## 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?

Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:01 am
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am

Nobody travelling with one of these clocks finds it to be moving slower.
Then how in the world CAN they be moving slower? If A sees his clock ticking normally, and so does B in his own train, then it suffices to say that they are in synchronicity if each one could see into the other's train, right?
A, relative, good question.
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:01 am
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am
Everybody measures that a moving clock is moving slower.

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

BUT, what APPEARS to be a contradiction on first glance, upon investigation, may well also be founded to be true.

If a contradictory statement or proposition was well founded to actually be true, then in fact it would be a 'paradox'. But this will NEVER be KNOW until people become OPEN and investigate it, properly. Only then the truth will be found, which by the way is already obvious and very easily seen.
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:01 am
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am
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.

That's an awfully subjective account of what is supposed to be objective science. LIkewise, in that respect it is the same with Einstein's trains and observers.
A, relative, good point.

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

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:07 am
And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me!

IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on!
Maybe because, in the grand scheme of things, you and uwot's answer is NOT really that satisfactory at all.

surreptitious57
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
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
So to you figure of speech can be used countless times in philosophy and science and there is NO problem as long as the figure
of speech is clearly understood. How do you KNOW when and if a figure of speech WILL BE clearly understood and by how many
people it WILL BE clearly understood by
Any misunderstanding would have to be clearly stated otherwise I would not know
As once it is clearly stated I can try and make it better understood by that person

uwot
Posts: 4890
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:44 am
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:07 am
And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me!

IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on!
Maybe because, in the grand scheme of things, you and uwot's answer is NOT really that satisfactory at all.
Just to remind you Ken, I have actually written a book, which you haven't bothered to read. So it's a bit rich you telling me it's unsatisfactory.
Here's another opportunity, ken: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

surreptitious57
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
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
Can the way words are actually used be taken out of context They can be taken out of context deliberately or unintentionally

surreptitious57
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:

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 travelling 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

Explain EVERYTHING that you have stated above as precisely as you can and leaving NOTHING out so that I understand it completely
Specifically EVERYTHING that you know about time and why you think timelessness is a feature of the Universe as you apparently do
Therefore do it so that I do not have to ask any clarifying questions afterwards so take as long as is necessary because I am very slow

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

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:32 am
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:26 am

Therefore, if the trains were made of glass, then we have a contradiction. They would both see, and not see, each other's clocks in synchronicity! Einstein's Relativity is subjective as heck!
No! Each would see the other's clock TICKING SLOWER -- not in synchrony!
Not every observer would see that.

If every thing is relative to the observer, then not every observer sees the exact same thing.

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

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:47 am
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:43 am
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:07 am
And here was the second reply to this thread -- from me!

IOW, uwot and I answered your question in the OP in the first two replies to this thread -- yet here you still are, blathering on!
And I have already sufficiently rebutted both of those posts. Read my posts again.
YOU expect others to read and re-read your posts, but, to you, others posts are rubbish, which you have decided do not need to be read again. Is this about right?

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

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:54 am
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:48 am
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:18 am

Yes, that's correct. No one can see their OWN time dilation or length contraction -- that's called Galilean relativity -- as has ALSO been explained to you!

Galileo had everything right, except he knew nothing about electromagnetism. All this is wasted on you, of course.
Look at the boldfaced.
Yes, it's correct that no one perceives his OWN CLOCK slowing, or his OWN LENGTH contracting! As has been explained to you, this is Galilean relativity -- no one in constant uniform motion (inertial frame) can perform an experiment to distinguish from a rest frame!

You are such an ignoramus! You know NOTHING, yet babble on!

WHY when others do not agree with you, you propose they know NOTHING?

Do you really think, or believe, that what you "know" is true, right, and correct and if others disagree with you, then they know NOTHING?

One last time:

DID YOU, OR DID NOT NOT, read the two links I gave you that explain the resolution to this so-called "twin's paradox?"

YES OR NO?

If you don't answer this question, you'll get no more responses from me.
You do realize that the links you provide does NOT make the links absolutely true, right, nor correct? And, just because you believe in and follow those texts also does NOT mean they are absolutely true, right, nor correct.

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

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:55 am
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 1:51 am
Honestly, davidm cannot understand the difference between a paradox and a contradiction. Also, he likes to change the logic whenever it suits him. He just said 'yes' in answer to my post, but when I introduce glass trains, his mind can't comprehend it because it's a contradiction and not a paradox. Paradox is used for things like 'a self-arising universe' while a contradiction would be a 'a car and not a car at the same time' or 'A>B, and B>A, therefore, there is a contradiction.'
You're such a dummy! Thanks for the laughs!
If others are dummies, then does that make you a smarty?

Is that another one of those beliefs, which you wish, or even believe, is true?

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

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:07 am
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:56 am
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:52 am
Nobody travelling with one of these clocks finds it to be moving slower.
Right. For the traveler, the clock ticks just as it did on earth.
So, for the traveler, a trip would actually take just as long as it would on earth?
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:07 am
Everybody measures that a moving clock is moving slower.
Right.
Wrong. Not every one measures that a moving clock is moving slower.

Just some observe that. Just like some observe the sun revolving the earth while others do not. Again, what is being observed all depends on the observer. Every thing is relative to the observer. Some distort and are blinded from the truth while others already observe, see, and understand the truth.
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:07 am
One person finds another's clock is moving slower and vice versa.
Right.
Wrong.

Only some people find that. Other's do NOT.
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:07 am
Apparent. Right.
To you, there may be an apparent contradiction. To Me, there is NO apparent contradiction.
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:07 am
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.

Of course each ship must be in constant uniform motion. If so, the occupant of each ship is entitled to think of her ship at rest, and the other as moving.
Why are they, supposedly, 'entitled' to think that?

Is that some sort of justification for you believing that you, your self, are inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment for not knowing what IS actually true, right, accurate, and correct?

I am here to tell you that you are NOT inherently deserving of any privilege nor of any special treatment for not being able to observe, see, and already KNOW what the truth IS. The truth is here right now for ALL to see and understand. If you are able to NOT see and understand this, then you are NOT inherently deserving of that because I have already told you HOW you can find, discover, and/or learn what IS true, right, and correct. If you wish to disregard what I have said regarding this and you want to just continue doing the exact opposite, then the only thing you are deserving of is your own distorted thinking and inability to see properly.

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

### Re: Relativity?

OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:55 pm
Viveka wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:25 pm
I read the section 'how does time work?' and I have a question. If stickgirl is on an embankment and stickman on a train, wouldn't stickgirl see stickman's light-clock take an extra distance? If so, would the reverse also happen for stickman looking at stickgirl? Or not? I think not, because if I'm on a train and watch a person bouncing a ball, the ball would stay with the person bouncing it!
The techniques you use to determine that a moving clock is slowed down presume there is a such a thing as "at a remote distance but at the same time".
WHY presume some thing, especially when it is obviously false?

The technique to use to determine IF a moving clock actually slows down or not is to look at what happens, when one actually travels. Not to presume nor assume any thing. If any thing could travel at the speed of light, then it would take just as long as a photon to travel the same distance. The "time" it would take to travel would be the exact same as the photon, and, the "length" it traveled would be the exact same as the photon did also. There is no real dilation nor contraction. But WHY there ONLY APPEARS to be, to some, IS obvious and can be very easily explained. This can be proven through openness, and verified through scientific methods.

Lacewing
Posts: 4042
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:04 am
Lacewing wrote:
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.
Was there a point to this?

EVERY statement can be backed up and supported.
Can you please show how these statements, side-by-side, are not contradictory or inconsistent? If you are writing clearly and consistently, why do they look like opposites -- and why are you not able to discern this for yourself, and you have to ask me what the point is of showing it to you?

For example, you say "all people do", then you say "you do not", then you ask me why I assume that you say "all people do, but not you". It's because you just said that. You say what the truth IS, then you say you do NOT tell people how any thing IS. You say that you want to learn to communicate better, and that if there are inconsistencies in what you write, you will be the first one to acknowledge them -- but when it is shown to you that your statements/communication are unclear or appear as inconsistencies, you deny it and/or don't see it. So, how are you learning to write/communicate better, and how else are people supposed to show you when it looks inconsistent, and is therefore unclear?

uwot
Posts: 4890
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pm
...So, for the traveler, a trip would actually take just as long as it would on earth?
Whatever the traveller does, the Earth will keep rotating and orbiting oblivious. But because of the proven dilation due to speed, the clocks and every chemical and atomic interaction on his ship will take longer. There is no 'absolute' time to measure either against.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pm
Not every one measures that a moving clock is moving slower.
Everyone who measures a clock which is moving faster than them measures precisely that.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pm
Just some observe that. Just like some observe the sun revolving the earth while others do not. Again, what is being observed all depends on the observer.
What everyone sees is the Sun rising and setting. It is the theory for why this happens that varies. Similarly, everyone sees a clock moving faster or slower, depending on their relative speed. You can interpret that as you wish, but by far the most compelling explanation is the one Einstein came up with.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pm
Every thing is relative to the observer. Some distort and are blinded from the truth while others already observe, see, and understand the truth.
As I said; the truth is that clocks and every other system runs slower, the faster you are going. You are free to come up with something better than relativity, but if you deny that clocks run at different rates, you are demonstrably wrong.
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pm
I am here to tell you that you are NOT inherently deserving of any privilege nor of any special treatment for not being able to observe, see, and already KNOW what the truth IS. The truth is here right now for ALL to see and understand. If you are able to NOT see and understand this, then you are NOT inherently deserving of that because I have already told you HOW you can find, discover, and/or learn what IS true, right, and correct.
Thanks, but we already know that the way to discover what the world does, is to look at it.

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

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
As uwot has explained at least twice, as is explained in his book, and as is explained in the two links I gave you that you refused to read, here is how it works:

The observer on the embankment judges the train’s clock to be ticking slower and his own clock to be ticking normally.
NOT ALL observers make the same judgments.
davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
The observer on the train judges the clock of the observer on the embankment to be ticking slower than his own, and his own clock to be ticking normally.
Again, NOT ALL observers, on the embankment nor any where, observe what you are proposing here. After all, every thing is relative to the observer. Therefore, it all depends on who the actual observer is to what is actually being observed. I, obviously, do NOT observe what you observe, and vice-versa.
davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
This is because the observer on the train thinks of himself as at rest and the observer on the embankment as moving with respect to himself.
That MIGHT BE what YOU would think. BUT that is NOT what ALL observers would think. A truly open observer KNOWS who is actually at rest and who is not.
davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
Who’s right? They can’t both be right! (This is your apparent contradiction.)

But as uwot has tried to show you, the question of who is right has no meaning unless the guy on the ground and the guy on the train can meet up again and compare their clocks.
Therefore, the ridiculousness of this whole thing is, hopefully, being showing for what this is.
davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
And for THAT to happen, one or both observers are going to have to get out of their inertial frames. If one or both enters a non-inertial frame (a non-inertial frame is one that is NOT in constant uniform motion in a straight line), then the symmetry of their situations will be broken — the observed mutual relativistic time dilation will stop applying!
That is the apparent time dilation will stop applying.
davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
When they meet again, one or the other will definitely have aged less (slower clock).
Another absolute statement of yours proposing that you already KNOW what the truth actually is.

What are you going to base your 'definitely' upon here? The texts that you already believe in and follow?

People of all denominations, including the scientific fraternity, can take a very religious approach to some thing, which is not even religious. The belief in science attracts followers with even more conviction than religious followers.
davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
In the case of the train thought experiment, if the embankment observer remains in his frame and the train decelerates, turns around, re-accelerates and then comes to a stop before the observer on the ground, and then debarks the train and compares his clock with that of the guy on the ground, the train clock will definitely have ticked slower than the ground clock.
Again, you use the word 'definitely'. Are you 100% absolutely sure of the answer here?

The amount of times people who disembark trains, planes, and automobiles HAVE TO adjust their clocks to fit back in with the ones who did not do any travelling should show how ridiculous this absolute answer may well be.
davidm wrote:
Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:14 pm
The train rider will have aged less than the ground observer.
You do not seem to be laughing now, while other's are, out loud by the way.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest