## Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:48 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:30 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 6:04 am

Have they, if so, then how long does it take a human being to travel 4 light years traveling at the speed of light?
Just to humor you for a moment, let's say god made an exception for one human being to travel at light speed, while the theory of relativity otherwise completely holds.

The answer would be that from his perpspective in this miracle frame, the human would travel zero distance in zero time. How a human brain would function in zero distance at zero time is beyond me, though. Maybe another miracle from Jesus?
Just goes to show some human beings just can NOT stay open and focused on a very simple thought experiment using imagination.

It is a wonder that human beings on a whole have gotten as far as they have with some many of them behaving like this one here for example, which is what is holding them back from advancing much further.
Another stupid response. What is YOUR answer to the (meaningless) question of what a human would experience traveling at light speed?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:03 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:43 am
ken wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:33 amFurther to this you explained how a LIGHT clock reacts to traveling at speed, relative to a light clock on earth, right? My question here is in regards to a "normal" clock, which has NOT yet been answered nor explained.
Well, it was a few pages back, but yes it has:
uwot wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:44 pmOK. Assume that the speed of light really is as fast as anything can go. Suppose you have a grandfather clock travelling at c. If, in the simplest example, the pendulum is swinging in the plane of movement, it could swing backwards, but to swing in the direction of motion, it would have to exceed the speed of light; in which case, you have to abandon the premise that c really is the speed limit.
I really do have to be absolutely precise. What about the clock in a phone? If the power source stays the same, then what would supposedly change that rate of change when traveling, and, and how exactly would 'the thing that supposedly changes the rate of change' actually be able to do it?
This has already been explained to you, several times, by uwot and me. Seriously, can you not comprehend what you read?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:52 pm
thedoc wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:11 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:00 am Also, when the human being in the ufo land on the other planet and look back to earth, what would the date be that that human being was seeing on earth, and, what would the actual date be on earth?
If the Humans that have traveled to Alpha Centauri at near light speed could look back and see instantly, they would see the Earth at the current date, otherwise they would see it as it was in the past, based on the length of time it takes the light to get to Alpha Centauri or 4.37 years, and it would take them a bit longer than that to get there, depending on what fraction of the speed of light they were traveling at.
It appears that My questioning may have obtained three relatively completely different answers, if not at least two.
Pick the answer you like best.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:32 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:58 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 pm, relativity theory would be wrong.
Is relativity theory a theory, or, an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?
You have to understand the difference between the physics and the philosophy. The physics, ultimately, is the mathematical description of what can be seen to happen.
The mathematical description of physics, of what was once seen to happen, was the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Obviously when human beings look at things differently the mathematical description of physics changes. If you are under some sort of belief that the mathematical description of physics, in this day and age, is, ultimately, absolutely accurate and thus will not change, then you have another thing coming.
uwot wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:32 pmIf you want to dispute that, then you have to find something that doesn't conform with the maths.
I have asked numerous times, How long would a trip take to travel 4 light years away? What is the MATHS for that? You have NOT yet given one straightforward answer. There can NOT be two or more mathematical answers to one mathematical problem can there?

You have only provided conflicting answers, and, other people have provided even further different answers than you have.

I can NOT show what does NOT conform with the maths when the maths is not conforming with its own self.
uwot wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:32 pm It would be a complete waste of your time trying to make an argument about what the universe 'should' do. It does what it does, and relativity describes it very well.
I am the One saying to look at what IS the Universe by looking at what It does. It is human beings who try to make models of what the Universe does, or more correctly make models of what It 'should' do.

It is plainly obvious WHY human beings are continually changing the 'models', instead of just looking at what the actual truth IS the first time. But you human beings need to remain open before the can begin to come to understand this.
uwot wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:32 pmIf you want to argue for a reason 'why' the sums add up, that is up to you, but very few physicists give a monkey's.
But the current sums do NOT add up. This is obvious within the writings here. When I try to find out how long a trip takes and I am given a response, then when I point out the inconsistencies in the different responses or the contradiction in the different responses then people start trying to argue with the very unsuccessful 'it is impossible' arguement. The earth being round was once tried to be argued 'it is impossible', the earth revolving the sun was once tried to be argued 'it is impossible', even if not all just about every thing humans have created and done was once tried to be argued 'it is impossible'. The 'it is impossible' argument just does not work.

If what does not align with human beings currently held views, then human beings do not stay open and just look at what IS. Instead they will try just about anything to make "models" fit in with their current views.

Shining examples of this are glaringly obvious just about everywhere throughout this forum.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:14 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:56 pmI would suggest not be to concerned about trying to measure some thing that may or may not even be there. Better to see what IS actually there first, in My eye.
Thanks for the suggestion, but it is precisely what I am advocating, and in fact, the modus operandi of physics. What is actually there, is the phenomenon, which you can measure and generate mathematical models to describe. What you can never know, is whether the postulates of your model refer to anything real. But, what most lay people, and probably most physicists fail to understand, is that the 'truth' about reality has no impact on the efficacy of the models.
So, why not us just look at what IS? On current understanding and using current maths what IS the distance between earth and alpha centaur and how long would it take to travel there?

Two very simple questions.
uwot wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:14 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:56 pmAlso, I have not read the article yet but you talked about accounting for the clocks that are at rest.
Well, as a simple courtesy, I would recommend reading something before responding to it.
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:56 pmBut are they at rest?
No; as you would know had you read the article. Clocks are only at rest relative to an observer in the same inertial frame, i.e. someone who is moving in the same way as the clock-you and your wristwatch/phone, for example.
Much easier and simpler when questions are just answered then reading reams of inconsistent and/or inaccurate writings.
uwot wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:14 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:56 pmIs the earth, itself, actually not moving and thus resting, or is it spinning and/or travelling, at some speed also?
As Galileo (allegedly) said: 'And yet it moves.
Do you really need to always use others to back up what IS already plainly obvious?

The thing is that the ability to look at and see what IS already plainly obvious a fact unfortunately gets distorted by the unnecessary obsession to use what others have previously seen and said. Obviously what they have observed and stated is NOT 100% accurate because if it were, then there would not be any inconsistencies, and thus no thing to dispute also.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am It is plainly obvious WHY human beings are continually changing the 'models', instead of just looking at what the actual truth IS the first time.
Scientific models are based on what scientists actually observe, not on what they might observe in the future. Yes scientific models are constantly changing as scientists find better ways to observe things. If you think that scientists can observe something and always get it right the first time, you're living in a fantasy world.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:29 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:48 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:30 pm

Just to humor you for a moment, let's say god made an exception for one human being to travel at light speed, while the theory of relativity otherwise completely holds.

The answer would be that from his perpspective in this miracle frame, the human would travel zero distance in zero time. How a human brain would function in zero distance at zero time is beyond me, though. Maybe another miracle from Jesus?
Just goes to show some human beings just can NOT stay open and focused on a very simple thought experiment using imagination.

It is a wonder that human beings on a whole have gotten as far as they have with some many of them behaving like this one here for example, which is what is holding them back from advancing much further.
Another stupid response. What is YOUR answer to the (meaningless) question of what a human would experience traveling at light speed?
If you have already made the assumption or conclusion that it is a meaningless question, then WHY ask it?

My answer, however, would be, If clocks are only at rest relative to an observer in the same inertial frame, i.e. someone who is moving in the same way as the clock-you and your wristwatch/phone, for example, then whatever that human being experiences, for how ever long the trip takes Is what they would experience.

If you were able to provide the mathematical answer to how long it would take a human being to travel 4 light years, for example, traveling at the speed of light, then we could look much further into this.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:36 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:03 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:43 am
Well, it was a few pages back, but yes it has:
I really do have to be absolutely precise. What about the clock in a phone? If the power source stays the same, then what would supposedly change that rate of change when traveling, and, and how exactly would 'the thing that supposedly changes the rate of change' actually be able to do it?
This has already been explained to you, several times, by uwot and me. Seriously, can you not comprehend what you read?
You only said light clock and a pendulum swing clock was also used for examples. They measure differently.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:39 am
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:52 pm
thedoc wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:11 pm

If the Humans that have traveled to Alpha Centauri at near light speed could look back and see instantly, they would see the Earth at the current date, otherwise they would see it as it was in the past, based on the length of time it takes the light to get to Alpha Centauri or 4.37 years, and it would take them a bit longer than that to get there, depending on what fraction of the speed of light they were traveling at.
It appears that My questioning may have obtained three relatively completely different answers, if not at least two.
Pick the answer you like best.
Is that the best way to get a mathematically correct answer?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:12 am
ken wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am It is plainly obvious WHY human beings are continually changing the 'models', instead of just looking at what the actual truth IS the first time.
Scientific models are based on what scientists actually observe, not on what they might observe in the future. Yes scientific models are constantly changing as scientists find better ways to observe things. If you think that scientists can observe something and always get it right the first time, you're living in a fantasy world.
Observing what IS true and right in the first instance is very easily and simply done, once you know how to do it.

The issue with the way people called "scientists" are observing things is that they use other people's models, beliefs, and/or views prior to looking.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:51 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:58 pm
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 pm, relativity theory would be wrong.
Is relativity theory a theory, or, an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?
Theories are not the same as facts.

Example: evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution describes and explains the facts, while enabling scientists to make predictions and retrodictions based on their model of the facts -- their theory.
A very cumbersome and long drawn out way of what is inevitably just being able to look at and observe what the actual truth IS.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

surreptitious57 wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:20 pm
ken wrote:
How do human beings supposedly know a big bang was about 13 billion years ago

If a human being could travel to another planet 4 light years from instantly or what you call no time at all then if they travelled back to earth
at the same speed are you saying they would arrive back also instantly and thus about 8 years behind every other human being on earth If the
answer is yes then is that what human beings mean when they say time travel
The red shift of galaxies and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be observed occurring just after the Big Bang. Red shift is caused by objects moving further away not only in distance but in time too. The Big Bang is still occurring because the Universe is still expanding and so it is not just an event that happened in the past but one that is also happening now

If ken travels in his spaceship at the speed of light to a planet four light years away and then travels straight back to Earth he will not have aged at all while everyone on Earth will have aged by eight years. If someone is travelling at the speed of light technically they cannot be engaging in time travel because they will not actually be experiencing any time. So time travel is more about travelling to locations in the past or the future
Just because some thing has been written down does NOT make it actually true and correct.

The reason I asked how do human beings know how long ago some thing happened was because the measurements are taken using light. You say light takes no time to travel, if this is so, then nothing happened previously. It ALL happens NOW.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am The mathematical description of physics, of what was once seen to happen, was the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Obviously when human beings look at things differently the mathematical description of physics changes. If you are under some sort of belief that the mathematical description of physics, in this day and age, is, ultimately, absolutely accurate and thus will not change, then you have another thing coming.

I feel wholly confident in saying that uwot is NOT under this belief. Do you actually COMPREHEND what you READ?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:32 am
davidm wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:51 pm
ken wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:58 pm

Is relativity theory a theory, or, an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?
Theories are not the same as facts.

Example: evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution describes and explains the facts, while enabling scientists to make predictions and retrodictions based on their model of the facts -- their theory.
A very cumbersome and long drawn out way of what is inevitably just being able to look at and observe what the actual truth IS.
Would you care to clarify this latest nonsense of yours into a coherent statement?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:28 am
thedoc wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 1:12 am
ken wrote: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am It is plainly obvious WHY human beings are continually changing the 'models', instead of just looking at what the actual truth IS the first time.
Scientific models are based on what scientists actually observe, not on what they might observe in the future. Yes scientific models are constantly changing as scientists find better ways to observe things. If you think that scientists can observe something and always get it right the first time, you're living in a fantasy world.
Observing what IS true and right in the first instance is very easily and simply done, once you know how to do it.

The issue with the way people called "scientists" are observing things is that they use other people's models, beliefs, and/or views prior to looking.
Also, can you clarify this drivel?