Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:41 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:52 pm
Are you trying to tell Me and others that what uwot, you, noax, and thedoc say is true and right and if any one else says any thing contradictory to what you four say, then that means that they are wrong?
I think what we would agree on is the empirical evidence, i.e. atomic clocks slow down the faster they are moving; and the stronger the gravitational field, for that matter.
How many clocks were used in the experiment?

How many were moving AND in what direction were they moving in?

Was there an actual 'stationary' clock?

What was the reading on the three clocks when they "met" again?

Did both of the two moving clocks, slow down exactly the same, compared to the "stationary" clock? If NOT, then what was the difference in the readings from the "stationary" clock?

And, what was the so called "empirical evidence" that atomic clocks slow down the FASTER they are moving? Were their two clocks moving in the EXACT SAME direction, at the exact same levels, for the exact same duration, with the exact same atmospheric pressures, et cetera, et cetera, BUT one was plane moving FASTER than the other, so that when they landed back with the "stationary" clock then those two could be compared against each other, and then those two readings be compared against the so called "stationary" clock? Then we could measure if the clock in the FASTER plane slowed down more than the clock in the slower plane.

If that is NOT what took place, then what is the actual evidence that an atomic clock slows down the FASTER it is moving? To Me, one experiment were ONE clock's reading was not the same as another does NOT verify that clocks slow down the faster they are moving. To Me, at least two different clocks moving in the exact same direction, et cetera, at two different speeds relative to each other and relative to another stationary clock would be needed to show that clocks slow down the faster they are moving. Until that experiment happens I will just wait. I am certainly in no hurry.

I will leave out the so called "empirical evidence" for the stronger the gravitational field part, FOR NOW.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:41 pm
I'm fairly certain that we would also agree that the maths of relativity very accurately describes the dilation that demonstrably happens.
I also am fairly certain that you four would also agree that the maths of relativity very accurately described the dilation, prior to when dilation was said to demonstrably have happened.

By the way, is that largely the same maths that is said to have bugger all to do with reality, also?
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:41 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:52 pm
If this is correct, then does this mean for ALL things you four say also?
Doesn't follow. For all I know, our metaphysical models for why this should be so are completely different.
I did NOT think it would follow also. But I wanted to clarify for My own knowing.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:41 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:52 pm
By the way, what about the times when either of you four are saying contradictory things against each other, which one/s do you propose I should then listen to, and accept as being true and right? Or, do you propose that you four will never be in contradiction of each other?
You can make up your own mind about the metaphysics, as can any of us, but I very much doubt that any of us will contradict any other regarding the empirical data.
Of course you would NOT. You all totally accept and/or believe that the "empirical" data is 100% absolutely correct, right?

It could NOT be any thing else, right?

It is, after all, called "empirical data".

And to the believers and followers of particular fields words, themselves, have very special meanings. Some words are "sacred" and are followed with the highest of importance, while other words are less meaningful. I think we all know where the words 'empirical data' stand with the followers of science literature.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:39 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:43 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:56 pm
Are you in any way, shape, or form at all open to the possibility that I already have a better theory or better still already have A "Theory" of Everything, which would obviously do away with ALL other theories?
Yup. Let's hear it, then.
You are joking, right?

Have you NOT seen the clumsily way I write and word things?

Have you NOT noticed the lack of intellect I have in knowing the definitions of terms and words used?

Have you NOT noticed the way I am continually misunderstood and misinterpreted, even when all I am doing is just asking simple straightforward questions, for clarification?

Have you NOT noticed even My most simplest of questions get taken out of context?

I have many years to go of learning just how to communicate with others successfully, before I even begin to learn how to communicate succinctly, and then I would only be ready to start explaining. Then when I am ready, I will have to start looking for a person who is genuinely open and honest and interested in listening and hearing what I have to actually say. I am NOT looking for the ones who just pretend they are, like your self. Nor am I looking for those who just want to dismiss or discredit what I say, that can obviously be done all to very easily.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:42 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:51 pm
Is absolutely everything we experience absolutely true and real Not absolutely so
Is what is generally accepted absolutely true and right and correct Not absolutely so
If not then how do we know without any doubt that the phenomena exist We cannot know
In fact how do we know without any doubt that we experience something We cannot know
We can not know, OR, we do not YET know?

"We cannot know" is an absolute knowing statement, in of itself.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1856
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:53 am

Can absolute truth be known by some but doubted by others
What is absolute truth anyway and can you give an example of a statement that you know is absolute truth
How do you know that statement is absolute truth because it could only be what you think is absolute truth

surreptitious57
Posts: 1856
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:09 pm

We cannot know is an absolute knowing statement is an absolute statement too. But I never said We cannot absolutely know but We cannot know so it is a provisional statement not an absolute one. For it to be absolute I would have to be omniscient and in possession of all future knowledge

uwot
Posts: 3936
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:39 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
How many clocks were used in the experiment?
I presume you are referring to Hafele-Keating.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
How many were moving AND in what direction were they moving in?
In which case, there were four atomic clocks that were flown round the world, eastwards and westwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
Was there an actual 'stationary' clock?
The US Naval observatory in Washington, against which they were compared, currently "...maintains 57 HP/Agilent/Symmetricom 5071A-001 high performance cesium atomic clocks and 24 hydrogen masers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... bservatory I don't know the exact number at the time of H-K, but several at least, and probably many.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
What was the reading on the three clocks when they "met" again?
All the details can be found in the above link.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
To Me, at least two different clocks moving in the exact same direction, et cetera, at two different speeds relative to each other and relative to another stationary clock would be needed to show that clocks slow down the faster they are moving. Until that experiment happens I will just wait. I am certainly in no hurry.
No, you don't show much inclination to do any research. Hafele-Keating was just the first. The experiment has been repeated and improved many times, which you will also discover should you trouble yourself with clicking the above link.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
I will leave out the so called "empirical evidence" for the stronger the gravitational field part, FOR NOW.
Here's some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_ ... relativity
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:41 pm
I'm fairly certain that we would also agree that the maths of relativity very accurately describes the dilation that demonstrably happens.
I also am fairly certain that you four would also agree that the maths of relativity very accurately described the dilation, prior to when dilation was said to demonstrably have happened.

By the way, is that largely the same maths that is said to have bugger all to do with reality, also?
That's right. But as I have said more times than only an idiot could miss, it doesn't matter if the mathematical model is based on nonsense if it nonetheless works.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:41 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:52 pm
By the way, what about the times when either of you four are saying contradictory things against each other, which one/s do you propose I should then listen to, and accept as being true and right? Or, do you propose that you four will never be in contradiction of each other?
You can make up your own mind about the metaphysics, as can any of us, but I very much doubt that any of us will contradict any other regarding the empirical data.
Of course you would NOT. You all totally accept and/or believe that the "empirical" data is 100% absolutely correct, right?

It could NOT be any thing else, right?

It is, after all, called "empirical data".
Right again, ken. Empirical data is simply the observations. So, for instance, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the clocks were observed to tell different times. Not only that, the clocks in all subsequent refinements of the experiment also showed different times. That is "100% absolutely correct". As I said, you can make up your own mind about why that should be so. Here's a couple of suggestions:
1. The people loading the clocks are all equally clumsy and all break the clocks in exactly the same way.
2. The scientists don't get paid if the clocks all tell the same time, so they fiddle with them.
3. There is a god in heaven who thinks it is a bit of a laugh to fuck with our minds.
4. Speed and gravity affect mechanical processes, even at the atomic level.

The list is not exhaustive, and I gather you have your own suggestion. So what is it?
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
And to the believers and followers of particular fields words, themselves, have very special meanings. Some words are "sacred" and are followed with the highest of importance, while other words are less meaningful.
That's called religion.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
I think we all know where the words 'empirical data' stand with the followers of science literature.
You clearly don't.

uwot
Posts: 3936
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:46 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:39 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:43 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:56 pm
Are you in any way, shape, or form at all open to the possibility that I already have a better theory or better still already have A "Theory" of Everything, which would obviously do away with ALL other theories?
Yup. Let's hear it, then.
You are joking, right?
No
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:39 am
Have you NOT seen the clumsily way I write and word things?
Yes.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:39 am
Have you NOT noticed the lack of intellect I have in knowing the definitions of terms and words used?
Yes.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:39 am
Have you NOT noticed the way I am continually misunderstood and misinterpreted, even when all I am doing is just asking simple straightforward questions, for clarification?
No.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:39 am
Have you NOT noticed even My most simplest of questions get taken out of context?
No.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:39 am
I have many years to go of learning just how to communicate with others successfully, before I even begin to learn how to communicate succinctly, and then I would only be ready to start explaining. Then when I am ready, I will have to start looking for a person who is genuinely open and honest and interested in listening and hearing what I have to actually say. I am NOT looking for the ones who just pretend they are, like your self. Nor am I looking for those who just want to dismiss or discredit what I say, that can obviously be done all to very easily.
Only if it is complete bollocks.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:14 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:46 am
This is the at the third person who has said I am a troll. What is a 'troll'?
You crack me up ken. Keep in mind this post was not a direct reply to you.
It never thought to any one to just ask and clarify what My actual motivations are?
I don't see how that would help. Asking would get us an unbacked assertion. We're going by empirical evidence, which gives far more accurate assessments.
Noax wrote:Actually wanting to know these answers is obviously not it.
Is that what is obvious, to you?
I think I just said that, yes.
Just because I do NOT accept ALL of the answers you provide,
No, It's not that. More like asking gaffo if a clock can 'experience' time, and then removing the quotes afterwards, changing the meaning of the question. That's classic troll behavior, and behavior of one not at all interested in education, but only in playing petty language games. You asked me about what happens when an object (person, clock, whatever) goes at the speed of light, and didn't accept 'can't'. What I imagine happens has nothing to do with what doesn't happen.
and you are clearly unwilling or unable to answer further clarifying questions that I ask,
I've tried to answer them, but only if they seem to actually ask for clarifications. Repeated requests for a link to a specific scenario you know has not been performed is not a clarifying question.
From what I have seen EVERY generation of human beings that I have observed believe that they have the true and correct knowledge, and that it was the previous generations who were wrong, that is until one day when one comes along and shows otherwise, then that one is suddenly put upon a "pedestal", and then it seems like that no matter what that one has said it is true and right. This applies for all generations, and this generation is certainly no different at all in this regard.
Nobody claims that. We're quite aware that we're wrong. The fact that GR has not been unified with QM means they're both incomplete.
What does 'begging' mean to you?
Begging an argument, a logical fallacy. It means presuming the conclusion in your premises.
And, if I said, davidm you are 'begging', then do you really think or believe that would be the end to davidm's belief that there has been an actual twin experiment conducted?
Depends on you definition of having actually been conducted. Any time one twin runs a circle around the other, it alters their age difference, however slightly. Somebody going into space only made it a somewhat larger 'slightly'. For it to be a conducted experiment, there would need to be a controlled measurement and a way to measure the age of a person down to the millisecond.
You are the one who finds it implausible that human beings do NOT age slower with speed.
This is how I've chosen word it. Others word it differently. From my viewpoint, the traveler is always by definition in his frame and ages one day per day. He has no speed when viewed that way. The others often picture it from a different frame when time is dilated. The aging doesn't slow down, but time itself does for something moving. The day slows down with speed from the perspective of another frame. The traveler is still aging at one day per day, but not one day per different-frame-perspective-day. It is very much like assessing the length of a ship. Everybody gets used to the measurement being taken from the bow to stern, but it is completely valid to turn the ship and not turn the axes. So suddenly the ship is a lot shorter, but maybe very wide or tall. Nothing magic has happened. You're just measuring the same thing using a different orientation for your coordinate system. The ship has no actual length if the orientation of the measurement is arbitrary.

