Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Lacewing »

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.
So if every thing is relative to the observer, then isn't "truth" relative as well?

In your statement "others already observe, see, and understand the truth", you are one of those "others" you speak of, yes? If so, do you know many others besides yourself who "already observe, see, and understand the truth" -- or are these others rare?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

davidm wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:50 pm I'm not suggesting that classical entanglement is the same as, or a proper analogy to, quantum entanglement. My point is that just as information or communication cannot transcend light speed in classical entanglement, so too it will not do so in quantum entanglement.
Are you 100% absolutely sure of this?
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax »

uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:49 am Seems a bit convoluted. As far as I can tell, it is set up to produce a series of stills.
Yes, it was set to to produce such a series of stills, and that series, played in succession, shows a train clock running fast, not slow, as relativity says it should. The conclusion is that the clocks are not in sync in the frame of the platform guy watching the series, and thus the series is not an accurate portrayal of the rate at which those clocks are running.
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.
Not true. If the screen (and it's projector) is coming towards me at .05c, the movie will appear to run nearly 5% fast due to blue shift, and 5% slow as it recedes. This is doppler effect, and you are thus watching the movie at a different pace than what the camera recorded. The colors would be different than what was recorded.
Point was, if a clock is not in my presence, I cannot determine what it says without assuming a frame of reference. OuterLimits set up a scenario that dispensed with the need to read a remote clock.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:33 am
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
What I have read of it, which you are unaware of, is, as I have previously said, just a repeat of what others have already written, and which you have just repeaten in your own words.
OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by OuterLimits »

ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:51 pm
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.
Two travelers moving relative to one another forever will never get a chance to compare their clocks to see which has ticked slower overall. There may as well be no difference in their clocks ticking. The sense that each has that the other's clock is ticking slower is nothing that could ever be checked. It is based upon simultaneity, which is relative, and creates the impression that each has that the other's clock is moving slower. Any case where the two are able to get back together means that one or both have left their initial inertial frame and traveled in another. It is the fact the multiple frames were traversed is what will bring them back where they can compare clocks and find out that one has ticked slower overall. Whoever never left the initial frame will be the one whose clock ticked the longest.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:03 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:49 am Seems a bit convoluted. As far as I can tell, it is set up to produce a series of stills.
Yes, it was set to to produce such a series of stills, and that series, played in succession, shows a train clock running fast, not slow, as relativity says it should. The conclusion is that the clocks are not in sync in the frame of the platform guy watching the series, and thus the series is not an accurate portrayal of the rate at which those clocks are running.
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.
Not true. If the screen (and it's projector) is coming towards me at .05c, the movie will appear to run nearly 5% fast due to blue shift, and 5% slow as it recedes. This is doppler effect,
You have to use the relativistic Doppler effect.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:02 pm
davidm wrote: Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:50 pm I'm not suggesting that classical entanglement is the same as, or a proper analogy to, quantum entanglement. My point is that just as information or communication cannot transcend light speed in classical entanglement, so too it will not do so in quantum entanglement.
Are you 100% absolutely sure of this?
Yes, ken. *pats ken on head*

And no, apart from this bit, I'm not going to waste any more time reading your latest word wallpaper. Uwot and I and others have answered all your questions; our answers are all correct. If you don't like the answers, make up some shit of your own, whatever floats your boat. Your invented answers will be wrong, of course, but that's not our problem.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Ken has this nice little rhetorical trick where he asks “are you 100 percent sure of x?” I guess he imagines it’s a big gotcha moment.

It isn’t. As I and others have explained to him, scientists do not claim that any of their theories and findings are true beyond any possibility of doubt whatever. It’s the exact same standard used in court — when the judge instructs jurors that the standard for conviction is “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” — and NOT, “guilty beyond any possibility of doubt whatever.” If the latter standard were applied, no one would ever be convicted of anything.

Hey, the world could be an illusion. See Descartes' demon, of the Matrix. The world could be flat and some extraordinary conspiracy of physics that we don’t understand could be tricking us into thinking it is spheroidal.

Quantum theory and relativity theory could both be wrong. But so far as we can tell, they’re not. Scientists have run more than a century’s worth of falsification checks on these theories, and they pass every test. That’s why scientists pay no attention to Ken.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax »

davidm wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:32 pm
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:03 pmIf the screen (and it's projector) is coming towards me at .05c, the movie will appear to run nearly 5% fast due to blue shift, and 5% slow as it recedes. This is doppler effect,
You have to use the relativistic Doppler effect.
Insignificant at that (or any) speed. At .05c incoming, classical doppler makes the movie appear run 5% fast, but dilation due to relativity slows it by about 1/8th%.
Andromeda processes are doppler blue shifted and appear to run fast, despite the fact that in the frame of our solar system, they're relativisticly dilated to a slower rate.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Lacewing »

davidm wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:17 pm Ken has this nice little rhetorical trick where he asks “are you 100 percent sure of x?”
It's a good way of casting discredit without having to disprove it. And nevermind that Ken typically appears to be 100 percent sure of what HE says (correct, Ken?).

A few other things I've noticed...

Sometimes when someone is disagreeing with Ken, he claims they are closed to seeing anything new because they're sure they ALREADY know the right answer -- yet he, himself, appears to think that he ALREADY knows the right answer (correct, Ken?).

