Relativity?
Re: Relativity?
Good god.
Relativistic effects show up at a certain fraction of light speed, not AT effing light speed!
Please try to educate yourself.
Relativistic effects show up at a certain fraction of light speed, not AT effing light speed!
Please try to educate yourself.
Re: Relativity?
Er, who ever said they were opposed??
They're not opposed. It's just that Galileo knew nothing about electromagnetism and the invariant propagation of light in all inertial frames. I'm sure if we could bring him to today in a time machine (and Newton too) and introduce both to Einstein, they would grok it all immediately and would be full of wonder and delight.
Re: Relativity?
Newton, for example, was particularly perplexed by the "force" of gravity. He wondered what the hell this force was.
He would thank Einstein for explaining how it's not a force at all.
He would thank Einstein for explaining how it's not a force at all.
Re: Relativity?
Which is something that is impossible. We cannot travel at an appreciable fraction of c such that the Twins Contradiction is possible. And,in case you didn't know, there are versions of the Twin's Contradiction that do indeed have one of them travelling at c.davidm wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:42 amThe Twin's (Non!) Paradox does NOT ASSUME THAT THE TWIN IN MOTION CAN TRAVEL AT C! It only postulates (correctly) that in principle, a twin in a space ship can travel at a substantial fraction of c, and then relativistic effects show up.Viveka wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:28 amI already know this. For the sake of the Twin's Paradox, we must assume that we can travel at C. Therefore, it's a wasted thought-experiment in your eyes since it has no true relation to reality.davidm wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:15 am
No, just the opposite. It is a verifiable prediction of special relativity that any object with rest mass (i.e., everything except photons) CANNOT move at the speed of ligtht.
You really should try to do some reading and study, maybe take a class, before going on like this.
Please stop. This is becoming even more boring and ridiculous than ken's posts.
Re: Relativity?
Viveka wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:34 amWhich is something that is impossible. We cannot travel at an appreciable fraction of c such that the Twins Contradiction is possible. And,in case you didn't know, there are versions of the Twin's Contradiction that do indeed have one of them travelling at c.davidm wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:42 amThe Twin's (Non!) Paradox does NOT ASSUME THAT THE TWIN IN MOTION CAN TRAVEL AT C! It only postulates (correctly) that in principle, a twin in a space ship can travel at a substantial fraction of c, and then relativistic effects show up.
Please stop. This is becoming even more boring and ridiculous than ken's posts.
Yes, we can, in principle, travel arbitrarily close to light speed. Building such a craft, and successfully operating it, is almost certainly impossible. But that does not affect the principle -- we can do a thought experiment of what would happen if such a craft could near the speed of light.
And, NO, there are NO versions of the "Twin's Contradiction" (It's not a contradiction) that have one of the twins traveling at C, except versions mooted by IDIOTS.
Re: Relativity?
i didn't imagine this thread could become a bigger train wreck than the evolution thread. Boy, was I wrong!
Re: Relativity?
Viveka, did it ever cross your mind that you have no idea what you are talking about? just askin'.
Re: Relativity?
So, according to Viveka: "We cannot travel at an appreciable fraction of c such that the Twins Contradiction [sic] is possible."
BUT, sez Viveka: we can have a twin traveling at c.
Viveka, please shut up.
BUT, sez Viveka: we can have a twin traveling at c.
Viveka, please shut up.
Re: Relativity?
Are you suggesting here that what an observer sees travelling at close to the speed of light has been demonstrated? If so, when did this supposedly occur, and what was the name given to that person?
Is it also true that NO single person was also actually involved IN any of the experiments where they personally purported that time slowed down and/or length contracted?uwot wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:02 am...by Hafele-Keating, for example, and thousands of experiments since. It is true that no single person was a witness to all those experiments, and that therefore some degree of trust is required ('faith' is over-egging it).ken wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 amObviously to be so sure of this supposed "fact" you have first hand experience of being in both frames of reference, which would be the only true way of having such incredible knowledge of KNOWING 'that is how it is'. Otherwise your knowing here in regards to this is based solely on your faith and belief in 'what others say'.
Where did that idea arise from? Why did you start thinking that way?
Every thing being relative to the observer is just naturally obvious. NO need for a theory, experiments, nor tests. [/quote]
What I find funny is people stating that they KNOW what an observer sees when travelling close to the speed of light. That is one test that surely has not yet been done, or has it?
NO I AM NOT.
You are just assuming that, BEFORE any clarification was made.
And so that in itself means I am NOT understanding what is going on? Was that what also led another to assume and believe that I am also to thick to understand any thing at all as well?
Because what I see may be actually false. This is the reason I ask clarifying questions instead of just stating what I see as being what is right and true, like what others do here.
Re: Relativity?
But do things without a brain nor a nervous system experience any thing anyway? Could these things really "experience" time?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:21 amBecause they travel through time it is important to state that they do not actually experience timeken wrote:
If I recall correctly I asked you some thing similar to this before if photons do
not experience any thing anyway then why talk about photons not being able to experience time
Everything experiences time apart from anything that travels at the speed of light such as photons
Re: Relativity?
Okay, so from YOUR perspective, different observers with different perspectives, having different views, has nothing at all to do with special relativity, is that right?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:36 amThe only possible single frame of reference would be a so called God perspective where absolutely everything could beken wrote:
I have already on quite a few occasions actually stated one possible single unique frame of reference
But like as what happens what I write is not actually noticed and recognized or just gets dismissed or rejected
seen at the same time but that has got nothing at all to do with Special Relativity which is what is being discussed here
From My perspective absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with each other. To Me the Universe works in this way of every thing interacting with every thing in some way, which is what makes the Universe continually change in some way, shape, and form.
Being able to see the truths and the falsehoods in things like special relativity is easier done by not rejecting some thing completely without the full and complete knowledge of it first.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Relativity?
No is the answer to both of those questions and so saying photons do not experience time is more a figure of speech than anything elseken wrote:But do things without a brain nor a nervous system experience any thing anyway? Could these things really experience time?surreptitious57 wrote:Because they travel through time it is important to state that they do not actually experience timeken wrote:
If I recall correctly I asked you some thing similar to this before if photons do
not experience any thing anyway then why talk about photons not being able to experience time
Everything experiences time apart from anything that travels at the speed of light such as photons
It is just a convenient phrase and therefore not one to be taken as literal but it is a valid way of describing the phenomenon in question
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Relativity?
Different observers with different perspectives has got everything to do with Special Relativity and I never said otherwiseken wrote:Okay so from YOUR perspective different observers with different perspectives having different views has nothing at all to do with special relativitysurreptitious57 wrote:The only possible single frame of reference would be a so called God perspective where absolutely everything could beken wrote:
I have already on quite a few occasions actually stated one possible single unique frame of reference
But like as what happens what I write is not actually noticed and recognized or just gets dismissed or rejected
seen at the same time but that has got nothing at all to do with Special Relativity which is what is being discussed here
From My perspective absolutely EVERY thing has some thing to do with each other. To Me the Universe works in this way of every
thing interacting with every thing in some way which is what makes the Universe continually change in some way shape and form
And everything in the Universe is directly or indirectly connected to everything else and it is in a constant state of change
Re: Relativity?
davidm wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:54 amViveka wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:34 amWhich is something that is impossible. We cannot travel at an appreciable fraction of c such that the Twins Contradiction is possible. And,in case you didn't know, there are versions of the Twin's Contradiction that do indeed have one of them travelling at c.davidm wrote: ↑Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:42 am
The Twin's (Non!) Paradox does NOT ASSUME THAT THE TWIN IN MOTION CAN TRAVEL AT C! It only postulates (correctly) that in principle, a twin in a space ship can travel at a substantial fraction of c, and then relativistic effects show up.
Please stop. This is becoming even more boring and ridiculous than ken's posts.
Yes, we can, in principle, travel arbitrarily close to light speed. Building such a craft, and successfully operating it, is almost certainly impossible. But that does not affect the principle -- we can do a thought experiment of what would happen if such a craft could near the speed of light.
And, NO, there are NO versions of the "Twin's Contradiction" (It's not a contradiction) that have one of the twins traveling at C, except versions mooted by IDIOTS.
Yes, we can do a thought experiment even though it is impossible. That's my whole point.