Your 'one day per day' wording is obviously an attempt at trying to mislead others. Just like those very subtle stories of lies that try to manipulate others into believing some thing that is NOT true. Just some people are unaware that they are lying. Some people just do not even know when they are lying.
To you, clocks adjust themselves according to what speed they are traveling and/or to what distance they are from earth, correct?
Adjust??? No, I never said anything like that.
Noax wrote:It just naively assumes that a twin in space still ages at the pace of one day per day, something that ken apparently finds implausible.
NO I do NOT find that implausible.
Assuming that a living organism will react the exact same way a human made clock does, is some thing I will NOT assume.
You just said you do not find that implausible, and then that you do find it implausible. You need to pick one. Do you or do you not accept that the age of a person will be reasonably tracked by the non-defective watch he is wearing? I've been asking which part you contest, and you give conflicting answers like above. Either you suggest that the speed makes his watch (and only his watch) wrong, or you accept that less time goes by, but the guy ages far more than 140 days during that time.

No, relativity doesn't say that his clock slows. I cannot agree to that since if it were true, it could be measured. There is a falsification test. Remember, the Earth clock is slower in the traveler frame. They can't both be slower. That would be an inconsistency. Therefore it is wrong to say that either clock is actually slower because of movement. That's why I won't use that wording.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:32 pm

Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:51 pm
Are you one of those people who insist that 'time' is an actual, real thing?
Not sure what you mean by that. It is not an object that you can set on the table, but you probably don't mean that.
That is not what I meant but at least we are getting closer.

What is 'time', itself, to you?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Is 'time' itself dependent upon a frame?
The measure of it between two events is frame dependent.
When you say the measure of "it", did you mean the word 'time'?

If so, then what do you mean by, "The measure of time between two events"?

If, for example, you had said, "The measure of THE time between two events", then I could better understand this. Although it does sound clumsy it makes more sense, to Me anyway. I understand the words 'the time' usually refers to the actual measurement, itself, taken. But when you say, "The measure of time between two events" I do NOT understand what is it EXACTLY that is being measured? How does one measure 'time', itself? And, what is 'it' [time], itself, that one is measuring?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Time itself, probably not, but it depends on what you mean by that.
What I meant when I asked the question, "Is 'time' itself dependent upon a frame?" was, Is 'time', itself, dependent upon a frame.

Maybe after you answer the question, What is 'time', itself, to you? (that is, if you do,) then you will better know and/or understand what I meant.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
There is no way to objectively sync the two clocks.
Is that because 'time' itself is NOT an actual, objectively, real thing?
No, It's because it is otherwise ambiguous. It would be like asking if Mars is west of Jupiter.
Of course mars is NOT west of jupiter. In the Universe there is NO west, nor east, nor south, nor north, nor up, nor down, nor left, nor right, et cetera, et cetera. Only a human being's perspective, relative to earth, would consider and ask such a meaningless question.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Depends on the spatial frame, a definition of which arbitrary direction is considered west.
How many actual and real spatial frames are there?

By the way are 'frames' actual real things, or just words used to fathom things in conceptual thinking?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
The ambiguity doesn't carry implications of such relations being real or not.
I did and do NOT observe any ambiguity here.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Similarly, relativity does not hinge on the reality of time, or the lack of reality.
What does 'relativity' hinge on, to you?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
yes, but they'd read exactly the same in the Earth frame.
'WHAT' would read exactly the same in the earth frame?
The two clocks mentioned in the quote above.
But if you do NOT put in the actual quote in that your reply or answer is referring to, then I, and some others, have to go back and find it, if we are to be absolutely clear about what is being mentioned here.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Are you saying here that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock would read exactly the same,
No. I said they would read the same in the frame of Earth. That's what it means to synchronize them in that frame.
I know what is meant when you say synchronize them in that frame.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
which would differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler? If so, then is the traveler ahead or behind those two clocks reading exactly the same?
I guess that depends on what he sets his clock to. The quoted bit above didn't specify.
But it was clear that the traveler's clock was set to earth, at the departure event. It was clear before and considering you do NOT add the quote, we will again have to look back to verify if you are telling the truth or not.

It is becoming more clearly obvious that when My clarifying questions get further and further into this, your answers seem to be somewhat more and more unclear and staggered. You seem to want to answer some, but not others, or you do NOT put the quote in, that the question was referring to, or you seem to forget what we were talking about.

I really hope some one will want to just imagine and look at a very simple and straight forward scenario, which I suggested earlier, instead of this becoming near impossible scenario. I am trying to understand what others view, but some say the traveler ages more slowly but another states the people on the planet ages more slowly, and these different views are supposedly from the exact same "frame". I am sure there are other scenarios that do NOT involve the traveler not really moving but really sitting stationary, where planets or star systems are moving towards or away from this supposed "sitting still stationary traveler" and one where star systems and planets move 4.3 light years in just 70 days but the people on the planet only age 3.2 days in the exact same time. All very confusing, especially when others state that it is the traveling one, from that frame, who ages less than the stationary one, but the stationary, or the moving one, depending on who is telling the story changes from ageing slower than others to ageing quicker than others.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
Earth, A-C, and the traveler are in all frames at all times. You can't easily exit a frame. You'd have to leave the visible universe.
Could that even be done?
Sure. Objects move from inside the Hubble Sphere to outside it. This is easy since the sphere is shrinking.
It would also be easy if the sphere is expanding. Also, what do you mean by the 'hubble sphere' is shrinking? Is that what is really happening, or is that only how it appears to be happening?

But, anyway, when you say, "You'd have to leave the visible universe" I thought you were referring to Me, or others. I did NOT know that when you say "you" that you are referring to non-human objects.

The reason I asked, Could that even be done?, is because it would be virtually impossible for a human being to leave the 'visible universe' because wherever the human being is the size of the 'visible universe' would be roughly the exact same, depending upon deterioration of eyesight and of visibility of course, right?

But for just plain odd objects to leave the visible universe, then that obviously would be very easy indeed.

By the way is the 'visible universe' the same as the 'observable universe'? If it is, then the 'observable universe' is larger than the 'hubble sphere', so objects could move from inside the hubble sphere to outside of it and still be in the observable or visible universe.

It is a bit of a misrepresentation. Inertial frames are valid only locally, and that distance is hardly local.[/quote]

Hardly local to who? Some human beings may only look "locally" but others look at what IS, instead.

What IS valid EVERY WHERE IS what IS. If some people only look "locally", (wherever that may be), then that is a very narrow view of ALL THERE IS, and thus all they will have is a very narrow view of things.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Special relativity simply does not cover that case, and one must apply GR rules for a description of what it means to exit the sphere like that.
Sounding more like special relativity really does have bugger all to do with reality more and more.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
So, the "traveler", who is now sitting "still", waits 70 days, according to the "traveler's" accompanying clock, for a distant object, which was about four light years away, to traverse towards and reach the waiting sitting "still traveler", right?
No, the object was a bit less than 70 light days away. But otherwise, yes.
That answer is subject to either the still-moving stationary traveler or the object "traveling" at .999c, right? It is just that it was not properly qualified in THIS quote here.

Also, before the traveler set off the distance they were about to "embark" on was just over for light years and not just under 70 light days, right?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
If so, and while that sitting "still traveler" awaits supposedly only 70 days for earth and alpha centauri to both traverse and cover a distance of four light years, the clocks on both earth and on alpha centauri supposedly only changed by 75 hours according to the "traveler", is this correct?
Yes, except again for the four light year reference.
But the traveler can only verify this when the traveler is with one of the clocks, correct?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Earth and AC both move a little under 70 light days of distance in that time.
Yes, My MISTAKE.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Is this an assumption made about 2017 years after a person labelled jesus was born or is it an indisputable fact that will exist forever more?
Neither.
If it is neither, then what is it?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
'You', were the one, who had previously stated that if the (earth and alpha centauri) clocks are synchronized in earth frame (clocks on earth), then the two clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler, AND, you clarified this by saying yes in an above quote in your reply here, when I had previously asked you about this.
Yes. That made no mention of the traveler clock. His was not one of the two.
That is right, the traveler's clock is not one of the two OTHER clocks. The traveler has their own clock, a third clock, right?

Considering we were talking about the traveler's clock being synchronized with earth's clock at departure event, the traveler's clock and earth would have been synchronized and in the same frame on earth, and the earth and alpha centauri clocks are synchronized together in the earth frame, then that would mean the travelers clock, earth's clock, and alpha centauri's clock would have been synchronized the same also, correct?

If the three clocks are the same at departure event, then when did the earth and alpha centauri clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler?

Was it just after departure, during acceleration, during "rest" at .999c, during deceleration, or at some other point or time?

Also, if at acceleration (and/or deceleration) the traveler is not in 'inertial frame' does that mean that the traveler is ageing slower than the people on earth and the traveler's clock is "ticking" slower than the earth and alpha centauri clocks? If so, then what happens if the traveler is only in an inertial frame of reference for say 1 minute or 30 days for example, then how does that effect the ageing and/or physical dilation processes, relative to the differing frames of references?

For example earth and alpha centauri would be in "stationary" or inertial frame during the traveler's acceleration and deceleration periods, right? But when the traveler was constantly still-moving .999c, then the traveler would be in constant still-moving inertial frame? If this is right, then we would have to be changing our 'frame of reference' and views of what is happening, right?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
So, what you are saying now is at the start of the "trip" the "traveler's" clock is set to the same time with earth's clock, which is in essence the same time as alpha centauri's clock, right?
Those two clocks (Earth & A-C) are synchronized only in Earth frame, if they decided to synchronize them that way.
OF COURSE it would be IF THEY DECIDED TO SYNCHRONIZE THEM THAT WAY.

But you know full well that that was NOT was I was asking NOR referring to.

I was SAYING and ASKING, if the travelers clock is synchronized to earths clock, at the start of the trip in the traveler frame, and alpha centaur's clock is synchronized to earth's clock also, then the three clocks must be synchronized the same, right?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
And that is zero time, is that right? The three clocks are synchronized to show and are all reading the exact same zero, to the "traveler" frame, correct?
The AC clock is reading a bit over 4 years ahead in traveler frame. That clock is not synced with Earth clock in that frame.
WHY is the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock reading a bit over four years ahead in traveler frame if the traveler clock is synchronized to the exact same as the earth clock BEFORE the trip begins?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
... if they do, between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock if at some stage from the "traveler's" frame there was zero difference between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock?
There is only negligible discrepancy between those two clocks in Earth frame if we synced them in that frame. They stay synced.
So, when and why does traveler's clock become out of sync? Remember the traveler's clock was synced with the earth clock when the traveler and earth were in the same frame, which was also synced with alpha centauri's clock, which you just stated stays synced with earth's clock.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
The traveler clock reads 70 days at the event of AC and the traveler meeting. Note the use of the word event here.
Yes I did notice the word 'event' here. Is there any thing in particular you wanted to mention about that?
Terminology. It means a definition of both a place and time when something happens, in this case the meeting of the traveler and AC.
Thank you for making that absolutely clear and understood.

I just wish you would do the same for other things you say.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
At that event, Earth is not present, so the Earth clock reading is a frame dependent thing. It reads 4.3043 years in Earth frame since AC is that far away and the traveler was nearly light speed. It reads 3.1 days in the traveler frame.
So, from earth frame, earth's clock changed by 4.3043 years, but, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock changed only by 3.1 days, correct?
Right. In Earth frame, A-C is 4.3 light years
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
If so, then from earth frame how much does the "traveler's" clock read? What does the "traveler's" clock read in the earth frame?
That's not a frame dependent question because the traveler is present at that event.
What do you mean by that answer?

The traveler is present at WHAT event? Or, did you mean the traveler is NOT present at that event? Meaning at earth?And, how does that not make a frame dependent question? I specifically asked from earth's frame. Are you saying you can only give answers from the traveler's frame? If not, then will you clarify here?

If you can give Me an answer from traveler's frame regarding the change on earth's clock, then why can you NOT give Me an answer from earth's frame regarding the change on traveler's clock?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
His clock reads 70 days in any frame at that second event.
I thought the traveler's clock would read just over 4.3 years from earth's frame and/or alpha centauri's frame because from those frames that is how long it would take a traveler to take a trip from earth to alpha centauri at .999c, is this right?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
The first event when Earth and traveler parted.
What do you mean here?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
3.1 days, since we synced it to Earth clock in traveler frame. The two still must read the same.
So, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock changed by and thus reads 3.1 days, right?
No, if those two clocks were synchronized in Earth frame, they'd not be synchronized in travler frame.
But both were synced with traveler clock at departure event.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
They're out of sync by about 4.3 years in the traveler frame.
So, what does earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock read now at arrival event, from traveler's frame?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
From alpha centauri frame, what does alpha centauri's clock read, and, from alpha centauri frame what does the "traveler's" clock read?
A bit of a list of things unspecified here,
IF there is a bit of a list of things unspecified here, then WHY DO YOU NOT ASK FOR CLARIFICATION before you start making up assumptions and providing answers to those assumptions?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
but if the Earth and AC clocks were syncronized in Earth/AC frame, AND time was zero at the first even (departure), then the traveler clock reads about 70 days at the 2nd event and the AC clock reads 4.3 years plus about 40 hours.
But why would the traveler's clock read about 70 hours, from alpha centauri frame, and alpha centauri clock reads 4.3 years plus from alpha cenatauri frame, when before, and correct Me if I am wrong here, which no doubt you will anyway, you said that only 3.1 days past on alpha centauri because it was the traveler who was at rest and alpha centauri was moving?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
That's 75 hours the clock logged and about 4.296 years of Earth and AC being out of sync.
What is "THE" clock, which has logged 75 hours?

And, how can earth and alpha centauri clocks now be out of sync when you have said, they stay synced?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
zero at the departure event, and reading 70 days at the arrival event.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Are you saying that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock "ticked" slower, in the "traveler" frame, than the "still traveler's" clock did? If so, is this because the "traveler" was the one "at rest" because earth and alpha centauri were the ones moving? If that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?
Yes, you actually expressed that correctly. Time is dilated for moving things. In the traveler frame, it is the other clocks that are moving.
Therefore, the clock on alpha centauri would read about 3.1 days, from the traveler's frame, but would be reading 4.3 years plus, from alpha centauri's frame, right?

And, the traveler's clock would read about 70 days, from the traveler's frame, and you have already stated that the traveler's clock would be reading about 70 days from alpha centauri frame also, right?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Although I can accept and agree with this, you did NOT provide any subsequent readings for us to look at. (For example I can accept and agree that how long a piece of rope is, is twice the distance of half its length. But if NO actual answer is being provided, then there is no thing to look at.) The readings I have for half way and for at the end are much different than the reading you, davidm, uwot, and thedoc would have.
You found something that addresses this question?
Yes
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
I have no links for the halfway question. It's just that there is no magic than happens more at the front or the back half. If nothing is accelerating, the progressing of all clocks in all frames is steady.
But you have more or less stated that clocks change, all by themselves, at speed.

That sounds rather magical, to Me, anyway.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Since you and them are supposedly NOT in contradiction at all with each other,
I never claimed that.
I never claimed that you claimed that.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Would this also mean that you, davidm, uwot, and thedoc are also absolutely right here?
We're just parroting our education.
Yes you are certainly doing that.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Your posts seem to question the validity/existence of the falsifications behind that education. Not a bad thing always.
I do not see much wrong with questioning, especially questioning that which seems to not make much sense at all, and especially questioning that which does contradict and is inconsistent with that that does make a whole lot of sense.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
I was taught that a camel stores its water in its hump. Somebody actually thought to test that hypothesis and it was falsified, but only after all these books taught otherwise.
Therefore My point exactly. If people do NOT continually question what textbooks say, then others would still be believing things that are completely untrue, just like people are still doing in this day and age.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:52 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:11 am
ken wrote:
Why are they called falsification tests

Does that some how give them more weight in their support of the thing that was said would happen

Why not instead just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS

Trying to perform a falsification test or a verifiable test means that there is already a preconceived outcome
Potential falsification is a fundamental component of the scientific method. Hypotheses have to be subject to it or else they are deemed invalid
But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified. Scientists may have preconceived
notions pertaining to the outcome of an experiment but they do not let that influence them.
Are you absolutely 100% positively sure that those people who are labelled "scientists" do NOT let 'preconceived notions' influence them?

From what I have observed one would have to be a very special and unique individual to NOT let 'preconceived notions' influence them.

I thought people who call themselves "scientists" were, just because they studied and past some exams. I did not previously realize that ALL of them did NOT allow 'preconceived notions' to influence them.

By the way, is it ALL "scientists" that have this ability of NOT being influenced by 'preconceived notions' or is it only some "scientists", and, is it ALL 'preconceived notions' that "scientists" are NOT let influence them or only some 'preconceived notions'?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:11 am
Because the methodology is what is important here not the opinions of scientists which mean absolutely nothing less they can actually be verified.
Who are the ones who writes, follows, and/or performs the methodology?

If it is those ones who are called "scientists", then would not the opinions of those so called "scientists" bear some sort of importance into how the methodology is formulated, followed, performed, and observed?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:11 am
And this is why the scientific method is employed
I thought the scientific method is employed, in this currentperiod of time, because it was still the only known, best, method at that time.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:01 pm

thedoc wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:04 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:16 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:06 am
the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.
(Okay, so that’s what you're saying the Truth IS.)
No, the truth is what it is, what all or most people believe is often wrong.


I do NOT see any reference to human beings nor people here.

But maybe because of the egotistical nature within human beings, and because of their diminished ability to see from other's perspectives, that some of them actually think 'ALL' refers to them, and/or to them only?

But how wrong people can be.
thedoc wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:04 pm
At one time most people believes the Earth was flat, but they were wrong.
And at another previous time most people believed that they needed money to live, but they were completely wrong, also.

But looking back in time it is so very easy to see just how so wrong people can be.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:15 pm

thedoc wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:12 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:15 pm
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm

atoms and whatnot, increases with velocity. In practice, this means that to accelerate such a particle requires increasing amounts of energy, until, at light speed, the energy required is infinite.
But then there are theoretical tachyons that are said to travel faster than light. And the Cosmic Inflation theory states that the universe grew by a factor of 10 to the 16th power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so from the central point of expansion outward in all directions the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light. Of course they just theorized that to make their math work. Speculation, or real science? ;-) Obviously the pull of a black hole is greater than the speed of light or light could escape it.


c applies to light moving through space but c does not apply to space itself, so space can move faster than c and it carries everything in it along.
Space, or what you call 'space', could only move faster than light if the Universe is NOT infinite nor eternal.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:28 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:15 pm
thedoc wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:12 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:15 pm
But then there are theoretical tachyons that are said to travel faster than light. And the Cosmic Inflation theory states that the universe grew by a factor of 10 to the 16th power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so from the central point of expansion outward in all directions the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light. Of course they just theorized that to make their math work. Speculation, or real science? ;-) Obviously the pull of a black hole is greater than the speed of light or light could escape it.


c applies to light moving through space but c does not apply to space itself, so space can move faster than c and it carries everything in it along.
Space, or what you call 'space', could only move faster than light if the Universe is NOT infinite nor eternal.
Incorrect.

Also space is not "moving."

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm

I think we need to break up these long posts.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:43 am
Is there any actual "special case" of any actual existing inertial frame at all?
All frames exist equally, none being special.
Noax wrote:
From who's perspective?
From the perspective of the frame. I see you've cut that part off.
You see that I have cut WHAT part off?
You answer your question in the asking of it. You cut off the part about 'from the perspective of the frame'.
"Principles" like the sun revolving around the earth and the earth is flat were "known" centuries ago also.
Those are theories, not principles. A principle probably not provable. The Copernican principle for instance says pretty much that a view that assumes we're special is more likely to be wrong than one that doesn't. It means the rest of the universe is probably similar to how it is here, but only probably. It is obviously false in some ways. No Earth-like place is likely nearby, but I know of no theory that says all planets are like Earth, so we're ok.
Do you still follow and believe those principles, or did those "principles" change? Just to make it clear to you, some of the "principles" "known" today will change also. And, just maybe it is some of those "principles" that you believe and follow today that WILL BE the ones that change also. Unless of course you are so closed that you believe that the principles of today could NOT possibly change.
Can't think of one (science related) that has ever changed, but I could be wrong. And what do you mean by putting "principles" in quotes? It suggests you have a different definition of the word.
So, do you really think that a human being could actually be traveling at a speed but still be actually stationary?
Not in the same frame, no.
If so, to you, if a human being could travel at a speed fast enough, while actually being stationary, they could cover a distance of let us say more than four light years in just 70 days?
I agree to none of this. There is no 'actually being stationary' or actually at speed for that matter.
What do you mean by 'control' guy, and, best comparison to what exactly?
A controlled experiment needs a control. You test a drug, you give 2 people a pill. One is the drug, the other is the control, and gets a placebo.
If the goal is to do a local test if your're the travelling twin, you can tell trivially by noticing you're in a space ship. So we take the control twin and put him in space as well, but staying near Earth. If the ship has no windows, there is no test either twin can perform to see if he's the traveler. If the watch of the one slows down massively, that would be a easy way to tell.
In My view, no person nor clock is actually stationary.
You have a view now? Be nice if we heard a little about it.
Noax wrote:
ALL My questions will be 'frame independent'.
You're not going to like the answers then.
How do you KNOW?
Because so many answers require a frame, such as how fast something is going.
Will you provide examples of different frames where you say a traveler IS stationary and where you say a traveler is only said to be stationary.
No difference between IS and 'said to be'. In the traveler frame, he IS stationary, and he is said to be stationary. In any other frame, he IS NOT stationary, and is not said to be stationary.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
You are moving perhaps 1500mph relative to the guy on the opposite side of the world. Both are 'said to be stationary', so which is right? Absent a frame, it is undefined.
But who would say that? I would NEVER say one nor both is stationary.
It's part of the language. Everybody says this. You tell your kid to hold still a second so you can fix his collar. That is a request to be stationary relative to an implied frame. Nobody has to explicitly state all that in everyday language. So 'said to be' and IS stationary is an implied reference to a frame. The implication is part of the language, but when discussing relativity, it becomes important to be explicit to avoid confusion.
The two guys on the opposite side of the world are implying different frames. Each is stationary in a different implied frame.
My A-C example cannot do that because relativity is the subject under discussion. Frames must be explicitly stated for any clarity.
To Me, until an actual inertial frame is ever experienced what will be observed is only an assumption.
Not sure what you mean by an experience of an inertial frame. They're mathematical constructs, not a cold weather front.
I am still waiting for a person to acknowledge that they want to stay with that IMAGINED scenario. Some one might have already acknowledge that, but because I am very slow I have not yet read all replies yet.
What does my imaginings have anything to do with it. I've seen fiction depicting super-luminal travel. Star Trek does it. So there. That's my imagined answer. It is fictional.
Although there is NO actual evidence, yet, some human beings will still accept and/or believe that human bodies will age slower with speed?
It is the wording of others that claims they do. I say they age normally with speed. Why is it important that they be twins? If somebody actually did this thing that no human can survive, perhaps you would just deny it because they've not yet tried it with a squirrel. Your argument seems to deny any evidence until every possible scenario has been run. There will always be untested scenarios.

Every aspect of the twins experiment has been done, just not all in the same experiment. The experiment as originally authored has no formal parameters and is not even worded as a test proposal. It was meant as an illustration, not a test.
Is there such an actual real thing as a 'stationary' or 'inertial' frame?
No and yes respectively.
Is there such an actual real thing as a 'stationary point' or 'inertial point' in a frame?
All local points in space are stationary in any inertial frame. There is no such term 'inertial point'.
If so, does it exist outside of thought and/or imagination or only in thought and/or imagination?
Inertial frames are mathematical reference systems. They are not real in the way a cup is.
I base My ability to know some thing with more accuracy on first hand experience than I do just on what others say or write down. I can express what I observe with accuracy, (but obviously what if what I observe is accurate or not is another matter). I can not, however, accurately express what others observe.
So even if somebody managed to pull off the twins scenario, would you not accept the second-hand results because you are not personally both of the twins? How is this not a statement of willful ignorance?
Fair enough. What does 'demonstrated' mean to you?
All non-relativistic models have been falsified, much in the same way that all the flat Earth models have been falsified. Perhaps a new flat-Earth model will emerge and somehow make better predictions, but until then, I think my beliefs on the subject are reasonably justified.
A stationary person ages normally.
'Normally' to WHAT exactly?
Normal human aging. A person wears out and breaks after 80 years or so.
Again My apologies for NOT properly being able to qualify for you. I meant when the "stationary traveler" is "traveling" 'at a faster speed' than another speed, ...
If he's stationary, he's not travelling, even if 'traveler' is printed on his shirt and ship.
At current times do human beings have the technology to take the trip in just 70 days, from ANY frame?
If I can choose ANY frame, I can go to where A-C is now in 70 seconds with no technology at all. We lack the technology to make such a trip and expect A-C to be there when the trip ends, and still have the human alive.
What is lacking is the ability to accelerate a heavy object to any but trivial delta velocities, and also the technology to keep a human alive under such acceleration if it were feasible.
If a human being was traveling at a speed, which is what we were talking about, that allowed them to travel a distance of over four light years, which you say would only take 70 days, and let us say that this human being lived for 100 years, then, in "theory", they could travel a distance of about 2000 light years in their lifetime, which is a far greater distance than the four light years that you were proposing that the human being could not last for.
The above is full of figures from different reference frames, and lacks a clear picture of what a 'place' is. So A-C in this alternate frame might come to me in from only 70 light-days away, but since it is the thing moving, it is not a place, not a fixed location in space. In the A-C frame, it is stationary, so it is a fixed location in space only in that frame. But yes, barring technological issues, a human can travel to a place that is 2000 LY away in some frame by having a very high velocity in that frame.
So, what part was imagined and what part is what would really happen?
If it was done, all of it would really happen. Since it isn't being done, it is computed, not merely imagined.
Of course an open person would NOT assume that. For the very fact that the 140 days has NOT yet been proven and shown to true and correct. Therefore, it is NOT yet verified.
Science does not prove things. It falsifies other things. The not-140 day thing has been completely falsified. Perhaps you feel one needs to visit every possible destination before deciding none of them is an exception. Are you proposing that it is A-C that is an exception? No, probably not. You seem to only have issues with the most tested parts of relativity. You deny that it is that humans might age at a pace greater than one day per day, but you persist in only wanting to see results that involve a human with significantly age mismatch from his birthdate. You need to pick an argument. It is that humans are special or not? If not, why do you persist that humans participation is necessary?
Considering it is you that says one person ages 8.6 years, another person ages about 6.2 days, and another person will age 140 days in the exact same 140 days period, depending on where they are,
I did not say this. Nothing depends on where you are. These figures are frame dependent, not location dependent. It works everywhere. It is you that seems to suggest A-C is some sort of place that is an exception, which would be quite bizarre.
Is, how long does it take light to travel from alpha centauri to earth, a frame dependent question also?
Yes. You've asked it before, and I think I answered it in the first post to you many pages back.
Noax wrote:
What you see, is what 'appears', to you.
What I see, is what 'appears', to Me.
Right. Theory of Relativity doesn't change that. The principle of relativity actually asserts that in fact.
So, we agree on the principle of relativity.
Not really sure if you grasp the principle, so I hesitate to agree with what you might think it is.
I thought 'thought experiments' would involve mental concepts or perceptions of what would happen, and which those experiments are usually used when physical experiments are not, yet, possible. But you are saying, thought experiments do not involve perceptions.
They are exercises of logic. If (postulates), what logically follows from the postulates. The original relativity thought exercises did not involve human subjects or their perceptions, even if the 'observer' might be depicted as one. In reality, humans cannot differentiate nanosecond timing differences.
Noax wrote:
Okay, now, I understand that an 'inertial frame' is stationary.
No, it is not stationary. It is a reference against which the velocity of any object can be expressed. The frame itself has no velocity (stationary or otherwise) except in relation to say another frame. So the traveler is (by definition) stationary in his own frame, but the frame is not itself stationary or not-stationary.
Will you explain more of what this 'frame' is supposedly meant to be?
I do not know how to better express it if you cannot understand what is above. Sorry.
Will you give an example of a 'frame' in which My speed could possibly be .999c of?
The frame of any object at the origin of the light from the cosmic microwave background.
But have you not expressed that a human being on earth would age 4.3 years in the frame of a traveler who traveled for 70 days at .999c for about 4.3 light years in distance.
I said Earth guy would age 3 days in the frame of the traveler.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
And the part about 'dilation' was "verified" by one experiment involving two planes traveling in opposite directions around the earth, right?
That was one test, yes.
Was that the first test that "verified" 'dilation'?
There might be something earlier. I don't know.
Yes 'reputation' is a very important part of accepting and believing.