Also, it appears that when he is being asked to explain or acknowledge something he has wrongly assumed or said, he'll claim that he is here to learn how to communicate better. In other words, he is suggesting that the problem is COMMUNICATION... rather than anything he might think, claim, or miss (correct, Ken?).

He is, after all, viewing everything from the "One single view" which can fathom ALL (correct, Ken?).... and seems to think/assume that we/others are not (correct, Ken?).
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:10 am
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:48 amAbsolutely 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?
Yes. A digital clock that runs off batteries will tick away at the same rate, when it is traveling at any speed, as a clock on earth does, because it was created to function that way. As long as the power source is sufficient that clock will keep ticking along at the same rate. As will be measured and verified when that clock arrives at its destination. For example let us say the destination is a planet four light years, and let us imagine that the clock can travel at the speed of light, then it will take the clock four years to travel that distance. You say that the clock will not have changed. I say the clock will be four years advanced.

If an observer was to go along for the ride and when they arrived they looked back towards earth, then what they would be seeing was earth four years "in the past", from their now relative perspective. Earth would look the same as at the moment they left, so it would APPEAR that they had traveled that distance instantaneously, or as some would say in no time at all. However, from prior knowledge that observer is well aware that was is being observed and feels like is real is NOT actually true. With hindsight the observer knows that what is ONLY APPEARING as being as to have taken no time at all REALLY has taken four years, which makes sense because for the past four years the observer as been seeing their clock tick away for four years and has slept, ate, lived just like four years has past. The face in the mirror has also aged. If, however, the observer looked back at earth and could see that earth was four years prior to them leaving earth, then they would be questioning just how long they actually took.

Time does NOT dilate, nor does length contract just because a human being observer is traveling. The "scientific" evidence for this, which you are probably looking for and seeking, will come soon enough.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:17 am Actually, I should qualify the above. It depends which way round the Earth the clocks are flying. Clocks that fly eastwards tick slower, compared to one on the ground; whereas they tick faster when flying westwards. There's a perfectly simple explanation for this in the blog/book. https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
I am glad you clarified that traveling one way, supposedly, causes a slow down while traveling the other way speeds up.
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:03 pmIf the screen (and it's projector) is coming towards me at .05c, the movie will appear to run nearly 5% fast due to blue shift, and 5% slow as it recedes.
Ah. That's not how I understand the set up. True, the train is crossing your field of vision at xc, but that is at a fixed distance. The example is at pains to make this distance as small as possible. The point I was making is that as long as it is fixed, the distance is irrelevant.
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:33 amJust 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
What I have read of it, which you are unaware of, is, as I have previously said, just a repeat of what others have already written, and which you have just repeaten in your own words.
Well ken, the bits that everyone repeats are the historical claims made by Einstein, the thought experiment he proposed to demonstrate his claims, and the experimental results which show conclusively that what Einstein claimed would happen, actually happens.
But that seems to be as far as you got, because had you read the bit where it states that what is true of photons in a light clock, is true of photons involved in every exchange of electromagnetic energy on the carriage, you would not have written this:
ken wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:47 amA digital clock that runs off batteries will tick away at the same rate, when it is traveling at any speed, as a clock on earth does, because it was created to function that way.
And because what is true of the exchange of electromagnetic processes in a digital clock, is also true of the electromagnetic processes involved in bodily functions, all of which contribute to ageing, you would not have followed it up with this:
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pmIf an observer was to go along for the ride and when they arrived they looked back towards earth, then what they would be seeing was earth four years "in the past", from their now relative perspective. Earth would look the same as at the moment they left, so it would APPEAR that they had traveled that distance instantaneously, or as some would say in no time at all.
The Earth does not set the time for the rest of the universe; which someone who bangs on about the relativity of perception should understand.
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pmHowever, from prior knowledge that observer is well aware that was is being observed and feels like is real is NOT actually true. With hindsight the observer knows that what is ONLY APPEARING as being as to have taken no time at all REALLY has taken four years...
All that means is that the Earth has gone round the Sun four times. That has absolutely no influence on the electrochemical and atomic processes on board a space ship; all of which would be subject to time dilation. The microscopic determines the macroscopic, so because all the processes that create a living, thinking human being are slowed down, the perception, thinking and ageing of that human being, are all slowed by exactly the same amount. Galileo's principle of relativity is maintained, even at near light speed, because of the effects predicted in special relativity, and verified by every subsequent experiment.
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pm...which makes sense because for the past four years the observer as been seeing their clock tick away for four years and has slept, ate, lived just like four years has past. The face in the mirror has also aged.

Not by four Earth years. You should read a bit more of my blog.
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pmTime does NOT dilate, nor does length contract just because a human being observer is traveling. The "scientific" evidence for this, which you are probably looking for and seeking, will come soon enough.
You might as well get it over with. I suspect it will be chewed up and spat out by four or five of us in under two paragraphs. After which, you will sulk and accuse us of not being open-minded, or indoctrinated by some quasi-religious cabal of scientific conspirators.
But then, perhaps you are the exception. Whaddya got, ken?
uwot
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

ken wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:59 am
uwot wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:17 am Actually, I should qualify the above. It depends which way round the Earth the clocks are flying. Clocks that fly eastwards tick slower, compared to one on the ground; whereas they tick faster when flying westwards. There's a perfectly simple explanation for this in the blog/book. https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
I am glad you clarified that traveling one way, supposedly, causes a slow down while traveling the other way speeds up.
It'll make sense if you could just lift your finger to click on the link.
Post Reply