to learn, see, and understand that the earth revolves around the sun instead of the other way around was because the people of that day only expressed what was previously taught to them. Just one person was looking at things differently and tried so hard for many years to explain some thing new, but because the others would not even give any consideration into just looking at some thing else is the reason they look like fools today. History repeats itself.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest