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 » Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
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.
How do you know this? If no step-by-step examples have been given, then what are you basing that assumption on?

Why not try showing some examples AND allowing Me to respond, and then you can respond back? Through this two-way discussing, what is actually true will come to light, for all to see.
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
Your inability to acknowledge/recognize what other people are seeing and showing to you suggests that you do not have an open mind.
How many times do I have to tell you that just because you see some thing then that in of itself does NOT make it correct?

I ACKNOWLEDGE and RECOGNIZE what you see (I some times purposefully write so that is what you WILL see. There is a reason I do this, as has been previously explained.) BUT I do NOT have to accept your account of there being contradictions and/or inconsistencies in what I write. I am the writer so only I KNOW what is meant in what I write. And, a truly open person clarifies with the writer/speaker. A truly open person does NOT make assumptions about what another person writes or says.

There is NO such thing as a closed Mind, but you are a long way from discovering and/or learning this just yet.
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
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).
I have MANY times extended the offer to be challenged about what I say AND to clarify with Me about what I am actually saying and meaning. But to some people who see "contradictions" and/or "inconsistencies" in what I write they some times are NOT even open to the possibility that they may not actually be contradictions nor inconsistencies. These are the people who have to remember that NOT until they clarify with Me, the writer, then all they are stinging making assumptions, which obviously could be wrong.
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
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”?
Could well do.

Do you have a need for people to come to you? Could you, would you, keep existing if NO one came to you?

WHY do you continually look for or see perceived "failings" in My personality instead of just clarifying with Me about what I write or just concentrating on exposing your perceived contradictions and inconsistencies in what I write?
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
Does their extra effort stroke your ego?
You really have a thing about ego? WHY not just discuss what I write about instead of concentrating on what might or might not be happening?
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
If you know that YOU have difficultly with communication, why aren’t YOU listening and seeing more ON YOUR OWN
WHY do you presume I am NOT doing that?

HOW do you KNOW how much I am listening to and seeing or not?
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
-– rather than asking other people to go to such extremes to show you,
So that they are actually showing, all by themselves, how much they do and do NOT know.
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
which your ego then dances and slithers around?
WHY the continual assuming?

Once again trying to look at what the personality might be doing instead of looking at the actual words that are clearly written down for all to look at and SEE.
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:20 pm
Are you playing the disconnected avoidance game on purpose, or do you really take yourself and your trip seriously?
What is the disconnected avoidance game and how is it played?

What trip are you talking about?

I laugh at how stupid i and other human beings really are, and can be, probably far more than you ever have or will.

By the way was there one actual point you made about some thing I have wrote or was your whole thread here based on trying to look at and discuss the person?

Is that is what is meant to be done in philosophical discussions?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:14 am

davidm wrote:
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!
Have you NOT taken notice of what I have said? I have NEVER said relativity is false AND I have NEVER promised what you claim here. If the truth be known I do NOT even know what the claim is for relativity. What I do KNOW is true, however, is every thing is relative anyway. I did NOT need any theory to discover that. One just needs to look at what IS to know that that is obviously true.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:15 am

davidm wrote:
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?
Yes I did. Did you see My reply?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:18 am

davidm wrote:
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?
Yes, yes, and yes.

Did you forget, you said you were NOT going to read any more of My writings.

By the way, the flaws in the reasoning in your links and in you are extremely obvious, well to Me anyway.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:21 am

davidm wrote:
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:
I have already asked you previously, tell you the TRUTH of WHAT exactly?

When you clarify this, THEN I can begin.

Could you NOT work out how to answer My question previously? Here is a hint, if you do NOT tell Me what you are actually looking, then I can NOT point out to you where to find it.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Lacewing » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am

ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
Why not try showing some examples AND allowing Me to respond, and then you can respond back?
I have.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
I ACKNOWLEDGE and RECOGNIZE what you see
No you don't.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
There is NO such thing as a closed Mind, but you are a long way from discovering and/or learning this just yet.
Your assumption. You make a lot of them, while accusing others of doing it.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
just clarifying with Me about what I write or just concentrating on exposing your perceived contradictions and inconsistencies in what I write?
Tried that... over and over.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
WHY not just discuss what I write about instead of concentrating on what might or might not be happening? ?
Done that too many times to count.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
HOW do you KNOW how much I am listening to and seeing or not?
I say the things I do to you based on me being an observant person, and having observed your words and interactions with myself and others over a long period of time. Others are telling you similar things at times. We're not all clueless about you -- we're reflecting things that many eyes are seeing, and many minds are understanding. This isn't all about YOU SHOWING US stuff! That would make no sense. But it seems to make sense to someone who is wrapped up in their separatist ego without realizing it.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
What is the disconnected avoidance game and how is it played?
How do you think it is played? Do you think it is beyond you?
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
I laugh at how stupid i and other human beings really are, and can be, probably far more than you ever have or will.
Another assumption you're making. I laugh at just about everything. I don't frame it as "humans being stupid" though -- I think more in terms of blindly flailing with certainty. :D
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
By the way was there one actual point you made about some thing I have wrote
Done it many times... tired of doing it... seems like pointless effort. More interesting now to ask you what the fuck you're doing? :lol:

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:42 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
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 just got through explaining the way to be fully understood AND also explained WHY it would take longer than you think, and then you reply with "We would be here forever if we adopted that method ..."

Do you really think that I am not already communicating as effectively as I can? Do you think I am purposely trying to be misunderstood and/or misinterpreted? Your honest answers would be greatly appreciated as you really might NOT even KNOW what I am effectively creating here.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:26 am
I know you keep insisting that I should ask you clarifying questions but I generally avoid them so you should be aware of this
I am already VERY WELL AWARE that YOU generally avoid asking Me clarifying questions. And, that is WHY My writings, at times, can appear to be very perpexling to you, and others. Do you imagine clarity would help or hinder in understanding, itself?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:57 am

uwot wrote:
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.
What do you think I have missed exactly?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:17 am

uwot wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:39 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:39 am
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
As long as I am looking a fool, to you, and you can keep referring back to your book, for sales, then you should be very happy.

As for how much of your book I have read you will never know, unless of course I tell you.

By the way, what you have written here is providing more support for what it is that I want to express, one day.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am

Ken, you keep saying you want others to ask you “clarifying questions.” So here is one:

Two twins on earth synchronize their clocks.

One twin blasts off on a spaceship and travels at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. He accelerates, travels for a while in constant uniform motion, slows down, turns around, accelerates again, travels in constant uniform motion again for a while, slows, descends to earth. He gets out of the ship and he and the twin he left behind compare their clocks. What will the clocks show?

The traveling twin aged less than the earthbound twin.
The earthbound twin aged less than the traveling twin.
Both are still the same age.
I have no fucking clue.

Please respond, and show your reasoning! Thanks!

OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by OuterLimits » Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:32 am

Noax wrote:
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.
If one is riding behind the photon at .999 c, then the trip will take but the blink of an eye.

The 4-light-year figure is for inertial frames which are more-or-less stable with respect to our solar system and Alpha Centauri.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:28 am

OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 5:32 am
Noax wrote:
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.
The 4-light-year figure is for inertial frames which are more-or-less stable with respect to our solar system and Alpha Centauri.
Well, I gave an example with a different frame, but it was not entirely correct.
If in another frame A-C is 4 light hours away 'now', it will take 4 hours for light to get where A-C is 'now', but A-C probably won't be there since it would have moved in those 4 hours. The photon will actually take much less or much more time to actually reach A-C depending on which way it is heading. So we need to compute the distance to where A-C will be when the photon gets there.
If one is riding behind the photon at .999 c, then the trip will take but the blink of an eye.
In the Earth frame, the photon gets there in say 4.3 years and the guy following at .999c gets there in 4.304 years. In the frame of the traveler, A-C comes to him after about 70 days while the traveler doesn't actually travel anywhere. Not quite an eye blink yet. I think the photon meets A-C about half way and thus takes about 35 days to reach it. It is a funny way to ride behind a photon if you don't actually go after it, but just stay put.

uwot
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Mon Nov 20, 2017 9:42 am

ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:57 am
uwot wrote:
Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:10 am
Dunno how you have managed to miss it, but that is exactly what I have been saying all along.
What do you think I have missed exactly?
The entire chapter that:
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:50 pm
...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...
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:17 am
As for how much of your book I have read you will never know, unless of course I tell you.
It's not difficult to work out.
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:17 am
By the way, what you have written here is providing more support for what it is that I want to express, one day.
Happy to be of service. I'd make it quick though, I don't know how long any of us can maintain an interest.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2833
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by -1- » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:13 pm

davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
Ken, you keep saying you want others to ask you “clarifying questions.” So here is one:

Two twins on earth synchronize their clocks.

One twin blasts off on a spaceship and travels at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. He accelerates, travels for a while in constant uniform motion, slows down, turns around, accelerates again, travels in constant uniform motion again for a while, slows, descends to earth. He gets out of the ship and he and the twin he left behind compare their clocks. What will the clocks show?

The traveling twin aged less than the earthbound twin.
The earthbound twin aged less than the traveling twin.
Both are still the same age.
I have no fucking clue.


Please respond, and show your reasoning! Thanks!
Can I help you, Ken? MY answer would be "all of the above", if I were a quantum mechanical sub-atomic particle. It would fit my personality so nicely, so tellingly!

I think if you guys really want to know the answer, then you have to put a twin on a contraption that follows an electron at .999 of light speed, turns around, comes back, and lands safely in Mrs. Psiribinsky's Passover dishes on the cupboard shelf. (You forgot this minute, but extremely important detail, davidm.)

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:15 pm

-1- wrote:
Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:13 pm
davidm wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:28 am
Ken, you keep saying you want others to ask you “clarifying questions.” So here is one:

Two twins on earth synchronize their clocks.

One twin blasts off on a spaceship and travels at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. He accelerates, travels for a while in constant uniform motion, slows down, turns around, accelerates again, travels in constant uniform motion again for a while, slows, descends to earth. He gets out of the ship and he and the twin he left behind compare their clocks. What will the clocks show?

The traveling twin aged less than the earthbound twin.
The earthbound twin aged less than the traveling twin.
Both are still the same age.
I have no fucking clue.


Please respond, and show your reasoning! Thanks!
Can I help you, Ken? MY answer would be "all of the above", if I were a quantum mechanical sub-atomic particle. It would fit my personality so nicely, so tellingly!

I think if you guys really want to know the answer, then you have to put a twin on a contraption that follows an electron at .999 of light speed, turns around, comes back, and lands safely in Mrs. Psiribinsky's Passover dishes on the cupboard shelf. (You forgot this minute, but extremely important detail, davidm.)
Why would we have to do that? Do I have to leap into the sun to know I'll burn up? In any event, as I've linked, we already have astronauts who aged less in orbit, including one actual twin astronaut who aged less than his earthbound twin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests