uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am
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,
So what?
It could also be said, by some, the bits that everyone repeats are the historical claims made by jesus, but I would still question, "So what?"
You like to make it known that you have written a book. But as I have said before, you are only re-writing what others have already written. Those repeated words you use are just (in) "your" words.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am the thought experiment he proposed to demonstrate his claims, and the experimental results which show conclusively that what Einstein claimed would happen, actually happens.
So what?
What did einstein claim would happen, to you?
I have already explained how through bias confirmation any person can make things APPEAR to happen. With already held biases people ONLY see and believe what they want to see and believe anyway.
Your already held biases are easily seen, and they explain WHY you write the way you do.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amBut 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.
WHY do you persist in making assumptions. By the way your assumption is, once again, wrong. I did NOT write that because of what you assumed. I wrote that because to a traveler traveling with a digital clock, does the clock tick away at the same rate as a clock on earth would?
As for einstein, some thought experiment proposed to demonstrate what was claimed, and what actually happens, can easily be explained. But I can NOT get out of peoples' heads what they already believe is the truth. If people do not open themselves up, then I will not do it for them.
Lets start by you explaining WHAT do you perceive was the claim made by einstein?
Then we can look at that, and then I will explain what I claim.
But what was claimed by einstein can probably be quickly shown to be true in such a very easy and simple way anyway, without all the unnecessary things being discussed here. People here want to go on and on about looking at
other peoples clocks from different frames of references. But by looking at one's
own clock from ALL frames of references
what IS observed shows
what IS true. Besides the fact that one could NEVER see another's clock, if both the observer and the other's clock are not in a relatively still reference frame, it has supposedly already been proven that depending on which way one is traveling around the earth one clock speeds up while the other one slows down, RELATIVE to another clock, which only puts more confusing information into the mix.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amAnd 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:
JUST BECAUSE you write stuff down, which you have just copied from what others have written down, does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT mean it is absolutely true and/or correct. Can you even fathom that?
Also, the very reason you give, for your beliefs, is NOT some thing that I have even touched on. I have been talking about some thing else rather different. But because of My inability to be heard and understood, what I have been talking about is NOT being noticed at all.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amken 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.
WHY do you persist with this most ridiculous of assumptions? Whoever stated that the earth sets the time for the rest of the Universe?
What is it about what I said that makes you think that I am talking about earth setting time?
Does a traveling person see THEIR clock ticking at the same rate as a clock would on earth? Does the traveling person perceive their clock to be ticking away no different than before they left for their travels? Does a traveling person observe their clock to tick at the same rate as if they were back on earth?
I really do not know how else to ask these simple of simple questions without others making some sort of assumption.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amken 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.
YES EXACTLY. And that is ALL that it was meant to mean.
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.[/quote]
I am so useless at explaining things that it is becoming very close to be unbelievable.I have NOT, and I will repeat NOT, and NEVER have been discussing any thing in relation to electrochemical nor to atomical processes, anywhere.
Also, if one believes time dilation is an actual and true thing, then obviously they will have to then look for and "find" that what, supposedly, causes time dilation.
Are you seriously suggesting that a human being in a space ship who traveled at the speed of light (IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE) to another planet from earth, four light years away would arrive just about instantly and thus would just about NOT age at all?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am The microscopic determines the macroscopic, so because all the processes that create a living, thinking human being are slowed down,
But HOW can things slow down just because they travel at speed?
And, what is the 'slow down' relative to?
What is there to measure the "slow down" from?
Answer them, then we can proceed to delve into this far more thoroughy.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amthe perception, thinking and ageing of that human being, are all slowed by exactly the same amount.
If you so believe.
What evidence do you have that a human being slows down at speed?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am 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.
If you so believe.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amken 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.
How much has it aged by? What could you possibly use as a reference frame or point to make the measurement from?
What was the human being doing for the four years that it took for that trip to take? Or, do you still believe that it did not take any time at all?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am You should read a bit more of my blog.
Why "should" I read it? And, that is assuming I have not already read it. What i have seen in your blog there are some things that could be corrected. Are you suggesting that your blog is 100% absolutely true and correct?
You really have NO idea what I have been saying, and have been trying to explain here, have you?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amken 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.
Might as well get WHAT over with?
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amI suspect it will be chewed up and spat out by four or five of us in under two paragraphs.
Once again, ANOTHER assumption, without ANY actual evidence nor proof.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am After which, you will sulk and accuse us of not being open-minded, or indoctrinated by some quasi-religious cabal of scientific conspirators.
Yet another assumption.
WHY make the assumption about what I will do? The more you assume, then the more you are proving to others, by your own self, that you are NOT open. By the way "open-minded" is NOT a correct term to use. But one has to KNOW what the Mind is, and how the Mind and the brain work first, to be able to fully understand this.
uwot wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 amBut then, perhaps you are the exception. Whaddya got, ken?
I have got LOTS. But because of My inability to be understood, for now, I am NOT yet able to express it. I am so useless at communicating that I can NOT even ask very simple clarifying questions without getting other responses then an answer to the actual simple question.
For example, What is 'time'? And, what is 'space'?
For Me to be able to explain successfully how time does NOT dilate and distance does NOT contract to each person, then I NEED to know what they perceive 'time' and 'space' to be. I can NOT explain some thing if we are NOT seeing the same things.