Relativity?
Re: Relativity?
Or perhaps you were just being ironic here, based on your calculus answer in the determinism thread.
Re: Relativity?
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.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!
Can you carbon-date a living thing? Some of my old girlfriends would qualify for that.
Re: Relativity?
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.-1- wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:13 pmCan 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!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!
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.)
Re: Relativity?
Another person saying I deny relativity.Noax wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:24 pmThis 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.ken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:24 pmJust 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I know.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.
Clocks don't slow.Saying that because I see THIS clock has slowed, compared to another one,
That is very relative and depended.
That, again, depends on how you observe 'time' and 'space'.
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.
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?
Re: Relativity?
Experience felt through one's body, or 'personal experience' if you like.davidm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:57 pmWhat do you mean by a firsthand experience?ken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:24 pmJust 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.
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.
To SOME people.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
Re: Relativity?
Nobody gives a shit, Ken.
Please answer my "clarifying question."
Re: Relativity?
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!
Re: Relativity?
But I am NOT denying any experiments here. Do you believe I am?thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:04 pmThe experiments have been done, ignorance of the experiments is not an excuse for denying them.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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
Re: Relativity?
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: 5688
- 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.
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.
Re: Relativity?
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?davidm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:20 pmThen 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?ken wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:07 pmThat is your answer, which is NOT necessarily the nor correct answer.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.
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.
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?
I did NOT see your answer regarding the photon. What was your answer?
Re: Relativity?
I will start and try again, how far away is alpha centauri to earth?Noax wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:36 pmSomehow 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.
Re: Relativity?
If relativity is true, then it is just plain a fact, and not relative to anything like a frame.
Right. But one is older than the other when they meet, despite both of them aging at the same pace.And, no body aged slower either, right?
Different routes, as explained in the post to which you're responding.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?
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.