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?
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 pmIn 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 pmIn 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 pmNow 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 pmImagine 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?