Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:40 am
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?
Human language presumes the local frame. It would add no information to be explicit about it with every comment concerning only local events. Muon discussion are not local because of the massive frame difference, despite it involving only a handful of meters. So frames get referenced there due to non-local frame more than non-local location.
But the traveler is going some where. The traveler is going from earth to alpha centauri.
Do you even know what an inertial reference frame (IRF) is? The frame of X is the frame in which X is stationary. Our traveler is stationary by definition in his own frame, something that is true even in your view. While going nowhere, A-C takes 70 days to come to him. The 70 day part is where we apparently differ. It would take 4.3 years perhaps in your view, and perhaps somebody's clock is not measuring actual time due to not being actually stationary.

Noax wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pm
and 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?
The comment above was expressed in the frame in the traveler since it states that he is stationary. Yes, the photon is faster than him since it is light travelling at lightspeed and the guy is stationary. It reaches A-C in about 35 days (halfway point) since A-C is coming towards the stationary traveler at near lightspeed.
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.
A human, or any other object with rest mass, cannot reach that speed, but can (and is) arbitrarily close to it. In the muon experiment, in the frame of the muon, it is born as in the upper atmosphere and has a life expectancy of only a fraction of a milisecond, enough time for light to move a few tens of meters. The humans below are moving so close to the speed of light that they actual hit the muon before it dies, in numbers impossible if they had to actually move the 100 km that separates the muon from the ground in a non-relativistic view. So humans have been measured at greater than .999c. Nothing says they can't.
Accelerating one from one frame to a significantly different one is not impossible but simply beyond the energy resources available to us. Humans are heavy. Easier to do it with more lightweight things. So yes, the twin experiment has been done, but humans are not accurate enough clocks to measure the difference. The high speed descriptions are not something that are within our resources.
Physical processes dilate with motion. This has been demonstrated. Human aging is a physical process, unless you declare that the human body, alone among all physical processes in the universe, is immune to this and is special.
The scenario where a human twin goes to another star is imagination since we currently lack the resources to actually do that. It would take far longer than the life of the occupant.
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?
Really happens. There is no 'appear' in relativity. The thought experiments do not involve perceptions. The 'observers' are instruments that detect signals and distance and such.
For example, if somebody on A-C watches the incoming traveler who is going fast and whole clock is dilated to a slower speed, they will in fact experience his clock going extra fast due to doppler effect (blue shift). They can't see what the clock says 'now' since the clock is not 'here'.
Also, has the actual test been carried out and the actual person doing the experiment verified that this is WHAT HAPPENS?

This is only what is assumed to happen because it has NEVER been tested, right?
Nobody has been accelerated to .999c relative to Earth if that is what you're asking, but the experiment has been done at lower speeds, yes. And verified.
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?
By it being over there (69.93 light days distant), and 70 days later, it being here.
This is something like being in a airplane going from LA to New York in 4 hours. The airplane represents the inertial frame and is stationary, and you the passenger are relatively stationary within it. But New York comes to you as the Earth rotates below you. New York is the thing moving in that Frame. LA moves away as well. Similarly, it is AC that comes you the traveler in the travelers frame where he is by definition stationary. Clocks are stationary in the frame of the wall on which they rest.'
Also, are there any links to where any person has actually experienced that occurring? Or, is that just is what is assumed to occur?
There is no special experience to it. You do it every day (see the muon description). The experience of the traveler is sitting in the confines of a box for 70 days, perhaps watching movies. There is no extraordinary experience to it.
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? [/quote]This is not even untrue in your view. No, this definition of frames has been around since before Galileo, since before they knew light had a speed. It is simply a mathematical definition of coordinates. There's no fact/not-fact about it, except the part about dilation, which relativity introduced.
Have any actual experimental tests been carried out with human beings as the 'traveler'?
So humans are special? It works for everything but human aging process? Is that what you propose?
ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:27 am
You just accept what is written in a book because it has supposedly all already been tested and verified, right?
Those guys ran the tests. I haven't personally flung my atomic clock around, and yes, I accept the findings of those who have.
By the way what are you proposing here has be empirically falsified?
Absolute time.
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.
The data is fixed light speed. If you deny that, fine, measure otherwise and rock the world. If you cannot follow your view to a non-fixed lightspeed, then you're just unwilling to think through your own model. It isn't hard and doesn't even require math.
Last edited by Noax on Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2865
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:46 pm

