Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4134
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:26 am

ken wrote:
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
We would be here forever if we adopted that method but all you really need to do is communicate as effectively as you can
I know you keep insisting that I should ask you clarifying questions but I generally avoid them so you should be aware of this

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:53 am

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 am
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.
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 am
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 am
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.
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 am
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:
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 am
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pm
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.
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 am
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pm
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...
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 am
the 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 am
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.
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 am
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pm
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.
You might as well get it over with.
Might as well get WHAT over with?
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am
I 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 am
But 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.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:57 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:20 am
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.
But it has always made sense to Me. That is WHY I wrote about it previously. I just never knew that experiments had already taken place that have supposedly already proven what I have claimed, which by the way was laughed at by others here.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:11 am

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:33 pm
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am
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 am
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.
Exactly! Isn't it simply amazing that Ken cannot or will not get this bloody obvious point? ALL CLOCKS IN THE MOVING FRAME WILL SLOW, FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON THAT ALL PHYSICAL PROCESSES WILL SLOW -- the invariance of the speed of light!
I understand completely that people like you who believe that time dilation is an actual thing with speed have to then believe that ALL things slow down, which would mean that if a human being was traveling at very close to the speed of light forever more, then they would live very close to eternity also. Is this correct? The further clarifying questioning seems endless.

What you and others can NOT fathom is any thing other than what you already believe is true. What you and others are believing here is so obviously false but this can NOT be pointed out, because of the actual beliefs. Besides the fact that what uwot wrote is so far OFF from what I have been talking about, you and uwot are still NO closer to understanding what I have been trying to explain from the outset of this thread. Just like the earth revolves around the sun took many upon many years to explain because people's beliefs were stopping and preventing them from seeing what was obviously true, so is what is happening here.

What is the supposed "slow" in relation to exactly?

A clock, for example, does NOT measure any thing. It only moves at a predetermined set rate. So, any perceived "slowness" is only in relation to a human being set rate of change. Is this correct?

If My clarifying questions are NOT answered, then this speaks for itself.

By the way. the invariance of the speed of light does NOT mean that things, supposedly or apparently slow. Things APPEAR to slow partly because of the invariance of the speed of light but mostly because ALL things are relative to the observer. Because most observers are moving, then that is WHY things APPEAR to be NOT as they really are. Only the truly still Observer is able to distinguish between what is apparent and what is NOT, and thus real and true.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:21 am

OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:53 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:33 pm
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am
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:
Exactly! Isn't it simply amazing that Ken cannot or will not get this bloody obvious point? ALL CLOCKS IN THE MOVING FRAME WILL SLOW, FOR THE EXACT SAME REASON THAT ALL PHYSICAL PROCESSES WILL SLOW -- the invariance of the speed of light!
In a scenario in which nobody changes inertial frames, every single person is justified in claiming they are not a traveler, and that nothing in their IF ever "slows down".
The fact is every single person is traveling. So, really NO person is justified in claiming they are not a traveler.

Does any one disagree that from whatever speed a person is traveling they would perceive any thing other than "time" moving along as it always has?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:25 am

OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:50 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:33 pm
Right -- of course I've actually said this several times, and so has uwot. They key is that for the travelers to actually compare their clocks, they must meet again in the same frame -- and that will require one or both breaking their IF and entering an accelerated frame, in which the symmetry of the situation is broken. This has been explained by me and uwot and is standard stuff.
I just think that if one emphasizes that the two will find that one of the clocks has ticked less - rather than phrasing it that one's clock is slowed per se - that it may remove some confusion. To say that some other clock is ticking more slowly, one must have some idea of shared simultaneity, I think.
I agree it would somewhat help in the confusion.
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:50 pm
In GR, when somebody is near strong gravity, the parties can see that and agree - the one is definitely ticking slowly and the other one faster.
Have two people actually done this? Or, is this just what is supposed to happen?

If it is the latter, then removing the words "see", "agree", and "definitely" would be better, BEFORE the actual experiment takes place.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:43 am

Noax wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:00 am
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:33 pm
They key is that for the travelers to actually compare their clocks, they must meet again in the same frame -- and that will require one or both breaking their IF and entering an accelerated frame, in which the symmetry of the situation is broken.
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:29 pm
To do that, the separated observers will have to re-enter the same frame and compare clocks, as I said.
Not to take anybody eles's side, especially ken who has no intention of getting a clue, but relativity is not about observers, it is about geometry and events.
Relativity may be about geometry and events but every thing is relative to the observer. For example I have tried to explain HOW to see what actually takes place can be done by demonstrating how with three observers at equal distances apart in triangular shape on three separate planets, because distances of that length help in the thought experiment, and from those different geometrical places and observing the events that take place when one observers travels between two of those planets, then things will become much clearer. But, unfortunately, I was unable to get to that point.

I certainly have NO side so certainly do NOT want any person to go to any side. Remaining open always to ALL things is what is needed. Picking sides is what has helped in causing all the confusion over the past few thousands of years. Get rid of your beliefs, and sides, then you are much closer to discovering and learning what actually IS.

Also, the "clue" that people want Me to "get", to Me, is like the "clue" that the sun revolves the earth. What people want Me to get here is so old and out of date to Me that it is ridiculous that you human beings still even look at things the way you do. But I totally understand WHY you still do it, so I totally accept it and just continue to learn how to communicate better.
Noax wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:00 am
Clocks can be compared when in each other's presence and thus the comparison is one event. No matching of frames/velocities is required, and no observers are required. Clocks with matching velocities but spatially separated still cannot be compared without arbitrary frame assignment.

I can illustrate the twin paradox with no observers, no acceleration or need for non-inertial frames. Just clocks in freefall, no two of which ever are stationary relative to another.

As for a bit of terminology, a thing does not enter a frame. All (reasonably local) things are in all frames, but not necessarily stationary in it. Clocks need not match velocity to be compared. They just have to be in each other's presence.
Trying to look at others clocks in different velocities or frames without ever even beginning to realize that there is NO stationary frame to work from is baffling to Me.

Does any one here really believe that there is some stationary frame of reference that can used? If so, then that hopefully explains WHY some people are so perplexed about what IS already obvious.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:54 am

Noax wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:56 am
Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:25 am
Hence my argument about the shared consciousness of observers and how that ruins Einstein's thought experiment with the Train observer and Embankment observer. Instead of accepting the thought experiment of mine, they decided to discuss if communication of information can be superluminal.
Haven't paid entire attention to your posts since you don't seem to accept the principle of relativity (which pre-dates Galileo).
Einstein's relativity is not about consciousness or what is experienced. Not sure what you think the train and embankment observers are observing. Perhaps a quick link to your experiment would help since the thread is too large to hunt it down.
I assure you that you don't have something that ruins Einstein's thought experiments. Would have been done long ago if it were that easy.
Perhaps try to understand the theory before declaring it invalid.
To you, what is einstein's relativity about?

uwot
Posts: 4886
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:10 am

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:25 am
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:50 pm
I just think that if one emphasizes that the two will find that one of the clocks has ticked less - rather than phrasing it that one's clock is slowed per se - that it may remove some confusion. To say that some other clock is ticking more slowly, one must have some idea of shared simultaneity, I think.
I agree it would somewhat help in the confusion.
Dunno how you have managed to miss it, but that is exactly what I have been saying all along.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:45 am

davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:17 pm
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm
What Viveka doesn’t understand is that “now” is a relative concept in relativity theory — indeed, this is the very derivation of the name! The “theory of relativity” refers to the relativity of simultaneity.

Which is to say, what I count as “now” may not be the same as what you count as “now,” if we are different relative motion.

As illustrated here:

Image

The “now” of one observer counts the time order of events as follows: A, B, C.

The “now” of a second observer counts A, B, and C as happening simultaneously.

The “now” of a third observer counts the time order of events as follows: C, B, A.

Who is right? They’re all right!

But they clearly don’t all share the same “now.”
Actually they do...don't get me wrong you're presentation is 100% correct. I won't bother arguing because I agree with it entirely...simple and to the point, real nice actually.

But it simultaneously shows, at the same time in a different respect, ABC having space move around them, as ABC maintain that same linear pattern in a seperate dimension.

In this respect spatial movement is strictly an extension of ABC with each "bleep" happening all at once with corresponding spatial distortions.

Your presentation fails to take into account that it "exists" in time itself, and relative to a "unified whole" ABC all Bleeped simultaneously and the "curvature" (as time) you are observing is a static structure in a different respect as the Ether.
Well, I’m afraid I don’t quite get what you’re saying above, especially the “ether” part.

What this animation is showing us is that “now” is an indexical, just like “here.” What I count as “now” won’t necessarily be the same as what you count as “now,” but it’s also true that what I count as “here” won’t necessarily be the same as what you count as “here” if we are in two different places.
Of course what is counted as 'here' and 'now' NO two people can count as the same. Obviously NO two people can be in the exact same place at the exact same moment. Surely people do NOT need an animation for this to be clearly understood, do they?
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:18 pm
The three different “nows” in the above animation are best thought of as planes of simultaneity, which will differ for different observers in relative motion.
But, to Me, the animation does NOT show different observers in relative motion. Just because the figures regarding motion change does NOT mean that motion, itself, is changing nor that observers in relative motion is changing. All that I see changing is different angles from which to observe from, which obviously would alter what is seen, just as illustrated. This is just another one of those things people create and use to confirm their already held biases.
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:18 pm
We can simplify further and go back to Einstein’s original relativistic train thought experiment. A train rushes by relative to an observer on the embankment in a ground frame. An observer on the train sits in the middle of the train, equidistant from the front and back of the train. When the train reaches a point where the observer on the train and the observer on the ground are “lined up,” lightning flashes occur. One bolt hits the front of the train, and the other hits the back of the train.

In the Einstein gedanken, the observer on the ground sees the flashes hitting the front and back of the train simultaneously. The observer on the train, however, sees the flash at the front of the train first, and then sometime later sees the flash at the back of the train. This is because of the invariance of c and I’m not going to rehash this. It’s for the same reason as the different behaviors of the light clocks (or any clocks).
Are you sure that is what would be observed?

How can people say what would be observed BEFORE an actual experiment is done, and thus demonstrated so?

What would be observed if the the train is moving faster?

What about if the train was traveling as close as possible to the speed of light, then what would be observed?
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:18 pm
But since this is a philosophy board, let’s examine the philosophy of this situation. Notice that for the observer on the train, the future is fixed and unalterable, even though the train observer doesn’t know what the future holds. The future holds a lightning flash at the back of the train — not a tortilla at the back of the train, not nothing at the back of the train, not a surprise visit from Santa or Jesus at the back of the train. It’s going to be a lightning flash, period.

Is, then, relativity merely epistemological or is it ontological?
What the future holds is ALREADY obvious.
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:18 pm
I suggest it’s ontological. What relativity theory is telling us is that the future is set — it “already” exists, in a manner of speaking. What we indexically call “now” is merely a cross-section of a pre-existent 4-D reality, in which past, present and future are all set in stone — all exist — and cannot be altered.
What will be done, will be done.

Of which we are just in the process of doing right HERE and NOW.

And what is glaringly obviously already happening in the future is far more amazing than what most could even dream of at present, when this is written. Some, reading this NOW, will be be starting to work out exactly how I knew ALL of this "back then".
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:18 pm
From this we can infer as follows: We do not wholly exist at the indexical “now.” We exist spread out across time in the same way we exist spread out across space (from the tops of our heads to the soles of our feet). Our body parts are our spatial parts. Our existence spread out across time means that in like fashion we have temporal parts.

But then you can throw quantum mechanics into this nice neat scenario and once again everything may go kerflooey! :x
But why would this go anyway that you would find confusing? Are you missing part of the puzzle? ALL things, including quantum mechanics, fit together perfectly. Always WILL.

Human beings just need to learn how to just observe and listen, to SEE (understand) the perfection what IS taking place.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:08 am

Noax wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:40 am
Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:03 am
My scenario cannot be falsified by empirical observation; it's a thought experiment, which you ignored because it proves EInstein wrong even though it isn't empirically falsifiable.
Thought experiments are proof of nothing. They merely suggest ways to verify them. Yours does, and doesn't fare well.
But some people, especially who follow scientific literature, like to use einstein's thought experiments as though they actually prove some things before they are actually verified, which by the way is the exact same thing some people who follow religious texts also do, I might add. ALL 'followers' are on an equal standing leading down the same path in this regard.

People with 'following traits' like to re-repeat and express what their idols say, as though it IS the (absolute) truth already. A sad but very noticeable disposition.
Noax wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:40 am
Just because the present doesn't follow from light speed being fixed doesn't mean that it is wrong to say the present exists. If the present exists, then there is simultaneity, the present exists, therefore, Einstein is wrong.
Einstein said no such thing. His work shows that it is undetectable, but not that it doesn't exist.
Like I said, it's a thought-experiment which you have ignored.
Haven't. It presupposes super-luminal physics. Fails without leaving the gate.
ALL things once APPEARED would fail. But not until some thing has been looked at FULLY could it ever "leave the gate". NO one human being lives long enough to look at any thing FULLY to determine what could or could not "fail" or "leave the gate".

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:14 am

Noax wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:17 am
This is a better thought experiment since it doesn't presume something known to not be possible.
Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:06 am
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 would occur.
All clocks measure the same thing, just some with more precision than others.
What is the same thing All clocks measure?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:22 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:10 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:37 pm
uwot wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:28 pm

No human has travelled at anything like light speed; the current record is, from memory, something like 23 000mph. Even at that speed, the effects relativity are much too slight to be observed by a human being. However, atomic clocks are accurate enough to demonstrate the effects of time dilation at much lower speeds, and every time they show results that agree with relativity. Given that human beings are made of the same subatomic particles as atomic clocks, it is reasonable to extrapolate that they will be affected in precisely the same manner.
So, it is only a guess, is that right?
No, that's not right. :?
WHY did you ONLY answer ONE question?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:39 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:09 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:39 pm
davidm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:10 pm


No, that's not right. :?
So where is the actual evidence that human beings age slower when they travel?
Here's why astronauts age slower than people on earth.
I have lost count of how many times we have gone through this. Your link once again ONLY explains that because of einstein saying this and that, and thinking this and that, and because certain "experiments" were supposedly done, which prove what einstein thought about that proves that time slows down when a clock travels at speed, although the same experiment showed that one clock actually sped up, but anyway, all of this then supposedly proves that human beings must also age slower as well. THAT IS NOT PROOF.

Can you even comprehend My question?

WHERE is the demonstrated evidence that an astronaut ages slower?

You just keep providing links that explain that because "we" believe time slows down with speed, then human beings WILL also age slower. WHERE IS THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE that human beings age slower?

What experiment has been down to show and prove this?

What possible mechanism could be used to measure and show IF a human being ages slower, or even quicker, or not? Unless we have witnessed what a human being looks like in the future what could we possible measure the ageing of that human being against? WHAT have we got and could use to verify our findings? By the way if we have already witnessed what a human being looks like in the future, then what ever experiment we then do, we will not know if this has already been done, and thus has already influenced and affected the future human beings looking age.

Try to read My questions as they are written.

WHAT actual evidence is there that a human being ages slower?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:04 pm

Noax wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:26 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:39 pm
So where is the actual evidence that human beings age slower when they travel?
That's like arguing that fire has been shown to kill others, but no actual evidence that it might kill you.
No it is NOT like arguing like that at all.

I am not sure if you noticed or not, but I was ONLY asking a clarifying question.

And, clarifying questions are NOT arguments. So, I was NOT arguing for any thing at all.

But I will state that sound, valid arguments, and answers given to clarifying questions, could at times be seen as roughly the same things. As they both can speak for themselves, as well as provide a tremendous amount of information and clarity.

By the way am I expected to just accept and/or believe some thing WITHOUT evidence?

Am I expected to accept and/or believe some thing just because it is written in a book?

The contradictions and inconsistencies throughout scientific, as well as religious, literature are very easy to notice. But trying to show what is actually very obvious, to Me, to the believers and/or followers is another thing.
Noax wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:26 pm
Yes, your suggestion that humans, alone among all material objects, are immune from physics, is equally plausible. 10 points for Hufflepuff.
But I have NEVER suggested that the human body, alone, among all material objects, are immune from physics.

What reason, and what evidence for that reason, do you have for making that assumption?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests