Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:31 pm

ken wrote:
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
Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive and so the meaning of words is referenced in the way the are actually used
The dictionary definition of a word is only a guide to how it can be used not an absolute rule set in stone for all of time

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:23 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:16 am
thedoc wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:10 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:57 pm
In response to the bolded: Seriously? Whenever I move out of a room with a clock the clock stops working?
As has been stated numerous times, clocks will measure different times when moving relative to each other, why is that so hard to understand.
WHY? Because if human beings state that it takes four years to travel a distance of four light years, traveling at the speed of light, then do not also state that it takes no time at all.

WHY do you human beings state contradictory things and expect others to understand?

If it takes four years to travel a distance, then it takes four years. NOT no time at all. If it takes no time at all, then it does NOT take four years. What IS actually true can be discovered, learned, seen, and understood from the a Universal perspective, if any one is really interested.
Good lord, you are thick!

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:24 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:16 am

What CAUSES a clock, like a digital watch, which is programmed to change at certain intervals and has the exact same continual power source, to supposedly slow down when traveling faster than another one with the exact same mechanisms and power source?
The CAUSE has already been explained to you!

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:30 pm

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. Thus how can a light-clock function as a meaningful clock whenever it changes its distance travelled but not its speed? If 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. 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.
You STILL don't get it? Utterly astonishing!

As has been explained to you in detail, via example of the light clock, time would NOT change if the speed of light changed! Time slows precisely BECAUSE the speed of light does NOT change!

Did you really not read or understand my post on a hypothetical marble clock vs. a light clock?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:37 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 12:57 pm
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?
Are you so lazy you can't use Google? There are TONS of these data and experiments!
]

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:43 pm

Just off the top of my head ... muon decay ... atomic clocks orbiting the earth slow ... astronauts in orbit age less than people on the ground ... GPS devices (as has been explained to you) are pre-programmed to take into account both special relativity and general relativity (gravity wells) ... you were even given a link to an article that explains this, contradicting what you wrote above, that you have not been provided with links to material that you yourself are too lazy to Google!

There's lots more besides!

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:57 pm

Here ya go! See how easily you could have found that yourself?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 05, 2017 6:30 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:04 am

How could the ship travelling at less than the speed of light arrive sooner than light that left at the same time?
Unbelievable!

I have already ANSWERED this question, AND provided a link to the blog of a physicist who expands upon the answer in some detail!

Did you not READ that post? Did you not READ the blog post? Do you not REMEMBER my post???

It's simply breathtaking that you keep asking the same questions over and over that have been answered over and over. What is your point in this empty exercise?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2996
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Lacewing » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:16 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:06 am
all people distort the actual truth, and/or are completely blinded from the actual truth, because of and by their own previously held assumptions and beliefs
Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.
Did you assume, think, or believe that what I said would apply to all people but not to me?
I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve any thing, IN GENERAL, ALWAYS, FOREVER MORE, et cetera. FULL STOP.
the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.
I do not recall telling people how some thing "is"
there is One single view, which can fathom ALL. That view is made up of ALL views. From this vantage point ONLY is the view point from which I talk about.
I do not recall ever saying "how it is".
there is NO THING that I am aware of "that must be agreed upon and accepted by all". The fact is I have been saying the very opposite of that.
When, and if, there are any distortions and inconsistencies in what I write... /...I will be the first one to acknowledge and them and correct them.
I do not see that My absolute phrases necessarily contradict what else I have said.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm

davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:30 pm
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. Thus how can a light-clock function as a meaningful clock whenever it changes its distance travelled but not its speed? If 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. 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.
You STILL don't get it? Utterly astonishing!

As has been explained to you in detail, via example of the light clock, time would NOT change if the speed of light changed! Time slows precisely BECAUSE the speed of light does NOT change!

Did you really not read or understand my post on a hypothetical marble clock vs. a light clock?
Let's assume time changes because of time dilation and length contraction. Now, would that mean that the distance/time travelled would be different for each light clock thus making it 'tick' faster or slower? If so, then that means that the following still stands: "If 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. No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change."

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:48 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:01 pm
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
You were the one who called it a God perspective. I have said it is a united perspective from Everything. Obviously the perspectives from different human beings is what we deal with.

Again, you are making another assumption, without any actual knowing of the outcome. A God perspective may well be easily within the remit of science. In fact the truth may well be the exact opposite of what you assume is true.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:31 pm

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
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
You were the one who called it a God perspective. I have said it is a united perspective from Everything. Obviously the perspectives from
different human beings is what we deal with

Again you are making another assumption without any actual knowing of the outcome. A God perspective may well be easily within the
remit of science. In fact the truth may well be the exact opposite of what you assume is true
A united perspective from Everything and a God perspective do not necessarily mean the same thing. So clarity of definition is required here
If one simply means all current relevant knowledge then that is absolutely fine. But if one literally means God then that is something entirely different. God has no place in science and so his name should not be invoked. I only mentioned it since you fail to understand or acknowledge
the fact that there is no such thing as a single frame of reference for all observers in the Universe and that time slows down the closer that an object of mass gets to the speed of light. It is called Special Relativity because everything is relative to everything else. The clue is in the title

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:01 am

Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:30 pm
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. Thus how can a light-clock function as a meaningful clock whenever it changes its distance travelled but not its speed? If 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. 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.
You STILL don't get it? Utterly astonishing!

As has been explained to you in detail, via example of the light clock, time would NOT change if the speed of light changed! Time slows precisely BECAUSE the speed of light does NOT change!

Did you really not read or understand my post on a hypothetical marble clock vs. a light clock?
Let's assume time changes because of time dilation and length contraction. Now, would that mean that the distance/time travelled would be different for each light clock thus making it 'tick' faster or slower? If so, then that means that the following still stands: "If 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. No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change."
:lol:

Hopeless!

OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by OuterLimits » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:15 am

Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm
Let's assume time changes because of time dilation and length contraction. Now, would that mean that the distance/time travelled would be different for each light clock thus making it 'tick' faster or slower? If so, then that means that the following still stands: "If 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. No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change."
Person A says that person B is moving and their clock ticks slower than A's.

Person B says that person A is moving and their clock ticks slower than B's.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:26 am

OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:15 am
Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:10 pm
Let's assume time changes because of time dilation and length contraction. Now, would that mean that the distance/time travelled would be different for each light clock thus making it 'tick' faster or slower? If so, then that means that the following still stands: "If 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. No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down. Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change."
Person A says that person B is moving and their clock ticks slower than A's.

Person B says that person A is moving and their clock ticks slower than B's.
So which one is right? That's a flat out contradiction! B<A, A<B. You can't have both at once.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests