Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4222
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote:
The Michelson Morley experiment showed that it doesnt matter how fast you are moving relative to a source of light the speed you will measure doesnt change ( It wont be c because that is the hypothetical speed of light in a vacuum but theres 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 )
Empty space is treated as a vacuum and is the medium through which photons can travel at light speed
Although it is not absolutely empty as absolute nothing cannot persist because of quantum fluctuations
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:17 pmThe 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.
In other words, a photon is seen to travel through space faster than us, because it is. SpheresOfBalance may wish to correct me, but I think that is what he was referring to.
davidm wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:17 pmSee Velocity Through Spacetime for a detailed discussion.
Thanks for that. Don't forget that SR is about what you see, rather than what is.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

surreptitious57 wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:35 pmEmpty space is treated as a vacuum and is the medium through which photons can travel at light speed
Although it is not absolutely empty as absolute nothing cannot persist because of quantum fluctuations
My point precisely.
OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:39 am
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.
Yes, of course. I suppose I was thinking about synchronization schemes. But that really only makes sense if A-C was in some frame with the traveler, which it is not.
Lacewing
Posts: 4166
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:34 pm 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?
So -- if you recognize the above statement as truth -- then why do you keep telling me that I have not done what I said, because you cannot see it?

If people are repeatedly telling you that they've done something which is recorded on the forum, they probably have. It wouldn't make sense that they would say such a thing over and over if they hadn't done it. And the reason they don't want to show you again, is because it didn't work before when they tried, and they have more interesting things to do with their energy than go in the same circles with you.

Meanwhile, you say that the reason you can't see it is because it has not been done.

But do you really think that the problem is with everyone else? Or, can you agree that your inability to see does not mean that people are not actually doing what they say they are doing?
ken wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:34 pm
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.

/...What people see can be a distortion, or a complete block, of what IS true and real.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmDo you realize this about yourself, Ken? 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.
So, if we consider that you continually request that people ask more clarifying questions (to the point that their heads appear ready to explode) in regard to your communication -- it seems clear that you're trying to steer the communication for yourself, and this would likely be based on your own distortions and blocks. Until you get those out of the way, you're not really open to communication other than your own because that's all you can see (as you're demonstrating).
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 amI 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.
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?
Your entire post was directed at me personally, Ken, and here you used the word YOU, as well. How am I supposed to know that you've switched gears and are not talking to me when you say "you"? Instead of recognizing this obvious issue for yourself, you accuse me of making an assumption.
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
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?
I'm having fun.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pmSo, 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.
Notice how you went from saying how I "appear", to telling me how I feel... which is completely inaccurate. I do not feel hatred and anger... so what then, IS actually noticeable? Your perception of me -- is THAT what you're noticing?

You have your way of communicating... and I have mine. My way is playfully rowdy. Is there a particular way that I'm supposed to respond to all of the lunatic behavior on this online stage? I'm simply playing too! Swinging my sword of logic, humor, truth, love, or craziness in whatever way seems appropriate for each situation.
ken wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:34 pm Why do you NOT frame it as "humans being stupid"?
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.
ken wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:34 pm Yes we already KNOW what you think.

Any idea of what the 'reasons' are or could be?
Okay, that sounds kind of snotty. I was simply answering your question.

I don't know why people create what they do. I create what I do because either it pleases me, or I don't know any better.
ken wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:34 pm And, who do you think the 'entertainment' is for exactly?
Who does CREATIVITY entertain? Anyone who is open to it, right? Isn't the ultimate creativity manifested from ALL THAT IS, or the connectivity of all as one? So who is entertained by that? ALL THAT IS, right?
ken wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am 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.
You're not fathoming very broadly, Ken. I thought you understood the view that sees beyond the individual human being. Don't you think that there's a broader view than that of the individual? From that broader view, wouldn't there be beauty and magnificence in all of creation? Even the ugly and destructive? Wouldn't there be love from that broader view? Wouldn't there be humor? Wouldn't it be entertaining?
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.
In what other frame could earth be four hours from alpha centauri?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:14 pmI would have thought 'elder' and 'younger' is very depended upon 'age'.
It is.
Therefore, if two bodies age at the same pace, then they would be the same age. How could they be of different age?
You're making up nonsense.
I am just asking questions. I am not making up any thing.How do you propose I am making up nonsense?

If I write questions in a way that is ambiguous or NOT clearly written to you, so that you can clearly understand them, then that does NOT mean that I am making up nonsense. That just means that you have misinterpreted or misunderstood the question. For example, we WERE talking about twins, which is obviously two bodies, supposedly being able to age differently, due to one travelling faster than the other. So, when I ask a question about how two bodies could do some thing different, which obviously was in direct relation to the twin's bodies, how do you propose that I am making some thing up? It was after all YOU who stated that they age differently, so what is it exactly that you think I am making up?

Could you be making up nonsensical assumptions about what you think or believe I am doing?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm You and I age at the same pace and yet we're not the same age (probably).
Obviously. WHY would you even bring such a thing into this discussion?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pmI see people of different ages all around me, directly contradicting your statement.
Either you went off track unintentionally or you are purposely TRYING to guide this in some sort of direction, away from what I was highlighting through My questioning.

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm If you're going to play the dumb card, do it right.
That could very easily be seen as being self-directed.

If you are going to make assumptions try and base them on some thing factual, and NOT just your perception.

Surely, considering we WERE talking about TWINS, you KNEW the 'two bodies' I was referring to was in regards to the twins AND you were just acting as if you did not notice this.

If you can NOT answer the question, and instead TRY TO shift the point away, then the only thing you are really doing is revealing the truth more.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm If your sole argument is intuition, it carries no weight here.
Well it was NOT, so that conclusion is totally wrong.

WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
If it was the former, then how is this possible? If you were not saying either of them, then what were you saying?
Probably not either. I'm saying only straight lines give preferred measurements between two points. With space (say the space between me and the car over there), one can wind the tape over a zigzag route and get a longer measure, or I can fail to take the two readings simultaneously, and get any reading I want, including zero. Likewise the preferred temporal measurement takes a straight line and is done 'simultaneously' in space, by which I mean both measurements at the same location. All your intuitions are built around this preferred sort of thinking because you never wander far enough from it. But those intuitions are total bunk if you do wander significantly from that straight line, so you quoting the intuitive rules that only apply to the fairly stationary environment you experience is an incredibly closed-minded refusal to see the larger picture, despite it being taught in schools.
AND you making absolutely and totally ABSURD and WRONG assumptions speaks for itself.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
What do you mean by 'more space'? Is that like 'more distance'?
Yes. Same thing. One stays put and traverses pretty much zero distance.
How does you propose one "stays put" AND "traverses more distance"?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
Can you clarify how this is possible? That was the question I was asking you to clarify.
No, I cannot clarify this to you. You have demonstrated no actual desire to know what you just asked, else you'd have given more open-minded answers to all the prior posts.
Again, this could be seen as being self-directed. I am NOT the one giving answers. I am the ONE asking the questions. YOU are the one giving the answers, some times. AND how closed a view those answers are can very easily been seen.

SO, what you see and come to realize, by Me asking clarifying questions, is that I have NO desire to know the answers to the questions that I just clearly asked? Obviously what the views you come to see and gather are NOT what I am doing. What you call "demonstrated" has obviously been seen distorted by you OWN thinking and prejudices. You are so blinded and distorted by your own thoughts that is becoming seriously so obvious to even others now.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pmAll I see is closed-minded denial and display of some intuitive Newtonian absolute model that has been falsified a century ago.
If that is all you can see, then that just shows and proves HOW closed you really are. Besides the fact that the assumption stop are making up are totally wrong. Your beliefs are astoundingly stupid.

The 'closed denial' could be said to be a total self-reflection.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pmNo. 4.3 years to go from Earth to A-C in that frame, assuming that both are reasonably stationary in that frame, which they are.
Making assumptions about being reasonably stationary is really rather ridiculous considering they are NOT reasonably stationary. What would you propose they could be "reasonably stationary" relative to?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pmNo. A frame was defined in the answer. The answer is dependent on that frame.

So, what you are doing is defining a frame, and then giving an assumed answer to that frame?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pmThere is no frame independent answer to that question.

Thank you for finally answering the question.
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:21 am In what other frame could earth be four hours from alpha centauri?
One where Earth/A-C are moving fast, (around 0.999999994c) either direction. Takes 4 hours to get where A-C is now. More or less time to get to A-C depending if it's coming towards Earth or heading away.
ken wrote: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:57 am
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
ken wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:14 pmTherefore, if two bodies age at the same pace, then they would be the same age.
You and I age at the same pace and yet we're not the same age (probably).
Obviously. WHY would you even bring such a thing into this discussion?
Obviously, yes, but it directly counters your assertion above. Word it more carefully.
Surely, considering we WERE talking about TWINS, you KNEW the 'two bodies' I was referring to was in regards to the twins AND you were just acting as if you did not notice this.
I know what you mean, but that is just making unbacked assertions. Two things born simultaneously do not age in parallel if they don't stay together. There is zero evidence that they would. Your intuition is based on people who always stay together.
If you are going to make assumptions try and base them on some thing factual, and NOT just your perception.

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm If your sole argument is intuition, it carries no weight here.
Well it was NOT, so that conclusion is totally wrong.
WHY would you even begin to ASSUME such a thing?
You said it was obvious. I saw no other evidence produced.
Look, if you want to know the mechanics of relativity (like questions about how far away A-C is in other frames or how to compute the age of the twins given a trip description, read an intro text on relativity. If you want to know why it must be like that, and that the naive model you have been pushing cannot be the case, most texts have a section up front about how it was worked out from only one empirical piece of evidence: The invariant speed of light. The absolute-time view you are pushing would result in variable speed of light being measured depending on if one was stationary or not. That's what disproves it, not assertions about how old twins would be after this implausible trip.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pm
What do you mean by 'more space'? Is that like 'more distance'?
Yes. Same thing. One stays put and traverses pretty much zero distance.
How does you propose one "stays put" AND "traverses more distance"?
Sorry, that was not what I meant to say. Yes, more space is more distance. In any frame, the younger twin traverses more space/distance, even the frame where he stays put at first.

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:18 pmNo. 4.3 years to go from Earth to A-C in that frame, assuming that both are reasonably stationary in that frame, which they are.
Making assumptions about being reasonably stationary is really rather ridiculous considering they are NOT reasonably stationary. What would you propose they could be "reasonably stationary" relative to? [/quote]Relative to the mutual center of gravity. Reasonable means I gave the distance to 2 digits of precision, and the two star systems will still be 4.3 LY apart after that time, and said mutual center of gravity would not have accelerated to the point that altered the result.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:23 pm Ken doesn't understand that we travel in spacetime, not just in space and not just in time. Well, Ken doesn't understand anything, come to think of it.
You have said that i do not understand anything a couple of times already. Does that make you feel better that i understand nothing while you want to appear as though you understand a tremendous amount of things?
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:23 pmAnd no, Ken, I'm not reading through your latest word wallpaper, which arrives on schedule ever weekend.
Why would you assume that I would even want you to read it or that I would even think that you would read it. You have on a couple of occasions clearly stated that you are NOT going to read any thing further of mine, which by the way you keep dishonoring your word. I do NOT care one bit if you read what I write or not. You have already shown that you are totally incapable of understanding what I write anyway.
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:23 pm I'll only look back to see if you answered my "clarifying question" about the twins. Betting not.
Yet another completely WRONG presumption of yours. I notice you did not put an amount to that bet.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

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.
Why do you human beings seem to only speak about 'different frames' when it comes to discussions about this, but not in regards to much else?

It is like 'relativity' (with frames of reference) only comes into discussions about 'relativity'? Frames of reference could come into ALL discussions about any thing which is in relation to, or relative, what one OBSERVES.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm 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,
But the traveler is going some where. The traveler is going from earth to alpha centauri.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pmand he is doing a poor job of chasing this photon which is receding from him at lightspeed as it must.
So, again the photon is traveling faster than the traveler but the photon takes longer than the traveler to take the trip, according to you, right, depending on which frame one is in?

I am pretty sure this questioning and answering discussion would be a lot easier if people could just imagine that human beings and clocks COULD travel at the speed of light. If any person wants to stay with that imagined scenario, then please acknowledge that so then I could ask you the very simple question, and following clarifying questions.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm After about 10 weeks, Alpha-Centauri comes to him,
Is that what REALLY happens? OR ONLY APPEARS to happen to the traveler?

Also, has the actual test been carried out and the actual person doing the experiment verified that this is WHAT HAPPENS? Or, is it, again, ONLY AN ASSUMPTION of what MIGHT happen?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm 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.
This is only what is assumed to happen because it has NEVER been tested, right?

By the way you also lose Me when you say things like, "... while Alpah-Centauri makes the trip". How and when does alpha centauri MAKE the trip?

It is quite illogical to propose "this is what happens" IF "this" is ONLY WHAT IS MEANT TO APPEAR TO HAPPEN, to some people.

Also, are there any links to where any person has actually experienced that occurring? Or, is that just is what is assumed to occur?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm
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.
This is only another assumption, right?

Why would some people assume that is what would happen.

As, far as I am aware, all of this is just a thought experiment and when I do this experiment the human beings on earth are NOT the traveler, (although they are travelling). Also, I do NOT see the 'traveler' being stationary at all, in that frame or any other frame. The results I get from the thought experiment are completely different from the ones being proposed here. The results I get from the thought experiment fit in perfectly with every thing else, whereas the results you are providing here contradict other results and findings, which are expressed.

Have any actual experimental tests been carried out with human beings as the 'traveler'?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

The answer is wrong, to you.
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:54 pmThe "reasoning" is gibberish.
Of course it is, to you. You were NEVER open to any of it.

You did NOT even ask one clarifying question. You have YOUR answer already. You BELIEVE it is absolutely correct. Therefore, ANY THING that opposes YOUR BELIEF you are UNABLE to see nor to understand.

It is, and was, already clearly obvious WHY the reasoning is gibberish and wrong, to you.
davidm wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:54 pmI'm NOT going to explain why again.
You do NOT have to. I ALREADY totally understand what you have expressed. Just because I am not YET able to agree with it, because there are just way to many faults with what you propose, does NOT mean that I have not understood WHAT you explained, and WHY you believe it is true. I already understand this.

The information given to you, and which you just repeat, to "support" the conclusion that you have ALREADY arrived at and will NOT consider, on first glance, seems to stand up. It is just the way that that information is manipulated and explained, to support already held presumptions and conclusions, can be convincing, to the uninitiated. BUT on closer, and a more thorough, inspection the flaws and the faults in the "information" come to be very easily noticed and seen. You, unfortunately, will NEVER be able to see nor understand this while you continue to BELIEVE what you do here.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:49 pm
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.
There is NO reasoning at all? Or, just none to you?

There is also NO questioning at all, from you, I noticed. There being no questions, nor any inquisitiveness at all shown, is itself showing just how actual open or closed you really are.

You just accept what is written in a book because it has supposedly all already been tested and verified, right? So, forever more what is written in those books can NEVER been seen in any other light, than what they propose now. Although, some of the findings are in stark contradiction with other things. All of this seems to be very faith based logic and reasoning you are using.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:49 pm It is a big list of un-backed assertions
AND, considering that NO human being has actually tested out the assertions that you are making here, what do you propose is the actual backed up evidence and support that you have for your assertions?

By the way what I wrote was only a tiny fraction of a list I could have used. There is more. As for being 'un-backed assertions" that is your assertion. Until tests and experiments are carried out what you are asserting here is also obviously "un-backed", as you call it.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:49 pm based on a set of assumptions (mostly absolute time) that have been empirically falsified.
And as long as that is what you BELIEVE is true, then there is no thing that any one could do to show you otherwise.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:49 pm I don't think ken lets the details of those falsifications get in the way of his closed-minded concepts.
Is there such a thing as a 'closed' Mind? If so, then what is the Mind exactly, and how can it be closed?

Also, those concepts, as I have explained, are ONLY to Me and what I observe and see. I have NEVER stated any where that My observations are true, right nor correct.

What you and others are proposing here could be true, right, and correct, or partly true, right, and correct. BUT I am just yet to see it. When, and IF, My questions get answered, then you, and/or others, might be able to show Me how what you are proposing is actually correct. Until then I will continue to remain completely open.

By the way what are you proposing here has be empirically falsified?
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:49 pm If empirical data demonstrates otherwise, that data is to be ignored.
If empirical data demonstrates some thing, then it is best to accept that. But the "empirical data" that you use here does NOT demonstrate what you are presuming and presupposing happens. You just believe the data is right, and therefore "the conclusion" MUST happen and so you have jumped to that conclusion BEFORE any actual tests and experiments could take place.
Noax wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:49 pm 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.
This appears to be a rather silly statement. EVERY thing is relative to the observer AND acceptance is about the only thing that makes some thing what IT IS. Even from the most simplest things of clarifying with others, colors, and coming to an agreement, with acceptance, of the color your assumption that some thing is a particular color is only YOUR understanding, it is NOT what IT IS. You have NO idea what another sees IF you do NOT clarify, therefore, your instant and insistent refusal to reject what another is saying without EVER clarifying allows you to instantly BELIEVE that the other is refusing to actually look at "it". When the truth is that by you doing this means that you are the one who is refusing to look at "it" (whatever the "it" is). You can give your answer, and you can provide your "data" and "evidence", you may also have EVERY other person, besides one, agreeing with you, BUT not until you actually look at "it" (whatever is being proposed) you actually have NO idea of what is nor could be possible. It is said that everyone believed the world was flat but it only took one person who observed and saw things otherwise for what is now accepted as the truth to be revealed. If galileo or others who were expressing the same as galileo were not allowed to ask clarifying questions or discuss the issue at all, then what is accepted as the truth now would have taken far longer to be seen, understood, and accepted, if so at all.

Your assumption that I refuse to actually look at "empirical data", or what you call "evidence", is totally inaccurate. You being UNABLE to see, understand, nor accept that when I say what IS, to ME, does NOT mean I refuse to look at what you BELIEVE is true, speaks for itself. If you were around a while ago you would be one of those ones, trying to fit in with the crowd, telling galileo that what is being expressed is wrong and that they have no reasoning at all, because you would be one of those who BELIEVE what has been previously written down because that is where the "empriical data" and the "evidence" is shown. Your continual ridicule and laughing at galileo, with others, is the only way you can try to keep above what the actual truth is showing, and trying to keep suppressing that is the only way you, and others, can "support" what you are assuming, proposing, and believing.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

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 am
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
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 am
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.
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 am
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.
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 am
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,
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 am
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).
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.

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?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 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!
Is it absolutely right?

Could any thing be brought up that could show otherwise or is what is being proposed here indisputable?

I can see where what might be the flaw(s), which has led people seeing what they have, which may show otherwise. But considering, to some, I do not understand any thing, or not much at all, there must not be any flaws and what I see and observe is just wrong. Therefore, is also not open to being looked at nor to being discussed. The questions I want to ask could NOT be clarified because the answers might lead to rejecting what is currently held as being true, right, AND correct.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

gaffo wrote: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:30 am
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.
I have never read any science fiction. In fact I have hardly read much literature at all, which most here would not be surprised at at all.