For example a human being who is given the label "professor" is usually listened to and believed far more about a subject than just an ordinary 'person' is, although the one labelled 'ordinary person' may KNOW far more than any one labelled "professor" ever has.
The view of the professor may have zero content that can be falsified. The title is not the reputation for which I am looking.
I wonder about the way you put words in quotes, like these two people are disputably a professor or a person. Does the sentence convey what you intended if the quotes are left off? If so, leave of the quotes. It makes the sentence more clear.
Human beings can have both conscious and unconscious biases, which both tend to direct people to only finding and seeing what confirms their biases. For example there once was a story about how EVERYONE believed the earth was flat, and if you were to ask any of those people, then they ALL would have "verified" and accepted that the earth was flat.
How so? How might you go about verifying that? What falsification test was proposed? Your example is meaningless unless you show a falsification test with biased results. Nobody found the edge where the ships fall off. The model predicted one.

Noax wrote:For a sheep, I think I'm pretty good at spotting the stories that are lies.
But what about if the person telling the stories that are lies does not even know they are lies, is it just as easy to spot those stories?
For one, everybody believes they are better than average at spotting lies. My grounds for my assessment is that I still believe some of the lies. I know very much that I have biases. That is, I hope, a reasonable step to better understanding. If I'm wrong, then I am.

As to those who believe their own lies, one definition of a lie might make that impossible.
They can not be to effective a liar if they can be spotted. Or do you mean that some people who tell stories that are liars, even if those liars are pretty subtle, and that are effective of fooling some or a majority of people you can spot?
This is getting off topic and I don't see anything productive coming from it that is on-subject. I have no intention of opening up the sort of things I'm talking about here.
Noax wrote:
Also, if you are proposing that 'absolute time' has been empirically verified as absolutely true and correct, then what IS 'absolute time'?
It has been falsified, not verified.
So, do you accept and believe that there is no actual 'time', itself?
I said 'absolute time' has been falsified. This is unrelated to the philosophical position of time being something that is actual or not, a seeming ontological issue that is not within the scope of the theory of relativity.
So, what do you say about all those people and "textbooks" that say and suggest that light takes an actual and certain amount of time to get from one place to another, for example from the sun to earth?
A frame is presumed. Much of language presumes frames and/or a present. Language is not proof of things.
Would it be better if they explain that there are many different frame-dependent answers? Would it be better that students are asked "from what frame are you asking" when they ask questions like, How long does it take light to get from the sun to earth?
No, the text is not discussing relativity. The presumed frame is known by all, and it answers the question correctly in that context. If the question concerns a different frame, then it needs to be called out.
Or, could there be any possibility at all that in ALL truth and reality there really is in fact only ONE frame, from which EVERY thing belongs in and with?
Even if one of them is more correct, it does not make the others go away. If one is indeed more correct, it would be a philosophical difference, and relativity would still stand since it takes no stance on this issue.
Noax wrote:No, I am not suggesting that this is your view. My assessment of your view is expressed above.
Is that assessment fixed or changeable?
Quite changeable if new empirical evidence comes to light.
Could it be possible that I have worked things out differently than you have, which has led to a very different outcome than what you have "worked out" or maybe have just read and copied, so the only real difference is I just observe things differently, and thus just have a very different view from yours?
I think you don't understand how a simple postulate leads to the predicted results. If you've worked out something else, it is either by refusing to accept the one empirically tested postulate, or an error in following that postulate to its necessary implications.

No, I'm not claiming to have originated the theory. A complete description of it is beyond my comprehension. I'm an engineer who builds useful things from the work conveyed by the physicists. I'm not one of the physicists, but I understand their work (not just taking it for granted) enough to work out the simultaneity implications from these simplified scenarios. Time dilation is nothing more complicated than manipulating simultaneity with choice of frames.

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:36 pm

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
I think we need to break up these long posts.
You could start by addressing only a part of the post in question, but then the writer of the post will accuse you of ignoring the other parts of the post, even if you answer them in another post.

BTW, I rarely read a long post all the way through, too boring, even if I am interested in the subject.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests