Relativity?

[ken]

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!
]

Are you so inept to be able to provide the actual links that you base your own assumptions and beliefs on?

[ken]

Just off the top of my head ... muon decay ... atomic clocks orbiting the earth slow

Orbiting is NOT traveling in a straight line, which takes us back to what I have previously stated.

... astronauts in orbit age less than people on the ground ...

Where is the actual evidence for this? And, what is that evidence actually based upon?

GPS devices (as has been explained to you) are pre-programmed to take into account both special relativity and general relativity (gravity wells)

This might be able to be explained. Just NOT in the way you and others think.

... 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!

The link provided had already jumped to a conclusion, and was then trying to base arguments for that conclusion, which is NOT the way science is meant to be done.

You are just like the followers of religious texts. Whatever is written in the book that one believes is true, is then gospel. Every thing is relative to the observer and you observe and follow whatever is written in science texts. You are just another believer, and follower. You are NOT open to any thing other than what you already believe is the truth. Remind you of some one?

[ken]

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

Nothing really substantial in there.

Again, every thing is relative to the observer.

What appears to a travelling observer may in fact not be correct.

A traveling observer still takes some time to travel some distance, no matter what speed they are traveling at. What they observe is up for contention. However, to people like you who believe they KNOW the answer, are unable to contend with.

What a traveling observer observes, and what the actual truth is, is very easy to distinguish apart. Unfortunately though some observers are just moving along fixated on to what they already see and believe is the truth that they are unable to learn how to make the distinction.

[ken]

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.

Your answer is the observers in the ship experience some thing different from the observers on planet earth.

You keep forgetting that what an observer observes may not be the actual truth. You also keep forgetting that what you are observing may in fact be NOT the actual truth also.

You, unfortunately, are unable to see what My actual question is asking. This is, again, because of the ability of beliefs to blind people from observing and seeing what IS actually happening. You BELIEVE you already KNOW the truth, and those that are unable to see what you see are just to stupid. The actual fact may be the opposite. Amazing really.

What is your point in this empty exercise?

If it is supposedly an empty exercise, then WHY do you persist. You are NOT the one I am looking for. I am looking for those ones who are able to learn and understand some thing new. You, so far, unfortunately have shown you are NOT capable of this.

[ken]

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.

Was there a point to this?

EVERY statement can be backed up and supported.

[ken]

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.

Of course not. Because absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. The 'meaning' obviously is and would be wholly depended upon an observer's definition of 'God' AND 'Everything'.

So clarity of definition is required here

YES, totally agree.

This is what I have been saying ALL along.

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.

What is the actually difference, to you?

What is your literal meaning of 'God'? And, is YOUR meaning the ultimate and only one?

God has no place in science and so his name should not be invoked.[/quote]

Why not? What IS 'God'?

Why can YOU make that judgement?

What makes YOU so special to KNOW what science can or should look at or not?

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.

I do NOT fail to understand that this is what you think, see, assume, and/or believe is true.

I also will NOT acknowledge some thing, which may in fact NOT be true.

I acknowledge that you observe that as being true.

I acknowledge that, to Me, there is such a thing as a single frame of reference for ALL observers, and, that there is NO such actual thing as 'time'. So, "time" can NOT slow down, nor speed up.

I will also make it known that things, such as what is generally called "time" ONLY APPEAR to slow down when an observer is traveling at a faster speed. BUT, the truth is then brought into perspective when that observer slows down again. ONLY when at pure rest the actual truth is observed, seen, understood, AND known.

It is called Special Relativity because everything is relative to everything else. The clue is in the title

But I am the One who first came up with and have already stated, Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. Also, Absolutely Everything is relative to Its Self.

There is NOTHING special about relativity. Relativity is already clearly obvious as it can be seen EVERY where.

There was NO use for a theory about relativity because there is NOTHING to dispute regarding relativity anyway.

Also what is in the title of a 'theory' does NOT make the theory any more right or correct.

You really seem to have some warped view about what it is that I am actually saying and talking about. Hint; A little clarification, from you, would held you considerably.

[ken]

Let's assume time changes because of time dilation and length contraction.

Why make that assumption at all?

It is NOT even true to begin with.

'Time' can NOT and does NOT dilate.
'Length' can NOT and does NOT contract.

These things ONLY APPEAR to happen, to a traveling observer.

Now, would that mean that the distance/time travelled would be different for each light clock thus making it 'tick' faster or slower?

For light clocks yes they would "tick" slower and faster because of the way they are designed, created, and function. This is because these clocks work relative to light, or to the speed of light. For other clocks they would NOT "tick" faster nor slower because of the way they are designed, created, and function. These clocks do NOT work directly in relation to light (or the speed of light) as the light-clocks do.[/quote]

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.

Human being do NOT use light-clocks because of the reason that you are showing now. Clocks were invented to measure, at a fixed rate, events relative to light. A light-clock's rate changes with speed so they are of no use in what clocks or "time" was invented for, that is to more easily compartmentalize events.

No one would age any differently because of a sundial speeding up or slowing down.

All bodies, including human ones, age at a certain rate. This rate is NOT depended upon how fast that body is traveling or not, except there may be some tiny amount of fluctuation but human beings would NOT be able to detect that anyway.

Likewise, with the light-clock, only if its speed of light changed would time itself truly change."

There is no such thing as "its" speed of light because light-clocks do NOT have a speed. Light-clocks do NOT have a speed of light and they also do NOT affect the speed of light in any way, shape, nor form.

[ken]

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."

Hopeless!

That's what you say because you do not understand my argument. If you did, then you would realize I am right.

Parts, of what you say, may be right.

But if you are right, as you are proposing here, then you NEED to word your argument/s a lot better.

[ken]

So ... you did not read the two links I gave you that explains how this is resolved, did you? Just amazing! Such aggressive ignorance!

Do you understand what 'ticks slower' means? It means that we cannot rely upon light clocks for 'time keeping' because regardless of how fast they tick due to time dilation and length contraction, they do not exhibit 'time' unless the speed of light itself is changed. Do you understand this?

Keep making a fool of yourself, if you enjoy it.

Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer.

[uwot]

The problem is specifically set up so that the platform clock is only seen by a train observer as they are minimal distance. so that the issues of "measuring a moving clock in one's own inertial frame" and whether that is illusory are circumvented.

Yes, the only cases where clocks can be legally (frame independent) compared is when they are in each other's presence, which is what you've set up in your scenario. That's what made it a good example.

Seems a bit convoluted. As far as I can tell, it is set up to produce a series of stills. As with any film, it doesn't matter how far from the screen you are, or when you watch it; you see what the camera records. In this instance, a clock that is running slow, because of its relative speed.

[uwot]

Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer.

Well yes, hence the principle, special and general theory of relativity.
You seem adamant that some sort of clocks are impervious to time dilation. Do you have any evidence that this is so?

[ken]

Nobody travelling with one of these clocks finds it to be moving slower.

Exactly.

Everybody measures that a moving clock is moving slower.

But it is ONLY an appearance of what is happening. It obviously is NOT what IS actually happening.

On person finds another's clock is moving slower and vice versa.

NOT ALL people find that. I observe, and thus see [understand], what actually IS. I do NOT observe and see any other's clock moving slower, unless of course the power source is running out.

The earth ONLY appears to be flat, for example, but some people can still see past that appearance and observe, and thus see [understand], what actually IS.

The apparent contradiction is relativity.

But there is NO contradiction in relativity. Only some people see a contradiction in relativity.

If we are both on different ships passing one another on a foggy night, we see each other moving, and cannot know which one of us is moving.

Is that a contradiction?

We can KNOW, when we have ALL the information. And, the best way to obtain ALL the information is to remain OPEN to it.

To Me, a 'paradox' IS, a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.

So, a lot of what I say, may well seem, or appear, to be an absurd or contradictory statement. But not until clarification, which comes from investigation, will the actual truth be known.

Also, what APPEARS to be true, may not actually be true. 'Time dilation' AND 'length contradiction' ONLY APPEAR to happen to those travelling observers, but until investigation, from an absolute point of rest, only then will the well founded truth be observed, and thus seen and KNOWN.

[ken]

So ... you did not read the two links I gave you that explains how this is resolved, did you? Just amazing! Such aggressive ignorance!

Do you understand what 'ticks slower' means? It means that we cannot rely upon light clocks for 'time keeping' because regardless of how fast they tick due to time dilation and length contraction, they do not exhibit 'time' unless the speed of light itself is changed. Do you understand this?

This is complete gobbledygook. What the hell is wrong with you?

Why does it appear that you have far more trouble understanding others than they ever have understanding you?

Of course what you sometimes write does not make sense, but WHY you write the way you do is totally understandable. Also WHY you are unable to clarify and support that what you write is totally understandable. The reason YOU are the way you are is so obvious and easy to understand. But you seem to be always confused and bewildered about others, and far more so when they just do NOT have the exact same views as you have.

[ken]

There HAS to be absolute time, otherwise the speed of light wouldn't be what it is. It's not the ticks of the clock that count, it's the speed of light!

No! It's just the opposite! There is no absolute time, BECAUSE the speed of light is invariant!

Did you or did you not read my post on light clocks and marble clocks?

Could you BOTH be wrong?

Or is that no even possible to you two?

[ken]

So if I am looking at a clock that supposedly measures time, then when I close my eyes time suddenly stops?

Who the hell said that? Where do you get this shit?

The question is being ask from the point that 'time' is relative to the clock that I am holding.

You are the one saying that the clock, (I am holding), and thus 'time', slows down the faster I,the observer, am traveling, right?

If that is NOT what you are saying, then what is it that you are actually trying to say?