Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:52 pm

ken wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:42 pm
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?
Yes, it has. As has been shown to you.

'Motion', relative to WHAT EXACTLY?
This question has been answered six million tines. Are you capable of cognition?
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?
I gave you a whole page of experiments validating relativity, at both low and high speeds. How long do you expect people to bother putting up with your nonsense?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm

ken wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:42 pm
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Do you even know what an inertial reference frame (IRF) is?
No.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
The 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.
This definition is older than Galileo. You've not even picked up the most rudimentary textbook , or at least not comprehended even the terms used.
The frame is inertial if X does not accelerate. Otherwise it is the accelerating reference frame of X. Special Relativity covers the special case of only inertial frames. General relativity includes non-inertial frames among other things.
What do you think My view is?
Apparently abject ignorance, disguised as open-mindedness. It would be a closed-minded act to actually learn a few terms and learn what experiments have been used to verify/falsify the descriptions from said rudimentary texts. This is what I think you view is, and I have nearly 50+ pages of evidence to back it up.
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?
From the perspective of the frame. I see you've cut that part off. The frame does not require there to be an observer, a human, or any other object, for it to be true that A-C comes to a stationary point in that frame after 70 days.
A traveler who sees that they are stationary and see alpha centauri moving towards them, right?
A traveler cannot 'see' that he is stationary. There is no known test for it. This was also known before Galileo, and is part of the principle of relativity. Look it up. Oh right... Open minded people don't cloud their openness with principles known centuries ago.


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?
He does those things 70 or 210 times in that 70 days, just like the human on earth does in 70 days. The experience would be the same if the Earth guy was in a similar unpowered life-support craft following Earth orbit. The guy actually on Earth has different experience since he has weight there, so the best comparison is the control guy in a ship staying nearby Earth.
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'.
You're not going to like the answers then.
But IS the traveler stationary or only said to be stationary?
Undefined without a frame. You are moving perhaps 1500mph relative to the guy on the opposite side of the world. Both are 'said to be stationary', so which is right? Absent a frame, it is undefined.
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.
Assuming you equate 'perspective' to inertial frame, yes. I don't get the last 4 words. What's the 'observer' that seems to be neither you (presumably on Earth) nor the traveler?
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?
Fine. I imagine a human unable to witness the history of the universe-singularity in his final moment.
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.
Don't recall quoting you in what I said in the thing to which you're replying here. You had asked what it was like to move fast. I came up with an example of you having done just that. It feels completely ordinary, as it must.
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?
It has been done with humans, and due to poor precision of measuement of human aging, nothing was falsified by that particular data, despite being verified by the clocks they brought with them.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Physical processes dilate with motion.
'Motion', relative to WHAT EXACTLY?
Any frame.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
This has been demonstrated.
To who?
To those who ran the falsification experiments, and those who care to read the reports of their findings.
Has it been demonstrated to you via first hand experience?
Why should that matter? I have no first hand experience of a round Earth, so you're saying I should have zero reason to believe it is round?
If it is the latter, then are you just accepting things on what other people tell you?
Yes. We call it an education. Without one, you'd be unable to survive a week.
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?
No, my usage of the word doesn't mean that.
But, according to you, and contradictorily the occupants age would slow down with "stationary traveling" speed, ...
No. Never said that. A stationary person ages normally.
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)
Faster an occupant stays stationary???? No, I would not say that. Stationary means not moving. Staying 'here', wherever your 'here' happens to be.
the occupants life would slow down, or "extend", and therefore the trip could NOT take longer than the life of the occupant, right?
Not right. All kinds of wrongness pointed out. The trip in practice would take long because we lack the technology to even leave the solar system. Oh sure, they've flung Voyager beyond that, but it isn't carrying a life support system.
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.
I did it the imagination way. It took 70 days one way. 70 more if they've got a wicked trampoline over there to bounce him back.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
unless 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?
Maybe because of this:
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.
Yes, very stupid thing think to think otherwise, that the traveler would age 8.6 years in only 140 days, but since nobody has tried this, an open minded person would not assume that the guy would age only 140 days in those 140 days. Got it. Sorry, I'm closed minded. I assume, without evidence, that a person will age 140 days in 140 days, barring radiation poisoning or some other environmental malady that brings one to an early demise.
So, a traveler does NOT move, and other things move towards to a traveler, is that what you believe is correct?
Frame dependent question.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
There is no 'appear' in relativity.
What you see, is what 'appears', to you.
What I see, is what 'appears', to Me.
Right. Theory of Relativity doesn't change that. The principle of relativity actually asserts that in fact.
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
The 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?
Exactly what I just said there.
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.
Yes, you have already expressed denial of science above. We get it. It would get in the way of being open minded.

Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
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.
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?
Hafele–Keating experiment was an early one. You bring it up below, so you already know about it. So why ask again?
And, what was the name of the human being who done the experiment at lower speeds and who you say verified that experiment?
His age measurement was of insufficient precision to use as verification.
Okay, now, I understand that an 'inertial frame' is stationary.
No, it is not stationary. It is a reference against which the velocity of any object can be expressed. The frame itself has no velocity (stationary or otherwise) except in relation to say another frame. So the traveler is (by definition) stationary in his own frame, but the frame is not itself stationary or not-stationary.
I do "what" every day?
Travel at .999c
Nothing remarkable about it except to say there exists some frame in which your speed is .999c
Is there such a thing as an 'extraordinary experience', to you?
I think aging 4.3 years in 70 days would be pretty freaky, just to name something off the top of my head. In a year I might be dead at that pace.
I am curious now to know how you KNOW what My view IS, AND, also to know what you think My view IS.
I have revised my assessment of your view, expressed up at the top. Sorry to presume something else.
And the part about 'dilation' was "verified" by one experiment involving two planes traveling in opposite directions around the earth, right?
That was one test, yes.
So, no matter what THEY told you, as long as it sounded believable enough, you would just accept those findings, is that right?
Depends on the reputation of the teller, but I think you have that covered by the 'sounded believable enough' qualification. Experimental results are not accepted without verification done by another party and thus carry far more weight that say other things I'm told that are not even findings at all.
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?
Yes, but what if the believable thing isn't worded in some sort of pursuasive accept-this kind of way? How to divine the purpose of the things the person is saying then?
Could you be just another one of those multitude of followers and/or believers of others?
For a sheep, I think I'm pretty good at spotting the stories that are lies. I know some pretty subtle ones put out by some incredibly effective liars. No, don't ask. An open-minded person cannot understand, lest a stance actually be taken.
Also, if you are proposing that 'absolute time' has been empirically verified as absolutely true and correct, then what IS 'absolute time'?
It has been falsified, not verified. If there were actual time, there would be an actual amount of time it takes for light to get from Earth to A-C, as opposed to all these different frame-dependent answers.
No, I am not suggesting that this is your view. My assessment of your view is expressed above.
AND, just as I said, the "data" you use, which, is fixed light speed, does NOT demonstrate what you are presuming and presupposing happens.
Says the guy who won't work it out.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by gaffo » Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 am

ken wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:48 pm


So, to you, a clock can 'experience' time as long as it is not moving as fast as the speed of light, right?


according to Einstein's theory of Relativity.

I see no reason to reject it since latter empirical evidence has only - since 1918 Solar Eclipse in Brazil - and many latter (Mazon's anyone?) obversations only serve to affirm is a Real/Reality/Truth (of a sort - of the kind within the limits of mankind's mental capacity/nature). a partial "truth" if you will.



I read all your replies to me in this post and you come off as a flippant troll, interested in getting some hackles/rankles from the naive (rather than one interested in conversing and communicating about our mutual existence in this place we call life).

so fk you. my time if more valuable than playing Troll games with an adolescent with more time on this hands than sense or simple social decency.

good day and good bye.

welcome to talk when you are able, until then you shall be ignored my me. My time is not worth wasting on trolls.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:25 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 am
My time is not worth wasting on trolls.
Good for you.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:03 am

davidm wrote:
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.
I supposedly just do not get "WHAT" exactly?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:06 am

davidm wrote:
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.
How is it supposedly objectively and empirically wrong? What were the tests done that you say prove it objectively and empirically wrong?
davidm wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:11 am
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.
I did NOT ignore it. If I recall correctly you did NOT answer My clarifying questions.

What was the evidence, which supposedly proved that one twin aged less than the other?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 pm

thedoc wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:25 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 am
My time is not worth wasting on trolls.
Good for you.
Of course he's a troll. I think Lacewing has done the best as describing his motivations. Actually wanting to know these answers is obviously not it.
Funny that I persist. Perhaps I have a different purpose in replying than naively expecting ken to suddenly seem to understand something.
ken wrote:I supposedly just do not get "WHAT" exactly?
See? Just a taunt, even changing the meaning of the the words from the post it answers. Davidm, I think ken perhaps does get it, but pretends not to just to push your buttons.
davidm wrote: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.
This is admittedly begging, and ken seems not to know how to express that other than foaming-mouth repetition of the same questions. They know about relativity, computed the relative motions of the twins, and put out the difference computation of the durations of their existence. Said duration difference was a consequence of relativity, but a measurement of the person's age was not used as a verification of it. It just naively assumes that a twin in space still ages at the pace of one day per day, something that ken apparently finds implausible.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:51 pm

Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:38 am
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.
Are you one of those people who insist that 'time' is an actual, real thing?

Is 'time' itself dependent upon a frame?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
There is no way to objectively sync the two clocks.
Is that because 'time' itself is NOT an actual, objectively, real thing?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
'WHAT' would read exactly the same in the earth frame?

Are you saying here that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock would read exactly the same, which would differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler? If so, then is the traveler ahead or behind those two clocks reading exactly the same?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
This is why syncing clocks that are spatially separated is a frame dependent task.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
Could that even be done?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
So, the "traveler", who is now sitting "still", waits 70 days, according to the "traveler's" accompanying clock, for a distant object, which was about four light years away, to traverse towards and reach the waiting sitting "still traveler", right?

If so, and while that sitting "still traveler" awaits supposedly only 70 days for earth and alpha centauri to both traverse and cover a distance of four light years, the clocks on both earth and on alpha centauri supposedly only changed by 75 hours according to the "traveler", is this correct?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
OK, here you ask some nice specific questions.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
What is the traveler's clock synchronized against?
Earth time, at departure I thought. Time zero.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
What is the actual frame the traveler making the trip is in, at the start of the journey?
All of them.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
How LONG would the trip take for the traveler (IF, for example, the traveler traveled at the speed of light)?
Can't.
Is this an assumption made about 2017 years after a person labelled jesus was born or is it an indisputable fact that will exist forever more?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
How much "time" would pass on the traveler's clock?
70 days at .999c
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
'You' synchronized the clocks to the traveler frame, NOT 'we'.

'You', were the one, who had previously stated that if the (earth and alpha centauri) clocks are synchronized in earth frame (clocks on earth), then the two clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler, AND, you clarified this by saying yes in an above quote in your reply here, when I had previously asked you about this.

So, what you are saying now is at the start of the "trip" the "traveler's" clock is set to the same time with earth's clock, which is in essence the same time as alpha centauri's clock, right? And that is zero time, is that right? The three clocks are synchronized to show and are all reading the exact same zero, to the "traveler" frame, correct?

If this is now correct, then what is the contradiction I see when you write, if the clocks are synchronized in earth frame, then the two clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler? When does the "traveler" see the four year discrepancy, if they do, between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock if at some stage from the "traveler's" frame there was zero difference between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
The traveler clock reads 70 days at the event of AC and the traveler meeting. Note the use of the word event here.
Yes I did notice the word 'event' here. Is there any thing in particular you wanted to mention about that?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
So, from earth frame, earth's clock changed by 4.3043 years, but, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock changed only by 3.1 days, correct? If so, then from earth frame how much does the "traveler's" clock read? What does the "traveler's" clock read in the earth frame?


Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
3.1 days, since we synced it to Earth clock in traveler frame. The two still must read the same.
So, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock changed by and thus reads 3.1 days, right? From alpha centauri frame, what does alpha centauri's clock read, and, from alpha centauri frame what does the "traveler's" clock read?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
zero at the departure event, and reading 70 days at the arrival event.


Are you saying that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock "ticked" slower, in the "traveler" frame, than the "still traveler's" clock did? If so, is this because the "traveler" was the one "at rest" because earth and alpha centauri were the ones moving? If that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
Although I can accept and agree with this, you did NOT provide any subsequent readings for us to look at. (For example I can accept and agree that how long a piece of rope is, is twice the distance of half its length. But if NO actual answer is being provided, then there is no thing to look at.) The readings I have for half way and for at the end are much different than the reading you, davidm, uwot, and thedoc would have. Since you and them are supposedly NOT in contradiction at all with each other, what you and them see happens, and thus what readings you and them arrive at, would have to be the exact same. According to davidm My answers, and thus readings, are objectively and empirically wrong, meaning your readings and answers, thus davidm's and other's readings and answers would be objectively and empirically RIGHT, and thus very different than Mine.

Would this also mean that you, davidm, uwot, and thedoc are also absolutely right here?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:52 pm

davidm wrote:
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.
Are you trying to tell Me and others that what uwot, you, noax, and thedoc say is true and right and if any one else says any thing contradictory to what you four say, then that means that they are wrong?

If this is correct, then does this mean for ALL things you four say also?

By the way, what about the times when either of you four are saying contradictory things against each other, which one/s do you propose I should then listen to, and accept as being true and right? Or, do you propose that you four will never be in contradiction of each other?

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:41 pm

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:52 pm
Are you trying to tell Me and others that what uwot, you, noax, and thedoc say is true and right and if any one else says any thing contradictory to what you four say, then that means that they are wrong?
I think what we would agree on is the empirical evidence, i.e. atomic clocks slow down the faster they are moving; and the stronger the gravitational field, for that matter. I'm fairly certain that we would also agree that the maths of relativity very accurately describes the dilation that demonstrably happens.
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:52 pm
If this is correct, then does this mean for ALL things you four say also?
Doesn't follow. For all I know, our metaphysical models for why this should be so are completely different.
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:52 pm
By the way, what about the times when either of you four are saying contradictory things against each other, which one/s do you propose I should then listen to, and accept as being true and right? Or, do you propose that you four will never be in contradiction of each other?
You can make up your own mind about the metaphysics, as can any of us, but I very much doubt that any of us will contradict any other regarding the empirical data.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:56 pm

uwot wrote:
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.
So what?

Human beings, have for thousands of years, been dedicating themselves, through "whole branches" of mislabeled "philosophy", to trying to understand what many 'things' mean, without much nor any luck at all if the truth be known, in most if not all circumstances. 'Philosophy' is some thing you have, or do not have. 'Philosophy' is NOT some thing that can be separated into branches and looked at nor studied. A human being either has the love of wisdom, and the want to becoming wiser, or they do not. There is, by the way, only one way to have and maintain that love. Any person who has read even a little of what I have written here in this forum would know what that one way is.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
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.
You have just ONCE AGAIN presumed WRONG, and very wrongly indeed. Your presumptions are really leading you astray here. Obviously you have not been reading or are not seeing what I have actually been writing. This is a result of presuming, assuming, and/or believing. If you did notice what I have been saying, then you would know what I say about belief, which is about as far as opposite from what you presume here as could possibly be. I used the words 'actual' and 'knowledge' directly after the response you gave directly to some one else who used those words. I was using the words in the way that I saw them using the words. You, however, overlooked that and instead started presuming some completely other thing, which has obviously led you totally astray.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
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.
And, because that person was relatively far more open than most people, that person would have continued seeing far more and developing far more if that body continued breathing. Even maybe including completely changing the whole perception and theory that they once had previously and developing a whole completely opposing new theory.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
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".
Are you absolutely sure of that?

Do you KNOW, for sure and forever more, that 'we' do not have immediate access to what IS?

If you do, then how come you have immediate access to THAT, what IS?

If, however, you do NOT know, for sure, then WHY write absolute statements, like you just did?

If, as you propose, 'we' do not have immediate access to what IS, then why do so many people, including you, some times write as though 'you' or 'we' do?
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
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 by 'we' you mean human beings, then what you wrote here I totally agree with.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
If you want to claim that 'it' and the phenomena 'it' generates are the same thing, you are a naïve realist.
I do NOT want to claim any thing like that.

I you want to presume I claim that, then that is some thing else.

Would you like to explain what thoughts led to thinking that I would want to claim some thing like that?

To Me, it is so far from the truth that it is a very weird thing for you to start wondering about.

Was there any actual thing that I wrote that led to that sort of conclusion on your part or did those thoughts just appear?
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
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.
If you want to take this a step further, then there could still be some doubt as to if the phenomena exists or not.

The only thing 'known', for sure, without any doubt, are the thoughts and emotions that arise within the body. If those thoughts are true, right, and/or correct is another matter, but when we are aware of them, then they are the only thing we 'know' of, without any doubt.

If, however, you do NOT want to take another step and just remain 'knowing', without any doubt, that the phenomena exist, then do NOT let Me try to lead you further along. You are completely free to remain where you are right now.

By the way, when you use the word 'generally' here, what does that actually refer to or mean?
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
How do we know? Because we experience them.
But people experience different things, so how do we 'know', without any doubt, that the 'phenomena' exist? For example, you state that it is generally accepted that the source of phenomena is different to the phenomena itself;
1. Is what is 'generally accepted' absolutely true, right, and correct?
2. Is the source of phenomena ACTUALLY different to the phenomena itself?
3. What IS 'phenomena', itself, and is that what IS actually true and real, or is the source of phenomena what IS actually true and real?
4. Is absolutely every thing we experience, see, hear, smell, taste, and feel, absolutely true and real?
5. If not, then how do we 'know', without any doubt, that the phenomena exist?
6. In fact how do we 'know', without any doubt, that we experience some thing?
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
How do we know that our theory about what causes a particular phenomenon is true? We don't.
That was My point, was it not?

If we do NOT know some thing, then WHY make up a theory? Why not just look at what IS instead? That was what I have been asking clarification of, was it not?
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
Your case is that speed makes no difference to the ticking of clocks.
If that is what you see as "My case", then I have actually failed in coming across correctly.

My case is I have not yet seen, understood, how speed could make a difference to the ticking of clocks. I have NOT yet seen any evidence for this, nor can I yet see how speed could affect (or effect) a human made contraption that is made to change at a set rate, relative to light.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
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.
Is that moving relative to each other and telling different times solely to do with speed (and/or to lesser degree gravity) or could it be because of some thing else (also maybe)?

You come across, to Me anyway, to believe that speed does make a difference to the ticking of clocks. Do you believe speed makes a difference to the ticking of clocks?
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
The fact that they differ by amounts commensurate with the predictions of relativity, implies that relativity is a very good theory.
Or, that they differ by amounts commensurate with the prediction of relativity, COULD imply that some people find and see what they want to find and see. Remember even a human being labeled "jesus" was predicted, and some people found and saw that. The amount of doing that commensurate with the prediction of one being born as "jesus", could also imply that that prediction was a very good one too. If that is what one intends to believe in.

