Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
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?
No.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmThe frame of X is the frame in which X is stationary. Our traveler is stationary by definition in his own frame,
Now I do know how you define 'inertial reference frame'. Thank you.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmsomething that is true even in your view.
What do you think My view is?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm While going nowhere, A-C takes 70 days to come to him.
From who's perspective?
A traveler who sees that they are stationary and see alpha centauri moving towards them, right?
We all just have to remember that not ALL observers see things that way. But IF a traveler wants to observe that way, and wants to look at things that way, then yes that is what they will see, and understand. But not all of us do this.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm The 70 day part is where we apparently differ.
That all depends on if we are talking about 'inertial reference frame', from the definition you just gave. I NEVER knew of that definition before. I just used the word 'traveler' in My questions, and if and when I used words like 'inertial frame' I was using that from and with a different and WRONG definition, which obviously was ALL My fault.
But let us use your 70 day scenario, and let us say one day is 24 hours. If the traveler sleeps once for eight hours each day, eats and urinates three times each day, and defecates and showers once per day, then how often does the traveler sleep, eat, urinate, defecate, and shower when alpha centauri "moves" closer to them?
AND, would those answers be different from what a human being on earth, and/or on alpha centauri, would observe?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm 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.
ALL of My questions from now on will be in relation to travelers and distances, and NOT any inertial frame of reference, unless otherwise stipulated. It is the 'inertial reference frame' that causes the contradictory, inconsistent, and confusing views people form regarding this. ALL My questions will be 'frame independent'.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmNoax 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?
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.
But IS the traveler stationary or only said to be stationary?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm It reaches A-C in about 35 days (halfway point) since A-C is coming towards the stationary traveler at near lightspeed.
So, only from the perspective of a "stationary traveler" this is said to be what is observed? Just to make it clear that is NOT what I would observe. But, I do NOT observe all the same things that human beings do. For example I do NOT observe alpha centauri coming towards the traveling traveler and observer.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmI 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.
I KNOW that is consistently pointed out when discussing this subject.
When I write the word IMAGINE, does that word get completely overlooked? If so, WHY?
What is it with human beings and NOT being able to IMAGINE? Have some of you completely lost the ability to IMAGINE?
Also, it is PRESUMED that a human being, or any object with rest mass, can not reach the speed of light. Just like it was once presumed that other speeds could not be reached also. Just about every thing human beings have created, done, and reached was once presumed impossible nor could be reached, that is until it is.
Do any human beings wonder WHY they have not created and reached what it is that they ALL truly want, and deserve? The reason IS because human beings do NOT use IMAGINATION to its full ability. Instead of IMAGINING, human beings are consistently BELIEVING. BELIEVING is NOT being OPEN, and, being OPEN is where IMAGINATION comes from. The very REASON WHY human beings are stuck living the way they are, nowadays, is because of a lack of IMAGERY.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm 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.
Besides the fact that this has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what I have been saying and want to question, what you have just said here just further verifies what I observe, have said regarding things, and how every thing is relative to the observer. How the observer looks will depend if they are able to see how every thing fits together perfectly to form a big true picture of what IS, or if they are still looking for what IS that picture.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm 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.
You are so OFF TRACK now, which honestly I am not following, this is becoming nearly unbelievable. Your assumptions and/or beliefs have led you so far astray from what I have been actually discussing and questioning that your reply here, to what you quoted Me as saying, is nearly beyond understanding.
Maybe if you read what I wrote again, you would KNOW what I am looking for. In case you still do NOT KNOW what I am looking for, it is human beings who want to stay with that imagined scenario. If you do NOT want to, then you are NOT what I am looking for.
Further to this, I did NOT follow how your conclusion, "So yes, the twin experiment has been done, ..." followed on from what you had previously written. And, if "humans are not accurate enough clocks to measure the difference", then why use human beings for the twin experiment, and, if they are not accurate enough, then why try to now use them as "verification" and/or "proof" for what you assume or believe is true?
If, as you propose, "humans are not accurate enough clocks to measure the difference", then what that really means is NO actual twin experiment has been done, nor finalized, right?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmPhysical processes dilate with motion.
'Motion', relative to WHAT EXACTLY?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmThis has been demonstrated.
To who?
Has it been demonstrated to you via first hand experience? Or, did you just read this in a book and/or hear it from others?
If it is the latter, then are you just accepting things on what other people tell you?
Also, does you using the word 'demonstrated' mean that this an indisputable proven fact, which would also, to you, mean that there really is no use discussing it any further?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmHuman aging is a physical process,
Agreed.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmunless you declare that the human body, alone among all physical processes in the universe, is immune to this and is special.
A very stupid thing to think, assume, and/or say. WHY did you write that?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm 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.
But, according to you, and contradictorily the occupants age would slow down with "stationary traveling" speed, so the faster the occupant goes to another planet, (or, as you would say, the faster an occupant stays stationary and the other planet goes to the occupant) the occupants life would slow down, or "extend", and therefore the trip could NOT take longer than the life of the occupant, right?
You, in your "current" time, might actually believe that you lack the resources to travel to another star, or lack the resources to get the star to travel to you, but you do NOT lack the resources, the only thing you lack is using the resourcefulness of imagination.
The scenario where one human twin actually leaves earth, travels, and comes back would actually reveal if the age of one of them slows relative to the other. Until then it is only an assumption.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmNoax 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.
So, a traveler does NOT move, and other things move towards to a traveler, is that what you believe is correct?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmThere is no 'appear' in relativity.
What you see, is what 'appears', to you.
What I see, is what 'appears', to Me.
Both 'appearances' might NOT be the same, so what is seen is ONLY what 'appears' to that one, who is the observer and thus the one seeing.
Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer. That includes 'relativity', itself.
What noax tells Me what I would see, some times, is NOT what I would see.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmThe thought experiments do not involve perceptions. The 'observers' are instruments that detect signals and distance and such.
What do you mean "thought experiments" do not involve perceptions?
Think about it.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmAlso, if an actual physical experiment has NOT taken place, then there is NO actual physical 'observer', nor instrument, to give an actual verified response. Therefore, what is said to happen is only a guess.
In a thought experiment, also, there is NO actual observer, nor instrument, there is only one who is thinking, what might happen. That one is presuming what will happen.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmFor 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'.
That is ONLY what might happen. You are ONLY presuming that is what would happen. That is ONLY your assumption, which is based solely on your own past experiences. Without first hand experience you can NOT accurately tell Me what will be seen, and, even with first hand experience you can only tell Me what you saw. You still can NOT accurately tell Me what I would see.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmAlso, 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.
That was NOT what I was asking.
What was the name of that experiment that has been done at lower speeds, which you say was verified?
And, what was the name of the human being who done the experiment at lower speeds and who you say verified that experiment?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmBy 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.'
Okay, now, I understand that an 'inertial frame' is stationary. But if noax wants to speak accurately, then noax will have to change the word 'you' here. Noax can speak accurately for noax, and whoever allows noax to speak for, ONLY. BUT what noax says above here is NOT what I observe, see, and understand.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmAlso, 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).
I do "what" every day?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm 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.
Is there such a thing as an 'extraordinary experience', to you?
If not, then WHY do you use such a term?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmNoax wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 pmIs 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?
This is not even untrue in your view. [/quote]
I am curious now to know how you KNOW what My view IS, AND, also to know what you think My view IS.
Will you provide details of both?
I will await your response here BEFORE I provide a clearer perspective of My view, which by the way might be completely opposing what you think or assume.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm 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.
And the part about 'dilation' was "verified" by one experiment involving two planes traveling in opposite directions around the earth, right?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmHave any actual experimental tests been carried out with human beings as the 'traveler'?
So humans are special?
Human beings are no more (nor no less) special then any other thing.
Why did you ask such a question?
I can NOT see a link between your response and My question, besides that you are making some sort of assumption about what My question was in relation to, which by the way was probably totally WRONG, again. But we will NEVER know until you tell us what you were assuming in order to ask such a question.
In case you did NOT notice the answer that I was seeking, to My actual question, was ONLY a 'yes' or 'no' answer.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm It works for everything but human aging process?
If no actual experiment has been done with human beings, then the answer is no. Your questioning, based on your presumptions, have NOTHING to do with what I asked. Maybe if you think about WHY you assume that I am thinking some thing, then that might tell WHY your assumptions are so very WRONG and INCORRECT.
WHAT is the 'it' that you are asking if 'it' supposedly works for every thing but human aging process?
You ask questions, based on your assumptions, AND you write them in a way that I have to guess as to what you are referring to.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm Is that what you propose?
Is WHAT 'that' what I supposedly proposed?
I did NOT propose any thing here. I asked a clarifying question that a 'yes' or a 'no' answer was ALL that was needed.
By the way the answer to your question here would probably be a NO, but that is ONLY based on an assumption of what you might be assuming, which would be a very foolish thing of Me to do, if I so did.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmken wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:27 amYou 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.
So, no matter what THEY told you, as long as it sounded believable enough, you would just accept those findings, is that right?
Have you ever considered that some times people word things in a way, which sound believable, in order to get others to accept and/or follow them and what they say?
Could you be just another one of those multitude of followers and/or believers of others?
This is not to say the ones who want to be followed or believed are doing this consciously nor manipulatively. They, themselves, could also be so deceived that they actual believe what they, themselves, are saying is true and correct, without ever actually looking for nor actually just looking at
what IS ACTUALLY true and correct.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmBy the way what are you proposing here has be empirically falsified?
Absolute time.
Your answer has NOTHING at all to do with My question.
AND, what do you think I am proposing here EXACTLY?
To Me, it is very obvious how people have worded things, to make what they believe to be true, so that they appear believable to others.
The very reason WHY some people say what WOULD be observed in particular reference frames is because of the way terms like 'reference frame' has been used and taught in order to show support for what some people BELIEVE is true, right, and correct.
Also, if you are proposing that 'absolute time' has been empirically verified as absolutely true and correct, then
what IS 'absolute time'?
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmIf 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.
AND, just as I said, the "data" you use, which, is fixed light speed, does NOT demonstrate what you are presuming and presupposing happens.
Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm 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.
Again, you are so way off track that it is no wonder, and thus totally understandable, to Me anyway, WHY you are NOT seeing what I am actually writing and saying.
What assumptions you used that led you to arrive at such a conclusion as this, though, really only you would know.