Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

ken wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:37 pm So, it is only a guess, is that right?
"It's only a theory." :lol: :lol:

There is no use trying to explain anything to someone who believes something like this.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

ken wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:39 pm
So where is the actual evidence that human beings age slower when they travel?
Ignoring evidence means it doesn't exist, right?

It's all relative. Do you have more relatives than I do?
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?
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.

Relative to human beings only, things ONLY APPEAR to slow down, or speed up. But if things like a clock or the ageing process could actually slow down, when traveling at speed, then HOW could they possibly do this?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

ken wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 am But if things like a clock or the ageing process could actually slow down, when traveling at speed, then HOW could they possibly do this?
Seriously, how many times have we answered this question for you? Sixty thousand times? Seventy thousand? Eighty thousand?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

This is awesome. A guy in a T-shirt holding a rubber ball representing earth and a little rubber rocket explains special relativity and resolves the twins paradox! No math, no charts, no nothin' except the above. :lol:

Special relativity is as certain as death and taxes, but understanding it is way more fun.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:38 am
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

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

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.

Also, you have already proven that you will reject or disregard what I have to say without any questioning, clarifying, not challenging. You just ignore what I say some times without any recognition of this.

For your information, I WANT YOU TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. I thought that would have been extremely obvious by now.

Anyway, what does 'time' mean to you?

To Me, events occur continually, however, where and when these events occur is really very subjective. It all depends on the observer. What events are happening are ALL very relative to the observer. That is to their position, or in other words, to the position they are maintaining.

Where an observer is exactly, will influence tremendously what (the) 'time' is. What we can all agree on is that there is a here and now. But where and when that here and now IS could be in complete disagreement. EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

If, and when, people tell Me how they see what the word 'time' means, then I can better explain how there is no such actual thing as time.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:04 am
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:16 pm
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?
YES. If, and when, the perceived contradictions and/or inconsistencies are pointed out to Me, then I can show how they are NOT that.

Until then I have no idea where they are to you.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pmIf you are writing clearly and consistently, why do they look like opposites
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.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pm-- and why are you not able to discern this for yourself,
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?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pmand you have to ask me what the point is of showing it to you?
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.

Also, I did not ask you what you presumed I did here.

I did NOT previously know there were any perceived contradictions or inconsistencies until just now.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pmFor 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
Did I?

Can you point that out for all us to see? If so, then we can all take a good look at it, and then discuss.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pm". It's because you just said that.
Are you willing to show it?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pmYou say what the truth IS, then you say you do NOT tell people how any thing IS.
When and whereabouts did I say what the truth IS? Are you willing to point that out?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pmYou 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 --
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?

Remember, that just because you might see a perceived inconsistency in what I write, then that in of itself does NOT mean that it IS an inconsistency.

You have to first show it EXACTLY how I wrote it, and then allow Me to respond. Yours, or others, clarifying questioning and/or challenging of what I write simply helps in finding out what the actual truth IS much quicker.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pmbut 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.
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.

I can NOT respond, clear up, agree with, or deny any thing, until you point out the actual thing first.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pm So, how are you learning to write/communicate better,
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.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:19 pmand how else are people supposed to show you when it looks inconsistent, and is therefore unclear?
But that is EXACTLY what I want you to do.

Just copying what I write does NOT show Me how it looks inconsistent, to you. You need to be able to explain, to Me, what you see, for Me to be able to better understand you and where you are coming from. Then I can explain better, to you, what I see and how it is NOT inconsistent nor contradictory. That is if it is not. If it is contradictory, inconsistent, or wrong, then again I will acknowledge that fact.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pm
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.
That has nothing to do with what I said, nor meant.

I was asking if a trip takes just as long, for a traveller, as it takes as it is measured from earth?

For example how long does a trip take for light to travel from the sun to earth?

Whatever answer you give is that measurement from the earth, from the traveller (the photon) or from somewhere else?

And, how many different answers do you come up for this question?

Do you also provide that many answers for the same question ALL the time?
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pmBut because of the proven dilation due to speed, the clocks and every chemical and atomic interaction on his ship will take longer.
Are you 100% absolutely sure of this?

Also, just because there is a "proven" time dilation to some people that in of itself does NOT prove that every chemical and atomic interaction on that ship will take longer.
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pmThere is no 'absolute' time to measure either against.
Agreed.
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pmNot every one measures that a moving clock is moving slower.
Everyone who measures a clock which is moving faster than them measures precisely that.
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.

One blindingly obvious question would be what could it move slower in relation to exactly?

I, obviously, do NOT observe and see what you do. So, please refrain from telling Me, and others, what I see and observe. You can tell us what you see but please NEVER try to talk for Me and say what I see.
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pmJust 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.
You might but I do NOT.

Your absolute statements about "everyone" do NOT work.
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pmIt is the theory for why this happens that varies.
Another reason WHY it is better NOT to theorize. The answer is obvious anyway.
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pmSimilarly, everyone sees a clock moving faster or slower, depending on their relative speed.
Again, I do NOT. And again, please do NOT try to speak for Me.
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pmYou can interpret that as you wish, but by far the most compelling explanation is the one Einstein came up with.
Maybe to you so far it is compelling. But it will be shown that there is a lot more to learn and understand.
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:06 pmEvery 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.
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 pmYou are free to come up with something better than relativity, but if you deny that clocks run at different rates, you are demonstrably wrong.
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.

There is also no thing better than relativity. There is just what IS, and relativity is just a part of that.
uwot wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:24 pm
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.
Thanks, but we already know that the way to discover what the world does, is to look at it.
Thank you.

When human beings, stop assuming, believing, and/or making up theories (like the theory of relativity), and look from a non distorted viewpoint, then they will see what really IS.
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

ken wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 amA clock does not have its own abilities nor its own mechanism to slow itself down nor to speed its self up.
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
ken wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 amRelative to human beings only, things ONLY APPEAR to slow down, or speed up. But if things like a clock or the ageing process could actually slow down, when traveling at speed, then HOW could they possibly do this?
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.
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.
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.
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

ken wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:47 am

One blindingly obvious question would be what could it move slower in relation to exactly?
In relation to the at rest clock, maybe? :? As has been explained to you 80,000 times?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

ken wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:47 am
I was asking if a trip takes just as long, for a traveller, as it takes as it is measured from earth?
We have answered this question literally dozens of times. Why do you keep asking it? The answer is NO.

I am genuinely curious why you keep asking the SAME question over and over, when you keep getting the SAME (correct) answers? Is it that you can't remember what you read?

Did you COMPLETELY FORGET the discussion of someone traveling to Alpha Centauri at 90 percent light speed? The ship clock will measure the trip as about 2.2 years; the earth clock will measure it as about 4.5 years. That is the answer.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Lacewing »

ken wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:00 am If, and when, the perceived contradictions and/or inconsistencies are pointed out to Me, then I can show how they are NOT that.
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?
Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka »

uwot wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:03 am
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.
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.
Thereby, SRT is invalidated, correct? If you follow my reasoning on my thought-experiment that is indeed empirically applicable.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Viveka wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:56 pm
uwot wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:03 am
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.
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.
Thereby, SRT is invalidated, correct?
Incorrect.
Post Reply