## Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:32 am WHY would it take the photon a considerable amount of time to take the trip but, to you, if an observer was riding behind that exact same photon, then the trip would supposedly now take "the blink of an eye"?
The trip is considered in different frames. Say S is the solar system frame, and T is the traveler frame, which is .999c in the direction of Alpha-Centauri relative to S.

In frame S, the trip takes just over 4.3 years since our traveler is going nearly light speed.
In frame T, the trip isn't really a trip since the traveler isn't going anywhere, and he is doing a poor job of chasing this photon which is receding from him at lightspeed as it must. After about 10 weeks, Alpha-Centauri comes to him, and during those 10 weeks, the Earth is moving and the clock there is the one dilated and only about three days of Earth-time passes while Alpha-Centauri makes the trip.
Is not traveling at a constant speed of .999 c an inertial frame?
No, it isn't. It is a speed, not a velocity, and one without reference. .999c relative to S (the reference) in the direction of A-C from Sol (the vector, required to define velocity) defines an inertial frame. The 'traveler' would be stationary in that frame and thus no time dilation. To him, the Earth guy is the traveler.
Last edited by Noax on Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

The "reasoning" is gibberish.

I'm NOT going to explain why again.
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:54 pmThe "reasoning" is gibberish.

I'm NOT going to explain why again.
The reasoning is gibberish because there is no reasoning. It is a big list of un-backed assertions based on a set of assumptions (mostly absolute time) that have been empirically falsified. I don't think ken lets the details of those falsifications get in the way of his closed-minded concepts. If empirical data demonstrates otherwise, that data is to be ignored. This is the ultimate demonstration of being closed-minded, sort of like ken insisting the red car is green because he asserts it so, despite refusing to actually look at it.
OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:32 am WHY would it take the photon a considerable amount of time to take the trip but, to you, if an observer was riding behind that exact same photon, then the trip would supposedly now take "the blink of an eye"?
The trip is considered in different frames. Say S is the solar system frame, and T is the traveler frame, which is .999c in the direction of Alpha-Centauri relative to S.

In frame S, the trip takes just over 4.3 years since our traveler is going nearly light speed.
In frame T, the trip isn't really a trip since the traveler isn't going anywhere, and he is doing a poor job of chasing this photon which is receding from him at lightspeed as it must. After about 10 weeks, Alpha-Centauri comes to him, and during those 10 weeks, the Earth is moving and the clock there is the one dilated and only about three days of Earth-time passes while Alpha-Centauri makes the trip.
Is not traveling at a constant speed of .999 c an inertial frame?
No, it isn't. It is a speed, not a velocity, and one without reference. .999c relative to S (the reference) in the direction of A-C from Sol (the vector, required to define velocity) defines an inertial frame. The 'traveler' would be stationary in that frame and thus no time dilation. To him, the Earth guy is the traveler.
The most important factor here is the relativity of simultaneity. In the frame of the guy following the photon from Earth to A-c at .999 c, at the start of his journey, the clocks on Earth and A-C read almost the same, so he is not surprised to make the journey so quickly. For the person in the inertial frame of Earth & A-C, the clocks at Earth vs A-C are reckoned to be 4.3 years off from one another at the start, so he is not surprised it takes the photon (and guy following) 4.3 years to make the journey.
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

OuterLimits wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:57 amThe most important factor here is the relativity of simultaneity. In the frame of the guy following the photon from Earth to A-c at .999 c, at the start of his journey, the clocks on Earth and A-C read almost the same, ...
I would say the clocks read exactly the same if they're synchronized in the frame of the guy making the trip. If they're synchronized in Earth frame, the two clocks differ by over 4 years in the frame of the traveler, which isn't what I would qualify as almost the same.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:57 am The clock would stop because any thing travelling at the speed of light cannot experience time which is why
photons or any massless particles are timeless otherwise they would not be able to travel as fast as they can
Is this what you are saying,
Photons or any mass less particles are timeless, because, no thing travelling at the speed of light can experience?
yes
ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am The clock would stop, because, no thing can experience time when travelling at the speed of light?

yep
ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am If photons and any mass less particles were not timeless, then that means they would not be able to travel as fast as they can?
no, light travels slower through water than in space - in both instances light does not experience time.

energy does not experience time not because it moves fast, but because it lacks mass.

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am To Me, a clock does NOT "experience" travelling nor time. Only sentient able beings can experience any thing.

all matter experiences time.
ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 amDo you really think that a clock would stop, when it is travelling at the speed of light, because it can not experience time?
If the clock moves the speed of light in a vacuum, it will not "tick". But it is theoretically impossible to move any amount of mass - even one atom (using the full energy of the universe into that one atom for propulsion will get you near light speed..............but not there, and so that one atom will still experience time (a minute for atom = 18 billon years for us).
ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am do you think the rate of change is changed by the speed the clock is going?
this.

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am
If it is the latter, then HOW exactly is speed, itself, able to infiltrate the programmed rate of change and manipulate that to what it wants to.
who knows.

how can something without mass.matter make mass/matter (and time (to the matter made))?

who knows.

E=Mc2 and so it does.

---------------------there is something more fundemental than time/space/engery/ and matter - it is from that "Thing" in which was see how some of this works..................we see the "higher orders" of this "Thing" stuff like gravity, space, time, energy, and matter.

of those 5 things, i do not assume they are on the same "level" - some (or one) may be closer to the nature of the "Unified thing" than the others.

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am My whole point is in showing that IFit takes 3 years to travel the distance of 3 light years at the speed of light, then WHY does that mean TIME, ITSELF, would supposedly stop? Do people only THINK this because they have read it some where before, or is there any actual evidence for this being even possible?
Einstiens theory posited it, and we proved it in the 1950's using atomic clocks (one in a plane the other on the ground). the clock on the plane was /billionth of a second slower after the plane landed and the compared the two clocks. thus emperically proving Einstien's theory as valid.
ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am Like I have asked before time might APPEAR to stop, to some human beings, but HOW could "time" actually stop?
time does not stop for beings with mass and made of matter.

that means unless you are a beam of light, time does not stop (BTW time does not stop for light - light transends time itself).

it slows down the faster you move - but you cannot experience the slowing down since yo are moving fast. if you had a telescope and looked at slower moving people you would see them move fast/age/die fast (while they with their telescopes would see you frozen motionless for years or decades,

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am To Me, photons are able to travel as fast as they can, because, photons are in a sense light, itself, so photons obviously travel at the speed of which they, or light, travels.
Photons, may appear, to some, as timeless but this is because they are travelling at the same rate that which "time" is measured by, which is the speed of light.
you conception of what light is is wrong.

energy is not matter, the former is not subject to Time, the latter is.

both are subject to Gravity and Space

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am As I have previously stated if a human being travels at the speed of light starting from Planet 1 P1 and stops at Planet 2 P2, which is 4 light years away, then from other human beings perspective at the starting point and at the final destination, it may appear as though time stopped and the travelling human being arrived instantly, but this optical illusion is only because of the time it takes light to travel. Time, itself, obviously did not stop, things still went on as usual.
????

optical illusion!!!!!!!!?????????

for the traveler the trip was INSTANTANIOUS!............it was only 4 years for the REST OF US non travelers!

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am The travelling human being still took some time to arrive at the destination, 4 years time to be exact.
nope. if near lightspeed it took him about 5 seconds to reach Proxima Centari.

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am This paradox can easily be observed from Planet 3, which let us say is in a equilateral triangular distance between and/or from P1 and P2. From this Planet's perspective and from what a human being on this Planet observes is the travelling human being taking 4 years to travel from P1 to P2. Time did NOT stop at all from the point of view of this observer.

Every thing is relative to the observer.
yes of course.

ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 am In fact, to Me, there is no such things as time, but that is another issue.
lol - good luck with that.
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:48 am
ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 amClocks do NOT experience time so that is NOT why a clock would stop at the speed of light.
A clock would NOT stop, travelling at the speed of light, just like a human being would NOT stop ageing travelling at the speed of light.
What you have to realise, is the role that photons play in making things happen. At the atomic level, the most important thing that happens is that a photon passes from one atom to another. In simple terms, imagine two atoms next to each other. If they are 'stationary', then a photon can take the shortest path between them and the 'event' happens in the quickest possible 'time'. If, however, the two atoms are moving together in a parallel course, then in order for a photon to pass from one atom to another, it has to take a longer path to where the atom will be when the photon arrives. So the event takes longer to happen. If, for the sake of argument, the two atoms could travel at the speed of light, then the event will never happen, because the photon is going flat out, just keeping up. While all that's going on, the Earth will still be spinning and going round the Sun, and in that sense, time will still be passing, but for the atoms, nothing happens. That is true whether it's two atoms, or two gazillion. So if you could travel at the speed of light, while days and years would still be passing on Earth, nothing at all would happen to you, and as far as you would be concerned, no time would pass.
right!
gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:59 pm
davidm wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:41 pm I read Heinlein when I was a kid; I would also say he penned the best (and most accurate) time travel story ever written, "All You Zombies." I believe the full text can be found online.
I read a lot of Science Fiction till the Genre started to be saturated with sword and sorcery, when it became too difficult to find good SciFi I stopped looking. I would read Asimov, Heinlein, Clark and others. George R R Martin is a good example, he wrote some really good SciFi and then started the "Game of Thrones" series and I stopped reading his work.
same here - not read Scifi since Cards Speaker for the Dead and Enders Game. all the other stuff i read was earlier and back in the 70's Niven, Silverburg, Skeckley, Azimov, Heiland, Bradburry etc. 1950's was the pinacle of Scifi. 40's-60's best overall era.

check out internet archive for "Mindwebs", and "x-minus one" for good scifi radioplays.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am
I have.
Again, you saying, "I have", instead of just doing.
Why would I need to keep doing it over and over?
But you have NOT done it over and over. I just keep see you repeatedly saying you keep doing it over and over, yet I have not seen it once.

Why not just show it?

The reason why you would need to do it once is so we can look at it and discuss it. But you seem consistent on NOT showing it. For reasons that only YOU are fully aware of.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmIf you're too dense or resistant to see it when it's done repeatedly for you, why would there be any point in me going to the trouble of doing it yet again for you?
How many times do I have to tell you that just because you see some thing, from your perspective, then that does NOT mean that I can see it? You have to express what you see and explain clearly what you accuse Me of, more so when you are accusing Me of saying some thing, which I may NOT have actually been saying. Only then we can discuss to see if it is just what you are seeing or if it is actually what I was saying. If you do NOT show and express what you see, in what I write, then I am totally unaware of that what YOU see.

If you just want to keep repeating that you have shown it over and over again, then that is fine. BUT doing that does NOT show what it IS that you say you see. Because I am so dense, you really do have to show it specifically AND specifically explain what it is that you are seeing. If you continue to NOT want to do that, then there is nothing that I can do about it.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am Your assumption.
What was my assumption?
The assumptive part of your statement is that I am "a long way from" discovering and/or learning blah, blah, blah.
I asked you a clarifying question, which IF YOU HAD ANSWERED openly and honestly, then it would have shown if My assumption was RIGHT or WRONG. You obviously did NOT answer that question, partly for obvious reasons.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmLook, I underlined it for you so that you can zero in on your assumption.
You accused Me of being unable to acknowledge/recognize what other people are showing to Me, which on most part I rejected by the way, but you REFUSED to look at that. I explained WHY what you said is mostly WRONG. Anyway, you then went on to say that what you accused Me of doing suggested that I do not have an open mind. THEN, I said that you are a long way from discovering and/or learning that there is NO such thing as a closed Mind. OBVIOUSLY your statement that "... you do not have an open mind." IS proof in itself that YOU ARE A LONG WAY OF DISCOVERING AND/OR LEARNING THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CLOSED MIND.

Therefore, My "assumption" was based on the very EVIDENCE that you, your self, provided. IF you had clarified My following question, then it would have be shown that My "assumption" was and IS RIGHT. Obviously it appeared as an "assumption" until you verified if it is right or not. BUT, to Me, you had already shown enough proof for Me to KNOW what IS true. So, to Me it is NOT assumption, but I totally agree that to others it would appear as an assumption.

You say there is a closed mind, therefore you are A LONG WAY FROM DISCOVERING WHAT IS ACTUALLY TRUE.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm I bet you'll still miss it.

I NEVER missed it from the outset. I just did NOT want to assume what you were seeing. I wanted you to specifically explain what you see, so that I can have a chance to reply to it, properly.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm What is the purpose of specifying "a long way from" when claiming that I haven't discovered and/or learned something?
The purpose is to show what IS. I specifically wrote that on purpose so that you would think that I was assuming. Then you would reply. I would then ask you to clarify. When you do, then I can show what IS. And this then would show more of how the Mind and the brain actually work. Using your words of "closed mind", for this purpose, illustrates even more the power of the Mind and power of the brain to deceive its self.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmAlso, if you want to start identifying what there is NO such thing as, Ken, start with all the crap you make up.
What you do you think or assume I make up?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am You make a lot of them, while accusing others of doing it.
Is there any person who does NOT make assumptions?

I have NEVER said that I do not make assumptions. I said, I do not like to make assumptions.

Also, you might be seeing a lot more assumptions than there actually is. Is that a possibility?
You're ridiculous, you know that?
To you, yes I now know that.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm You completely miss the irony.
Do I?

Just maybe I write far more purposely than you could even realize, yet?

Also, is that an assumption of yours, or a known truth?

And, would you like to clarify the irony that I supposedly miss, so that it is clear to Me?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm You continually tell people that they're making assumptions about what you say, yet when it's pointed out to you that you're doing it, you dance all around with your rationalizations (above).
Did I "dance all around with your [My] rationalizations" as you put it? Or, did I once again justly write in a very specific and purposeful way, knowing full well what would happen or be the outcome?

If it is a "rationalization" to you, then WHY? Think about the first question and what the answer IS.

I asked, "Is there any person who does NOT make assumptions?" Now, is that a rationalization or just a question posed for you to ponder, and answer, which by the way you did NOT answer?

Is My second point a "rationaliztion" to you, or just a true statement? If I have previously stated, I do not like to make assumptions, then the statement, "I have NEVER said that I do not make assumptions. I said, I do not like to make assumptions" IS just a truth, and NOT a "rationalization" at all.

And, My third point and question is NOT a rationalization it is just, a point and question.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm If you're going to rationalize it for YOURSELF, then why don't you rationalize it for OTHER PEOPLE?
Why are you thinking, assuming, and saying this?

How do you think you KNOW what I am doing?

Did you know that it is very easy to make words to APPEAR to be saying some thing, which they are NOT? Words can be used to show things but APPEAR to be doing the very opposite. In fact words are used to show 'paradoxes', which to Me are just a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmMaybe YOU see more assumptions than there actually are... is THAT a possibility?
Yes that is very much a possibility. Only when that is thought to be happening by others, and is pointed out and shown in clear specific detail, then we can look at it, discuss it, openly and honestly, and then we will find out if, or how much, I am doing it. Also, when I ask clarifying questions, and ONLY when those question are answered, openly and honestly, then this will also help to expose and KNOW if I am seeing more assumptions than there actually are. Getting people to answer clarifying questions is another matter. Until then it is only assuming going on.

Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am Tried that... over and over.
If you say so. But some sort of evidence would support what you say here better.
My evidence is recorded in this thread, where I've provided several examples.
Which if you are serious about this you would have already and now point us to them or if it was Me I WOULD highlight them by showing them here. Instead of just saying that they are, supposedly recorded, somewhere in this thread.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm There should be no reason for me to repeat them AGAIN.
But you did NOT repeat them even once. And so it is clearly KNOWN I NEVER even saw them the first time. Otherwise I have already replied to them, which when I do you seem to instantly reject or dismiss. You appear to NOT acknowledge nor accept what I say, which by the way you are under no obligation to do.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm Perhaps the problem is that you do your little rationalization dance to wave them away and forget and dismiss them.
That might be true. That might also be a complete assumption you have made, and seem to be sticking to, no matter what else is said and pointed out to you.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm So what's the point of me going through that again with you?
The only think you keep going through again and again is telling Me that you have already done it again and again.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am Done that too many times to count.
Again, if you say so, then it MUST be true and correct, right?
Why not?
I just asked you if you say that is what you are doing, then it must be true and correct, TO YOU.

The answer to why it is not correct is because YOU HAVE NOT DONE IT ANY TIME, let alone to many times to count. You just KEEP saying you have done it many times. The time it would take to do it just once would not be a tenth of the time you have spend saying you have done it many times.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm Do you think that only what you say is true and correct?
What i think is the exact same as you do in this regard. you and i both think that what we say is true and correct otherwise we would NOT say it. Is that true and correct?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm Could it be that you're so caught up in what you think -- and what you WANT to think -- that you're missing or ignoring what is actually written and recorded in this thread and in this forum?
YES. Could it be the same for you ALSO?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am Have you ever considered that every thing could be relative to the observer (an observant person) AND the observer may NOT actually be seeing things HOW THEY EXACTLY ARE?
Sure! Have YOU considered this about yourself?
Obviously. I was the One who wrote it.

So that it is KNOWN, every thing I write, I consider. I especially consider what the outcome will be of what I write because the whole point of absolutely every thing I write here in this forum is to reach the goal I have.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am Others are telling you similar things at times.
Yes that IS true, at times.

Does the more that say the same, or similar, things, at times, make the thing more true, more right, or more accurate?
When multiple people are telling you that they've already told you something, and it is clearly recorded here, and they actually point it out AGAIN to you, only to have you still dismiss or miss it AGAIN... yes, I would say there's probably accuracy in their statements.
There is accuracy in their statements in the fact that that is what they are assuming. Whether I am actually "dismissing" or "missing" it AGAIN, is another matter. By the way I can and WILL dismiss what is obviously WRONG, to Me. After careful consideration if what is said to Me appears wrong, then there is NO obligation for Me not to dismiss it, especially if I ask clarifying questions and NO clarity, nor evidence, nor proof is given.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am What people see can be a distortion, or a complete block, of what IS true and real.
Do you realize this about yourself, Ken?
YES.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm Is it possible that what you're seeing is a distortion, or a complete block, of what IS true and real?
YES, very much so.

By the way I have already explained HOW to see from a truly clear advantage point to be able to see what IS true and real. I have also explained HOW to verify if what IS being seen is from the realist and truest perspective.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmIf this is possible for people... and you are a person... then it's possible that it applies to you... correct?
Of course. i forget how many times I have acknowledged this point with you.

You come across as though you under some sort of illusion that i think or am some how better than others. The truth is i am and think i am less than all of you.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am I am here in this forum to learn how to better explain HOW YOU can observe, and see (understand), 'stuff' all by your own self, which is actually what IS.
How can YOU explain that?
The obvious answer is I DO NOT KNOW. If I knew that I would NOT be here learning how to express better.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm Why would YOU even NEED to explain that?
WHY do YOU even NEED to come on here and explain things?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm And WHO IS IT that you think you are explaining it to?
Who ever wants to or is listening. And remember I am NOT here to explain any thing to the people reading this nowadays. I am here to learn HOW to express better, so that when I can do it, then it would naturally follow that any person who is reading and wanting to understand can and will be the ones who I am explaining to.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmYou've previously said you were in this forum to learn how to communicate better.
True.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm Here you are saying that you want to tell me HOW I can observe and understand?
That is an assumption. See how easily words can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. I used the word 'YOU' specifically. But as you have previously said, "this is not all about you". Why did you think that I was directing that at you, lacewing, personally?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm Yet, you don't understand/see what people are saying and pointing out to YOU much of the time.
Or, it is not as often as assumed, or I come across on purpose as that is what is happening to Me, or if the truth be known it is happening even far more than I, and you, even realize yet.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm So how is learning and communication going to work if it's only one way?
Who says it is the only way?

Clarity helps in communication. Also, learning how to do communicate better, then one can express better.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am I have already explain HOW and WHY there is One who is completely entitled to be an Ego.
Your "explanation" is not proof of anything.
Very TRUE.

Through clarity and understanding proof becomes more obviously noticed and seen.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am To Me, you seem to really enjoy expressing what another seems to be doing...
I find it very entertaining and informative to notice what people are doing as well as what they're saying.
I find what human beings do and express VERY informative also.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am ...but not really giving the other a chance to respond fully.
That's not true, Ken. I respond to what people say and do... and then I respond to their response to that. I am not keeping anyone from responding. Why are you making up such a thing?
I did NOT say you do it ALL the time. So, I am NOT making it up at the times when you do that.

If you were truly giving others a chance to respond to your accusations of them, then you would specifically add the quote of others, which you refer to, AND, specifically explain WHAT IT IS that you see in that quote. AND THEN let them TELL YOU if what you see them saying IS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING OR NOT.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am If you do NOT provide the actual writings of others, which led you to the conclusions that you came to, then they are NOT able to provide the reasoning behind WHY they wrote "that" what they did.
I DO provide the statements I'm responding to... just as I'm doing right here. Why are you saying I don't do this?
It is NOT just providing the statements that is needed, it is, as I have said a few times already MORE IMPORTANT that you explain WHAT IT IS that you see in those statements. If you are SEEING some thing in those statements, then THAT needs to be specifically pointed out BECAUSE others OBVIOUSLY DO NOT SEE what you see.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmWhen I offer assessments about someone's repetitive behavior, it is because I've already repeated and responded to that repetitive behavior.
Is this some thing like when I offer My assessment of you repetitively saying that you have done it over and over again, yet I have repeatedly told you that I have NOT seen it once? And, when I ask you to show it, you tell Me, AGAIN, that you have done it already and ask Me questions like why should you do it again? Which by the way, unlike others I always try to answer ALL questions asked of Me.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm There is no reason for me to repeat all of those things again when I've already responded to them directly.
If you believe that is what you have done, then so be it.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmDo YOU not make assessments based on repetitive individual experiences you've had?
I am NOT sure what you are referring to here. I make "assessments" on many different things, including on both individual and repetitive individual experiences. Was there a point to this question?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm What if every time you made an assessment, you were asked to repeat all of the individual experiences which you had already discussed?
Who would ask Me that? Who would KNOW, EVERY time I make an assessment?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm It's absurd that you request this of other people... as if you were not involved in the individual discussions.
You have completely lost Me now. Either I was NOT paying attention at all or My attention got distracted at some point. Because it would NOT be any one else's fault for Me NOT knowing what you are talking about, right?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm Pay attention and remember what is being said, and then you will understand the broader references and assessments that are being shown to you.
That is right. I forgot that at times philosophy forums seem to be a place for looking at, judging, assessing, discussing, and attacking the individual persons, and what they do, instead of just looking at other things, like what is actually said and proposed.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am Another assumption you're making.
Does it really matter if I make an assumption about what I probably do more than you do?
What is the purpose of claiming what I "ever have or will" do?
To show how the ability to KNOW IS POSSIBLE.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am I laugh at just about everything.
Do you really laugh at "just about everything"?
Yes, I really do.
Okay.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm I see/feel humor most of the time. Our mad world is so delightfully and furiously mad. So wonderful... so horrific... so convincing... so vast with potential. Yet (the way I see it) ALL is ONE... playing it all out... pretending it is solidly "this or that". It's magnificent. It's funny. Humor feels like a form of love.
So, what is your response to, you do NOT come across as seeing/feeling humor at all? You always appear to be very upset, frustrated, and angry if I come across as expressing "I KNOW A WAY", for example. You come across fixated on that, and the anger that is within you about that is very obvious to see. The hatred and anger you have and feel comes across very noticeable. That hatred by the way also distorts what you see in what IS actually written down too.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am I don't frame it as "humans being stupid" though -- I think more in terms of blindly flailing with certainty.
Why do you NOT frame it as "humans being stupid"?
Because I don't typically think that way.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm I may notice some behaviors or statements that seem stupid in certain circumstances. But I think all humans are divine... all of the same stuff with all of the same vast creative capability... and creating what we do for all sorts of reasons and entertainment.
Yes we already KNOW what you think.

Any idea of what the 'reasons' are or could be?

And, who do you think the 'entertainment' is for exactly? As I pointed out previously if you find the abuse and the killing of children over money, greed, and power entertaining to you, then so be it. I just do NOT find that entertaining.

Does being divine dismiss the ability to also being stupid?

To Me, the stupidity of human beings, like the creating and loving of money over doing what IS actually right and good, is plainly obvious to see, when compared to the not so noticeable divinity of human beings "hiding" and dwelling inside of them.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am Done it many times... tired of doing it... seems like pointless effort.
WHY does it seem like a pointless effort, to you?
Because of questions like that.
WHY do you continue with Me then?

Surely it is blindingly obvious by now that I am going to keep asking clarifying questions.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 amCutting My sentences short in order to show some thing other than what was the actual context that I was referring to, does NOT help you, which by the way you have done a couple of times already.
You do that often, Ken... so I think you should take a look at yourself.
If I recall correctly I have NEVER cut a sentence in order to show some thing other than what was the actual context that the sentence was referring to. If you have any examples of when I have done that, then provide it. Otherwise what you say here is another attempt of accusing Me of saying or doing some thing WITHOUT any actual evidence for it.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmI truly do not try to change context at all when I am responding to someone.
Fair enough, you might not try to change context at all. BUT that is what happens.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm I want to respond truthfully and with clarity.
You do NOT come across that way.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm I am not trying to weaken another person in order for me to "win" something.
I do NOT KNOW of any thing that could be "won".
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm It simply helps sometimes to pinpoint the phrase that seems to undermine or reveal the supposed "intent" of the communication.
Did you mean the "perceived intent"? ONLY the person who wrote or spoke KNOWS the supposed "intent". ALL other readers or listeners ONLY perceive the intent.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmEspecially with you -- because you seem to spin off of the point so easily, which (from my perspective) convolutes the discussion and makes it almost unbearable to wade through.
But you continue to do so. It is like you KNOW there could be a point to ALL of this, of which YOU are helping to reveal?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:29 am More interesting now to ask you what the fuck you're doing?
Learning how to communicate better, AND, using the human beings of "today", through this forum, to show with evidence "future" peoples what I want to say about HOW the Mind and the brain works.
I think you could use yourself as your best test subject.
Did you NOT read what I just wrote. I just said using the human beings of "today", of which i am ONE OF.

And, how do you propose I would be the test subject to say about HOW the Mind and the brain works?

Do you KNOW how the Mind and the brain works?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 amWhat are you doing?
Laughing.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 amYou 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!
Spheres, me old mucker, what we know is that our best theories imply that the energy of a particle with rest mass, atoms and whatnot, increases with velocity. In practice, this means that to accelerate such a particle requires increasing amounts of energy, until, at light speed, the energy required is infinite. We also know that machines such as the LHC use colossal amounts of energy to accelerate particles to within sniffing distance of the speed of light. On top of that, we know that no particle has ever been observed exceeding c.
But then, you know all that. As far as 'proof' goes, it's the old 'can't prove a negative'. We can only prove that superluminal speeds are possible, by discovering something which does travel faster than light. Some physicists are trying to build a case based on entanglement, but there's a bit of work to do yet.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 amAlso, 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?
True dat.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 amHow could we possibly know that we aren't currently traveling at the speed of light.
Because we observe light moving faster than us.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 amDoes 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...
No. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that it doesn't matter how fast you are moving relative to a source of light, the speed you will measure doesn't change. (It won't be c, because that's the hypothetical speed of light in a vacuum, but there's no such thing as a vacuum. The measured speed will be a product of c and the refractive index of whatever medium you happen to be in, be it air, water, glass, an old sausage, whatever.)
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am...I mean to say, that as measured on another heavenly body, it may have a different speed altogether...
Which will be a product of c and the refractive index of whatever gunk they have in their atmosphere.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 amLet's face it, our understanding of physics is certainly earth centric, which dosen't necessarily say much, universally speaking.
Maybe; but until we find some evidence that physics works differently somewhere, there is no reason to suppose it does.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 amUwot, 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.
And to you, Spheres.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

gaffo wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:13 am
uwot wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:48 am
ken wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:22 amClocks do NOT experience time so that is NOT why a clock would stop at the speed of light.
A clock would NOT stop, travelling at the speed of light, just like a human being would NOT stop ageing travelling at the speed of light.
What you have to realise, is the role that photons play in making things happen. At the atomic level, the most important thing that happens is that a photon passes from one atom to another. In simple terms, imagine two atoms next to each other. If they are 'stationary', then a photon can take the shortest path between them and the 'event' happens in the quickest possible 'time'. If, however, the two atoms are moving together in a parallel course, then in order for a photon to pass from one atom to another, it has to take a longer path to where the atom will be when the photon arrives. So the event takes longer to happen. If, for the sake of argument, the two atoms could travel at the speed of light, then the event will never happen, because the photon is going flat out, just keeping up. While all that's going on, the Earth will still be spinning and going round the Sun, and in that sense, time will still be passing, but for the atoms, nothing happens. That is true whether it's two atoms, or two gazillion. So if you could travel at the speed of light, while days and years would still be passing on Earth, nothing at all would happen to you, and as far as you would be concerned, no time would pass.
right!
It's bleedin' obvious, but for some reason, after one month and 48 pages of 'clarifying questions' being clarified, our ken still can't get his head round it. Seriously ken, which bit do you not understand?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

gaffo wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am if you had a telescope and looked at slower moving people you would see them move fast/age/die fast (while they with their telescopes would see you frozen motionless for years or decades ...
This part is not true for special relativity. Each frame would judge the other's clock to be ticking slow, the people aging slow, etc.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:37 pm
gaffo wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am if you had a telescope and looked at slower moving people you would see them move fast/age/die fast (while they with their telescopes would see you frozen motionless for years or decades ...
This part is not true for special relativity. Each frame would just the other's clock to be ticking slow, the people aging slow, etc.
We're back to the strict mathematical rules of SR, according to which there is no acceleration. In practice though, if it were possible to see clocks in other frames, as in Hafele-Keating, for example, you would see clocks running at different rates, because that is in fact what they do.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:59 pm
davidm wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:37 pm
gaffo wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am if you had a telescope and looked at slower moving people you would see them move fast/age/die fast (while they with their telescopes would see you frozen motionless for years or decades ...
This part is not true for special relativity. Each frame would just the other's clock to be ticking slow, the people aging slow, etc.
We're back to the strict mathematical rules of SR, according to which there is no acceleration. In practice though, if it were possible to see clocks in other frames, as in Hafele-Keating, for example, you would see clocks running at different rates, because that is in fact what they do.
That's right, no acceleration.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 amHow could we possibly know that we aren't currently traveling at the speed of light.
Because we observe light moving faster than us.
The speed of any object, including humans, is c — the speed of light. However, the velocity of humans (and all massy objects) is divided between space and time — our velocity c is through spacetime and not just through space. The reason a photon is seen to travel faster than us is because all of its speed is through space and none of it through time.

See Velocity Through Spacetime for a detailed discussion.