Special Relativity is a theory which is the highest classification in science. But theories are not statements of objective truth
and so can never be proven. They are regarded as being true but not absolutely so as they are based upon observation which
is not entirely reliable. So in science it is best to avoid absolute statements and instead reference what is thought to be true
Over time a theory may be regarded as true based on the quantity of evidence there is for it though it still can not be proven

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
You know what I have a problem with. If no one has ever traveled at the speed of light, how could they possibly 'know' that it was the ultimate speed? I'm sure it's just a theory, while actual 'knowledge' has absolutely noting to do with it! You know, empirically!
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.
So, actual 'knowledge' may have nothing at all to do with just a theory? Theories can always be improved upon, whereas what IS (or actual knowledge) can NOT be improved upon.

Again, why look at theories, instead of just looking at what IS and therefore what IS actual knowledge?

Why make up a theory or make up some thing, which may or may not be the truth of things, and try and falsify or prove that, when you could instead just be looking at, seeing, and understanding what actual IS?

Also, if you believe that what a relatively insignificant, minuscule, and unimportant things, such as what human beings do in this day and age, can create some thing which uses "colossal amounts of energy", then there is a colossal amount of actual knowledge that could be revealed to you.
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Also, as to time dilation, in fact, there is no such thing as a stationary clock. One just cannot certainly exist, as there is no way to know that any thing or position in three dimensional space is necessarily stationary; relative to what? ;-)
True dat.
So it would be better if the words "stationary" and "clock" do NOT go together, right?
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
How could we possibly know that we aren't currently traveling at the speed of light.
Because we observe light moving faster than us.
But this galaxy, or this observable universe, that we are currently traveling with might be currently travelling at a speed that is close to the speed of light in this part of the Universe, or might be traveling slower, or even faster. This could be part of the explanation of WHY some only see the observable universe and NOT the whole picture and therefore the whole Universe. How could we possibly know that we, in this part of the Universe, are not currently traveling at the speed of light? At the moment, we are unable to measure this, because what could we possibly measure this against? This observable universe might be traveling faster than the speed of light relative to a much bigger, unforeseen by most, picture of things.
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Does the fact that we are in fact traveling at some unknown speed, relative to what, either subtract or add to our measured speed of light...
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.)
Considering the actual size of the Universe, how do you know that there is no such thing as a vacuum?
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm
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.
Was the michelson-morley experiment performed in ALL atmospheres, in all places, and under ALL varying conditions?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:52 am
Let'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.[/quote]

Is there any reason to suppose it does not?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:01 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:11 pm
gaffo wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:13 am
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:48 am

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?
Are you positively sure you have clarified the actual clarifying questions that I have asked?

Is it always Me who is NOT understanding bits?

Could there be any bits that you are NOT understanding? Or, do you understand ALL bits, and therefore are able to successfully, and succinctly, provide a theory of Everything?

Just maybe you are overlooking or overseeing some bits, and therefore it is you who is NOT understanding ALL the bits. Could that even be a possibility, to you, or is it always Me who is NOT understanding?

How about instead of you assuming and/or believing that there are bits that I am NOT understanding, and instead you focus on the fact that what IS the case is that I just observe, see, and understand things differently than you do. If you did that, then we could actual progress forward, together, which is the opposite of what IS currently happening. That is, you have all your faith and/or belief held up in some bits, which you want others to accept and agree with, and if and when others do not, then, according to you, that means it is always the other who is NOT understanding.

Although what you assume, believe, and/or accept as being correct is only a theory, and is obviously in contradiction with other things that, which you also assume, believe, and/or accept are correct, you still see that if I do NOT accept and agree with what you see here, then that leads you to conclude that there are bits which I do NOT understand. Has the thought ever crossed you that it could be you who is NOT seeing and understanding some things, yet?

Now, some of the bits in what you wrote above that I observe and see, which you may not have observed and seen yet are;
1. What you see as the "most important thing", at the atomic level, is NOT what I see as the most important, or the most basic fundamental, thing.
2. 'Stationary' is a relative term, so what could two atoms next to each other be 'stationary' relative to, EXACTLY'?
3. An event will still happen, in the quickest possible time, no matter if a (or just one) photon has to take a longer path and/or takes longer to pass from one atom to another. I have already explained WHY. So, the event that you are proposing that would take longer to happen in fact would, nor could, NOT. An event can NOT take longer to happen because of the very way photons are transferred, which was already discussed, and which you, if I recall correctly, have already agreed with.

(By the way I purposely leave things out of My writings in order to promote natural inquisitiveness in others. I do not know how else to encourage this natural occurring, but diminishing, phenomena within human beings. But, sadly, as has been proven with actual examples throughout this forum that way of inducing inquisitiveness does not appear to work to successfully, if at all. Any other ideas of how to once again grow this one of the greatest of attributes in human beings would be very welcomed.)

Anyhow, the rest of what you wrote;
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:11 pm
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.
Is just a predetermined or preconceived conclusion of what would, or could, happen, which is being based on the assumption that what you wrote here, and immediately before this, is correct.

Are you at all now able to see what could be wrong with what you have written?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:32 am

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 judge the other's clock to be ticking slow, the people aging slow, etc.
One reason WHY it is even harder to gain clarity, from the answers given to My clarifying questions, is because of the very contradictory nature of the way answers are given. The way that human beings can respond, as has been once again shown to happen here, can be very confusing. One person says one thing and another person says another, contradictory, thing, but with each person saying that they are right. So, which one IS the true and right answer?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:36 am

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.
What is the fact? Clocks running at different rates, OR, IF it were possible to see clocks in other frames, clocks would be seen to be running at different rates?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:39 am

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:01 am

Is it always Me who is NOT understanding bits?
Yes.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:41 am

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:32 am
One person says one thing and another person says another, contradictory, thing, but with each person saying that they are right. So, which one IS the true and right answer?
Nothing uwot, me, noax or thedoc has said has contradicted one another. You just don't get it, and never will.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:49 am

uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:51 pm
Don't forget that SR is about what you see, rather than what is.
Thank you.

EVERY thing is relative to the observer, and, no two observers are the same, so what is seen from one observer to another CAN BE very different. Obviously this is correct because I see many things differently here to what most adult human beings do, at the moment.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:05 am

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:49 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:51 pm
Don't forget that SR is about what you see, rather than what is.
Thank you.
:?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:11 am

ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:56 am
davidm wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:54 pm
OK, read your answer to my "clarifying question."

The answer is wrong.
The answer is wrong, to you.
The answer is objectively and empirically wrong.

BTW, the twin's "paradox" experiment has actually been conducted, as I described upthread, which you predictably ignored.There are actually in real life twin astronauts. One orbited the earth and aged less than his twin on earth.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:38 am

OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:56 pm
Noax wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:39 am
OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:57 am
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, ...
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.
What frame is alpha centauri in, if it is not in some frame with the traveler?

Also, and on this point, what would the actual time be, on a clock, read at alpha centauri compared with a clock on earth, at any "time", but we will can use at the start of the journey if we like? I ask that so people will start thinking about 'time', itself. Some people insist that time is an actual, real thing. For those people maybe they would like to clarify?

Further to this, outerlimits says the clocks on earth and on alpha centauri read almost the same in the frame of the traveler at the start of the trip. noax, however, says the clocks on earth and on alpha centauri read exactly the same, IF THEY ARE SYNCHRONIZED IN THE FRAME OF THE TRAVELER MAKING THE TRIP. However, noax also proposes that if the clocks are synchronized in earth frame, then the two clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler,

My questions are; What is being proposed as the time being read on the travelers clock at the start of the journey? Is it the exact same and synchronized with the "time" on earth? If not, then what frame is the traveler IN? How can two clocks on two separate locations, four light years apart from each other, be synchronized the exact same with a traveler's clock, but differ by four years if they are synchronized in earth's frame, in the frame of the traveler? What frame is the traveler in;
1. At the start of the journey?
2. During the journey?
3. At the end of the journey?

At what exact stage or moment is the traveler in when you propose that the clocks on earth and on alpha centauri read exactly the same, IF THEY ARE SYNCHRONIZED IN THE FRAME OF THE TRAVELER MAKING THE TRIP. AND, at what exact stage or moment is the traveler in when you propose that the clocks on earth and alpha centauri differ by four years in the frame of the traveler, when the clocks are synchronized with the clocks on earth.

What is the traveler's clock synchronized against? What is the actual frame the traveler making the trip is in, at the start of the journey? How LONG would the trip take for the traveler (IF, for example, the traveler traveled at the speed of light)? How much "time" would pass on the traveler's clock? If the traveler's clock is sychronized, at the start of the journey, with clocks on earth, which is said to be over four years difference from clocks on alpha centauri, in the frame of the traveler, then what would the traveler's clock now read when they reach alpha centauri, compared with;
1. the clocks on earth?
2. the clocks on alpha centauri?
3. the traveler's clock WHEN THEY BEGAN THE JOURNEY?

What would the traveler's clock, a clock on earth, and a clock on alpha centauri read at the immediate start of the journey, at the midway point of the journey, and at the immediate end of the journey? (I will allow you to decide the first clock reading, and then all subsequent readings.)

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:38 am
What frame is alpha centauri in, if it is not in some frame with the traveler?
It is in every valid frame, but only stationary in one of them. It is not stationary in the traveler frame, else the two would never meet.
Also, and on this point, what would the actual time be, on a clock, read at alpha centauri compared with a clock on earth, at any "time", but we will can use at the start of the journey if we like? I ask that so people will start thinking about 'time', itself. Some people insist that time is an actual, real thing. For those people maybe they would like to clarify?
This is a frame dependent question. There is no way to objectively sync the two clocks.
Further to this, outerlimits says the clocks on earth and on alpha centauri read almost the same in the frame of the traveler at the start of the trip. noax, however, says the clocks on earth and on alpha centauri read exactly the same, IF THEY ARE SYNCHRONIZED IN THE FRAME OF THE TRAVELER MAKING THE TRIP. However, noax also proposes that if the clocks are synchronized in earth frame, then the two clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler,
yes, but they'd read exactly the same in the Earth frame. This is why syncing clocks that are spatially separated is a frame dependent task.
My questions are; What is being proposed as the time being read on the travelers clock at the start of the journey? Is it the exact same and synchronized with the "time" on earth?
Traditionally, it is time zero, the start of the exercise. The traveler is present with the Earth clock, so they're set to the same time, and a frame definition is not required to do that. Clocks can only be objectivly synced or compared when in each other's presence.
What frame is the traveler in;
1. At the start of the journey?
2. During the journey?
3. At the end of the journey?
Earth, A-C, and the traveler are in all frames at all times. You can't easily exit a frame. You'd have to leave the visible universe.
At what exact stage or moment is the traveler in when you propose that the clocks on earth and on alpha centauri read exactly the same, IF THEY ARE SYNCHRONIZED IN THE FRAME OF THE TRAVELER MAKING THE TRIP. AND, at what exact stage or moment is the traveler in when you propose that the clocks on earth and alpha centauri differ by four years in the frame of the traveler, when the clocks are synchronized with the clocks on earth.
If they are synced in the traveler frame, they stay synced in that frame, but only because both Earth and AC are moving at about the same velocity as each other. Not exactly, but little enough difference that the respective clocks will stay synced to several significant digits. Those clocks iwll not stay synchronized with the traveler clock since the Earth and AC clocks are moving very fast (.999c I think was the example), and so will both advance only about 75 hours during the 70 days the traveler sits on his arse going nowhere.

OK, here you ask some nice specific questions.
What is the traveler's clock synchronized against?
Earth time, at departure I thought. Time zero.
What is the actual frame the traveler making the trip is in, at the start of the journey?
All of them.
How LONG would the trip take for the traveler (IF, for example, the traveler traveled at the speed of light)?
Can't.
How much "time" would pass on the traveler's clock?
70 days at .999c
If the traveler's clock is sychronized, at the start of the journey, with clocks on earth, which is said to be over four years difference from clocks on alpha centauri, in the frame of the traveler,
I thought we synchronized the clocks to the traveler frame, in which case Earth and AC would be zero difference, not 4 years apart, in that frame.
then what would the traveler's clock now read when they reach alpha centauri, compared with;
The traveler clock reads 70 days at the event of AC and the traveler meeting. Note the use of the word event here.
1. the clocks on earth?
At that event, Earth is not present, so the Earth clock reading is a frame dependent thing. It reads 4.3043 years in Earth frame since AC is that far away and the traveler was nearly light speed. It reads 3.1 days in the traveler frame.
2. the clocks on alpha centauri?
3.1 days, since we synced it to Earth clock in traveler frame. The two still must read the same.
3. the traveler's clock WHEN THEY BEGAN THE JOURNEY?
zero at the departure event, and reading 70 days at the arrival event.
What would the traveler's clock, a clock on earth, and a clock on alpha centauri read at the immediate start of the journey, at the midway point of the journey, and at the immediate end of the journey? (I will allow you to decide the first clock reading, and then all subsequent readings.)
Earth and Traveler are zero at the start of the exercise since. The AC reading is frame dependent, but we decided to sync in the traveler frame, so zero in that frame. Half way, each clock reads half of what it reads at the end.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
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?
BECAUSE I have NOT seen you do it. Even AFTER I ask you nicely to show it, you will NOT do it. You just keep repeating that you have done it. By just showing WHERE, you say you have done it, which can very easily be done with a simple link, then that WOULD prove you right and Me wrong, which I am pretty sure you would get great entertainment, joy, and pleasure out of doing. Your continual saying, "I have done it already and do not want to do again", just reinforces, to Me anyway, that you have NOT done it at all, which is what I am saying.

I would LOVE for you to prove Me WRONG, because then we can look at what it is that you SEE, and say, I do. Only then I, and we, can SEE what YOU SEE.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
If people are repeatedly telling you that they've done something which is recorded on the forum, they probably have.
That does NOT necessarily logically follow. Just because a person repeatedly tells Me that they have done some thing, which is or is NOT recorded any where, then that does NOT mean that they have probably done it. That just means that they are saying that they have done it, and WITHOUT evidence I am none the wiser. By writing it that way, to Me, that just means that they want Me to believe it without having to show any proof at all. If people HAVE DONE IT, which is supposedly recorded and they keep repeatedly insisting that they have done it, then WHY NOT just provide the actual evidence, especially when they are saying the "evidence" has been recorded down?

You do realize you could have used far less "time" and "energy" by now if you had just provided a link for us to look at and see from the outset of this?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
It wouldn't make sense that they would say such a thing over and over if they hadn't done it.
Do you understand that I am NOT saying that you have NEVER done it. I am just saying I HAVE NOT YET SEEN IT. And, I would love to SEE it. I just wish you would do show it again or show us where you, supposedly, did it last time.

Also, do you realize that many upon many people say things that do NOT make sense, just to cover up their purposefully past deceitful and lying ways, or their forgetful, or unrecognizable, past behaviors and ways?.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
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.
Do you realize that IF you just showed it, then you would NOT be wasting energy at all and we would NOT be going in circles now. If you were to show it, then we can stop going in circles. Simple really.

And, just because some thing did not work before, especially if the other one says that they did NOT even see it, then that is no excuse for giving up. If I would use that as an excuse, then I would have 'given up' ages ago. I keep going, especially to show things that obviously NO one has yet seen. I do NOT give up. Each time it did not work I just use that as a learning experience of what to try next time.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Meanwhile, you say that the reason you can't see it is because it has not been done.
If I have NOT yet seen some thing, then I have JUST NOT yet seen it.

You might have done it, for all I know. Until I see it, I will NOT know if you have done it or not. Could you PLEASE show us all where you did it, so that you can prove your self right?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
But do you really think that the problem is with everyone else?
If I have NOT yet seen some thing has been done, then that is NOT any problem with any one else. All that means is that I have just NOT yet seen some thing. I am not sure why you appear to be taking this so personally. I have openly admitted that I have NOT yet seen some thing or that I did NOT recognize it or that I did NOT notice it, when you have said that you have done it. You say you have done it already. SO, all you have to do is just show us WHERE you have done it. I can NOT prove what I am saying, whereas you can very easily prove what you are saying, that is if you have already done what you say you have done.

Is there any other reason, other than you just do not want to do it again, for NOT providing a link, or for NOT just saying what page and which post it is in, or for NOT just doing it again?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Or, can you agree that your inability to see does not mean that people are not actually doing what they say they are doing?
OF COURSE My inability to see and notice some thing, which you may or may not have done, does NOT mean that you have NOT done it. I obviously can NOT prove some thing is there if I can NOT see it. You, however, have the chance to prove what you say you have done. I just continue to wonder WHY you do NOT just prove it, instead of doing what you are now?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
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 pm
Do 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 --
Heads appearing ready to explode seems to be bit beyond any sort of reality.

If people have maintained their natural curiosity, or want to learn some thing which may be new, not thought of previously, or maybe unheard of before, then they will remain naturally inquisitive and thus continually ask clarifying questions. If, however, people do NOT want to do any of this, then that is fine. I am NOT here to force any thing at all. If people are NOT inquisitive nor open, then I understand. The reason WHY they are like this is easily and totally understandable.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
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.
What distortions and/or blocks are you alluding to? If you can see any, then I want to be made aware of them. And, remember, that just because you see them as distortions and/or blocks, then that does NOT make them so. Until I have be able to express all that I want to express as clearly and as succinctly as possible, then you will NOT know if what you now see as being distortions and/or blocks are really what you see and think they are.

Not until I have expressed ALL of what I want to the full story will not have been told. Without the full story, you are NOT aware what it is that I will reveal.

If you want to communicate some thing, then would you try to steer the communication for your self or would you allow the other to steer the conversation the way that they want to steer it? If it is the latter, then what you want to communicate to others must not be of any real importance anyway.

Also, why would Me trying to steer the communication for thy Self likely be based on My own distortions and blocks?

How and why does it supposedly logically follow that steering communication for one's Self is because of distortions and blocks?

Is it at all possible that trying to steer communication in one particular way or another IS based upon and because of the absolutely crystal clear and open views One has?

To Me it seems far more reasonable to try to steer and keep the communication on a straight and narrow path that One has already experienced and thus SEEN as being a way that has worked and one that SO FAR has NOT been wrong. In fact the more open and thus clear the view IS, then the more that One would want to keep steering the communication. It logically follows, to Me anyway, that if one has any sort of distortion or block that they are aware of, then they would NOT necessarily want to, nor could, keep steering the communication. If, however, One is pretty sure that they are on the right path and have the right, clear, and unobstructed view, then they would ask for clarifying questions and ask to be challenged as much as possible.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
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).
That is fair enough. But I am getting sick and tired of being told what IS right, especially when it is so obviously NOT right.

Again what are THOSE distortions and/or blocks that you SEE I have?

If you do NOT clearly express them openly and honestly here and now, then WHY say I have them?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
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.
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.
If you THINK, ASSUME, or BELIEVE that My entire post was directed at you personally, lacewing, then I think that says far more about you, than Me.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
How am I supposed to know that you've switched gears and are not talking to me when you say "you"?
Every time you see or hear the word "you" do you ALWAYS assume that that is in direct reference to lacewing?

If so, then could there bit a fair bit of what you call "ego" going on there in that body?

I specifically used the word "YOU" knowing full well that this would come about. There is a reason WHY I say it is better to NOT assume ANY THING, ever. The reason should be clearly obvious by now.

By the way, HOW you are supposed to KNOW what another person is doing or is saying IS by ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. A truly open, and thus inquisitive, curious person would do that instead of just assuming and/or believing they KNOW what is happening and/or going on. This latter way is more of what closed people do.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Instead of recognizing this obvious issue for yourself, you accuse me of making an assumption.
I just once again accused you of making yet another assumption.

Is it an issue for YOU that I accuse YOU of making assumptions?

Also, what is the actual "obvious" issue for My self that you see, and I DO NOT? Are you alluding to Me "switching gears" and not talking to you when I say and use the word "you"?

If it is that, then for starters that is NOT an issue at all for my Self. Second, if it is an issue for you, then so be it, but again it is NOT for Me. Thirdly, just because I say or use the word you that does NOT mean it is directed at lacewing always. 'You' is a singular and a collective word. I USED the word 'you' here in this particular way to highlight HOW assuming, without firstly clarifying, can lead people astray and cause unnecessary confusion and "conflict", which I have just provided further and and another example of.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
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.
Well continue to enjoy.

If you are having fun, then you will NOT have an "issue" with any thing that I say, or do?

And, if you really are having fun coming on here and explaining things, then you would really ENJOY explaining to Me, "once again", what it is that you see, about Me, which you say you have already explained and shown. If you do NOT want to do that, then you do NOT have to. But continually saying you have done it already and that you do NOT want to do it, seems, to Me anyway, far less FUN, then just explaining it, which you say you have fun doing anyway. The more we look into this the more is seems to make less sense.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:22 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:25 am
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.
Notice how you went from saying how I "appear", to telling me how I feel... which is completely inaccurate.
I did NOT, directly, tell you how you feel. I said the anger that is within you (about that) is very obvious to see.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
I do not feel hatred and anger... so what then, IS actually noticeable?
What then that IS actually noticeable is the anger WITHIN you. Are you suggesting that there is NO anger at all within you?

If so, is that for ALL time, or just at a very particular moment you are talking about?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Your perception of me -- is THAT what you're noticing?
Of course.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
You have your way of communicating... and I have mine.
Very true. And, very obvious.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
My way is playfully rowdy.
Does that particular way come across that way to ALL human beings, always and equally?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Is there a particular way that I'm supposed to respond to all of the lunatic behavior on this online stage?
The way you respond is perfectly normal and understandable due to reasons of WHY you are the way that you are.

If you see lunatic behavior on this online stage, then that is fine. That is what you SEE. NOT ALL people SEE the same things.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
I'm simply playing too! Swinging my sword of logic, humor, truth, love, or craziness in whatever way seems appropriate for each situation.
That is fine. It all depends on what you are LOOKING FOR.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am




Any idea of what the 'reasons' are or could be?
Any idea of what the 'reasons' are or could be, FOR WHAT EXACTLY?

If "any idea of what the 'reasons' are or could be' for what you think, then the sole reason for them IS because of the previous experiences that that body has had. If, however, the 'reasons' you were asking about were for some thing else, then I will await your clarification.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Okay, that sounds kind of snotty. I was simply answering your question.
It did NOT sound "snotty" at all to Me. (Not that I really KNOW what you mean by "snotty") But anyway I was very excited and pleased that a clarifying question was asked.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
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. :)
People generally create what they do to reduce pain and/or increase pleasure. What each person chooses to create in order to try to alleviate pain and/or to try to elevate pleasure is solely depended on the past experiences that they have had.

WHY people want to or have to decrease pain and/or increase pleasure is because they have NOT experienced living in a truly peaceful, harmonious, non-greedy, stress free, and unpolluted world yet. When we are living in that world, then people will NOT have to, nor want to, decrease pain or increase pleasure. ALL people will be just truly happy anyway and will be just doing and creating what they are for ALL people and not just themselves. Doing for others naturally increases ones own self and well being naturally and any way.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am

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?


You're not fathoming very broadly, Ken.
If that is what you see, then fair enough.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
I thought you understood the view that sees beyond the individual human being.
And what do you think now?

Do you think that I do NOT understand the view that sees beyond the individual human being?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Don't you think that there's a broader view than that of the individual?
I KNOW that broader OPEN view beyond just human beings perspectives.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
From that broader view, wouldn't there be beauty and magnificence in all of creation?
OF COURSE.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Even the ugly and destructive?
The very REASON that the ugly and destructive came into existence, and continues to exist, for the moment anyway, is because of what is learned and gained from that ugliness and destructiveness. Human beings learn far more, and far better, from experience than they ever learn from just being told some thing. Experiencing and feeling ugliness and destructiveness teaches what is right, and more importantly WHY what IS right IS right
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:24 am
Wouldn't there be love from that broader view? Wouldn't there be humor? Wouldn't it be entertaining?
It could even be argued that only things like that exist from that broader view. BUT standing back there "behind the curtain", as you would say, and looking out at the ugliness and destruction going on is NOT real pleasant, to Me anyway. Especially when KNOWING HOW to stop and prevent the ugliness from appearing and the destruction from occurring for ALL people. Also, KNOWING HOW to bring ALL people back "behind the curtain" and show them what IS (or could be) and show them HOW they can feel and experience ONLY love, humor, entertainment, et cetera, is just what I want to do. Being "behind that curtain" alone is a pretty lonely feeling, which is ALL I have experienced. Now, is the time, that I want to SHARE HOW to obtain the broader view with ALL others. By only showing HOW to obtain that broad open view, and NOT showing nor telling what they have to do, allows them to do what they want. And, IF people are gaining that much more open view from that much broader advantage point, then they have done it, themselves, which brings with it a far more satisfying and rewarding feeling, of which things just "snowball" progressing forward.

Being alone and thus never communicating fully openly and honestly previously has led Me to NOT learning HOW to communicate "properly" or more thoroughly, previously. So, learning how to communicate better is just another learning experience, for Me. I had always previously just shown, on the outside anyway, acceptance and agreement with what others have said just to keep the "peace". But now I am getting over that and feel that I deserve to be heard and listened to, at least just once anyway.

uwot
Posts: 4120
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am

ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pm
So, actual 'knowledge' may have nothing at all to do with just a theory?
Epistemology is a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to understanding what 'knowledge' means. I presume you mean something like 'justified, true belief', which was rejected by Plato in the Theaetetus and pretty much blown out of the water by the Gettier problem.
ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pm
Theories can always be improved upon...
They frequently are. Einstein, for instance, spent the decade after publication of his special theory of relativity developing general relativity.
ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pm
...whereas what IS (or actual knowledge) can NOT be improved upon.

Again, why look at theories, instead of just looking at what IS and therefore what IS actual knowledge?
Well, ya kinda hit the nail on the head. The problem is, we do not have immediate access to "what IS". When we look at something, we don't see 'it', we see light reflecting off it. If we listen, we don't hear 'it', we hear the disturbance of air 'its' motion has caused. If we can smell 'it', we are smelling the chemicals 'it' releases; same with taste, should you lick it. As for feel, that's just the surface. Weight is the interaction between 'it' and the planet.
If you want to claim that 'it' and the phenomena 'it' generates are the same thing, you are a naïve realist. Generally, it is accepted that the source of the phenomena, is different to the phenomena themselves. What we 'know', as in, without any doubt, is that the phenomena exist. How do we know? Because we experience them. How do we know that our theory about what causes a particular phenomenon is true? We don't.
Your case is that speed makes no difference to the ticking of clocks. That it does is as near to actual knowledge as we can get, precisely because when we look at "what IS" we see that clocks that have been moving relative to each other tell different times. The fact that they differ by amounts commensurate with the predictions of relativity, implies that relativity is a very good theory. But if you have a better one, let's hear it.
ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:08 pm
Why make up a theory or make up some thing, which may or may not be the truth of things, and try and falsify or prove that, when you could instead just be looking at, seeing, and understanding what actual IS?
Well, if you are claiming that "what actual IS" is what you see and understand, you are either some stripe of phenomenologist, or idealist. Fair enough. If on the other hand you insist that clocks do not run at different rates, when they demonstrably do, you are simply an idiot.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests