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 »

uwot wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:56 am
ken wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:07 amBeing completely open and observing from Everything's perspective allows ALL things to be known and understood, almost instantly. Far more can be seen and understood from a unified collective viewpoint then could ever be discovered from a separate individual viewpoint.
Sounds great. So, how do we achieve this in practice?
It is very simple and easy really, stop assuming and believing.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:44 am Good god.

Relativistic effects show up at a certain fraction of light speed, not AT effing light speed!

Please try to educate yourself.
What is that certain fraction of light speed that "relativistic effects" apparently show up?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:06 am 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.
So, according to davidm: Light takes four years to travel a distance of four light years, traveling at the speed of light, but it takes a space ship lesser time to travel the same distance traveling at a slower speed.

davidm, please keep talking.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

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!

:lol:
Are the words 'train wreck' used specifically because you are trying to derail the attention away from the fact of your inability to answer all the questions posed to you, or was that just a coincidence?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:45 am
ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:

Because they travel through time it is important to state that they do not actually experience time
Everything experiences time apart from anything that travels at the speed of light such as photons
But do things without a brain nor a nervous system experience any thing anyway? Could these things really experience time?
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 else

In a story book or in general conversation then 'figure of speech' might be fine. But in philosophy and/or matters of science is 'figure of speech' really the best way to speak and communicate what is really meant?
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:45 amIt 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
Does 'convenience' really work with matters of truth?

A part of philosophy is about how to find meaning in things. The truth of ALL things is found in the communication we use. If words are not to be taken literally, especially while doing science and more so philosophy, then the truth and the meaning of things will never be discovered or revealed.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:14 am
ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:

The only possible single frame of reference would be a so called God perspective where absolutely everything could be
seen at the same time but that has got nothing at all to do with Special Relativity which is what is being discussed here
Okay so from YOUR perspective different observers with different perspectives having different views has nothing at all to do with special relativity

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
Different observers with different perspectives has got everything to do with Special Relativity and I never said otherwise
Yes you did. You said, "... a so called God perspective where absolutely everything could be
seen at the same time but that has got nothing at all to do with Special Relativity which is what is being discussed here".

A so called "God perspective" is a different Observer with a different perspective.
surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:14 amAnd everything in the Universe is directly or indirectly connected to everything else and it is in a constant state of change
Yes you are right, in that that is exactly what I just said.

So, do you now agree that a different Observer with a different perspective, one such as an Universal (or as some might say "God's") perspective where absolutely every thing could be seen at the same time, really does in fact have some thing to do with special relativity, which is what is being discussed here?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

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.
Is this an absolute known fact that is sure to happen?

The flaws are already strikingly obvious to Me.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:26 pm
Viveka wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:15 pm
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:24 pm


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.
WHY the continual derogatory remarks?

Is it the only way you can feel better about your self?
davidm wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:26 pmThird, 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?
Why can you not explain it in plain and simple words?

The two links above jump straight to the conclusion that the traveling twin ages less than the other twin, then attempts to support this already proposed conclusion.

Where is and what is the actual evidence that this would happen?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

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.
So, we really do NOT know what happens then?
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:28 pmEven at that speed, the effects relativity are much too slight to be observed by a human being.
Finally. Thank you.
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:28 pmHowever, 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.
Do you have the links to the data that you use as knowledge and to all of these actual supposed experiments that were to have taken place regarding this?
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:28 pm 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.
That is yet just another assumption being made.

WHY do human beings not just wait, and look at and observe what REALLY happens, instead of this continual assuming of what might or might not take place?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

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.
What do you mean by 'science denier', and, WHY are you making yet another assumption like I am a science denier?

This sounds very like a 'religious believer' calling another person a 'religious denier'. What is it with human beings and there HAVING TO BE one side or another. Can you human beings really not see the truths and falsehoods in just about all of your one verses the other topics of discussions?

Both "sides" have truths in them and both "sides" have falsehoods in them. When you are able to notice that and see them for what they really are, then you are able to united them ALL together, which then forms one perfect big picture of ALL-THERE-IS.

By the way, are you a 'science believer'?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

ForCruxSake wrote: Fri Nov 03, 2017 3:52 pm
thedoc wrote: Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:11 am
uwot wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:28 pm
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'.
Who would be offended by what you said here?

Many people who have looked at things differently and have stated things differently than from what the general population say and different from the perceived "normal views" of that day are, have been ridiculed and wanted to be silenced for good. No one is going to be offended for just wanting to rid the world of one with a different viewpoint from all others. Especially not the one who has the different views. That one already KNOWS exactly WHY others want these people put down for good.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:41 am I think the main problem with relativity is confusing distance traveled with speed. If I have a light-clock and another light-clock is ticking faster, it doesn't mean the speed of light has changed for both, it means the distance traveled differs.
Not necessarily so. It could just mean you have two light-clocks not synchronized.

Also, the light-clock traveling at a different rate than a "stationary" one is, as far as I am aware, NOT an actual experiment that has ever been done. If I am wrong I am sure people will jump in to tell Me so. Hopefully they will provide the links also. Those clocks are just used as subject matter to better describe some thing, which is predicted to happen. Using "light-clocks" better explains as a tick-tock clock could not.
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:41 amThus how can a light-clock function as a meaningful clock whenever it changes its distance travelled but not its speed?
Do human beings use light-clocks for meaningful measurements of compartmentalizing different events, which is basically what all clocks do. "Tick-tock" clocks are far more functional for this.
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:41 amIf we relied upon a light-clock to tell us time, I don't see how the light-clock is a real manifestation of a real time.
Is there such thing as "real" time?

Events occur, continually, but for human beings to break them down into different compartments so as to decipher and describe "different" events they needed to invent some thing to be able make the measurements of the seemingly "separating" events. Thus clocks, and time, was invented and created. Maybe not intentionally for that purpose but that is about the only real purpose for clocks.

Time, itself, can NOT be measured because there is NO actual thing as time, itself.
Viveka wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:41 am No one would age any differently because of a sundial. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change.
There is probably more truth in that then appears at first glance. But I will leave this for another day (and "time").
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Different observers with different perspectives has got everything to do with Special Relativity and I never said otherwise
You said a so called God perspective where absolutely everything could be seen at the same time but that has got nothing at all
to do with Special Relativity which is what is being discussed here

A so called God perspective is a different Observer with a different perspective
Special Relativity only deals with human observers with different perspectives and so
it does not reference any God perspective because that is beyond the remit of science
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
do you now agree that a different Observer with a different perspective one such as an Universal ( or as some might say Gods )
perspective where absolutely every thing could be seen at the same time really does in fact have some thing to do with special
relativity which is what is being discussed here
No I do not agree and for the very same reason as my previous answer which
is that the God perspective is something that is beyond the remit of science
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
But do things without a brain nor a nervous system experience any thing anyway? Could these things really experience time?
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 else
In a story book or in general conversation then figure of speech might be fine
But in philosophy and /or matters of science is figure of speech really the best way to speak and communicate
As long as the figure of speech in question is clearly understood there is no problem. And saying that photons
do not experience time
is a perfectly acceptable term to use because it obviously is not to be taken literally
Post Reply