## 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?

Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:43 pm
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:54 am
Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:34 am

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.

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.

The so-called "twins's paradox" does NOT arise from the traveling twin traveling AT the speed of light, only a physically possible situation in which the twin travels at an appreciable fraction of light speed relative to the twin at rest on earth. Also, there is no paradox: the traveling twin, when returning to earth, will indeed find that he has aged less than the twin on earth.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

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

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:24 pm
Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:43 pm
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:54 am

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.

The so-called "twins's paradox" does NOT arise from the traveling twin traveling AT the speed of light, only a physically possible situation in which the twin travels at an appreciable fraction of light speed relative to the twin at rest on earth. Also, there is no paradox: the traveling twin, when returning to earth, will indeed find that he has aged less than the twin on earth.
Now your'e claiming that the Twins Contradiction is something possible when you had just said it is impossible. Stick to your words. And there are theories about the big bang having light slower than normal (or was it faster? i'm not sure.)
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:15 pm
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:24 pm
Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:43 pm

Yes, we can do a thought experiment even though it is impossible. That's my whole point.

The so-called "twins's paradox" does NOT arise from the traveling twin traveling AT the speed of light, only a physically possible situation in which the twin travels at an appreciable fraction of light speed relative to the twin at rest on earth. Also, there is no paradox: the traveling twin, when returning to earth, will indeed find that he has aged less than the twin on earth.
Now your'e claiming that the Twins Contradiction is something possible when you had just said it is impossible. Stick to your words. And there are theories about the big bang having light slower than normal (or was it faster? i'm not sure.)
Evidently you are astoundingly clueless. I will try to keep to kindergarten language for you.

First, it not called the Twin's Contradiction. It's called the Twin's Paradox.

Second, I have pointed out that the FORMULATION of the alleged "paradox" does NOT ARISE from imagining that one twin is traveling at the speed of light, which relativity theory forbids. The alleged paradox is formulated when one twin is traveling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, relative to the twin in the earth rest frame. Relativistic effects begin to manifest themselves when a traveling frame approaches an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. That is what I mean by "possible." It is theoretically possible to travel at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, but not AT the speed of light -- as has been repeatedly explained to you and your sidekick in cluelessness, Ken.

Third, there is no paradox! This is explained in the two links I gave above, which I'm sure you didn't read or, if you read them, did not understand them. (As an aside: do you even understand what the alleged "paradox" is supposed to be? I'm betting not.)

You've understood NOTHING AT ALL of what has been explained to you in this thread, have you? Or perhaps you're just a troll?
Last edited by davidm on Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:04 am
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:57 am i didn't imagine this thread could become a bigger train wreck than the evolution thread. Boy, was I wrong!

And I was right.
Yup.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

If uwot is still reading this thread, and if he finds time, I wonder if he might read and comment on the following article:

Relativity, Dimensionality and Existence

The article’s basic contention is that while special relativity can be successfully described either as three-dimensional objects evolving in time, or as four dimensional objects that are just “given” in spacetime, only the latter can be accurate. To me this seems to mirror the equivalency of Ptolemy and Copernicus, but the author is saying that only 4D worldtubes can exist; a latter-day equivalent to Copernicus triumphing over Ptolemy even though the descriptions are equivalent.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:15 pm Now your'e claiming that the Twins Contradiction is something possible when you had just said it is impossible. Stick to your words. And there are theories about the big bang having light slower than normal (or was it faster? i'm not sure.)
You really have a talent for misinterpreting things, DavidM said one of the twins traveling at the speed of light was impossible, and he did say that one of the twins traveling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light is possible. There is a difference between traveling at the speed of light and traveling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.

Part of the theory of the Big Bang claims a period of Superluminal expansion, (faster than the speed of light) right after the start of the Big Bang, for about 300,000 years. Space itself was expanding, matter was not moving through space which is the current situation where distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us at faster than the speed of light.
OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Perhaps the simplest way out of the apparent paradox is to use circular motion.

One twin sits there. The other twin is in a rocket running rings around him, going faster and faster. The twin in the rocket finds that the stationary twin's clock is speeding up as rocket twin accelerates. Stationary twin finds rocket twin's clock is slowing down as he accelerates. Both agree. No paradox. The rocket twin, looking at his own clock, feels the centrifugal force pushing him and his clock against the wall of the rocket, but does not find that his clock - or his heartbeat - seem to be slowing down or speeding up. ( Well, to keep him from turning to jelly, we have to posit some technology to keep him in one piece and awake.)
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:53 pm If uwot is still reading this thread, and if he finds time, I wonder if he might read and comment on the following article:

Relativity, Dimensionality and Existence

The article’s basic contention is that while special relativity can be successfully described either as three-dimensional objects evolving in time, or as four dimensional objects that are just “given” in spacetime, only the latter can be accurate. To me this seems to mirror the equivalency of Ptolemy and Copernicus, but the author is saying that only 4D worldtubes can exist; a latter-day equivalent to Copernicus triumphing over Ptolemy even though the descriptions are equivalent.
I think that's a good analogy. From my point of view, both Ptolemy and Copernicus generated models that account for the phenomena reasonably well. The fact that neither is 'true' is irrelevant, to instrumentalists; which physicists are effectively compelled to be in practise, whatever their beliefs about reality.
Gotta say, the paper didn't start well for me:
"As the world is either three-dimensional or four-dimensional" (tell that to a string theorist) "it is clear that either the three a dimensional or the four a dimensional description is the correct one in a sense that only one of them correctly reflects the dimensionality of the world."
As I see it, you can describe any point in space using three coordinates, and there are alternatives to Cartesian. To locate an event, you have to add time, but all these are arbitrary and relative to an observer; it doesn't follow that any of them exist.
As for returning the favour; happy to. What are the options? Do you have any links?
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:35 amAre you suggesting here that what an observer sees travelling at close to the speed of light has been demonstrated?
No human has travelled at anything like light speed; the current record is, from memory, something like 23 000mph. Even at that speed, the effects relativity are much too slight to be observed by a human being. However, atomic clocks are accurate enough to demonstrate the effects of time dilation at much lower speeds, and every time they show results that agree with relativity. Given that human beings are made of the same subatomic particles as atomic clocks, it is reasonable to extrapolate that they will be affected in precisely the same manner.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:28 pm
ken wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:35 amAre you suggesting here that what an observer sees travelling at close to the speed of light has been demonstrated?
No human has travelled at anything like light speed; the current record is, from memory, something like 23 000mph. Even at that speed, the effects relativity are much too slight to be observed by a human being. However, atomic clocks are accurate enough to demonstrate the effects of time dilation at much lower speeds, and every time they show results that agree with relativity. Given that human beings are made of the same subatomic particles as atomic clocks, it is reasonable to extrapolate that they will be affected in precisely the same manner.
I predict that won't be good enough for a science denier like Ken, he will just hand wave away any evidence that contradicts his preconceived ideas.
ForCruxSake
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:48 am

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:11 am
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:28 pm
ken wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:35 amAre you suggesting here that what an observer sees travelling at close to the speed of light has been demonstrated?
No human has travelled at anything like light speed; the current record is, from memory, something like 23 000mph. Even at that speed, the effects relativity are much too slight to be observed by a human being. However, atomic clocks are accurate enough to demonstrate the effects of time dilation at much lower speeds, and every time they show results that agree with relativity. Given that human beings are made of the same subatomic particles as atomic clocks, it is reasonable to extrapolate that they will be affected in precisely the same manner.
I predict that won't be good enough for a science denier like Ken, he will just hand wave away any evidence that contradicts his preconceived ideas.
Not if we cut off his hands. And if he shakes his head, well, then we'll just have to...

Disclaimer: everything written by ForCruxSake above has been written in jest, for the amusement, or to the disdain, of those who read it. It should not be taken literally. Any perceived offence attached to how literally those words are meant is the responsibility of the perceiver and you are asked to adjust your expectations and interpretations accordingly. Just sayin'.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:53 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:02 am The same applies with scientific theories, some people believe that a theory could be true so they set out (unintentionally in some cases) to create the very experiments that will prove they are true. They have, in turn, so turned one theory into the desired one.
Nope. Scientists work exactly the opposite of this.
Do ALL people who are labeled "scientists" work in the EXACT same way?

You seem to put a lot of faith and belief in those one's who are called "scientists". You are just like those people who seem to put a lot of faith and belief in those one's who are called "preachers". Without any actual firsthand experience nor evidence you and them believe what others say and write and put your faith in their ability of supposedly knowing things.
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:53 pmThey set up experiments to disprove their hypothesis or theory. If these tests fail to falsify the theory, scientists gain greater confidence that the theory accurately models reality.
WHY not just look at and observe reality, instead of trying to make "models" of It?
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:53 pm You don't seem to know anything about science.
By 'anything' do you mean that, to you, I seem to know 'nothing' at all about science?
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:53 pmAs to rest of this post, it's just word wallpaper.
Why not just say what you actually mean?

What does 'word wallpaper' meant to mean?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 am
davidm wrote: Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:23 pm

That's correct. That's how it is.

If you insist 'that is how it is', then there is nothing more to discuss with you. You already believe that you KNOW what the actual truth is.
Really, can you not understand the things that other people write?
Some times I can. Some times I can not. When I can not understand the things other people write, then I ask clarifying questions.

Can you always understand ALL of the things that other people write?
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pmYou (deliberately?) ignore all the context of what I write.
Do I do that?
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pmI have been quite explicit (as has uwot) that science does not pretend to ACTUAL TRUTH.
'Science', itself, is NOT a conscious entity and therefore does NOT do any thing at all. 'Science' is an activity, in which human beings partake.
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pmGiven this context, it should be obvious that when I write "that's how it is," it means that's how it is according to the theory.
AND, we KNOW that a theory may NOT be accurate, and thus may not be what actually IS. So, when you write, "that's how it is,", which as you say means that is how it is according to the theory, then what you are actually meaning when you say, "that's how it is" IS 'that is NOT how it actually may be'.

In other words when you say, "that's how it is", the truth might actually be much different.

This all seems very cumbersome and a distorted way of looking at and writing things.

WHY NOT, instead, just look at and observe things for how they really are?

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pmAnd the theory of relativity is constantly bolstered by empirical observations that validate and do not falsify the theory.
What is the 'theory of relativity' actually theorizing, to you?

The fact that absolutely every thing is relative to the observe is already plainly obvious to see.

The reason WHY human beings are not yet able to see and understand this fully yet is also plainly obvious to see.
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pmScience is constantly trying to falsify relativity; not confirm it!
But the falsehoods, and the truths, are already plainly obvious to see.

The reason WHY human beings are not able to see them yet is also plainly obvious.

Again, 'science' does not try nor do any thing at all. Only human beings try to falsify, or try to truthasize, things. What human beings see and do is depended upon their already gained ideas, ideals, views, assumptions, and/or beliefs of which they are holding onto.

How 'science' is performed is depended on these things.
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pmApparently the whole discussion of GPS devices went right over your head.
Or, I just WANTED you to say that. I wanted to provide more evidence of how human beings generally make assumptions, and jump to conclusions, BEFORE they even begin to ask for clarification. Thanks to you you have once again shown this kind of behavior. Before gaining actual clarity of what IS the actual case you prefer to make assumptions and believe they are true.
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:05 pmIf you don't think relativity is true, then you need to come up with a new theory that explains as least as much about the observed world, and more besides. Your rambling wall paper posts don't cut it.
Have you not grasped what I have been saying from the outset yet?

I am the ONE who has been saying to find the actual truth it is much quicker, simpler, and easier (thus better) to just look at and observe what IS instead of coming up with theories about what, in fact, may NOT actually even be true.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:11 pm
ken wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:00 am]

Let us say on a Universal perspective, if you knowing WHOSE PERSPECTIVE is necessary before you are able to answer that question.
Relativity theory shows there is no universal perspective -- no preferred reference frame.
But a "theory" by definition is NOT what IS yet proven true, right, and accurate.
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:11 pm That's the whole point of the theory! If there IS such a universal perspective, then relativity theory would be wrong.
You appear to believe that the theory is already 100% true, right, and accurate. Is this what you believe to be the case?

If not, then WHY try to use that "theory" as though it is already 100% correct?

Could that theory be wrong?

By the way parts of that theory could still be right AND there can still be A preferred reference frame, which is the actual case, while still existing other parts that are wrong.
davidm wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:11 pm So if you think that such a perspective exists, please show us what it is!
I have already shown this. Have you NOT been reading what I actually write? I will not say as you would say, "look back". Instead;

From the Everything's perspective, this is a Universal perspective, which is just another unique, and thus relative way, to observe and look at things. By the way, from this Observer's perspective, this provides an almost instant, much clearer and better perspective of what actually IS the case, then any "theory" could ever do.