gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am
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
Is your answer an indisputable fact, to you, or to every thing?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amken 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
So, to you, a clock can 'experience' time as long as it is not moving as fast as the speed of light, right?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amken 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.
To you, does every thing with mass experience time, and every thing without mass does not experience time?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amken 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.
Is that an absolute, unambiguous, indisputable fact?
Also, what is 'time', exactly?
And, how does all matter 'experience' time, exactly?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am 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".
Are you absolute sure of this?
Could there be any doubt at all?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am 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,
Is 'theoretically impossible' the same as just 'impossible'?
Does "it is theoretically impossible" mean it could be possible or it is impossible?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amand so that one atom will still experience time (a minute for atom = 18 billon years for us).
Is this an already proved fact?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am 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.
What does 'this' mean here?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am 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.
Are you asking Me a question here or are you suggesting that no one knows, what you are saying happens here?
Do you believe that speed is able to alter the set rates of change of things?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amhow can something without mass.matter make mass/matter (and time (to the matter made))?
who knows.
Again are you asking Me a question here or are you suggesting some thing?
The answer to the question with the question mark, however, is easy to know. Some thing with mass/matter can NOT exist with some thing without mass/matter, (and vice-versa), so the very existence of some thing without mass/matter
makes mass/matter, exist, and vice-versa. The two HAVE TO coexist for some thing, to evolve, with the consciousness of ALL OF THIS. Either some thing without mass/matter or some thing with mass/matter could exist solely but if that was the case, then change, and thus evolution, could not take place. So, some thing without mass/matter HAS ALWAYS existed as long as some thing with mass/matter has existed. The "time" frame of that existence is also pretty obvious.
As for explaining "time" (for the matter made) I will have to wait for your definition of what 'time' is exactly, first.
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amE=Mc2 and so it does.
What do you mean by "and so it does"? Are you suggesting that forever more this formula could NEVER be altered in any way, shape, nor form?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am---------------------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.
Is this you saying some thing here or did some one else say this? What was the purpose of writing this?
To Me, ALL are equal, in and to the 'Unified-Everything'. Every thing is equal and if there is One Thing of "higher order", then it is Everything, Itself.
By the way what IS more fundamental than gravity, time, space, energy, and matter are the two things that make up the whole Universe, Itself.
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amken 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,
That could be disputed. But so what if it did?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amand we proved it in the 1950's using atomic clocks (one in a plane the other on the ground).
That also could be very easily disputed.
Also, who are the 'we' exactly that you propose proved what einstein supposedly posited?
Were 'you' there conducting the tests/experiments?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am the clock on the plane was /billionth of a second slower after the plane landed and the compared the two clocks.
Was there just one clock and one plane or was there two clocks and two planes?
If there were two clocks and two planes, did both clocks give the EXACT same measurement after landing when compared with the remaining clock on earth?
In fact did both "traveling" clocks give
slower readings after the planes landed compared with the supposed "stationary" clock?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amthus emperically proving Einstien's theory as valid.
Is that ALL the proof that you need to believe wholeheartedly in some thing like einstien's theory is valid? Does one test alone prove to you without any doubt that a theory is absolutely valid and correct?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amken 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).
Let Me see if I have this right, to you time does not stop for any thing, including light, is that right?
If not right, then what does time stop for?
And, how does light transcend 'time' itself? What is it exactly, which light supposedly can transcend?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amit slows down the faster you move -
Are you now saying time slows down the faster you move but time does NOT stop if you could travel as fast as the speed of light?
Also, what is generally referred to as 'time' might "slow down" for
you the faster you move, but it certainly does NOT slow down for Me the faster I move.
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 ambut you cannot experience the slowing down since yo are moving fast.
Can you experience the slowing down of time when you are moving slow?
What if
you were traveling from earth to another planet let us say, which is four light years away, at the speed of light. (For all of those who are prone to forget, this is just a thought experiment). What would you experience;
1. "time", and thus clocks, ticking away at the same rate as they did when you were on earth?. If so, then how long did the trip APPEAR to take, to you? AND how long did the trip actually take, to you?
2. an instant arrival? If so, then how long did the trip APPEAR to take, to you? AND, how long did the trip actually take, to you?
Also, when you first land what do you observe happening on earth, and at what date and time is it?
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,
Please do NOT tell Me what I would see. If that is what you believe would be seen, then fair enough, but from what I have observed, what I would see would be completely different to what you just described here. You can tell Me what you THINK I might see, but please refrain from ever telling Me what I
would see.
Also, can you see the contradiction in saying, "if you had a telescope and
looked at SLOWER MOVING PEOPLE you would
see them move FAST/AGE/DIE FAST?
HOW would you KNOW they are SLOWER MOVING PEOPLE?
Also, if you traveled INSTANTANEOUS, then you can NOT
see ANY thing.
Plus there are other contradictions.
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am
you conception of what light is is wrong.
Fair enough. So, what is the "right" conception of what light is then?
You may be able to tell Me that My concept of some thing is wrong but if you do NOT back it up with what the actual right answer is, then how are we meant to know what evidence you are basing your view on?
And, is your view and actual
right answer from YOUR perspective, or from THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH's perspective?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amenergy is not matter, the former is not subject to Time, the latter is.
According to you.
To Me, matter is just subject to and in continual change. Change is just what "time" is some times, or is generally, refering to.
Also, previously you have stated that time does not stop for beings with mass and made of matter, nor for light, but, to you, does time stop for energy?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amboth are subject to Gravity and Space
In a sense every thing is subject to every thing else anyway.
Also, what is 'both'?
Is energy and matter, energy and time, or matter and time subject to gravity and space?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am
????
Are you asking a question here? If so, then what is it?
If not, then what are you trying to say and/or show?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amoptical illusion!!!!!!!!?????????
With your quotation and question marks here are you suggesting that there can be two completely opposing views of things happening but neither of them is an optical illusion? The consequences of such a thing, by the way, would be limitless. Or, are you trying to suggest and/or say some thing else?
I agree that there can be two completely opposing VIEWS OF things happening BUT at least one of them is just an optical illusion.
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 amfor the traveler the trip was INSTANTANIOUS!............it was only 4 years for the REST OF US non travelers!
Is that an absolute fact?
Did the traveler breath, eat, drink, and change at all during the trip, or was the trip absolutely instantaneous to that person, and to them only? If, to you, it was instantaneous, when the traveler lands what does the traveler observe on the planet it left from?
Also, you seem to just be repeating more or less what most of most others say here, from what they have read and/or heard too. Do you all get your information from the same book and/or source?
Are there any original thoughts, views, insights, or answers coming through? Or is there just one source of information where this knowledge is coming from? I would have thought that human beings would have learned by now not to trust just one source of information. What if the source of information that most people are using and following here is WRONG or PARTLY WRONG? Blindly following what is written in a book, just because it is written in a book, is some thing I thought most adult human beings would have grown up and out of by now.
I have noticed that some views are not the exact same as others here, but these views only seem to totally contradict the other view. These two people and views are contradicting each other, so which one am I meant to see as being right? Both are them are proposing that they are right.
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am
nope. if near lightspeed it took him about 5 seconds to reach Proxima Centari.
The 5 seconds is relative to who or what exactly?
And, if you want to use an approximation of about 5 seconds to reach there, then does that mean to that traveler the clock they took with them only ticked five seconds? Did the traveler's body only take one or two breaths and maybe blinked only once or twice for the whole time that that trip took to travel the distance of 4 light years?
Did the traveler see the clock with them only tick 5 seconds or did they see it tick away for four years?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am
yes of course.
So, let us say a human being CAN travel at the speed of light from earth to alpha centauri, which we will say is exactly four light years away, and we have human beings on earth, on alpha centauri, and on other planets, are you saying that ALL of these human beings observe that the traveling human being actually took four years to make the trip but to the traveling human being, them self, the trip was actually instantaneous? If that is what you are saying, then I can move onto My next clarifying questions. But if that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?
gaffo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:09 am
lol - good luck with that.
Am I right in thinking you laughing out loud at what I said here implies that, to you, 'time' is an actual thing? If I am right, then what is 'time' exactly (if you did not answer that question earlier)?
And, what is the 'that', which you say, "good luck with"?
What do you propose I need good luck with exactly?