"It's only a theory."
There is no use trying to explain anything to someone who believes something like this.
If it takes a certain period (of "time") to travel a certain distance, then that is how long it takes. A clock does not have its own abilities nor its own mechanism to slow itself down nor to speed its self up.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:10 amWell 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?
I am even slower. If I knew how to explain thy Self to each or any person, then I would have already done so by now. I can only learn, from human beings, about how to communicate with human beings more effectively. If they do not explain to Me what they are unclear about and/or if they do not clarify with Me in regards to what it is that I am ACTUALLY saying, then I can NOT learn how to express more clearly what it is that I want to express.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:38 amken 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
For Me to be able to explain EVERYTHING so that you can understand completely will take much longer than you think it can, especially through writings. If we are not face-to-face where you can stop Me and question as soon as some thing is not understood, then the process takes much longer. I need to KNOW what you know and/or do not understand in order to be able to explain things so that you can completely understand. Remember this communicating with people thing is all very new to Me.
Also, just because I state EVERYTHING as precisely as I can, and I leave NOTHING out, does in no way mean that you will understand it completely, or at all. After all I might be completely insane and nothing I say makes sense. ALL options have to be looked at, if you want to truly understand.
Specifically EVERYTHING that you know about time and why you think timelessness is a feature of the Universe as you apparently do
Ask your self WHY did you automatically and instantly make an assumption?
I do NOT even know what 'timelessness' could mean, let alone even begin to think that it was a feature of the Universe.
What does 'timelessness' mean, to you?
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
YES. If, and when, the perceived contradictions and/or inconsistencies are pointed out to Me, then I can show how they are NOT that.
Who has ever said I was writing clearly and consistently? I have NEVER said that. In fact I have far more likely stated the exact opposite to be true.
Can you ALWAYS see the contradictions and inconsistencies in what you write? And, if you can see them at any time, then WHY write them?
I asked you, "Was there a point to this?" of which you have now only just alluding to that there may be some contradictions and inconsistencies that you can see in what I write. I will now reiterate that if you do not make Me aware of the contradictions and inconsistencies that YOU see, then I am NOT aware of what they may well be. If you were to make them known for all of us here, then that will help Me improve in communicating things more succinctly. Obviously, from My perspective, there are NO contradictions nor inconsistencies in what I wrote here, otherwise I would NOT have written those things. Also, and by the way, I write in a way that might make some people think there are contradictions and inconsistencies. This is to show, others, through first-hand, that if what I write is NOT clarified, then what people are observing and thus seeing and understanding is just their OWN assumptions and beliefs, which by the way is what IS stopping you and/or them from seeing and understanding the real and actual truth of things.
Are you willing to show it?
When and whereabouts did I say what the truth IS? Are you willing to point that out?
Is that EXACTLY what I said, or, did I say some thing more like, I want to be made aware of any perceived inconsistencies, and if there are any, then I would be the first to acknowledge that?
But you have NOT shown this yet. You have just re-written some things that I said, some correctly and some incorrectly by the way, but you have not explained how nor why they are unclear or are perceived as being inconsistencies, to you.
Very slowly. But this would be sped up much more if and when I am challenged and clarified, but in order for this to take place first, then what is perceived to be wrong, contradictory, and/or inconsistent NEEDS to be pointed out from the start, and far more importantly, WHY it is perceived to be wrong, contradictory and/or inconsistent NEEDS to be explained ALSO.
But that is EXACTLY what I want you to do.
That has nothing to do with what I said, nor meant.
Are you 100% absolutely sure of this?
Just to correct you. I am someone, and I do NOT measure that. THEREFORE, NOT every one measures that a moving clock is moving slower.
You might but I do NOT.
Another reason WHY it is better NOT to theorize. The answer is obvious anyway.
Again, I do NOT. And again, please do NOT try to speak for Me.
Maybe to you so far it is compelling. But it will be shown that there is a lot more to learn and understand.
If that is what you want to believe, and are not open to any thing else, then so be it. I am NOT here to tell you what to believe it not.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pmAs I said; the truth is that clocks and every other system runs slower, the faster you are going.
Clocks that change their measured rate at varying speeds does NOT prove relativity. Relativity proves itself. Relativity can be seen throughout this forum and throughout every thing that human beings see.
Thank you.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pmThanks, but we already know that the way to discover what the world does, is to look at it.ken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pmI 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.
Abilities is an odd predicate to attribute to an inanimate object, but clocks absolutely do have a mechanism. There is no such thing as a magic box that just happens to show 'the right time'. All clocks count periodic events. A quartz clock, for example, counts the oscillations of a piece of stone that has been cut into the shape of a tuning fork. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_clock
In order for the 'tuning fork' to vibrate, every atom it is made of has to move through space. If it is at rest, that movement can be described as straight up and down; the shortest distance necessary for oscillation. If the tuning fork is not stationary, the path the atoms have to travel includes the motion in the direction of travel. In other words, to complete an oscillation, the atoms have to travel further through space. But, since the energy the battery supplies does not increase, the movement through space stays the same. Therefore, each oscillation 'takes longer' and the clock counts fewer oscillations than it would if it were at rest and the face shows that 'time has slowed down'. The same is true of any process that involves atoms; biological processes are no exception, so the faster you go, literally, the slower you age.
That would only be true if there were some such thing as absolute time. As far as we know, there isn't. You may believe in it, if you so wish, but there is absolutely no evidence that it exists.ken wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 amWhat maybe relative to human beings on earth dies NOT necessarily mean it is what IS actually true and correct. "Time" ONLY APPEARS to slow down, to some of those human beings on earth when another one is traveling to, let us say, another planet at speed. But that is NOT what actually happens.
Like I said, the "invariance of the speed of light" is predicated on the existence of a true vacuum, which we know does not exist. The universe is filled with gravitational and quantum fields, all of which "wave-fronts" have to negotiate.Viveka wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:51 pmIf its shape is morphed in any way, such as through time-dilation, length-contraction, or simply following geodesics, in your 'relativistic ether' it must violate the invariance of the speed of light due to changing its geometry as a non-spherical wave-front. However, it must follow a spherical geometry, and therefore it is violating the amount of 'ticks' that are faster or slower due to the ethereal relativity.
We have answered this question literally dozens of times. Why do you keep asking it? The answer is NO.
Anything that is shown to you about the inconsistencies or inaccuracies of your communication -- even when someone does it step-by-step with examples –- is typically insufficient for you. Your inability to acknowledge/recognize what other people are seeing and showing to you suggests that you do not have an open mind. Instead, you are stuck on your own terms (which are unreliable for others), and you do not extend yourself to meet in the middle between your terms and the terms of others (which would be essential if you are wanting to help create a bridge between views). This is why it seems like your ego is involved -– which would bring in self-deception and dishonesty. You continually claim that your communication is misunderstood -– and that everyone needs to ask more clarifying questions of you. Do you have a need for people to “come to you”? Does their extra effort stroke your ego? If you know that YOU have difficultly with communication, why aren’t YOU listening and seeing more ON YOUR OWN -– rather than asking other people to go to such extremes to show you, which your ego then dances and slithers around? Are you playing the disconnected avoidance game on purpose, or do you really take yourself and your trip seriously?
Thereby, SRT is invalidated, correct? If you follow my reasoning on my thought-experiment that is indeed empirically applicable.uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:03 amLike I said, the "invariance of the speed of light" is predicated on the existence of a true vacuum, which we know does not exist. The universe is filled with gravitational and quantum fields, all of which "wave-fronts" have to negotiate.Viveka wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:51 pmIf its shape is morphed in any way, such as through time-dilation, length-contraction, or simply following geodesics, in your 'relativistic ether' it must violate the invariance of the speed of light due to changing its geometry as a non-spherical wave-front. However, it must follow a spherical geometry, and therefore it is violating the amount of 'ticks' that are faster or slower due to the ethereal relativity.
Incorrect.Viveka wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:56 pmThereby, SRT is invalidated, correct?uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:03 amLike I said, the "invariance of the speed of light" is predicated on the existence of a true vacuum, which we know does not exist. The universe is filled with gravitational and quantum fields, all of which "wave-fronts" have to negotiate.Viveka wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:51 pmIf its shape is morphed in any way, such as through time-dilation, length-contraction, or simply following geodesics, in your 'relativistic ether' it must violate the invariance of the speed of light due to changing its geometry as a non-spherical wave-front. However, it must follow a spherical geometry, and therefore it is violating the amount of 'ticks' that are faster or slower due to the ethereal relativity.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests