Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5383
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:23 am

"Time has long been an important subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars." --wikipedia--

And I think that's all that has to be said of mans concept of time. A concept that was born of his imagination that definitively consistently eludes him. I do indeed like Kant's take which is that, "time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled."

To me, time is of no consequence, as it all but disappears completely at extremely large sizes and has relatively no end at extremely small sizes. Or I should say that time is relative to size. We don't really know that time can be dilated, only that those things we use, as if to measure it, either speed up of slow down under certain conditions. Surely they seem to be effected, but how can we know it's time that's effected, and not simply those things we believe can be used to measure it. It's kind of difficult since no one has ever been able to directly measure time in and of itself, as Kant believed it's impossible, as it's simply an intellectual construct so we can know sequence thus maintain an order of events.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am

Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
Why not try showing some examples AND allowing Me to respond, and then you can respond back?
I have.
Again, you saying, "I have", instead of just doing.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
I ACKNOWLEDGE and RECOGNIZE what you see
No you don't.
Sorry, I should have added "some times" to make the sentence MORE correct. That was absolutely all My fault for being so careless in NOT making things absolutely clear.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
There is NO such thing as a closed Mind, but you are a long way from discovering and/or learning this just yet.
Your assumption.
What was my assumption?

Do you already KNOW that there is NO such thing as a 'closed, nor an open, mind'?

If yes, then that was an assumption of mine, which I acknowledge was completely WRONG.

If no, then what was My assumption that you are seeing here?

Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
You make a lot of them, while accusing others of doing it.
Is there any person who does NOT make assumptions?

I have NEVER said that I do not make assumptions. I said, I do not like to make assumptions.

Also, you might be seeing a lot more assumptions than there actually is. Is that a possibility?


Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
just clarifying with Me about what I write or just concentrating on exposing your perceived contradictions and inconsistencies in what I write?
Tried that... over and over.
If you say so. But some sort of evidence would support what you say here better.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
WHY not just discuss what I write about instead of concentrating on what might or might not be happening? ?
Done that too many times to count.
Again, if you say so, then it MUST be true and correct, right?

As I have previously stated, if you just copy and paste the actual contention, then you can prove your point. I also would be given a chance to have a say in it.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
HOW do you KNOW how much I am listening to and seeing or not?
I say the things I do to you based on me being an observant person, and having observed your words and interactions with myself and others over a long period of time.
Have you ever considered that every thing could be relative to the observer (an observant person) AND the observer may NOT actually be seeing things HOW THEY EXACTLY ARE?
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
Others are telling you similar things at times.
Yes that IS true, at times.

Does the more that say the same, or similar, things, at times, make the thing more true, more right, or more accurate?
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
We're not all clueless about you
From what I have observed that could be very easily disputed.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
-- we're reflecting things that many eyes are seeing, and many minds are understanding.
What people see can be a distortion, or a complete block, of what IS true and real.

'Reflection', in and of itself, does NOT make any thing more true. Many reflecting also does NOT make any thing more true. For example many were reflecting that many eyes are seeing the sun revolve around the earth, and many (what are called) "minds" are understanding that this must be the truth. But does the sun revolve around the earth?

Also, are there actually MANY 'minds'?
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
This isn't all about YOU SHOWING US stuff!
Depending on what you mean by "This" I might totally agree that "This is NOT all about Me showing YOU stuff". I am here in this forum to learn how to better explain HOW YOU can observe, and see (understand), 'stuff' all by your own self, which is actually what IS.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
That would make no sense.
Why not?

Is this all about you showing us stuff? Or, is this about all of us all showing each other stuff?

To you, what is "this" all about? What would make sense in regards to what you are referring to here?
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
But it seems to make sense to someone who is wrapped up in their separatist ego without realizing it.
I have already explain HOW and WHY there is One who is completely entitled to be an Ego. But that 'Ego' is probably nothing like the one you keep talking about here in this forum.

By the way, what "seems", or APPEARS, to you to be happening here may NOT be what IS actually happening.

To Me, you seem to really enjoy expressing what another seems to be doing, but not really giving the other a chance to respond fully. If you do NOT provide the actual writings of others, which led you to the conclusions that you came to, then they are NOT able to provide the reasoning behind WHY they wrote "that" what they did.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
What is the disconnected avoidance game and how is it played?
How do you think it is played?
I have not considered it yet, to give an answer. The first time I have heard of it is when YOU wrote it. If you do NOT like to answer the clarifying question, then so be it. When, and if, you do, then I am better prepared to provide an answer.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
Do you think it is beyond you?
How could I think 'some thing' is beyond Me if I do NOT know what 'it' actually is?

This would be, for example, like you wanting Me to answer the question "Do you think God is real?" When, and IF, you NEVER clarify what the 'God' is that you are actually referring to. How could I give an accurate answer, IF I do NOT know what you are talking about. ONLY if you clarify the question, then I can answer it properly?
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
I laugh at how stupid i and other human beings really are, and can be, probably far more than you ever have or will.
Another assumption you're making.
Does it really matter if I make an assumption about what I probably do more than you do?

If I laugh at how stupid we, human beings, really are more than you do or not, then is that going to lead to any distorted or unclear view of things?

In fact, the truth of this could easily be found through a clarifying question.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
I laugh at just about everything.
Do you really laugh at "just about everything"?

How much of "everything" is "just about" relative to?
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
I don't frame it as "humans being stupid" though -- I think more in terms of blindly flailing with certainty. :D
Why do you NOT frame it as "humans being stupid"?

How much do you really laugh at how stupid YOU, and other human beings, actually are?

Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
By the way was there one actual point you made about some thing I have wrote
Done it many times... tired of doing it... seems like pointless effort.
WHY does it seem like a pointless effort, to you?

I would find if extremely meaningful and very refreshing if you could explain one actual point about what you say in "dispute" of what I wrote, instead of YOU just looking at the person, which was WHAT MY sentence was actually responding to. Cutting My sentences short in order to show some thing other than what was the actual context that I was referring to, does NOT help you, which by the way you have done a couple of times already.
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
More interesting now to ask you what the fuck you're doing? :lol:
Learning how to communicate better, AND, using the human beings of "today", through this forum, to show with evidence "future" peoples what I want to say about HOW the Mind and the brain works.

What are you doing?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:26 am

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
Ken, you keep saying you want others to ask you “clarifying questions.” So here is one:
Thank you.
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
Two twins on earth synchronize their clocks.

One twin blasts off on a spaceship and travels at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. He accelerates, travels for a while in constant uniform motion, slows down, turns around, accelerates again, travels in constant uniform motion again for a while, slows, descends to earth. He gets out of the ship and he and the twin he left behind compare their clocks. What will the clocks show?
As long as the energy source for the clocks was sufficiently the same, then the clocks will show the same. To Me, the trip took just as long as the twin was on the planet earth for. The clocks will show this, and the age of both twins will be the exact same as if the traveling twin did or did not take the trip.
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
The traveling twin aged less than the earthbound twin.
The earthbound twin aged less than the traveling twin.
Both are still the same age.
I have no fucking clue.
Both are still the same age.
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
Please respond, and show your reasoning! Thanks!
MY pleasure.

Because a trip takes as long as it takes. A trip can NOT BE shorter just because one is taking the trip, ALTHOUGH it can APPEAR to be that way. But we KNOW what can APPEAR to be true, may not necessarily be so.

The trip takes as long as it does, and the body of the twin taking the trip would still breath at the same rate as they did on earth, roughly taking the same amount of breathes in the SAME 24 hour period, as the twin on earth. The travelling twin would see the clock showing the same rate of change, as it changed on earth. 24 hours would still be the same. The traveling twin would still get hungry, eat, defecate, and urinate, roughly, the SAME as the twin on earth.

This can be easily OBSERVED from an independent observer and/or perspective, that is from say "another planet" for example. If a photon was send out from earth at the exact same time as the traveling twin, taking the exact same trip, turning around at the exact same place, and obviously traveling at a faster speed, then do you think it would come back;

Before the traveling twin,
After the traveling twin, or,
At the same time as the traveling twin?

If the photon arrives back before the traveling twin, and the photon took some time to make the trip, then the traveling twin would take longer to take the same trip. The LENGTH of that trip is HOW much the traveler would age by. Another observer on another planet could measure how long the trip took compared to how long "things" took on earth.

If the photon arrives after or at the same time, then how?

The REASON it ONLY APPEARS to take a shorter time for a traveler is because if, for example, a traveler left earth and landed on another planet and looked back at earth, then it would LOOK LIKE they had only just left earth. This is, of course, relative to the speed that they were traveling at. For example IF, and only IF, they were traveling at the speed of light from go to stop, and they looked back at earth, then they would be observing just about at the moment they left. So, to this traveler it would ONLY APPEAR and SEEM LIKE it took no time at all. Time would APPEAR to have stopped. BUT we KNOW the trip took as long as it did, for example it would have taken four years if the other planet was four light years away, if traveling at the speed of light.

The traveler would also KNOW that it took four years because when they look back at earth and see it as four years ago, then that would make total sense because what is seen of any planet, from any other planet, is KNOWN not to be existing that way because of how long light takes to travel, which we agree light travels at a constant speed. To the traveler it MIGHT APPEAR as though time has stopped, but that is ONLY relative to the clocks on earth. But to the traveler it would have taken four years and so would have, naturally, also aged by four years.

To the people on earth it would take eight years before they see the traveler land on the other planet, and so to them it would APPEAR, but again ONLY APPEAR, that that the traveler has aged by ONLY four years and the traveler's clock would show a four year SLOWER difference compared to the clocks on earth. BUT that is because it takes fours years before what is OBSERVED to be happening on that planet to reach earth.

I am NOT sure how well that shows My reasoning, if at all, you are the first person who has really ever asked Me to clarify what I observe. I am only just learning how to explain this sufficiently and succinctly, and really this is only My first attempt. I am only just beginning to see this better from this thread. But I am sure I could explain this more thoroughly if what is not understood, or not agreed with, was shown, and I was given a chance to add more and/or clarify more.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:32 am

OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:32 am
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:36 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pm
I will try again, how long would a photon take to travel from earth to alpha centauri?
Somehow I suspect you don't care about the answer to this, but the math is trivial.

If A-C is 4 light years away, then it takes a photon 4 years to get there. That's what it means to be 4 light years away.
It is a frame independent answer. If in another frame A-C is 4 light hours away, then it takes 4 hours in that frame.
If one is riding behind the photon at .999 c, then the trip will take but the blink of an eye.
WHY would it take the photon a considerable amount of time to take the trip but, to you, if an observer was riding behind that exact same photon, then the trip would supposedly now take "the blink of an eye"?
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:32 am
The 4-light-year figure is for inertial frames which are more-or-less stable with respect to our solar system and Alpha Centauri.
Is not traveling at a constant speed of .999 c an inertial frame?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:57 am

ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:57 am
uwot wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:10 am
Dunno how you have managed to miss it, but that is exactly what I have been saying all along.
What do you think I have missed exactly?
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:42 am
The entire chapter that:
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:50 pm
...emphasizes that the two will find that one of the clocks has ticked less - rather than phrasing it that one's clock is slowed per se...
Just because I do NOT agree with ALL of what you wrote in your book, and especially the above, and thus do NOT just repeat what you wrote, like you do, does NOT mean that I have missed it. This just means that I find, see and observe fault in some of what you write.
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:42 am
It's not difficult to work out.
And would you like to explain HOW exactly you can work it out and could KNOW how much of what I have actually read?

Are you basing most of your assumptions on how much I agree with you, or, is there some thing else your assumptions are based on exactly?

Just because I do NOT specifically express the faults that I observer that does NOT mean I miss things. I fully understand WHY you observe what you do, and so I just leave it at that, some times.
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:42 am
Happy to be of service. I'd make it quick though, I don't know how long any of us can maintain an interest.
This is NOT the place to express what I want to express. People's 'interest' nowadays, in this thread or forum, has NO bearing on what I want to express nor when I will. There is NO urgency in what and when I express. To Me, learning how to express better is far more important than just expressing.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:05 am

-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:13 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
Ken, you keep saying you want others to ask you “clarifying questions.” So here is one:

Two twins on earth synchronize their clocks.

One twin blasts off on a spaceship and travels at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. He accelerates, travels for a while in constant uniform motion, slows down, turns around, accelerates again, travels in constant uniform motion again for a while, slows, descends to earth. He gets out of the ship and he and the twin he left behind compare their clocks. What will the clocks show?

The traveling twin aged less than the earthbound twin.
The earthbound twin aged less than the traveling twin.
Both are still the same age.
I have no fucking clue.


Please respond, and show your reasoning! Thanks!
Can I help you, Ken? MY answer would be "all of the above", if I were a quantum mechanical sub-atomic particle. It would fit my personality so nicely, so tellingly!

I think if you guys really want to know the answer, then you have to put a twin on a contraption that follows an electron at .999 of light speed, turns around, comes back, and lands safely in Mrs. Psiribinsky's Passover dishes on the cupboard shelf. (You forgot this minute, but extremely important detail, davidm.)
Yes, an actual experiment would help in finding and getting an actual answer.

Thought experiments have there place, and are great some times. But just because one person thinks of some thing different, from say "every one else" for example, then that does NOT mean that "every one else's" thought or thinking is true, right, and correct. If it was, then no new views, no more new knowledge, nor no more technological advancements could be made and achieved.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:08 am

davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:15 pm
-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:13 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
Ken, you keep saying you want others to ask you “clarifying questions.” So here is one:

Two twins on earth synchronize their clocks.

One twin blasts off on a spaceship and travels at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. He accelerates, travels for a while in constant uniform motion, slows down, turns around, accelerates again, travels in constant uniform motion again for a while, slows, descends to earth. He gets out of the ship and he and the twin he left behind compare their clocks. What will the clocks show?

The traveling twin aged less than the earthbound twin.
The earthbound twin aged less than the traveling twin.
Both are still the same age.
I have no fucking clue.


Please respond, and show your reasoning! Thanks!
Can I help you, Ken? MY answer would be "all of the above", if I were a quantum mechanical sub-atomic particle. It would fit my personality so nicely, so tellingly!

I think if you guys really want to know the answer, then you have to put a twin on a contraption that follows an electron at .999 of light speed, turns around, comes back, and lands safely in Mrs. Psiribinsky's Passover dishes on the cupboard shelf. (You forgot this minute, but extremely important detail, davidm.)
Why would we have to do that? Do I have to leap into the sun to know I'll burn up?
Because you have said, you will stop reading what I write and/or that you have already stop reading what I write, I have already explained HOW and WHY you do NOT have to "leap into the sun" to know that outcome.
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:15 pm
In any event, as I've linked, we already have astronauts who aged less in orbit, including one actual twin astronaut who aged less than his earthbound twin!
Has that been proven, beyond any reasonable doubt?

How much did they supposedly age less by?

What did they measure this apparent agelessness to exactly?

How could the age of two completely separate and different bodies be compared exactly?

What did they measure?

How could any person previously KNOW how they would have aged beforehand?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:30 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:56 am
Hey, Ken, here is a clarifying question that you claim to want. Did you, uh, miss it? :?

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
Ken, you keep saying you want others to ask you “clarifying questions.” So here is one:

Two twins on earth synchronize their clocks.

One twin blasts off on a spaceship and travels at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. He accelerates, travels for a while in constant uniform motion, slows down, turns around, accelerates again, travels in constant uniform motion again for a while, slows, descends to earth. He gets out of the ship and he and the twin he left behind compare their clocks. What will the clocks show?

The traveling twin aged less than the earthbound twin.
The earthbound twin aged less than the traveling twin.
Both are still the same age.
I have no fucking clue.

Please respond, and show your reasoning! Thanks!
If you had been reading My posts and following, and thus knowing where I was up to, then you would not have had to ask your question here.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:38 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:57 am
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:29 am
Do you EVER read what I write?

I will write it again; I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY THING.

Did you just read that? I underlined it for you so you might see it better. Do you understand that?
Nobody gives a shit, Ken.
I do NOT care if you, nor any one else, gives a "shit" or not. You keep writing things that obviously shows you do NOT read what I write or that you completely dismiss what I say I do. I want to see if you are able to understand that?

Are you even able to answer that clarifying question?

Can you please refrain from asking Me questions in relation to what I obviously do NOT DO.
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:57 am
Please answer my "clarifying question."
Why do you NOT answer My clarifying questions but you want Me to answer yours?

Why could you not even see, or comprehend, that I was NOT even up to your question, yet?

What is preventing you from being able to follow and understand where I am up to?

What is the apparent rush for My answer?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:58 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:24 am
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:29 am
No.

Have you had first hand experience or felt that heat burns, and, have you felt the heat from the sun? If so, then you would NOT, and I repeat, NOT have to leap into the the sun to test that a human body would burn up in the sun.
How do you KNOW that, Ken?
What does "that" refer to?

Until then, if you answered My clarifying question, then that is how I KNOW 'that' YOU would not have to "leap into the sun", as you put it, to KNOW that the human body would burn up in the sun. As I said, if you KNOW that heat burns the human body, and, that if you have felt the heat from the sun, then YOU would KNOW that the sun will burn the human body.
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:24 am
Since NO ONE has ever approached the sun, how do you know that the sun does not get cooler from the perspective of someone approaching it?
What do you mean by 'NO ONE'?

Some have approached the sun, and, from that perspective I CAN KNOW.
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:24 am
You DON'T know that, do you?
This body has not experienced "leaping into the sun" but this body has experienced being closer to the sun and, from that experience,has felt that the body gets warmer, so from that perspective of approaching closer to the sun and getting warmer I, therefore, KNOW that the sun, itself, does NOT get warmer, as a human body approaches it but the human body heats up more when approaching closer to the sun.

If you want or need evidence of and for this, then just ask for it.
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:24 am
Do you have any clarifying questions?
Yes.
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:24 am
Remember, I don't believe or disbelieve anything! :lol:
Do you also neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

Were you always like this? If not, then how did you learn to become far more open again?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:13 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
You know what I have a problem with. If no one has ever traveled at the speed of light, how could they possibly 'know' that it was the ultimate speed?
To think that the speed of light was the ultimate speed seems a bit ridiculous, to Me.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
I'm sure it's just a theory, while actual 'knowledge' has absolutely noting to do with it! You know, empirically!

Also, as to time dilation, in fact, there is no such thing as a stationary clock. One just cannot certainly exist, as there is no way to know that any thing or position in three dimensional space is necessarily stationary; relative to what? ;-)

How could we possibly know that we aren't currently traveling at the speed of light.
That may be able to be known, but will leave for another discussion.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Does the fact that we are in fact traveling at some unknown speed, relative to what, either subtract or add to our measured speed of light. I mean to say, that as measured on another heavenly body, it may have a different speed altogether. Let's face it, our understanding of physics is certainly earth centric, which dosen't necessarily say much, universally speaking.
Agree totally.


SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Uwot, what say you, my friend? ;-)


Oh and...

Happy Holidays to all!

If you don't celebrate any upcoming Holiday, simply celebrate the diversity of life, as the gift it certainly is.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:14 pm

Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:05 am
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:03 am
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm
It just takes less time to go from A to B by another route.
That is very relative and depended.
If relativity is true, then it is just plain a fact, and not relative to anything like a frame.
That is, IF relativity is true, which would again be very relative, and depended upon, some thing.

By the way what does 'relativity' mean to you?
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:05 am
And, no body aged slower either, right?
Right. But one is older than the other when they meet, despite both of them aging at the same pace.
Is that an absolutely unambiguous true fact, which could not be disputed?

What is the actual process that allows one human body to be 'older' than another, yet the two bodies age at the same pace?

I would have thought 'elder' and 'younger' is very depended upon 'age'. Therefore, if two bodies age at the same pace, then they would be the same age. How could they be of different age?
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:05 am
If two human beings travel the same distance, then how can one cover 'more space' and 'less time'? What is the 'more space' and the 'less time' relative to exactly?
Different routes, as explained in the post to which you're responding.
Well then obviously if two human beings are taking different routes, then one would cover more distance, and the length of time that would it take would take to cover those distance would be different also, depended upon of course if they were traveling at the same speed. BUT that was NOT the question I was asking you to clarify.

YOU wrote;
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm
I take tape measures between two points, but each by a different route, and get different values.
Then YOU wrote;
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm
One measures less than another, but its not because one tape got longer. It just measured the greater distance.
Are you saying one tape measure measured less because the distance was greater than the other one. If that is NOT what you are saying, then are you saying the obvious that one tape measure measures less because the distance was less than the other one? If it was the former, then how is this possible? If you were not saying either of them, then what were you saying?

YOU then wrote;
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm
With the twins, one of them is choosing a route that covers more space and less time, but both get from A to B, and nobody's clock is slowed.
What do you mean by 'more space'? Is that like 'more distance'?

I agree it would take less "time" to go from A to B by another route, if, and when the route, is a shorter distance, and while traveling at the exact same speed or at a faster speed. But I do NOT, yet, see how one traveler could choose a route that covers more "space", or more distance, and take less "time" to travel that distance if they are travelling at the exact same speed. Can you clarify how this is possible? That was the question I was asking you to clarify.

Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:05 am
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:03 am
I will start and try again, how far away is alpha centauri to earth?
That is very relative and depended, as you put it. Alpha Centauri is no more an event than is Earth, and hence it has no fixed spatial separation.
Totally agree.
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:05 am
But it is currently about 4.3 light years away in the frame of our mutual center of gravity.
So, if alpha centauri is about 4.3 light years away in the frame of our mutual center of gravity, then it would take a photon about 4.3 light years to travel from our mutual center of gravity of earth and alpha centauri? Is that right?

If that is right, then is that answer a frame independent answer? If so, what is this 'independence' relative to? And, IF there are supposedly other frames, then what are those frames depended upon, and/or relative to, exactly?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Lacewing » Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
Why not try showing some examples AND allowing Me to respond, and then you can respond back?
I have.
Again, you saying, "I have", instead of just doing.
Why would I need to keep doing it over and over? If you're too dense or resistant to see it when it's done repeatedly for you, why would there be any point in me going to the trouble of doing it yet again for you?
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
There is NO such thing as a closed Mind, but you are a long way from discovering and/or learning this just yet.
Your assumption.
What was my assumption?
The assumptive part of your statement is that I am "a long way from" discovering and/or learning blah, blah, blah. Look, I underlined it for you so that you can zero in on your assumption. I bet you'll still miss it. What is the purpose of specifying "a long way from" when claiming that I haven't discovered and/or learned something?

Also, if you want to start identifying what there is NO such thing as, Ken, start with all the crap you make up.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
You make a lot of them, while accusing others of doing it.
Is there any person who does NOT make assumptions?

I have NEVER said that I do not make assumptions. I said, I do not like to make assumptions.

Also, you might be seeing a lot more assumptions than there actually is. Is that a possibility?
You're ridiculous, you know that? You completely miss the irony. You continually tell people that they're making assumptions about what you say, yet when it's pointed out to you that you're doing it, you dance all around with your rationalizations (above). If you're going to rationalize it for YOURSELF, then why don't you rationalize it for OTHER PEOPLE? Maybe YOU see more assumptions than there actually are... is THAT a possibility?
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
just clarifying with Me about what I write or just concentrating on exposing your perceived contradictions and inconsistencies in what I write?
Tried that... over and over.
If you say so. But some sort of evidence would support what you say here better.
My evidence is recorded in this thread, where I've provided several examples. There should be no reason for me to repeat them AGAIN. Perhaps the problem is that you do your little rationalization dance to wave them away and forget and dismiss them. So what's the point of me going through that again with you?
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
WHY not just discuss what I write about instead of concentrating on what might or might not be happening?
Done that too many times to count.
Again, if you say so, then it MUST be true and correct, right?
Why not? Do you think that only what you say is true and correct? Could it be that you're so caught up in what you think -- and what you WANT to think -- that you're missing or ignoring what is actually written and recorded in this thread and in this forum?
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Have you ever considered that every thing could be relative to the observer (an observant person) AND the observer may NOT actually be seeing things HOW THEY EXACTLY ARE?
Sure! Have YOU considered this about yourself?
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
Others are telling you similar things at times.
Yes that IS true, at times.

Does the more that say the same, or similar, things, at times, make the thing more true, more right, or more accurate?
When multiple people are telling you that they've already told you something, and it is clearly recorded here, and they actually point it out AGAIN to you, only to have you still dismiss or miss it AGAIN... yes, I would say there's probably accuracy in their statements. :lol:
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
What people see can be a distortion, or a complete block, of what IS true and real.
Do you realize this about yourself, Ken? Is it possible that what you're seeing is a distortion, or a complete block, of what IS true and real?

If this is possible for people... and you are a person... then it's possible that it applies to you... correct?
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
I am here in this forum to learn how to better explain HOW YOU can observe, and see (understand), 'stuff' all by your own self, which is actually what IS.
How can YOU explain that? Why would YOU even NEED to explain that? And WHO IS IT that you think you are explaining it to?

You've previously said you were in this forum to learn how to communicate better. Here you are saying that you want to tell me HOW I can observe and understand? Yet, you don't understand/see what people are saying and pointing out to YOU much of the time. So how is learning and communication going to work if it's only one way?
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
I have already explain HOW and WHY there is One who is completely entitled to be an Ego.
Your "explanation" is not proof of anything.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
To Me, you seem to really enjoy expressing what another seems to be doing...
I find it very entertaining and informative to notice what people are doing as well as what they're saying.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
...but not really giving the other a chance to respond fully.
That's not true, Ken. I respond to what people say and do... and then I respond to their response to that. I am not keeping anyone from responding. Why are you making up such a thing?
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
If you do NOT provide the actual writings of others, which led you to the conclusions that you came to, then they are NOT able to provide the reasoning behind WHY they wrote "that" what they did.
I DO provide the statements I'm responding to... just as I'm doing right here. Why are you saying I don't do this? When I offer assessments about someone's repetitive behavior, it is because I've already repeated and responded to that repetitive behavior. There is no reason for me to repeat all of those things again when I've already responded to them directly. Do YOU not make assessments based on repetitive individual experiences you've had? What if every time you made an assessment, you were asked to repeat all of the individual experiences which you had already discussed? It's absurd that you request this of other people... as if you were not involved in the individual discussions. Pay attention and remember what is being said, and then you will understand the broader references and assessments that are being shown to you. :D
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
I laugh at how stupid i and other human beings really are, and can be, probably far more than you ever have or will.
Another assumption you're making.
Does it really matter if I make an assumption about what I probably do more than you do?
What is the purpose of claiming what I "ever have or will" do?
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
I laugh at just about everything.
Do you really laugh at "just about everything"?
Yes, I really do. I see/feel humor most of the time. Our mad world is so delightfully and furiously mad. So wonderful... so horrific... so convincing... so vast with potential. Yet (the way I see it) ALL is ONE... playing it all out... pretending it is solidly "this or that". It's magnificent. It's funny. Humor feels like a form of love.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
I don't frame it as "humans being stupid" though -- I think more in terms of blindly flailing with certainty. :D
Why do you NOT frame it as "humans being stupid"?
Because I don't typically think that way. I may notice some behaviors or statements that seem stupid in certain circumstances. But I think all humans are divine... all of the same stuff with all of the same vast creative capability... and creating what we do for all sorts of reasons and entertainment.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
By the way was there one actual point you made about some thing I have wrote
Done it many times... tired of doing it... seems like pointless effort.
WHY does it seem like a pointless effort, to you?
Because of questions like that.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
Cutting My sentences short in order to show some thing other than what was the actual context that I was referring to, does NOT help you, which by the way you have done a couple of times already.
You do that often, Ken... so I think you should take a look at yourself.

I truly do not try to change context at all when I am responding to someone. I want to respond truthfully and with clarity. I am not trying to weaken another person in order for me to "win" something. It simply helps sometimes to pinpoint the phrase that seems to undermine or reveal the supposed "intent" of the communication. Especially with you -- because you seem to spin off of the point so easily, which (from my perspective) convolutes the discussion and makes it almost unbearable to wade through.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
More interesting now to ask you what the fuck you're doing? :lol:
Learning how to communicate better, AND, using the human beings of "today", through this forum, to show with evidence "future" peoples what I want to say about HOW the Mind and the brain works.
:lol: I think you could use yourself as your best test subject.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
What are you doing?
Laughing.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:14 pm
I would have thought 'elder' and 'younger' is very depended upon 'age'.
It is.
Therefore, if two bodies age at the same pace, then they would be the same age. How could they be of different age?
You're making up nonsense. You and I age at the same pace and yet we're not the same age (probably). I see people of different ages all around me, directly contradicting your statement. If you're going to play the dumb card, do it right. If your sole argument is intuition, it carries no weight here.
If it was the former, then how is this possible? If you were not saying either of them, then what were you saying?
Probably not either. I'm saying only straight lines give preferred measurements between two points. With space (say the space between me and the car over there), one can wind the tape over a zigzag route and get a longer measure, or I can fail to take the two readings simultaneously, and get any reading I want, including zero. Likewise the preferred temporal measurement takes a straight line and is done 'simultaneously' in space, by which I mean both measurements at the same location. All your intuitions are built around this preferred sort of thinking because you never wander far enough from it. But those intuitions are total bunk if you do wander significantly from that straight line, so you quoting the intuitive rules that only apply to the fairly stationary environment you experience is an incredibly closed-minded refusal to see the larger picture, despite it being taught in schools.
What do you mean by 'more space'? Is that like 'more distance'?
Yes. Same thing. One stays put and traverses pretty much zero distance.
Can you clarify how this is possible? That was the question I was asking you to clarify.
No, I cannot clarify this to you. You have demonstrated no actual desire to know what you just asked, else you'd have given more open-minded answers to all the prior posts. All I see is closed-minded denial and display of some intuitive Newtonian absolute model that has been falsified a century ago.
Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:05 am
But it is currently about 4.3 light years away in the frame of our mutual center of gravity.
So, if alpha centauri is about 4.3 light years away in the frame of our mutual center of gravity, then it would take a photon about 4.3 light years to travel from our mutual center of gravity of earth and alpha centauri? Is that right?
No. 4.3 years to go from Earth to A-C in that frame, assuming that both are reasonably stationary in that frame, which they are.
If that is right, then is that answer a frame independent answer?
No. A frame was defined in the answer. The answer is dependent on that frame. There is no frame independent answer to that question.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:23 pm

Ken doesn't understand that we travel in spacetime, not just in space and not just in time. Well, Ken doesn't understand anything, come to think of it.

And no, Ken, I'm not reading through your latest word wallpaper, which arrives on schedule ever weekend. I'll only look back to see if you answered my "clarifying question" about the twins. Betting not.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests