Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:10 pm

davidm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:01 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:56 pm
uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:03 am
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.
Not talking to you, considering that you completely ignored my thought-experiment that is empirically applicable and decided to just chime in while doing so.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:52 am

Viveka wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:10 pm
davidm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:01 pm
Viveka wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:56 pm


Thereby, SRT is invalidated, correct?
Incorrect.
Not talking to you, considering that you completely ignored my thought-experiment that is empirically applicable and decided to just chime in while doing so.
:lol:

Which "thought" experiment was that? The one/s that have nothing to do with reality?

I didn't ignore your "thought" experiment about live feed TV cameras and alleged "shared consciousness." Rather, you ignored my response. You completely ignored my point that "live" is NOT the same thing as real time, and then you offered up the same scenario for Noax to bat away, which he did, for the very same reason that I did!

You've also ignored a lot of other of my correct responses to your questions. You've got a lot of nerve!

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:58 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:52 am
Viveka wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:10 pm
davidm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:01 pm


Incorrect.
Not talking to you, considering that you completely ignored my thought-experiment that is empirically applicable and decided to just chime in while doing so.
:lol:

Which "thought" experiment was that? The one/s that have nothing to do with reality?

I didn't ignore your "thought" experiment about live feed TV cameras and alleged "shared consciousness." Rather, you ignored my response. You completely ignored my point that "live" is NOT the same thing as real time, and then you offered up the same scenario for Noax to bat away, which he did, for the very same reason that I did!

You've also ignored a lot of other of my correct responses to your questions. You've got a lot of nerve!
He never really said that it was wrong. He simply said that simultaneity is impossible on principle due to relativity. I had said that the absolute awareness would appear to have simultaneity with other awarenesses, which then he dropped the topic because I said that it's self-evident and I didn't push it further.

I'm talking about this thought-experiment:

If light is given off as a spherical wavefront from a certain light-clock, and if the motion of the light-clock on a train is sufficient, then length-contraction and time-dilation and/or following geodesics would occur. If so, would it deform the light's geometry to an ellipsoid since it travels through this space and time that is contracted and dilated?

If the light's geometry is an ellipsoid, then it wouldn't travel as a sphere even though it must in all inertial frames due to the invariance of the speed of light in all directions. However, it must be an ellipsoid or else the 'ticking' of the light-clock wouldn't change according to time-dilation, length-contraction, or geodesics.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:09 am

Viveka wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:58 am
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:52 am
Viveka wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 11:10 pm


Not talking to you, considering that you completely ignored my thought-experiment that is empirically applicable and decided to just chime in while doing so.
:lol:

Which "thought" experiment was that? The one/s that have nothing to do with reality?

I didn't ignore your "thought" experiment about live feed TV cameras and alleged "shared consciousness." Rather, you ignored my response. You completely ignored my point that "live" is NOT the same thing as real time, and then you offered up the same scenario for Noax to bat away, which he did, for the very same reason that I did!

You've also ignored a lot of other of my correct responses to your questions. You've got a lot of nerve!
He never really said that it was wrong.
Of COURSE he did!
He simply said that simultaneity is impossible on principle due to relativity.
That's WHY it's wrong! Your "thought" experiment presupposes simultaneity across frames in different relative motion -- which is impossible.
I had said that the absolute awareness would appear to have simultaneity with other awarenesses, which then he dropped the topic because I said that it's self-evident and I didn't push it further.
Right. The reason he dropped the topic is because your "self-evident" revealed yourself to be not educable, and he wisely decided not to waste any more time on your posts.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:53 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:43 pm
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?
Yes. And, what is observed and agreed upon by ALL is also a relative truth. It is thee Truth relative to that One united Observer. Although it is a Truth that no one is disputing nor disagreeing with and so it is, at that moment, about as absolute a truth as could be. People just have to remember to be and remain open to the fact that regarding even these truths because one day some observer may discover or come across another truth that dispels that ultimately agreed upon by ALL truth.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:43 pm
In your statement "others already observe, see, and understand the truth", you are one of those "others" you speak of, yes?
Yes. I hope I am no different in this regard.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:43 pm
If so, do you know many others besides yourself who "already observe, see, and understand the truth" -- or are these others rare?
No they are not rare at all.

There are just as many "others" who observe truth as there observers. The truth is here in front of ALL of us observers, and we ALL observe, see, and understand, parts of the one and only Truth. Only what ALL observers can agree upon and can accept, IS the ultimate one and only Truth.

Also, the younger an observer is generally the more truth that see. Sadly though, the elder ones generally do not listen to those who are more open, and thus KNOW the Truth more.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:21 am

OuterLimits wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:12 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:51 pm
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:55 pm


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.
Exactly. If it can not be done, then it can NOT be done.
OuterLimits wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:12 pm
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.
I do NOT have the sense the other is ticking slower nor faster nor any thing because I have no thing to verify with. Therefore, the reason I have for NOT sensing any thing. I observe only what I can, and do NOT make assumptions about what I can NOT observe.
OuterLimits wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:12 pm
It is based upon simultaneity, which is relative, and creates the impression that each has that the other's clock is moving slower.
Again, WHY make an impression it assumption about what can NOT be observed? Why not Just look at and observe what IS, instead of assuming or making an impression of what MAYBE?
OuterLimits wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:12 pm
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.
So, are you saying what will happen if we test this, or what has happened when this was tested?
OuterLimits wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:12 pm
Whoever never left the initial frame will be the one whose clock ticked the longest.
Another this might be able to be shown false one day?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:24 am

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:53 am
Also, the younger an observer is generally the more truth that see. Sadly though, the elder ones generally do not listen to those who are more open, and thus KNOW the Truth more.
Well, Ken, why don't you just go ahead, at long last, and tell us the TRUTH that shows why relativity is false. :roll: Remember you promised several times to do this but so far ... nada!

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:27 am

Oh look, ken is writing more word wallpaper trash! He seems to do this late on Saturday. I expect several more pages of his bilge by tomorrow.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:31 am

Hey Kenny, did you see this?
davidm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:57 pm
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 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:32 am

Or this?
davidm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:05 pm
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.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:42 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:38 pm
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*
Thank you for being honest about how closed you really are.

Why did you put Ken on the head? Does doing this make you feel somewhat more superior? Do you need others to support your self up?
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:38 pm
And no, apart from this bit, I'm not going to waste any more time reading your latest word wallpaper.
You have not been reading what I have been writing anyway. You have only been reading what you have wanted to see. Your bias confirmation is blindingly obvious to see.

Also, WHY did you write, "And no"? What were you assuming? And, WHY do you keep persisting to assume any thing with Me? The amount of times you have been wrong when doing this should be a hint to you to resist with this incessant stupidity.
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:38 pm
Uwot and I and others have answered all your questions;
No you have NOT.
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:38 pm
our answers are all correct.
You obvious inability to see any thing other than what you already believe is true did NOT need to be pointed out by you here. Your self-assuredness that you already have and KNOW answers was already starterling obvious.
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:38 pm
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.
Of course what I say is wrong, to you. You are NOT open to any thing other than your own assumptions and beliefs. If any thing opposes what you believe, then it will always be wrong, to you. You are carrying on just like those people who believed that the sun revolved the earth and no matter what any one else said that contradicted that belief, they to would also be wrong, "of course".

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:45 am

Kenny, did you read my last two posts? Have you read any of the links I've given you? Do you even know how to read?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:47 am

Kenny, why don't you just go ahead and tell us the TRUTH as you promised to do earlier -- we are all waiting on tenterhooks! :lol:

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:53 am

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?” 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.
Davidm says they are 100% absolutely sure that the answers they give are correct. This is more evidence of how the brain can stop and prevent a human being from seeing the actual and real truth of things. The brain distorts and blocks what the Mind actually KNOWS is correct by assuming things BEFORE and without evidence. The brain when also following its own already held views and beliefs will block out what IS, the actual truth. This can been seen throughout this forum and throughout human beings interactions with each other.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:56 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:30 pm
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.
If that is what it does, then that is not what I was intending to do. I have already achieved what I set out to do. That is to show more evidence of how the brain can so easily delude, trick, and fool itself into believing it already knows the correct answers, and how that interferes with be able to see the actual and real true answers.

Some things can already be so easily disproven, but that is NOT why I am here.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:30 pm
And nevermind that Ken typically appears to be 100 percent sure of what HE says (correct, Ken?).
Yes that is about correct. That is because I only try to say what I have experienced and observed as being correct. Whereas others have absolutely NO first hand experience nor any actual observations of what they are saying is 100% absolutely true and correct.

Just like those people who said the sun revolved around the earth was the 100% absolute true and correct answer, and if any one else says otherwise, then they are wrong, of course.

People believe things are absolutely true, even without any actual evidence for this, except some times "because it is written in a book". People with scientific tendencies are just as guilty of this wrong doing as the people with religious tendencies are.

Also, what should be noted is I have NOT yet said what IS. I have only been explaining how it is possible to actually observe, see, and understand what IS without ever having to make theories nor assumptions about what it actually could be. I have also already explained how the Truth can be verified as being the Truth.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:30 pm
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
Most of what I say are just clarifying questions, which are a bit hard to disagree with. When people do NOT answer clarifying questions, then that speaks for itself.

When people say I am wrong, which is based solely on their already held assumptions, views, and/or beliefs, without any actual evidence for this, then yes I say they are closed to seeing any thing new.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:30 pm
-- yet he, himself, appears to think that he ALREADY knows the right answer (correct, Ken?).
Yes, and that is because I try NOT to express any thing that I do NOT ALREADY KNOW, from first hand experience. The way I write about my first hand experiences generally can NOT be disputed.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:30 pm
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.
When I am asked to explain or acknowledge some thing that I have supposedly wrongly assumed, then I WILL ask for evidence, first, of what I was to supposedly have assumed wrong. Most of the time I was NOT even assuming. But without any quotes to look at then we can NOT delve into this further.

Also, I do NOT claim, what you have claimed here, when you say I do. Unless of course you can produce some evidence of when I have done this.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:30 pm
In other words, he is suggesting that the problem is COMMUNICATION... rather than anything he might think, claim, or miss (correct, Ken?).
Wrong lacewing. The question of WHY I am inable to communicate properly is a problem in COMMUNICATION.

What is wrong in what I think, claim, and/or miss NEEDS to be pointed out by others, which means including the actual perceived part, and more importantly including WHY it is perceived to be that way.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:30 pm
He is, after all, viewing everything from the "One single view" which can fathom ALL (correct, Ken?)....
Yes, i try to remain at that vantage point.

Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:30 pm
and seems to think/assume that we/others are not (correct, Ken?).
Are you/others viewing every thing from the 'One single view', which can fathom ALL?

If not, then what I think may just be true, right, and correct.

If, however, you or others are viewing every thing from the 'One single view', which can fathom ALL, then I am very interested in hearing about, and learning, how you arrived there.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests