## Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

### Relativity?

If anything, in Einstein's gedankenexperiment,I've been wondering if we have a train with a light-clock on it, and a man with a light-clock on the embankment what would happen? The light-clock would work by cycles of being reflected once up and once down for one full cycle. Now, when the train starts moving, does it, or does it not have the same time as the embankment clock? If it does, then relativity is wrong because of simultaneity and non-relativity and regardless of motion the clocks would be in synchronicity. If it doesn't have the same time, then there's a contradiction since both clocks are set to be at the same time regardless of motion.
uwot
Posts: 4961
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf anything, in Einstein's gedankenexperiment,I've been wondering if we have a train with a light-clock on it, and a man with a light-clock on the embankment what would happen? The light-clock would work by cycles of being reflected once up and once down for one full cycle. Now, when the train starts moving, does it, or does it not have the same time as the embankment clock?
What you have to remember is that special relativity describes what observers see when they pass each other with uniform relative velocity. If they continue with that uniform velocity, they will never know what the other's clock says, because they will simply be getting further and further away from each other.
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf it does, then relativity is wrong because of simultaneity and non-relativity and regardless of motion the clocks would be in synchronicity.
If the conditions of special relativity are broken, so that the clocks stop their uniform motion and can be brought back together, then in all likelihood they will tell different times. That's the woefully misnamed 'Twin's Paradox', which was confirmed by Hafele-Keating and every subsequent test.
Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf it doesn't have the same time, then there's a contradiction since both clocks are set to be at the same time regardless of motion.
Are you assuming that there is some absolute time? Tell you what; read my blog: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Better still, buy the book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1521884722
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pm If it doesn't have the same time, then there's a contradiction since both clocks are set to be at the same time regardless of motion.
I think this is the source of your confusion.

The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

IOW, the clocks are NOT "set to tell the same time regardless of motion." They are set to tell the same time if they share the same motion (frame). If they don't, they won't tell the same time.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:06 am IOW, the clocks are NOT "set to tell the same time regardless of motion." They are set to tell the same time if they share the same motion (frame). If they don't, they won't tell the same time.
I understood this and the previous post, should I be worried?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:28 am
davidm wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:06 am IOW, the clocks are NOT "set to tell the same time regardless of motion." They are set to tell the same time if they share the same motion (frame). If they don't, they won't tell the same time.
I understood this and the previous post, should I be worried?
Yes, if it turns into another train wreck like the evolution thread.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Does the clock in my mobile phone slow down the faster it travels, so that if it reached the speed of light, (for the sake of those people who can not think on their own, that is if it was possible to travel at the speed of light), the clock would stop? It better I add if the mobile phone is not connected to the internet nor to a phone carrier.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4216
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Relativity?

The clock would stop because any thing travelling at the speed of light cannot experience time which is why
photons or any massless particles are timeless otherwise they would not be able to travel as fast as they can
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:34 am Yes, if it turns into another train wreck like the evolution thread.
Too late.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:57 am The clock would stop because any thing travelling at the speed of light cannot experience time which is why
photons or any massless particles are timeless otherwise they would not be able to travel as fast as they can
So, how long does it take a photon, a clock, a human being, or a ufo to travel the distance of 3 light years?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:57 am The clock would stop because any thing travelling at the speed of light cannot experience time which is why
photons or any massless particles are timeless otherwise they would not be able to travel as fast as they can
Is this what you are saying,
Photons or any mass less particles are timeless, because, no thing travelling at the speed of light can experience?
The clock would stop, because, no thing can experience time when travelling at the speed of light?
If photons and any mass less particles were not timeless, then that means they would not be able to travel as fast as they can?

To Me, a clock does NOT "experience" travelling nor time. Only sentient able beings can experience any thing. Do you really think that a clock would stop, when it is travelling at the speed of light, because it can not experience time?

To Me, a clock "ticks" at a certain, human being, programmed rate of change. Do you think the clock changes this rate of change itself to correspond with whatever speed it is going, or do you think the rate of change is changed by the speed the clock is going?

If it is the latter, then HOW exactly is speed, itself, able to infiltrate the programmed rate of change and manipulate that to what it wants to.

My whole point is in showing that IFit takes 3 years to travel the distance of 3 light years at the speed of light, then WHY does that mean TIME, ITSELF, would supposedly stop? Do people only THINK this because they have read it some where before, or is there any actual evidence for this being even possible?

Like I have asked before time might APPEAR to stop, to some human beings, but HOW could "time" actually stop?

Saying, "Time stops, at the speed of light", is about as ridiculous to Me as saying, "In the beginning", in relation to the Universe. Priests and scientists alike seem to believe whatever they read in a book, of choosing, for them. And, when asked to elaborate on what they are saying, then out comes some convenient other supposed "truth".

To Me, photons are able to travel as fast as they can, because, photons are in a sense light, itself, so photons obviously travel at the speed of which they, or light, travels.
Photons, may appear, to some, as timeless but this is because they are travelling at the same rate that which "time" is measured by, which is the speed of light.
Clocks do NOT experience time so that is NOT why a clock would stop at the speed of light.
A clock would NOT stop, travelling at the speed of light, just like a human being would NOT stop ageing travelling at the speed of light. If some thing starts from relatively zero rest, then travels up to and at the speed of light, and then moves back to relatively zero rest, then that clock just like a human being still takes a certain amount of 'time' to travel whatever distance they did. The time it takes to travel the distance, they do, determines elapsed time, which as far as I observe obviously does not stop.

As I have previously stated if a human being travels at the speed of light starting from Planet 1 P1 and stops at Planet 2 P2, which is 4 light years away, then from other human beings perspective at the starting point and at the final destination, it may appear as though time stopped and the travelling human being arrived instantly, but this optical illusion is only because of the time it takes light to travel. Time, itself, obviously did not stop, things still went on as usual. The travelling human being still took some time to arrive at the destination, 4 years time to be exact. This paradox can easily be observed from Planet 3, which let us say is in a equilateral triangular distance between and/or from P1 and P2. From this Planet's perspective and from what a human being on this Planet observes is the travelling human being taking 4 years to travel from P1 to P2. Time did NOT stop at all from the point of view of this observer.

Every thing is relative to the observer.

To Me, travelling at the speed of light from P1 to P2 the rate of change keeps elapsing at the same rate as what is generally known as "time" does. Time does NOT stop and I have not yet observed how time could stop.

In fact, to Me, there is no such things as time, but that is another issue.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:22 am
davidm wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:34 am Yes, if it turns into another train wreck like the evolution thread.
Too late.
Why does it appear to late, to you?

We could look at what has already been looked at and has been discussed for decades, centuries, and even millenniums and continue on with the disputing and disagreeing, just like it sounds like what happened in the evolution thread, OR we could just look at things a bit differently and discover in a much better way, which produces and finds what the actual truth is.

If I had to make a guess, in the evolution thread, just about all participants picked one side over the other, evolution over creation or creation over evolution, and fought for that side that they had already chosen be true and correct?

The actual truth about evolution and creation is so blindingly obvious, which may be partly the reason WHY most human beings are not able to find and see it yet.
uwot
Posts: 4961
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 amClocks do NOT experience time so that is NOT why a clock would stop at the speed of light.
A clock would NOT stop, travelling at the speed of light, just like a human being would NOT stop ageing travelling at the speed of light.
What you have to realise, is the role that photons play in making things happen. At the atomic level, the most important thing that happens is that a photon passes from one atom to another. In simple terms, imagine two atoms next to each other. If they are 'stationary', then a photon can take the shortest path between them and the 'event' happens in the quickest possible 'time'. If, however, the two atoms are moving together in a parallel course, then in order for a photon to pass from one atom to another, it has to take a longer path to where the atom will be when the photon arrives. So the event takes longer to happen. If, for the sake of argument, the two atoms could travel at the speed of light, then the event will never happen, because the photon is going flat out, just keeping up. While all that's going on, the Earth will still be spinning and going round the Sun, and in that sense, time will still be passing, but for the atoms, nothing happens. That is true whether it's two atoms, or two gazillion. So if you could travel at the speed of light, while days and years would still be passing on Earth, nothing at all would happen to you, and as far as you would be concerned, no time would pass.
Impenitent
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

### Re: Relativity?

can sentience be shown to exist at the sub atomic level?

if not is the question moot?

-Imp
surreptitious57
Posts: 4216
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Relativity?

Photons or any massless particles are timeless because nothing travelling at the speed of light is actually capable of experiencing time

Saying a clock experiences time simply means it can measure time. It does not mean it is a conscious being capable of sensory experience
And it would stop when travelling at the speed of light because it could not experience or measure time as time itself would have stopped

The closer a clock gets to the speed of light the faster time goes but at the speed of light itself time stops for any object of mass. Since clocks
are objects of mass then this would apply to them too. Though they would no longer be clocks at that point as the atoms that they were made
from and more specifically their electrons would become too unstable for them to retain their solidity and they would just disintegrate instead

Anything that travels at the speed of light such as a photon does not experience time. But any observer could actually measure its speed in time
So a human being travelling at the speed of light between two planets would literally arrive in no time at all no matter what the actual distance was. Only an observer watching that human being would be able to measure the time taken since to them it would not have taken no time at all
but a finite amount of time measured from their particular frame of reference. And so long as they were not travelling at the speed of light also