I find it quite humorous just how many times what the one who is loved, admired, followed, and/or being believed in predicts will happen, "actually" then supposedly happens. I am never amazed out how the followers and believers of others, always seem to find and see what the one who is being followed and believed in has said will happen. No matter what it is, if people believe in some thing enough, then they will make it happen.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
But if you have a better one, let's hear it.
Are you even remotely or somewhat slightly open to any possibility that a better theory could come, especially from Me?

As usual, truly open and honest answers are much more appreciated.
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.[/quote]

Well once again I am NOT claiming any thing like what you think here. Your assumptions really do lead you astray. I have already on a number of occasions explained HOW what actually IS can be seen and understood.
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:38 am
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.
You are proving more and more just how closed you really are.

Have I insisted that clocks do not run at different rates, whey they demonstrably do?

Because, to you, clocks demonstrably do run at different rates, is there any possible way that they do not?

Do just words written in a book, supposedly from other's experiences, 'demonstrably' prove always, without doubt, some thing to you?

Or is it only the ones you love, admire, follow, and/or believe in that you accept, without doubt?

Is there any way I could already have a better theory?

Are you in any way, shape, or form at all open to the possibility that I already have a better theory or better still already have A "Theory" of Everything, which would obviously do away with ALL other theories?

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:43 pm

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:56 pm
Are you in any way, shape, or form at all open to the possibility that I already have a better theory or better still already have A "Theory" of Everything, which would obviously do away with ALL other theories?
Yup. Let's hear it, then.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:51 pm

Is absolutely everything we experience absolutely true and real Not absolutely so
Is what is generally accepted absolutely true and right and correct Not absolutely so
If not then how do we know without any doubt that the phenomena exist We cannot know
In fact how do we know without any doubt that we experience something We cannot know

OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by OuterLimits » Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:57 pm

Theories must be tested. It takes elbow grease. Otherwise you're just writing poetry.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm

ken wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:51 pm
Are you one of those people who insist that 'time' is an actual, real thing?
Not sure what you mean by that. It is not an object that you can set on the table, but you probably don't mean that.
Is 'time' itself dependent upon a frame?
The measure of it between two events is frame dependent. Time itself, probably not, but it depends on what you mean by that.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
There is no way to objectively sync the two clocks.
Is that because 'time' itself is NOT an actual, objectively, real thing?
No, It's because it is otherwise ambiguous. It would be like asking if Mars is west of Jupiter. Depends on the spatial frame, a definition of which arbitrary direction is considered west. The ambiguity doesn't carry implications of such relations being real or not. Similarly, relativity does not hinge on the reality of time, or the lack of reality.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
'WHAT' would read exactly the same in the earth frame?
The two clocks mentioned in the quote above.
Are you saying here that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock would read exactly the same,
No. I said they would read the same in the frame of Earth. That's what it means to synchronize them in that frame.
which would differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler? If so, then is the traveler ahead or behind those two clocks reading exactly the same?
I guess that depends on what he sets his clock to. The quoted bit above didn't specify.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
Could that even be done?
Sure. Objects move from inside the Hubble Sphere to outside it. This is easy since the sphere is shrinking. It is a bit of a misrepresentation. Inertial frames are valid only locally, and that distance is hardly local. Special relativity simply does not cover that case, and one must apply GR rules for a description of what it means to exit the sphere like that.
So, the "traveler", who is now sitting "still", waits 70 days, according to the "traveler's" accompanying clock, for a distant object, which was about four light years away, to traverse towards and reach the waiting sitting "still traveler", right?
No, the object was a bit less than 70 light days away. But otherwise, yes.
If so, and while that sitting "still traveler" awaits supposedly only 70 days for earth and alpha centauri to both traverse and cover a distance of four light years, the clocks on both earth and on alpha centauri supposedly only changed by 75 hours according to the "traveler", is this correct?
Yes, except again for the four light year reference. Earth and AC both move a little under 70 light days of distance in that time.
Is this an assumption made about 2017 years after a person labelled jesus was born or is it an indisputable fact that will exist forever more?
Neither.
'You', were the one, who had previously stated that if the (earth and alpha centauri) clocks are synchronized in earth frame (clocks on earth), then the two clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler, AND, you clarified this by saying yes in an above quote in your reply here, when I had previously asked you about this.
Yes. That made no mention of the traveler clock. His was not one of the two.
So, what you are saying now is at the start of the "trip" the "traveler's" clock is set to the same time with earth's clock, which is in essence the same time as alpha centauri's clock, right?
Those two clocks (Earth & A-C) are synchronized only in Earth frame, if they decided to synchronize them that way.
And that is zero time, is that right? The three clocks are synchronized to show and are all reading the exact same zero, to the "traveler" frame, correct?
The AC clock is reading a bit over 4 years ahead in traveler frame. That clock is not synced with Earth clock in that frame.
... if they do, between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock if at some stage from the "traveler's" frame there was zero difference between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock?
There is only negligible discrepancy between those two clocks in Earth frame if we synced them in that frame. They stay synced.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
The traveler clock reads 70 days at the event of AC and the traveler meeting. Note the use of the word event here.
Yes I did notice the word 'event' here. Is there any thing in particular you wanted to mention about that?
Terminology. It means a definition of both a place and time when something happens, in this case the meeting of the traveler and AC.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
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.
So, from earth frame, earth's clock changed by 4.3043 years, but, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock changed only by 3.1 days, correct?
Right. In Earth frame, A-C is 4.3 light years
If so, then from earth frame how much does the "traveler's" clock read? What does the "traveler's" clock read in the earth frame?
That's not a frame dependent question because the traveler is present at that event. His clock reads 70 days in any frame at that second event. The first event when Earth and traveler parted.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
3.1 days, since we synced it to Earth clock in traveler frame. The two still must read the same.
So, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock changed by and thus reads 3.1 days, right?
No, if those two clocks were synchronized in Earth frame, they'd not be synchronized in travler frame. They're out of sync by about 4.3 years in the traveler frame.
From alpha centauri frame, what does alpha centauri's clock read, and, from alpha centauri frame what does the "traveler's" clock read?
A bit of a list of things unspecified here, but if the Earth and AC clocks were syncronized in Earth/AC frame, AND time was zero at the first even (departure), then the traveler clock reads about 70 days at the 2nd event and the AC clock reads 4.3 years plus about 40 hours. That's 75 hours the clock logged and about 4.296 years of Earth and AC being out of sync.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
zero at the departure event, and reading 70 days at the arrival event.
Are you saying that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock "ticked" slower, in the "traveler" frame, than the "still traveler's" clock did? If so, is this because the "traveler" was the one "at rest" because earth and alpha centauri were the ones moving? If that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?
Yes, you actually expressed that correctly. Time is dilated for moving things. In the traveler frame, it is the other clocks that are moving.
Although I can accept and agree with this, you did NOT provide any subsequent readings for us to look at. (For example I can accept and agree that how long a piece of rope is, is twice the distance of half its length. But if NO actual answer is being provided, then there is no thing to look at.) The readings I have for half way and for at the end are much different than the reading you, davidm, uwot, and thedoc would have.
You found something that addresses this question? I have no links for the halfway question. It's just that there is no magic than happens more at the front or the back half. If nothing is accelerating, the progressing of all clocks in all frames is steady.
Since you and them are supposedly NOT in contradiction at all with each other,
I never claimed that.
Would this also mean that you, davidm, uwot, and thedoc are also absolutely right here?
We're just parroting our education. Your posts seem to question the validity/existence of the falsifications behind that education. Not a bad thing always. I was taught that a camel stores its water in its hump. Somebody actually thought to test that hypothesis and it was falsified, but only after all these books taught otherwise.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests