Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:24 pm

davidm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:30 pm
complete solution to the twins paradox
Just another link of yours based on the previously held assumption that "time" moves slower with speed, and/or, that they are "at rest" while the other is moving.

There is a lot of assuming, which is being based on previous NON FIRST HAND experiences, going on here.

Every link you provide has people all thinking, assuming, and/or believing that time actually slows down with speed. They are all "arguing" their point on the presumption that time slows down.

Do you have any links where people are actually doing truly open experiments?

Saying that because I see THIS clock has slowed, compared to another one, after we traveled with it, then that must mean time slows down with speed, is a bit like saying that because I see THIS sun rising and setting, compared to earth, then that must mean the sun revolves the earth. That way of looking and/or thinking to Me is so out of date it is now becoming laughable.

The very experiment which supposedly supports and proves what most people are now starting to believe is true even showed one traveling clock speeding up compared to the supposed "at rest" one. This was supposedly because of the direction they traveled.

uwot
Posts: 4884
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:39 pm

ken wrote:
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


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...
Doh! You are referring to the Hafele-Keating experiment, which has been mentioned a few times and showed that when clocks fly eastwards, they lose time, tick less, if you prefer, relative to a clock on the surface; whereas they gain time/tick more if they fly westwards, again relative to a clock on the surface. That's because the clock on the surface is moving eastwards, due to the rotation of the Earth. But you would know that, had you read the book/blog, because it explains the result in some detail.
ken, me old china, I don't give a monkey's whether you read the book or not, but you keep making a fool of yourself by pretending that you have, when you quite clearly haven't.
Anyone else who wants to pretend to read it, can ignore it here: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:43 pm

thedoc wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:25 am
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:
It was proposed that human beings age slower with speed. I asked if that is only a guess because NO actual experiment has yet been done, that I have been made aware of.

Are you now saying that human beings age slower with speed is only a theory?

Or, is it the truth?

Or, is it some thing else?
thedoc wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:25 am
There is no use trying to explain anything to someone who believes something like this.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is no use trying to explain some thing, which opposes what some one believes is true. This has been proven countless times again and again, just throughout this forum, let alone in face to face world.

But three questions for you here, let us see how many of them you answer.

Who is believing some thing here?

Are you aware that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

What is the "something like this" that some one is supposedly believing?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:47 pm

thedoc wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:31 am
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?
No.

Were you incapable of answering My question, or just unwilling to?
thedoc wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:31 am
It's all relative. Do you have more relatives than I do?
That would be depended upon what you mean by 'relatives' here. What do you mean by 'relatives'?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:49 pm

davidm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:27 am
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?
Obviously none of them.

What is also obvious is you are NOT understanding My question.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:51 pm

davidm wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:21 am
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.

:)
Death AND taxes are NOT certain. But I think you are a long way from even considering this, let alone beginning to even start to understand this.

ANOTHER link saying the exact same repeated things, all based on already held presumptions.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:46 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am
ken wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 am
A 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.
I really wonder if you actually see the actual words that I write. In just 18 words you have twice misrepresented what I ACTUALLY WROTE, and I only wrote 22 words. I did NOT state that an inanimate object has its own abilities. And, I did NOT state that clocks do not have a mechanism. What do you think caused you to see what you saw in what I wrote and so say what you did?


uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am
There is no such thing as a magic box that just happens to show 'the right time'.
Obviously, And just to make sure this includes any thing with names like clock, watch, time-piece, et cetera, right?
uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am
All clocks count periodic events.
You are one of those who say clocks slow down when traveling at speed. So, how do you propose a clock could or would slow down at speed if they count periodic events? Do periodic events slow down with speed also? If so, then is that why clocks supposedly slow down?

By the way, from what I observe, clocks do NOT count any thing. Clocks either move at a rate set by human beings, which is basically adjusted for and to light, or clocks move at a rate influenced or set directly by light. Human beings then use that set rate of change to "measure" and observe the one and only event into different periods.
uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am
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 am
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?
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.
Not necessarily so.

Also, just for your information like I observe that there is no such thing as absolute time I also observe no such thing as absolute space.
uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am
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'.
That nearly supports the theory. But it does NOT.
uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am
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.
If that is what you believe, then so be it.

Finally you have provided an answer to MY question, in regards to a tick-tock clock, and one that even began sounding somewhat feasible. But it was just another attempt at trying to support what one already believes is true. And thankfully your answer allowed Me to see more evidence to support the contrary. Your answer did not actually show that a clock traveling to a planet four light years away traveling at the speed of light from start to finish (IF POSSIBLE) would not have changed by one second when it arrived there. What you have shown Me actually is HOW the light-clock example also does NOT work.

By the way, to a human being traveling with that clock how long would the face of that clock show the trip took?
uwot wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:53 am
ken wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:24 am
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.
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.
WHY would you state, "You may believe in it, if you so wish, ...". I am the very One who states that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing, AND, that time is NOT an actual real thing.

HOW come you are so unaware of what I have been writing and saying?

ALSO, WHY would what I am saying only be true if there were some such thing as absolute time?

Remember it is you who is one of those that say ALL things slow down with speed. There could only be a slow down, with speed, if there was such a thing as time, correct?

I am the One saying that clocks, and what is generally known as "time", ONLY APPEAR to slow down, to some people. BECAUSE it does NOT appear that way to Me at all.

Your answers are given Me more support, which I will verify before I report on them.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:24 pm
davidm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:30 pm
complete solution to the twins paradox
Just another link of yours based on the previously held assumption that "time" moves slower with speed, and/or, that they are "at rest" while the other is moving.

There is a lot of assuming, which is being based on previous NON FIRST HAND experiences, going on here.
This is all true, and thus why I'm responding. The articles are for the public, and they explain the results, but don't follow the math and the falsification experiments that only have meaning with the math. Those are in scientific journals and they don't assume anything. They measure. It wasn't until GR that the planetary motions could finally be accurately predicted. They always had to insert fudge factors before when some planet turned up elsewhere from where the math said it should be. GR finally got rid of the fudge factor.
The muon experiment is excellent evidence of relativity, but requires at least a little math to verify predicted flux rates.

So if you want to put out postings that deny relativity, pony up math that works better. If you can't, then shut up and read the public articles that say how it is, but not how we know it is that way.
The train/platform thought experiments only go so far as SR, but they're quite simple and show without math how simultaneity is ambiguous, and that dilation, length contraction and mass change all must follow from fixed light speed. All very unintuitive and thus quite open to falsification. The math is required only for predictions as to how much, which was needed to compute predictions for the falsification tests.
Saying that because I see THIS clock has slowed, compared to another one,
Clocks don't slow. It just takes less time to go from A to B by another route. Time is just like space. I take tape measures between two points, but each by a different route, and get different values. One measures less than another, but its not because one tape got longer. It just measured the greater distance. With the twins, one of them is choosing a route that covers more space and less time, but both get from A to B, and nobody's clock is slowed.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:57 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:24 pm
davidm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:30 pm
complete solution to the twins paradox
Just another link of yours based on the previously held assumption that "time" moves slower with speed, and/or, that they are "at rest" while the other is moving.

There is a lot of assuming, which is being based on previous NON FIRST HAND experiences, going on here.
What do you mean by a firsthand experience? In order to test the hypothesis that I would burn up if I leapt into the sun, do I actually need to leap into the sun?

Time dilation is observed to occur. I gave you a link to a page with TONS of confirmatory experiments -- and a link to page about how astronauts age slower than those on the ground. Did you read either?

Noax has put it most correctly. In the twins paradox, the traveling twin takes a different path through spacetime, such that when he returns to earth, less time will have elapsed on his clock than on that of the clock of the twin who remains in the rest frame.

Do you really believe, Ken, that over a hundred years of successful experimental tests that fail to falsify relativity rest on nothing but unsupported assumptions? Do you really think scientists (and mathematicians) are this stupid? Do you think Einstein was stupid?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:54 pm

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?
But is there an "at rest" clock?

If so, then where is it?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:04 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:43 pm

It was proposed that human beings age slower with speed. I asked if that is only a guess because NO actual experiment has yet been done, that I have been made aware of.

Are you now saying that human beings age slower with speed is only a theory?
thedoc wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 12:25 am
There is no use trying to explain anything to someone who believes something like this.
But three questions for you here, let us see how many of them you answer.

Who is believing some thing here?

Are you aware that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing?

What is the "something like this" that some one is supposedly believing?
The experiments have been done, ignorance of the experiments is not an excuse for denying them.

I believe what the scientists say they have learned because I don't have the knowledge or equipment to do the experiments myself.

If you don't believe or disbelieve anything then you don't know anything either.

"Something like this" in this case is Creationism, which you have demonstrated a belief in through your posts.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:54 pm
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?
But is there an "at rest" clock?

If so, then where is it?
It's at rest relative to a moving frame, of course! It doesn't mean it's absolutely at rest -- that is what relativity shows is impossible!

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pm

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.
That is your answer, which is NOT necessarily the nor correct answer.

Remember the answer to the question Does the sun revolve around the earth or does the earth revolve around the sun? ONCE USED TO BE, the sun revolves around the earth. And, that was proposed as being the correct answer, also. BUT, things are not always as they APPEAR, TO BE.

I will try again, how long would a photon take to travel from earth to alpha centauri?

By the way, I have NOT forgotten what you keep repeating. I have just been waiting for you to answer My clarifying questions. If you continue to keep avoiding them, then I continue to start again, by asking the same questions.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:20 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pm
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.
That is your answer, which is NOT necessarily the nor correct answer.

Remember the answer to the question Does the sun revolve around the earth or does the earth revolve around the sun? ONCE USED TO BE, the sun revolves around the earth. And, that was proposed as being the correct answer, also. BUT, things are not always as they APPEAR, TO BE.

I will try again, how long would a photon take to travel from earth to alpha centauri?

By the way, I have NOT forgotten what you keep repeating. I have just been waiting for you to answer My clarifying questions. If you continue to keep avoiding them, then I continue to start again, by asking the same questions.
Then I'll just ignore you, as I mostly have been -- I have not read your weekend word wallpaper for the past two weekends. I've already answered your question about the photon. Do you have another question?

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:36 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pm
I will try again, how long would a photon take to travel from earth to alpha centauri?
Somehow I suspect you don't care about the answer to this, but the math is trivial.

If A-C is 4 light years away, then it takes a photon 4 years to get there. That's what it means to be 4 light years away.
It is a frame independent answer. If in another frame A-C is 4 light hours away, then it takes 4 hours in that frame.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest