Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Or perhaps you were just being ironic here, based on your calculus answer in the determinism thread.
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:15 pm
Why would we have to do that? Do I have to leap into the sun to know I'll burn up? It might be worth a try... 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!
Right, right, I've heard about that... they counted their rings, and the space guy had fewer. I mean, how else to tell the biological age of an animal.

Can you carbon-date a living thing? Some of my old girlfriends would qualify for that.
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:24 pm Or perhaps you were just being ironic here, based on your calculus answer in the determinism thread.
Bingo, but please don't call me iron-age. I'm information age!!! (And don't carbon-date me, either, please.)
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

-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.)
Sorry for misinterpreting your wit here; everyone here is so deadly serious (and frequently vile and bilious) that I just kind of reflexively interpret every response literally.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: 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.
Another person saying I deny relativity.

Where or when did I put out a post denying relativity?

When is one of you actually going to catch onto what I am actually writing and posting?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm 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.
When you have your facts right, then you might have some sort of authority to be able to tell Me what to do but until then I will NOT shut up. So, I WILL continue to ask clarifying questions. If you unable to answer those questions, then so be it.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pmThe 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.
That is what you might observe and understand, from those thought experiments. BUT that is NOT what I observe and understand, from those thought experiments. Remember, it is a THOUGHT experiment. It is NOT an actual performed physical experiment. What you SEE from a THOUGHT experiment is NOT what every one else SEES.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm 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.
I know.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm It just takes less time to go from A to B by another route.
That is very relative and depended.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pmTime is just like space.
That, again, depends on how you observe 'time' and 'space'.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm I take tape measures between two points, but each by a different route, and get different values.
That depends. If the routes are the same length, then the same values. But, if the routes are different lengths, then the values are different.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pmOne 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.
And, no body aged slower either, right?

If two human beings travel the same distance, then how can one cover 'more space' and 'less time'? What is the 'more space' and the 'less time' relative to exactly?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: 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?
Experience felt through one's body, or 'personal experience' if you like.
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:57 pm 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?
No.

Have you had first hand experience or felt that heat burns, and, have you felt the heat from the sun? If so, then you would NOT, and I repeat, NOT have to leap into the the sun to test that a human body would burn up in the sun.
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:57 pmTime dilation is observed to occur.
To SOME people.
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:57 pm[/i] 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?
Parts of, yes I did.

I asked you a clarifying question about HOW could one test IF the body of a human being who travels in a spacecraft age slower than those on the ground?

I want to know how could the actual experiment be performed AND what could the ageing process be measured against exactly?
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:57 pmNoax 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.
But that is ONLY based on the ASSUMPTION that 'time' can slow down to one person compared to another, and that 'time' is slowed down with speed.

ALL of your answers have been based on presumptions. There is NO actual evidence that 'time' can slow down because there is NO actual thing that 'time' could be measured against.
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:57 pmDo 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 EVER read what I write?

I will write it again; I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY THING.

Did you just read that? I underlined it for you so you might see it better. Do you understand that?
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:57 pm Do you really think scientists (and mathematicians) are this stupid? Do you think Einstein was stupid?
ALL people are intelligent, at times, just like ALL people are stupid, at times. People who are labelled as "scientists", "mathematicians", and/or "einstein" are NO different.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Hey, Ken, here is a clarifying question that you claim to want. Did you, uh, miss it?

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

Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:29 am Do you EVER read what I write?

I will write it again; I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY THING.

Did you just read that? I underlined it for you so you might see it better. Do you understand that?
Nobody gives a shit, Ken.

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

Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:29 am No.

Have you had first hand experience or felt that heat burns, and, have you felt the heat from the sun? If so, then you would NOT, and I repeat, NOT have to leap into the the sun to test that a human body would burn up in the sun.
How do you KNOW that, Ken? Since NO ONE has ever approached the sun, how do you know that the sun does not get cooler from the perspective of someone approaching it? You DON'T know that, do you?

Do you have any clarifying questions? Remember, I don't believe or disbelieve anything!
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: 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 amThere 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.
But I am NOT denying any experiments here. Do you believe I am?
thedoc wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:04 pm I believe what the scientists say they have learned because I don't have the knowledge or equipment to do the experiments myself.
BELIEVING is the reason WHY you are NOT open.

I have already noted that you, and others, BELIEVE what is written down in books, which without first hand experiences is only faith based beliefs. You, and others, just choose to believe in some books over other books. A fairly common trait among human beings is to base their trust and faith from the books they choose to do this from. Some just do it with what is known as "religious" books while others, such as you, do it with what is known as "scientific" books. While others remain open to just observe what IS.
thedoc wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:04 pm If you don't believe or disbelieve anything then you don't know anything either.
In a sense that could be said to be true. But if we do not go into this deeper, then we will not know what you mean by "don't know anything either".

What do you mean when you say that? To you, do human beings only know some thing only when they believe (in) it?
thedoc wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:04 pm "Something like this" in this case is Creationism, which you have demonstrated a belief in through your posts.
You are so BLINDED by your own beliefs that you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what I observe. And, the way you are going, you NEVER will. Even AFTER I explain some of My views you still can NOT see them.

I could NOT have possibly demonstrated a belief in creationism because I DO NOT believe it. Your assumptions and beliefs are making you see, and believe, things that do NOT even exist.

You have, once again, just proved, with more demonstrated evidence, of how the brain, through beliefs, prevents people from actually seeing and understanding what IS true, right, and correct.

You already BELIEVE you know what is true, right, and correct, which is what IS preventing you from seeing what actually IS, true, right, and correct.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: 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

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!
So, to you, 'absolutely at rest' is impossible. But you continue to say some things are 'at rest' relative to a moving frame. Have you ever thought about that if there is NO 'absolute at rest', then that means every thing is in a moving frame? If that is true, then there can NOT be any thing 'at rest' relative to a moving frame. Does this make sense, to you?
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5518
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

You know what I have a problem with. If no one has ever traveled at the speed of light, how could they possibly 'know' that it was the ultimate speed? I'm sure it's just a theory, while actual 'knowledge' has absolutely noting to do with it! You know, empirically!

Also, as to time dilation, in fact, there is no such thing as a stationary clock. One just cannot certainly exist, as there is no way to know that any thing or position in three dimensional space is necessarily stationary; relative to what?

How could we possibly know that we aren't currently traveling at the speed of light. Does the fact that we are in fact traveling at some unknown speed, relative to what, either subtract or add to our measured speed of light. I mean to say, that as measured on another heavenly body, it may have a different speed altogether. Let's face it, our understanding of physics is certainly earth centric, which dosen't necessarily say much, universally speaking.

Uwot, what say you, my friend?

Oh and...

Happy Holidays to all!

If you don't celebrate any upcoming Holiday, simply celebrate the diversity of life, as the gift it certainly is.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: 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

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?
If you continue to just ignore Me, as you say you do, then there is no use in Me asking you another question. Is that right?

Or, are you really seeing what I write, BUT only answering the questions; that you think I am asking, that you want to answer, and/or that you able to answer?

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

Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:36 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pmI 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.
I will start and try again, how far away is alpha centauri to earth?
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:03 am
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pm It just takes less time to go from A to B by another route.
That is very relative and depended.
If relativity is true, then it is just plain a fact, and not relative to anything like a frame.
And, no body aged slower either, right?
Right. But one is older than the other when they meet, despite both of them aging at the same pace.
If two human beings travel the same distance, then how can one cover 'more space' and 'less time'? What is the 'more space' and the 'less time' relative to exactly?
Different routes, as explained in the post to which you're responding.
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:03 amI will start and try again, how far away is alpha centauri to earth?
That is very relative and depended, as you put it. Alpha Centauri is no more an event than is Earth, and hence it has no fixed spatial separation. But it is currently about 4.3 light years away in the frame of our mutual center of gravity.