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 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:07 am

OuterLimits wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:57 pm
Theories must be tested. It takes elbow grease. Otherwise you're just writing poetry.
"Poetry is a kind of ingenious nonsense." -- Isaac Newton.

Also, purportedly in the only opera he ever attended, he fled in the third act.

:lol:

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:08 am

Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 pm
I agree I could word things far more carefully. Could you also do that? Could you follow that order also? Is there any writer or speaker that could NOT word things more carefully?

What you wrote does NOT directly counter My assertion because I did NOT assert what you say you THOUGHT I was asserting.
You asserted something and I'm not going to agree to it if it isn't properly qualified.
You are under no obligation to agree to any thing at all, (especially to some thing that is not properly qualified), and I do NOT want you to agree to any thing at all.

Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Yes, one was simply an omission of a detail we both knew about, but the other one (twins must be the same physiological age) is wrong, and is based on countless instances of the same data point and no others.
What was the 'one', which you say we both knew about?

The 'one' that I said that you already knew what I was talking about, which you say I did not properly qualify, was the 'one' about the twins being the same age. That was the only one I picked you up on.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
I have tried to word things most carefully, specifying a frame whenever necessary for instance.
I asked, could you word things far more carefully? If you could not, then why do you expect others to? If you could, then so be it.

Do you want to be told to word things more carefully, each and every time you write what are obvious flaws, to others?

I think it might be found that all people try to word things "most carefully", to their ability at the time of wording, but obviously some people have better wording skills than others have. Some are in early stages of learning while others have already had years of practice.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
How could two bodies be of differing ages if they age at the same pace AND IF THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME AGE? If you would have answered that question then, then what is your answer now?
We're concerned that you're paying no attention to the answers being given because you imply here that no answer to how they can be a different age has been given. There are 50 pages of examples where this is not the case, so those demonstrate how.
I do NOT really care what you, or others, are 'concerned' about. What you, and others, perceive is happening MIGHT NOT actually be happening at all. In fact I have said the opposite is happening. Now, whose perception IS RIGHT?

Saying that a clock ticks slower, supposedly with speed, and basing all further examples on that one example, does NOT show how twin human bodies age differently if they age at the same pace, IF THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME AGE. IF ALL clocks tick slower because of speed (and/or gravity), then that could show how the ageing process of human bodies MIGHT happen, under those situations. However, just because one clock ticked slower than another under certain conditions, without ALL the variables taken into consideration does NOT show how human bodies could age differently.

The very simple fact that the words AGE AT THE SAME PACE means that they would NOT nor could NOT age differently.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Actually read a few of them.
If I have not missed any, then I have read them all.

The assumptions, beliefs, and confirmation biases in those further examples, which are based solely on the one and supposedly "tested" experimental example are startling obvious. The fact that there were three clocks, which, only one moving clock actually ticked slower than the supposedly "stationary" clock seems to be enough and the only needed proof to support that what was earlier predicted to happen, for some people.

The fact that one moving clock actually ticked faster than the supposed "stationary" clock just gets instantly explained away, and thus dismissed, because instead of being stationary that clock was 'now' actually moving, in a certain direction. So, then we are back to the time ticks slower with speed being absolutely true because it was just demonstrated so.

To Me, it seems blatantly obvious that what was supposed to happen was going to happen, to those who believed it would happen. So, just one experiment was enough evidence for those believers. The rest of the believers have just followed on, basing all else on that one experiment, which, by the way, actually showed the opposite of what was said was going to happen.

Human beings tend to only find and see what it is that they want to find and see.

The very fact 'that time appears to change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer' can very easily be shown and proven true. Some human beings, however, BELIEVE that this MUST happen so they are not open enough to seeing this evidence.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
What was the actual unbacked assertion that you saw I was supposedly making?
That twins must be the same age.
So, now you are agreeing that you KNEW I was talking about twin human bodies, and NOT talking about two bodies that started out at different ages, right?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Two things born simultaneously do not age in parallel if they don't stay together.
. How much actual evidence is there for this?
Again, 50 pages of answers to this. You're apparently not going to accept my answer given again.
Am I expected to accept, and/or agree to some thing, that is NOT properly qualified?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
If you deny the answer, justify the denial.
I have attempted to show what I observe, but I can not get past the beliefs that you, and others, have.

Are you at all open to the fact that the answers you, and others, have given could be WRONG?

I also do NOT deny your given answers. I just do NOT, yet, see how they logically follow. I also observe what I perceive to be the confirmations biases, the assumptions, and the beliefs that led you to coming to the answers you have and give. I observe the attempts made to try to justify the "support" that you give to back up your already gained concluded answer, but I do not accept your "justifications" made as I see the flaws within them, which I have tried to explain. But it is just about impossible, if it is not completely impossible, to explain some thing to some one who believes the opposite.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Repeated asking makes no progress.


Not if the same repeated answers are given.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
No, we lack the resources and technology to accelerate such a person without killing him. The evidence was verified in multiple more reasonable ways.
Which, if I am correct, that "evidence", which you see, you are NOT going to give and explain again, right?

To Me, saying, A clock ticked slower, traveling in a certain direction, around earth compared to another clock that stayed in the same place on earth is NOT verified evidence that a human body will age slower when it travels at speed. That might be enough evidence and proof, for you, but I need more than just that.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Humans make terrible clocks, but we have done experiments with terrible clocks (radioactive samples for instance) at insane relative speeds, as well as accurate clocks at relatively low speeds.
If that is only what you NEED for evidence to see what you are saying is true and correct, then so be it. I obviously just NEED more evidence than you do to accept what you do. That is NOT to say that what you are saying is true and correct is NOT true and correct, that is just saying I NEED more evidence to see and accept what you say you see and accept here.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
I have NOT based any thing on people who always stay together. Are there two people who have ALWAYS stayed together? I have NOT previously observed that. Also, WHAT EVIDENCE is there that two things born "simultaneously" do not age in parallel if they do not stay together? And, what are they using to base measurements upon?
There have been thus far zero humans that have left the general frame of their home planet. You repeatedly point this out to me, but when I point it out to you, you balk.
What do you mean by, "you balk"? I am NOT the one who is having questions posed at, so what am I supposedly "balking" at? If, and when, I am asked clarifying questions, then I will answer them.

You are the one who is "balking", or, in other words, NOT answering the questions.

So, hitherto zero humans have left the general frame of their home planet, but to you there is ENOUGH evidence to support and prove that twins born at the same time age differently when one is traveling at speed, is this right?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
What I WAS basing things on, which was NOT what you thought, was in regards to the answer, to the question WHAT could be possibly used as a bench mark to measure if a human body ages more or less slowly than another?
I didn't say that. They age at the same pace (one year per year, which doesn't even have a unit), but need not be the same age. The traveler twin has existed for less duration than the Earth twin. They both age at the same pace which is 1. What could possibly be used as a benchmark is perhaps the watch on his wrist.
So, to you, the conclusion that a traveling twin HAS, without any doubt, existed for less duration than the twin which stayed on earth is based solely on the clock or watch that they take with them, is this right?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Another body, like a human body twin, is NOT some thing that could be accurately used to measure if one body has aged more than another.
Correct. Bodies make lousy clocks. Good for long term, but lousy on the fine precision. Yet you seem bent on accepting tests on only this poor choice of verification.
Well I am NOT "bent" on accepting tests on only this poor choice of verification. I have been asking you to tell Me what is it that they use for "verification" purposes. Your quote immediately above this one is the first time I have seen you answer that clarifying question. I could have assumed that you would say "clocks", or other things, but I do NOT like to assume any thing. I much prefer to wait for YOUR answer, and thus clarification first. I just wrote what could NOT be accurately used. I was, therefore, obviously NOT, as you assumed, using that to accept as a test.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
They've used such lousy clocks in tests, but ones that are a lot easier to get up to speed.
So, to you, 'clocks' are used in tests as they are a lot easier to get up to "speed"?

"Up to the speed" of what exactly? Where they looking for a result, prior to the test?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
For information purposes that is NOT evidence. That is JUST what is ASSUMED would happen. ASSUMING some thing will happen does NOT mean that it will happen.
This pretty much sums up your whole argument. The counter point is to assume otherwise,
I do NOT have a "counter point" as I have NO "view" in the first place.

I was pointing out that ASSUMING that human bodies age slower with speed, does NOT meant that that is what will happen.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
that humans are the sole physical process that does not age according to the duration it has existed.
I am NOT sure what you are alluding to here.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
You're right. I have no evidence against that assertion.
Did I ever say you have no evidence against what you perceive is an assertion of Mine?

What is the actual "assertion" you perceive I am making?

Do you human beings actually realize that just because another is asking them clarifying questions about what they, themselves, see or believe is true does NOT necessarily mean that the one asking the question has an opposing nor any alternate view at all. In fact some times I observe the exact same answers and outcomes as others do, but because I do NOT see and follow the supposedly "logical evidence" that others see and follow I consistently ask clarifying questions in the hope that they can and will find WHAT actually does support, to Me, and provide actual evidence, for Me, for what they are saying IS TRUE and CORRECT. If better, more accurate, evidence can be found, then why not look for it?

I have only been asking for what is the actual evidence that human bodies age slower with speed. You tell Me that you have given that already. I accept that that is what you say and if those answers are the best you can give, then so be it.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
You'd have to come up with a different way to predict the age of somebody not on Earth, and absent that backing of your alternate view, it carries no weight.
I have NO known way at all of predicting the age of some body not on earth. I am the One who has been question what can be used to accurately measure the ageing differences of different human bodies. You are the ONE who is saying that human bodies CAN and DO age differently to others when traveling at speed, based solely on the "verified", to you, evidence that clocks tick slower with speed.

Also, I have NO alternate view, as you suggest, I am just questioning others about the view that they have and which they state IS TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT. Remember I remain open always so I do NOT hold a view.


Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
Yes, please do.
Can you provide any examples of when I have supposedly done that?
No, I can't, which is why I mentioned it.
Okay.

So, obviously My inability to properly qualify what it is that I actually mean has led to more miscommunication. To make My question "properly qualified" for you to be able to understand it correctly, Can you provide any examples of when I have supposedly NOT done what you say to "please do"?

If your answer is "Yes", then will you provide some examples of when I have supposedly made assumptions based solely on my perception and not on some thing factual?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Look, if you want to know the mechanics of relativity (like questions about how far away A-C is in other frames or how to compute the age of the twins given a trip description, read an intro text on relativity.
Making assumptions about twins ageing differently is NOT some thing I want to know.
You asked quite a list of questions about it in the prior post to which I answered. Why ask if you don't want to know?
Because I am learning how to write more succinctly. My inability to communicate successfully is obvious, right? The more questions I ask, then the more I can learn. I am not always necessarily asking questions to get "THE" answer to that particular question is asking for, some times I ask questions to provoke a response. What it IS that people actually say and see, throughout a discussion, and the WAY people respond is what I really want to KNOW. Learning HOW to get past what stops and/or distorts human beings from learning more is what I am wanting to know and trying to learn how communicate better. The things that stops and prevents human beings from learning far more than they do now IS the very thing that stops and prevents them from truly listening to others. Learning what to communicate exactly and how to communicate that sufficiently and succinctly so that human beings will rid themselves of what it is that causes their slowness at learning, and which is what is leading to their downfall also, is what I really want to know.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
All those answers I gave can be had from standard texts.
Yes I know. I have seen some of those "standard" texts.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
What I want to KNOW is HOW does any person KNOW what WILL happen if NO experiment has been done yet?
Relativity has been well verified by empirical tests.
What part of 'relativity' exactly has been supposedly "well verified by empirical tests"?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Are you asserting otherwise (denial of the tests),
NO.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
or do you suggest (again) that human aging is the sole physical process that does not proceed at a pace corresponding to the duration of existence?
I have NEVER even remotely implied, suggested, nor alluded to that? Why do you think that I have, and why do you keep thinking that that is what I suggest?

What is the 'pace' corresponding to the duration of existence?

Is it not you who is the one who says that the pace of the ageing process depends on how fast a thing is traveling?

If so, then considering ALL things travel at differing speeds, then that would imply ALL things age at a mismatched pace, correct?

Also, what is the duration of existence, and, what is that duration measured against?

There are many other clarifying questions arising but I will leave them for now.


Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Or have I somehow missed what you're suggesting?
I think you have completely missed what I am suggesting.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
I cannot think of a third option. You'll probably deny the latter, so it must be denial of the tests, in which case I simply invite you to perform them yourself.
The "tests" you provide have already been done, of which I will use, and the more I look into them the more they are verifying what I have already observed, seen, and makes sense to Me.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Noax wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:39 am
If you want to know why it must be like that, and that the naive model you have been pushing cannot be the case, most texts have a section up front about how it was worked out from only one empirical piece of evidence: The invariant speed of light.
And there My friends is what I thought was the case but did not know for sure.
Not so. The speed of light suggested the theory since the absolute model did not predict it.
A proposed 'speed of light', in a vacuum, might have help a human being come up with or make up a theory, but 'the speed of light', itself, did NOT suggest any thing. How do you propose it could?

Also, there is only ONE absolute labelled "model" and that IS the real thing, Itself.

What "absolute" model are you referring to, and what do you propose it did not predict?

Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
The verification came from further falsification tests, all of which have passed.
Why are they called "falsification" tests? Does that some how give them more "weight" in their support of the thing that was said would happen?

Why not, instead, just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS?

Trying to perform a "falsification" test, or a "verifiable" test, means that there is already a preconceived outcome, which can influence what readings are taken and then given.

What other tests prove that time slows down with speed?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
No book was written before then.
"No" book?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
This for instance:
Anyway, I do NOT want to know "why it must be like that". I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL.
Said in caps no less. Must be true.[/quote]

So, again, I will ask, WHAT (exactly) was obvious?

If you can NOT provide "what" exactly was obvious, then, once again, we others have NO idea what you are referring to and talking about.
You said, My sole argument is intuition, (and that is carries no weight).
I said, My sole argument is NOT intuition, (which by the way is from how you define 'intuition' that is) and so your conclusion is wrong.
I then asked, WHY did you assume such a thing.
You wrote, because I said, "it was obvious".
I then asked, WHAT was obvious?
To which you re-wrote what I wrote. However I purposely used the word 'it' in what I wrote, without stipulating what the 'it' actually refers knowing full well that others would make assumptions, which you have proven with verifiable evidence. You have NO idea what I was referring to but you based your conclusion that My sole argument is 'intuition'. You did this because you made AN assumption. Until you can clearly SHOW what I said WAS OBVIOUS, then all you are doing is making assumptions, and "jumping to" a conclusion, as they say, which I can demonstrate is wrong.

As I said, I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIEVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'intuition'. I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIEVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, like the sun revolves the earth, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. To some people the sun revolving the earth was NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL and IT WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. But the reason WHY other human beings BELIEVE that the sun MUST revolve the earth (even though it is and was obviously not like that at all) is because human beings make assumptions, based on past experiences, and make or "jump to" conclusions, based on those assumptions, BEFORE the actual truth is KNOWN. Human beings do NOT like to look stupid or to accept that what they see and believe is true could actually be wrong, so they will "fight to the death", for lack of better wording, of what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true. You will "fight' for YOUR SIDE and for the view that you are holding onto dearly. You will try to look for things that I do, instead of just answering clarifying questions, which has been shown to be what has happened. I have NO side to "fight" for nor look from so I just ask clarifying questions to show how much you actually KNOW. You had NO idea what I said was obvious, but you tried to use Me saying, thus doing, that as some way you could show that My, wrongly by the way, perceived "sole argument" carried no weight here. Instead of providing more evidence and proof for what you say and/or believe is true, you instead make up assumptions about what I say, and then try to dismiss that completely made up assumption. Just like what happened when one person was trying to say that the earth revolves around the sun, the others, the believers and followers, tried to ridicule the person by making up assumptions about imagined arguments and dismissing them instead of looking at what was ACTUALLY being said and thus what the ACTUAL arguments were.

By the way 'caps' do NOT necessarily mean "Must be true". 'Caps' can some times mean read and hear what it is that is actually been written and said. Saying some parts louder than others, with caps, is some times used in order to make the actual or particular point, that one is making, hopefully more clearer, and thus better understood.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Also, I have NOT been pushing any model, naive or not, at all. I have NO model.
This is why you're not being taken seriously. No model cannot compete against a model that makes good predictions.
I have NOT yet even begun to show a model. Do you remember I say look at what IS instead of making up theories and/or models?

And, if you have already decided that NO MODEL can compete against a model that makes "good predictions", then we already KNOW what you have decided to believe in, and follow.

Also, did you mean "No model can compete against ...", "A model cannot compete against ...", or "No model cannot compete against ...", or, some thing else?

And, to Me, it seems like an extremely preconceived conception to have, that another model could not compete against a model that makes "good" predictions. Do you mean a model that HAS MADE "good" predictions, with the word "good" meaning that the predictions have ALREADY been verified as being indisputably true and correct?

What is there to be taken seriously in in what I have been writing? Most of what I write is just asking clarifying questions? If people are not taking seriously clarifying questions, then what does that actually mean?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Your naive view works for someone who stays on/near Earth, and you since you will never need otherwise and are not in charge of devices that need a better model, it works for you.
Again, what do you perceive is My actual view?

Also, what I actually observe and see was done by looking from lots of different perspectives and especially from ones NOT just of an on, nor near of, an earth's perspective at all. In fact it was I who was trying to get you, and others, to look from other perspectives, which would show in much greater detail a much bigger thus much more truer view, but that perspective has consistently been denied as being NOT even being able to even be looked at.

And, you saying that my naive view works for those who stay on/near earth and that it works for me shows just how out of touch you are with Me. You have NOT even begun to grasp what I observe, instead you just make up more assumptions about what I see.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
But then why are you here pushing it as some sort of alternate truth to which you're 'open minded' only because you refuse to examine it more closely.
The reason I do NOT examine your assumed and imagined view that I supposedly have is because I have NO real idea what it is that you THINK I view. Remember it is all of your making. Without clarifying you will NEVER KNOW what I see and understand. Assuming you do know is NOT helping you at all.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
I have NO idea if a traveling twin would age less, more, or not at all compared to the other one that did not leave.
Yes, we've noticed this.
Are you saying that you already do KNOW what the actual truth is, although you have NO such physical evidence for this?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
I have NOT yet seen any evidence for any thing regarding this SO I will just remain OPEN. I am certainly NOT going to believe some thing WILL happen just because some people say it WILL. When the tests and experiments are performed, if they are, only then will I be able to look at and see what the ACTUAL results are.
Confirming my suspicion above. Denial of evidence it is.
Where is and what is the ACTUAL true and real evidence that a traveling twin ages less than the other one?

Saying, "because one clock ticked slower at speed than another one, then a traveling twin will age less than the other twin" IS NOT ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

What was the name of the actual test done conducted on twins?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Admittedly, that's better than humans not aging over the duration of their existence.
You have twisted this so far that your assumptions are getting bent beyond repair.

This is why davidm brought up the jumping into the sun example. Nobody has tried that either, so according to the argument you are using here, you consider there to be no evidence that it would be a harmful thing to do. You consider it an act of open mindedness and not willful ignorance to suggest that one might survive that act.

NO, what you have once again just ASSUMED and the conclusion that you have just jump to is total ignorance of WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

If you would like to look at and discuss what I wrote in reply to davidm's example, then we can look at some thing with far more credibility than your ridiculous ASSUMPTION here.

WHY do you, human beings, seem to NEVER ask for clarification and instead just make up the most ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS and jump to the most inconceivable CONCLUSIONS, some times, thinking that that will counter act what another is saying?

You are so far WRONG about what My "argument" IS that you have taken this past laughable stage now.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Indeed, nobody has done just that, so no direct evidence. But complete denial of indirect evidence (sun appears really hot, and ken is not the sort of creature that survives such temperatures (also not directly verified)) would be willful ignorance. "Of the tens of billions of people who have ever lived, not one has died by falling into the sun. Therefore, being open minded, it is OBVIOUS that falling into the sun is not fatal."
Did you even read what I wrote in response to davidm's example, or, did you completely miss it?

If it is the former, then WHY NOT try and attack that, instead of assuming that I think in some way, which would obviously appear as stupid as you are trying to make out here?

If it is the latter, then I suggest reading it BEFORE saying the absolutely ridiculous things that you are assuming here.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
So why the denial of the indirect evidence of relativity and yet (presumably) not denial of the sun fatality evidence? You said I never asked questions of you. I just did there.
It only took 50 or so pages to get you to ask some.

There is NO denial of the indirect evidence of relativity, by Me, so there is NO reason why you ASSUME there is. You are making that ASSUMPTION all by your lonesome.

Now, to you, what does 'relativity' NEED evidence of any way? What is there about 'relativity' that NEEDS to be evidenced? What does 'relativity' actually mean or propose, to you?

The reason I KNOW that a human body would stop breathing and pumping blood when it gets closer to the sun is because of the first hand experience that this body has had with the sun, AS I HAVE ALREADY PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED when I responded to the example davidm gave.

Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
A "younger" twin can only be, AFTER a trip, right?
Hard to parse that. The twin that makes the trip is younger when the two meet again. When not in each other's presence, the assessment of which is younger is ambiguous as is the assessment of which one made the trip.
Again ONLY AFTER the trip is made could it be proven there is a "younger" twin or not. So, making an "assessment" while the trip is being made, or as you say not in each other's presence, is again ONLY AN ASSUMPTION. So again, WHY make an ASSUMPTION BEFORE you have the actual evidence? And, as to who made the trip the answer is obvious, whoever is decided to make the trip. There is NOTHING that 'stationary' can be measured against so that would mean every thing is moving.

If some people want to make guesses about what would be observed from a perspective that they are obviously not in and decide how that frame would be seen compared to another frame, then that is quite a different thing from WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Remember the specific traveler frame example: Traveler is stationary and ages 70 days. The Earth twin travels on spaceship Earth, and ages 75hours.
The contradiction of "traveler" being "stationary" speaks for itself.

There is NO such thing as what 'stationary' could be measured against yet.

Also what you propose is NOT WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN because NO actual test has been carried out yet. When an actual test is done, then we can look at the actual findings, until then I will remain open. What you have proposed is OBVIOUSLY only what is ASSUMED to happen, which is based on the findings of ONE clock, out of two clocks, that supposedly ticked slower when it "traveled" compared to another third clock.
But if the two star systems are in the galaxy labelled "milky way", and that galaxy is said to be 'moving' at 1.3 million miles per hour, then words 'reasonably stationary' is really a VERY RELATIVE expression, right
If the galaxy is said to be moving at 1.3 million mph, then whoever says that is referencing some frame in which it moves at that speed. I was speaking of the frame of the local exercise, where the two systems are stationary enough to have their separation distance printed in a book. Different frame than this other one you just referenced.
The two systems are reasonably stationary in that frame, and the galactic core moves in that frame at about 40% of the speed you reference, so it was not the solar frame being referenced by whoever quoted the 1.3mmph figure.
[/quote]

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:02 am

davidm wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:43 pm
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:00 pm
I have NO idea if a traveling twin would age less, more, or not at all compared to the other one that did not leave.
Really Ken? NO idea? Scroll back several pages where, in answer to my "clarifying question," you definitively stated that the twins would have aged the SAME -- no difference on their clocks.

Now, suddenly, you have NO idea? :?
It appears as though you got Me. I will now just have to accept and agree that what is being proposed IS absolutely true and right, correct? Is that what you would like?

Or, did what happen was, you asked Me one clarifying question, which I responded, and which I also gave reasoning for, which you also asked for? I gave you what I have observed, and the reasoning behind WHY 'the twins would age the same' would make sense to Me. THEN, some person proposed that I was pushing some view, which I definitely was NOT, and when I stated what you quoted Me as saying, it was in the context of, I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT THE ACTUAL OUTCOME WILL BE, BECAUSE NO ACTUAL TESTS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED OF IT, yet.

I acknowledge that in order to answer your clarifying question made an assumption about what would happen, which was totally WRONG of me to do. Although I have already stipulated from the outset that no matter what I say in this forum that ALL of My views are only what I THINK, (might happen), and EVERY view always remains open to being challenged, questioned, and changed. I did NOT actually stipulate that at the time of answering your question and I did NOT make it properly qualified in My response to your clarifying question.

What I said is what I observe would happen under the circumstances your provided. If, however, that is what will ACTUALLY HAPPEN, then I have NO IDEA. As I stated,
I have NO idea if a traveling twin would age less, more, or not at all compared to the other one that did not leave. I have NOT yet seen any evidence for any thing regarding this SO I will just remain OPEN. I am certainly NOT going to believe some thing WILL happen just because some people say it WILL. When the tests and experiments are performed, if they are, only then will I be able to look at and see what the ACTUAL results are.

I have NOT, suddenly, just come to have NO idea. I have just, suddenly, made you aware of this. In all honesty, I have NO idea of what will happen, UNTIL IT HAPPENS. Until then I can share what I observe, see, and understand, but if I slip into making an unjustified assumption again, then that is my WRONG DOING, again. I apologize for causing confusion.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1856
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:11 am

ken wrote:
Why are they called falsification tests

Does that some how give them more weight in their support of the thing that was said would happen

Why not instead just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS

Trying to perform a falsification test or a verifiable test means that there is already a preconceived outcome
Potential falsification is a fundamental component of the scientific method. Hypotheses have to be subject to it or else they are deemed invalid
But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified. Scientists may have preconceived
notions pertaining to the outcome of an experiment but they do not let that influence them. Because the methodology is what is important here not the opinions of scientists which mean absolutely nothing less they can actually be verified. And this is why the scientific method is employed

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:46 pm

Okay I read all the way through this post before responding. I considered what you call the "bigger picture" being communicated/shown to Me. There was nothing new there. Now I will respond the way I wish to.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
Ken, here are links to where I previously assembled recent inconsistent/contradictory statements you made.
Thank you.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
I’m adding some comments after each one now,
Even better. Thank you for finally doing this.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
since you didn’t seem able to recognize any contradictions for yourself.
Once again you have got it wrong. I am able to recognize SOME of the PERCEIVED contradictions that others will make. I even KNOW before I write that some of what I will say will be PERCEIVED as contradictory. I continue to write that way however, to emphasize that if what I have said was clarified BEFORE assumptions were made, then I could show how the perceived contradictions are NOT really a contradiction at all.

I have already explained to you previously that when people just repeat what others or I have written, then that in of itself does NOT show what contradictions they are seeing. Adding comments about what is the ACTUAL contradiction the person sees HELPS others to recognize what they, themselves, see.

A lot of what I write is NOT as contradictory as you see it to be. However, I am unable to inform you of how it is NOT contradictory by just repeating what I wrote, and then just saying that you seem unable to recognize that it is NOT contradictory for yourself.

To start explaining WHY what I say is NOT contradictory there NEEDS to be some recognition from you that what I say MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY BE CONTRADICTORY AT ALL, as it appears at first glance. To Me, a 'paradox' means expressing a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true. A lot of what I write is very paradoxical, in that on first glance it may seem absurd or to be a contradictory statement but ONLY on further investigation the actual truth will be found.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
I suggest (for clarity and continuity) that you read all the way through this post before responding. If you don't, you're going to be responding to fragments only, rather than considering the bigger picture being communicated/shown to you.
I already know what you are trying to communicate/show to Me. You have explained that many times already, you just never explained the particular reason for why you see what you see. And, now that you have made comments I can show you WHY what you perceive as being absurd or contradictory may NOT be that at and after all.
Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:16 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:06 am
all people distort the actual truth, and/or are completely blinded from the actual truth, because of and by their own previously held assumptions and beliefs
(If ALL people do this, that includes you.)

I have already clearly stated that YES THAT INCLUDES ME.
Surely you understand that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.
(Oh, I guess it doesn’t include you.)

WHY guess that and make that assumption?

Did you really NOT notice that I said ASSUMPTIONS and beliefs? So, that in of itself means that when i am making assumptions that then i am distorting the actual truth and/or are being completely blinded from the actual truth. I have NEVER said I NEVER make assumptions. What I have said is I do NOT like to make assumptions.

Besides that fact, people also are NOT always making assumptions and/or believing. It is only at those time WHEN people are making assumptions and/or believing things that that is when they are then distorting, or being blinded from, the ACTUAL TRUTH. How this fits in better and more with the bigger picture I have is to see 'assumptions' relating to distorting the actual truth while 'beliefs' relating to blinding one from the actual truth. To show how this all forms together perfectly to make a thorough, complete big picture would take years of writing for me.

If you have any examples of when assumptions do not distort the actual truth and/or any examples of when beliefs do not blind one from the actual truth, and thus you can counter what I say here, then will you share them with us?



Did you assume, think, or believe that what I said would apply to all people but not to me?
(That’s what you appear to have just said above.)

But you have to remember that what appears to YOU is NOT necessarily what IS, true.

You took the words I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANYTHING to mean that I also NEVER make assumptions as well.

As I have just explained, hopefully, when i am assuming (and/or believing), then i also am distorting (and/or being blinded from) the actual truth ALSO.

ALL people, from a certain age, and who are capable of making assumptions and believing things, ALL make assumptions and believe things AND when they are doing that, then they are distorting and/or being blinded from the actual truth.

I NEITHER believe nor disbelieve any thing, IN GENERAL, ALWAYS, FOREVER MORE, et cetera. FULL STOP.
(And now you’re saying it again.)

Just because I said it again, that does NOT mean that it means what you think it means. What appears to you is NOT necessarily what IS, happening. AND, what you think this implies does NOT necessarily mean that is what it does imply.

Did you notice that I did NOT, AGAIN, say that i do NOT make assumptions?
the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.
(Okay, so that’s what you're saying the Truth IS.)
I do not recall telling people how some thing "is"
(You just did.)

Just because you noticed that I just did some thing, does NOT mean that at the time I wrote, I do not RECALL telling people how some thing "is" that I recalled telling people how some thing is. At the time I wrote that I did NOT recall telling people how some thing is. That might appear inconsistent but on further investigation it is NOT. I did NOT say that I did not tell people how some thing is. At that moment I did NOT recall telling people how some thing is, which is very consistent with what WAS happening, at that time.
there is One single view, which can fathom ALL. That view is made up of ALL views. From this vantage point ONLY is the view point from which I talk about.
(Again, you’re saying what IS.)

Are you proposing this is contradictory or inconsistent in of itself?
I do not recall ever saying "how it is".
(You just did.)

Did you purposely repeat the exact same thing again here?

As I previously stated, at that moment I did NOT recall ever saying "how it is". BUT, now that you have pointed it out it is obvious that I DID.
there is NO THING that I am aware of "that must be agreed upon and accepted by all". The fact is I have been saying the very opposite of that.
(You just said that the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.)

Yes I may have just said that the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL, BUT that certainly does NOT mean that there is any thing that MUST BE agreed upon and accepted by ALL.

The Truth IS, what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL, and what is NOT agreed and accepted by ALL is that there must be some thing agreed upon and accepted by ALL. Therefore, there is NO contradiction nor inconsistency there, at least that I can see and am aware of anyway. If, however, you can see any contradiction and/or inconsistency, then will you show them to us?
When, and if, there are any distortions and inconsistencies in what I write... /...I will be the first one to acknowledge and them and correct them.
(You’ve been unable to see them.)

More the truth is not until now you have proposed what you see. Assuming that I have been unable to see distortions and inconsistencies in what I write is a very wrong assumption as I know full well that some of what I write will APPEAR very distorted, very contradictory, and very inconsistent to some people. I do this on purpose.

Also, THIS IS WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE,
When, and if, there are any distortions and inconsistencies in what I write, then I am the first one who wants to be made aware of them. I can not correct that of which I am unaware of. So please point them out to Me at your first opportunity to. I will be the first one to acknowledge and them and correct them.

Did you NOTICE how much, by disregarding or dismissing some of what I write, distorts WHAT I ACTUALLY DID WRITE AND SAY?

AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, I will be the first one to acknowledge and correct the distortions and inconsistencies AFTER they are pointed out to Me. I do NOT like to accuse you of purposely doing some thing, which you may of really only unintentionally did, but if you are going to quote what I say, then please quote what I ACTUALLY said. The distortion that you have created, by NOT providing ALL of what I ACTUALLY said, can some times become unrepairable.
I do not see that My absolute phrases necessarily contradict what else I have said.
(Right... you do not see... no matter how many times or ways someone points it out to you... and despite your claim that you want to learn how to communicate better.)
The ONLY THING YOU HAVE SHOWN HERE SO FAR, out of all your accusations, is that I have said "how it is", which I have NEVER said that I did NOT do anyway, by the way. So, if you want to point out any more contradictions and/or inconsistencies now that I have seen what you have proposed and after I have been given a chance to reply to those accusations, then go ahead I am more than willing to discuss them too.

Also, if you disagree with, or you see any contradictions and/or inconsistencies, in any of what I have just written now, then I would love to see them also.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
Here’s another recent example of inconsistency that was shown to you regarding your communication...
ken wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:53 am
The truth of Life is all around. People are looking at and seeing it all the time. But they are distorting that view or being blinded from it completely because of the way they are thinking.
Lacewing wrote:So are they seeing it all the time, or are they being blinded from it completely? Which is it?
Is it A inconsistency, or, does it, at the moment or on first glance, APPEAR as an inconsistency, to you?

Also, does it have to be one or the other, or, could both play a part in this?

From what I have observed, the physical eyes are seeing the truth of Life, reality, ALL THE TIME, but people are distorting, and/or completely blocking, this view, SOME TIMES. They do this with thinking. As I have previously explained, WHEN people are assuming, and/or believing, then that is when they are distorting and/or completely blocking the clear and unobstructed view. It is that type of thinking that prevents seeing what IS ACTUALLY true and real.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
You see, Ken, you said you want to learn to communicate better, but if you're unwilling or unable to see/recognize the inconsistencies and how they break down the communication, then I don’t know what part of communication you are truly willing to improve... because you are showing resistence to valid feedback.
This is the first time you have given any real feedback. There was no thing to resist before.

Hopefully, now that you have given some sort of feedback and thus I have been able to give a chance to give some sort of informed reply, you will see that what you say I was unwilling or unable to see/recognize was really only inconsistencies that you were seeing and/or giving. They were NOT really actual inconsistencies at all. Your assumptions and/or beliefs were NOT allowing you to see the full and big picture. Your thinking was causing distortions which you were seeing as true and real, which were also appearing to you as real but were in fact were NOT.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
It’s my impression that you seem to obsess over each sentence,
A good observation, which to a certain degree I agree with.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
without noticing the connections and influences of other related statements.
That is an extremely distorted view of what I actually do.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
This could be why you don’t notice that one thing you say right now, doesn’t match or flow with something else that has been said.
But it does match and flow with other things that I have said. You just assume and/or believe they do NOT. Through clarification you could have already found out what the actual truth is.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
You may be seeing truth in the statement of that single moment, but that alone does not reflect the broader message being discussed/delivered.
Or, you are NOT seeing the broader message from each and every statement that I write, which would be totally understandable because I have NOT even begun to discuss, give, nor deliver the full and broad message YET.

In other words, it’s like you’re looking at water droplets, when someone else is looking at the ocean. [/quote]

I find this extremely humorous as the very opposite can be seen and said.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
There are so many relationships and connections that are necessary to recognize and build-on for good communication...
Agreed.

And truly good communication starts with full honesty and openness, but when in this "world" does that ever occur?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
yet you seem to be intent on defining and picking at individual pieces as if nothing else exists beyond them in that moment, and that’s not representative of broader concepts.
And you could be seeing, or reflecting on, some thing, which does NOT even exist.

Just maybe I am intent on defining and "picking at" individual pieces because I KNOW how important each one has to be defined and "picked at" perfectly, in order to show how each and ALL of them fit perfectly together to form a truly perfect broader view of what IS actually true, right, and correct.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
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?
Ken, that question you mistakenly attributed to me (above) was yours... and I already answered you... so, here, you are questioning your own question.
I clicked on the quote button, which automatically attributed that to you, I obviously was NOT paying 100% attention and so responded to what I read.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
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.
I’ve explained that this (above) is where I’m coming from when I speak of love, humor, and entertainment. So why do you frame it like this (below):
ken wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:18 am
As I pointed out previously if you find the abuse and the killing of children over money, greed, and power entertaining to you, then so be it. I just do NOT find that entertaining.
Because the broader sees ALL, the beauty, magnificence, the love, the humor, et cetera AS WELL AS the ugly, the destruction, the wars, the abuse, et cetera. Obviously the 'broadest' view of all sees ALL things, and NOT just some things. That is why I framed it like that. If you are going to talk about a 'broad' view, then you have to be looking at all things and not just pick and choose some things that you want to look at and see.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
What are you trying to accomplish, Ken, by saying something so absurd about me?
What is it exactly that you are proposing that I am saying that is so "absurd" about you?

When you clarify that, then I can clarify exactly what I am trying to accomplish by pointing out the obvious.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
You take it down to such a dense level.
What do you mean by 'dense'?

Do you mean some thing, which you do NOT want to look at, or do you mean some thing else?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
Such as you did again, below:
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
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.
I don't view myself as standing behind a curtain watching all of the horrors go on, Ken.
I KNOW, you tell Me that you look at and see all the beauty and magnificence, (only). You say it is there for entertainment purposes.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
I’m acknowledging that it’s all part of creation... which is like looking behind the curtain of this dramatic world... and I’m focused on LOVING it MORE THAN being intoxicated by it. It’s just a perspective! I am continually ENGAGED with it.
You are free to choose to do whatever you like. If you want to love the ugliness and the abuse of others more, then so be it. I am NOT telling you what to do nor should do.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
Your misrepresentations of what I’ve said are based on YOUR assumptions and misunderstandings. And when you talk about the hate within me, it shows that you have NO IDEA...
I did say that ON PURPOSE. I asked you what you would "say or think" (I do not recall fully now) if I said things like the hate within you. I WANTED you to say things like that is a misrepresentation based on YOUR assumptions, et cetera, and that I have NO IDEA. I WANTED you to say things like that so that you might remember just how many times you make misrepresentations about Me, which I have continually said are caused by your continual assumptions.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
and you are projecting.
Do YOU project?

Do you KNOW the exact same thing could be said about you and what you are doing.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
I’ve clearly explained to you “where I’m coming from”...
And, I have clearly explained that what you say you see is NOT necessarily what IS.

Do you accept that?
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
and at times you say you feel or want the same...
Or, maybe I am saying I ALREADY HAVE IT.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
but then you’ll mischaracterize it later in regard to me, apparently when it suits your argument.
To show you how easily it is to mischaracterize so hopefully will take some sort of notice how often you do it.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
There’s a saying: “When you can learn to love Hell, you’ll be in Heaven.”
There are many other sayings also. Do you have any proof or evidence how that is true?

Like I said if you love to partake in and continue to cause pollution, child abuse, wars, greed, et cetera, then so be it. Remember as an adult you are completely free to choose to love partaking in and doing those things.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
I think that shows an attitude of acceptance and love for ALL that is, without condition.
If you accept child abuse is just a part of ALL that is, then continue on your "merry" way. I prefer to do some thing about stopping it, completely.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
That doesn’t mean being detached and indifferent.
Okay.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
Being "behind that curtain" alone is a pretty lonely feeling, which is ALL I have experienced.
I think that’s an illusion of your own making.
You are free to think any thing you like. But how true your thoughts actually are is another matter.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
Isn’t everyone an equal part of totality/one --
Yes.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
acting out their trips on this Earth stage --
Yes.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
but all are divine?
ALL have divine within them.

But NOT ALL are divine.

Being able to distinguish and separate the two is great skill to gain.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
“Looking behind the curtain” is just a way of saying that one is looking beyond the illusion of and for onesself. There is not some holy/divine place that only some can go, or that all should go. We’re already doing a divine, magnificent dance of creation in all kinds of forms.
We are already ALSO doing a selfish, uninspiring dance of destruction in all kinds of forms to.

The thing is we are doing both. Eventually one will overcome the other. Which one that comes out on top is up to what we allow to happen.
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:27 am
ken wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:24 am
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.
Okay, go ahead... show HOW without showing or telling WHAT they have to do.
As I have repeatedly stated, this forum is certainly NOT to place to show this. I just use this place to learn how to communicate better. If a philosophy forum is NOT the best place to learn how to communicate, argue, and logically reason better, then please tell Me where is.

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:04 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:16 pm
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:06 am
the Truth IS what is agreed upon and accepted by ALL.
(Okay, so that’s what you're saying the Truth IS.)
No, the truth is what it is, what all or most people believe is often wrong. At one time most people believes the Earth was flat, but they were wrong.

thedoc
Posts: 6441
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:12 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:15 pm
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm

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.
But then there are theoretical tachyons that are said to travel faster than light. And the Cosmic Inflation theory states that the universe grew by a factor of 10 to the 16th power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so from the central point of expansion outward in all directions the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light. Of course they just theorized that to make their math work. Speculation, or real science? ;-) Obviously the pull of a black hole is greater than the speed of light or light could escape it.


c applies to light moving through space but c does not apply to space itself, so space can move faster than c and it carries everything in it along.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm

ken wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:08 am
Saying that a clock ticks slower, supposedly with speed,
I didn't say that. Clocks are presumed to measure time. If they read less, it is because there is less duration to measure, not due to ticking slow.
and basing all further examples on that one example, does NOT show how twin human bodies age differently if they age at the same pace, IF THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME AGE.
The assumptions, beliefs, and confirmation biases in those further examples, which are based solely on the one and supposedly "tested" experimental example are startling obvious.
This is what I mean by denial of evidence. There's hardly been one verification of it. A test of it is performed every second of every day. The example we've been looking at is not presented as evidence. Just answering questions for the sake of understanding.
The very simple fact that the words AGE AT THE SAME PACE means that they would NOT nor could NOT age differently.
That's right, despite my interpretation of your comments to assert otherwise. You've said no, it's not that you expect a twin to age over 8 years in under 5 months. Perhaps you think that A-C is some sort of anomaly that tacks on 8 years to each visitor that comes there. I'm just guessing because you haven't been very specific about why that scenario would differ from all the scenarios that have actually been done.
The very fact 'that time appears to change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer' can very easily be shown and proven true.
There is no observer in that statement since there is no way to directly observe dilation since it involves events not present at the observation point. You say this can easily be proven true, yet you don't seem to accept the evidence.
Am I expected to accept, and/or agree to some thing, that is NOT properly qualified?
Never expected you to accept it. I think some of the others are frustrated at your apparent denial, but that's them. I'm more amused by it. I thought the subject of debate was why this stuff should be accepted. What differentiates your position from one of denial of a specific theological stance, or perhaps an interpretation of QM?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
If you deny the answer, justify the denial.
I have attempted to show what I observe, but I can not get past the beliefs that you, and others, have.
You have an observation of something that falsifies anything we've said? If not, then what you observe isn't evidence one way or the other, and the denial of the positive evidence goes unjustified.
Are you at all open to the fact that the answers you, and others, have given could be WRONG?
Absolutely. But ignorance is the wrong path to being open. Knowing the theory, understanding it, and making it better is the way to go. Very few theories are just plain wrong. The Earth is not flat, but the surface of a sphere is effectively flat at close range. The round earth was a minor adjustment to the geometry, the exact same sort as relativity. You seem to consider it a virtue to be open to flat Earth because you have all you experience on an apparently flat place. You consider the rest of us sheep for following the obviously wrong texts that teach of a round planet. You've attempted to point out the flat Earth you observe, but cannot get past the beliefs that us others have. We should not necessarily accept flat Earth, but be at least open to it. Well I'm not. Baaaaa....
I also do NOT deny your given answers. I just do NOT, yet, see how they logically follow.
Look up the thought experiments then. All of it logically follows from just fixed light speed. Your refusal to follow the illustration might justify your naive personal view, but it does not justify your bashing of the rest of us for accepting the hard evidence. Ignorance is not a valid argument.
Which, if I am correct, that "evidence", which you see, you are NOT going to give and explain again, right?
Correct. You seem to have a track record for not acknowledging evidence, perhaps because it was not done by you personally.
To Me, saying, A clock ticked slower, traveling in a certain direction, around earth compared to another clock that stayed in the same place on earth is NOT verified evidence that a human body will age slower when it travels at speed. That might be enough evidence and proof, for you, but I need more than just that.
Clocks accurately measures duration in their own frame. Not accurate to say one ticks slower, because if it did, the other clock would be ticking faster, which contradicts the situation described from the frame of what was the slower clock.
That is NOT to say that what you are saying is true and correct is NOT true and correct, that is just saying I NEED more evidence to see and accept what you say you see and accept here.
I understand. But why go on the forum then and post that we're all wrong to accept our education? Why is this stance of denial a good thing for anybody else, especially those of us who need to know this stuff to engineer things like rockets that need to get to their proper destinations, or GPS devices? Flat earth works until you're in charge of scheduling airline routes.
I have NOT based any thing on people who always stay together. Are there two people who have ALWAYS stayed together?
There have yet to be any exceptions to this. All humans have stayed sufficiently together to make their age adjustments far less than the precision to which human age can be measured. The worst adjustment was on the order of a second, and the precision is on the order of nearly a decade. Here there is one data point from which you draw your stance of denial.
What do you mean by, "you balk"?
You did it just above. You denied that people stay together.
So, hitherto zero humans have left the general frame of their home planet, but to you there is ENOUGH evidence to support and prove that twins born at the same time age differently when one is traveling at speed, is this right?
No, they age at the same pace of one day per day, unless you consider it closed minded of me to assume that. They've had people in space for years, and they don't seem to age faster due to being in space. So the traveler is probably not going to age significantly different than one day per day just because he's in an enclosed box with life support. But it's an assumption. Maybe there's a magic aging ray that hits you out past the Kuiper belt. Have to keep an open mind about that one.
So, to you, the conclusion that a traveling twin HAS, without any doubt, existed for less duration than the twin which stayed on earth is based solely on the clock or watch that they take with them, is this right?
Never said that. From the traveler frame, one existed for 70 days, and the Earth twin existed for only 3. The watch was brought up as a way to measure the elapsed time if either twin found it inconvenient to have an age-o-meter shoved up his wazoo at the end of it all.
Twins are not required you know. Do it to two newly impregnated women. After the trip, one will starting to show a round belly, and the other will be dealing with her third grader. Much more obvious difference in age if you do it from age zero like that.
So, to you, 'clocks' are used in tests as they are a lot easier to get up to "speed"?
The low-precision ones are. The accurate ones probably haven't been accelerated to anything faster than they've done to humans.
"Up to the speed" of what exactly? Where they looking for a result, prior to the test?
99.5% of lightspeed, and yes, they were looking for a result. The clocks had perhaps a 10% error rate.
I do NOT have a "counter point" as I have NO "view" in the first place.
Yes you do. I've pointed it out. You'd not be posting if you had no view that we're seemingly not getting.
Do you human beings actually realize...
The wording implies you're not one. Bridge troll perhaps? You should put it in your profile.
I have NO known way at all of predicting the age of some body not on earth.
You fail to understand our stance. Doubt of a view is acceptable, but only in the face of a better alternative. There are examples of views that were considered truth but then discarded. In almost all cases, the view discarded was interpretation, not science. The other cases the view was improved upon, not discarded. Newtonian mechanics is still valid, just incomplete. People were not closed minded to accept Newtonian physics taught at the time. Progress was made not by denial of the theory, but by noting inconsistencies, thus identifying places in need of refinement. You've identified zero inconsistencies, and don't seem to be trying to. Instead you're evangelizing the ignorance view of denial of the evidence we have. It seems to be the wrong path because it does not lead to any knowledge at all.
The more questions I ask, then the more I can learn.
Not if you deny the answers given. You still know nothing if you throw all the answers in the 'maybe' pile.
What part of 'relativity' exactly has been supposedly "well verified by empirical tests"?
It has parts? Don't know how to answer this.
What is the 'pace' corresponding to the duration of existence?
One day per day, or I.E. 1.
Is it not you who is the one who says that the pace of the ageing process depends on how fast a thing is traveling?
If so, then considering ALL things travel at differing speeds, then that would imply ALL things age at a mismatched pace, correct
No to the first. Human aging is a measure of decomposition. Living humans tend to predictably change appearance over time, and fall apart after around 80 years. Other things don't necessarily age like that. A buried bone might age really slow and be found as a fossil millions of years later, and another one might break down in months in a harsher environment. So things do age at mismatched paces. The aging of a bone is far less predictable.
Also, what is the duration of existence, and, what is that duration measured against?
Duration as used in this thread is the time between two events. It can be measured by any physical process. The more stable/predictable the process, the more accurate the measurement.
I think you have completely missed what I am suggesting.
I also suspect you think that.
A proposed 'speed of light', in a vacuum, might have help a human being come up with or make up a theory, but 'the speed of light', itself, did NOT suggest any thing. How do you propose it could?
Fixed light speed was not something that was proposed. It was measured, and that measurement was unexpected. They knew their model at the time was not complete.
Also, there is only ONE absolute labelled "model" and that IS the real thing, Itself.
Not what a model is.
What "absolute" model are you referring to, and what do you propose it did not predict?
Newtonian absolute space. It predicted that if you were not stationary, one could measure different times for light to go forward vs. backwards.
Take the train moving at half lightspeed. Two clocks are synchronized at each end, and emit a photon at time zero and measure when the signal is received at the other end. The train is 6 light-microseconds (usec) in length. If the train is stationary, it takes 6usec, and both measurements read 6. If it is moving, the light signal from the front moves 2/3 the train length in 4 usec, and the half-lightspeed motion of the back sensor makes up the remaining distance. It measures 4 at the end. The signal from the back must travel two trainlengths in 12 usec. One to cover the length of the train, and the other to cover the movement of the front sensor in those 12 usec. So the moving train gets unequal measurements of 4 and 12 for light to travel the length of the same distance, a variable speed of light. This was empirically falsified. They needed refinement of the model, but not a discard of it.
The experiment can be done without reliance on synchronized clocks. Just one emitter/sensor at one end and a mirror at the other. The stationary train measures 6+6=12 usec for the round trip, and the moving train measures 4+12=16. This is closer to how light speed is actually measured. They have scattered about several reflectors on the moon for exactly such purposes.
Why are they called "falsification" tests? Does that some how give them more "weight" in their support of the thing that was said would happen?
Yes. If there are two models and they make different predictions, all one need do is test the thing that is predicted differently, which matches one model hopefully, and serves as a falsification of the other. Don't mean the winning model is perfect, but it is better. QM interpretations are supposedly vastly different views, but lack falsification tests and thus are not science theories, but merely philosophical interpretation. They are trying to identify falsification tests which would elevate them to science.
Why not, instead, just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS?
That's exactly what they do. But you seem to support the ignoring of what ACTUALLY HAPPENS. Not sure why that needed to be in caps like that.
Trying to perform a "falsification" test, or a "verifiable" test, means that there is already a preconceived outcome, which can influence what readings are taken and then given.
There is no verifiable test. It's all about falsification. QM interpretations are full of verifiable tests, but lack falsification. Hence they're not science, and there is no solid grounds for asserting one of them being more correct.
What other tests prove that time slows down with speed?
Predictions about where planets are observed. Measurement of gravity waves. Lifetimes of exotic particles in fast moving environments like LHC.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
No book was written before then.
"No" book?
Sorry, all the context has been removed. Not bothering to hunt down the origin of that snippet.
Noax wrote:
ken wrote:Anyway, I do NOT want to know "why it must be like that". I much prefer to explain and show WHY human beings BELIVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT, even when to others IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL.
Said in caps no less. Must be true.
So, again, I will ask, WHAT (exactly) was obvious?
If you can NOT provide "what" exactly was obvious, then, once again, we others have NO idea what you are referring to and talking about.
You're the one who yelled that IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. You don't know? I was just commenting on the caps usage, which seems to be the argument which makes your assertion of obviousness true. I didn't assume anything about what you actually find obvious, since in your efforts to remain unclear, you decided to omit from that statement.
By the way 'caps' do NOT necessarily mean "Must be true". 'Caps' can some times mean read and hear what it is that is actually been written and said. Saying some parts louder than others, with caps, is some times used in order to make the actual or particular point, that one is making, hopefully more clearer, and thus better understood.
Caps is considered yelling, and rude. Italics with mixed case implies emphasis. Your statement of obviousness did not include what was obvious other than "human beings BELIVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT", leaving off what they believe things must be like. Knowing that part might allow me to comment on how obvious some unstated alternative position is.
This is why you're not being taken seriously. No model cannot compete against a model that makes good predictions.
I have NOT yet even begun to show a model.
We noticed that. Hence us not taking you seriously.
And, if you have already decided that NO MODEL can compete against a model that makes "good predictions", then we already KNOW what you have decided to believe in, and follow.
We would fall beind a better model in a moment.
Also, did you mean "No model can compete against ...", "A model cannot compete against ...", or "No model cannot compete against ...", or, some thing else?
I meant the lack of model cannot compete again an existing model, however poor.
And, to Me, it seems like an extremely preconceived conception to have, that another model could not compete against a model that makes "good" predictions. Do you mean a model that HAS MADE "good" predictions, with the word "good" meaning that the predictions have ALREADY been verified as being indisputably true and correct?
None of the above. I was talking about a non-model.
What is there to be taken seriously in in what I have been writing? Most of what I write is just asking clarifying questions? If people are not taking seriously clarifying questions, then what does that actually mean?
We disagree that we're sheep just because we accept verified scientific findings.
In fact it was I who was trying to get you, and others, to look from other perspectives, which would show in much greater detail a much bigger thus much more truer view, but that perspective has consistently been denied as being NOT even being able to even be looked at.
Your attempts presumed conditions known to be false. You can prove anything on such ground, and it would just show that your assumptions are probably wrong. Relativity is based only on one assumption, and that was one known to be true, yet counterintuitive. That led to some very counterintuitive falsification tests.
You have NOT even begun to grasp what I observe, instead you just make up more assumptions about what I see.
You've implied that you're not human, so perhaps you're quite right about my assumptions about what you see. I base it off what I see, and other than the software that runs my cellphone nav app, I get little day to day experience that would be different between relativity being the case or not.
The reason I do NOT examine your assumed and imagined view that I supposedly have is because I have NO real idea what it is that you THINK I view. Remember it is all of your making. Without clarifying you will NEVER KNOW what I see and understand. Assuming you do know is NOT helping you at all.
This is why everybody labels you a troll. You prattle on about what you see and understand, but don't tell us those things, and they type paragraphs about how much we don't know about you. If you see and understand something we don't, then produce it. If you won't because you prefer to whine about how much you're misunderstood, then you're a troll in our eyes.
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pm
Yes, we've noticed this.
Are you saying that you already do KNOW what the actual truth is, although you have NO such physical evidence for this?
These forum posts are virtual I suppose. Does that count as physical evidence? Certainly not proof since the knowledge level you choose to portray might in fact not correspond at all to what your actual level is. So no, I don't know the truth of it.
What was the name of the actual test done conducted on twins?
We should keep a count of this question. Nobody has ever traveled far from Earth. It is admittedly an assumption that a human in deep space ages at one day per day out there, just like he does in near-space.
WHY do you, human beings, seem to NEVER ask for clarification and instead just make up the most ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS and jump to the most inconceivable CONCLUSIONS, some times, thinking that that will counter act what another is saying?
Another implication of not being human.
You know very well that no human has traveled to another star. You have no specific protest it seems, but barring one, you force us to make assumptions about what part you're unwilling to accept. They've pretty much verified every aspect of it except the rate of aging in deep space, or perhaps A-C being some sort of anomaly, although the original twin-experiment made no mention of a specific location like that. So rather than going on for 20 posts about our human assumptions, tell us the part you think should be open to questioning. I've listed the only ones I can think of. If you don't do this, then you're verifying our assessment of your view as being from ignorance.
There is NO denial of the indirect evidence of relativity, by Me, so there is NO reason why you ASSUME there is. You are making that ASSUMPTION all by your lonesome.
Yet you consider it open-mindedness to reject the implications of that evidence. That's willful ignorance in my book.
Again ONLY AFTER the trip is made could it be proven there is a "younger" twin or not. So, making an "assessment" while the trip is being made, or as you say not in each other's presence, is again ONLY AN ASSUMPTION.
No, not an assumption. It is ambiguous. That's different than an assumption. I'm claiming no assumptions.
So again, WHY make an ASSUMPTION BEFORE you have the actual evidence? And, as to who made the trip the answer is obvious, whoever is decided to make the trip.
No. It is not about decisions. In fact it is about acceleration. One (or both) of them must accelerate in order for the two to meet again.
There is NOTHING that 'stationary' can be measured against so that would mean every thing is moving.
This is wrong.
Anything can be considered stationary, and be that against which time is computed, or measured if in the presence of the measurement.
If some people want to make guesses about what would be observed from a perspective that they are obviously not in and decide how that frame would be seen compared to another frame, then that is quite a different thing from WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN.
They're not guesses. Nobody but you claiming that there's guessing going on.
The contradiction of "traveler" being "stationary" speaks for itself.There is NO such thing as what 'stationary' could be measured against yet.
Ah. An attempt at stating a contradiction, coupled with the refutation you seek no less. The traveler is stationary relative to his ship for instance. He's in his seat, and a while later, still in it. Sounds pretty stationary to me. What definition of stationary do you have that contradicts that? You seem to refer to stationary in some absolute sense, but that would imply a definition from an alternate view which you've stated you don't have, so I'm left unclear as to what you're suggesting. Relativity says there is no absolute (not relative to anything) way to test for being stationary, and your comment above agrees with that rather that contracts it as you seem to have intended. If light speed were not fixed, then there would be an easy test.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:44 am

davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:04 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:19 pm
Can't find that in someone else's work huh? Yeah I thought so.
So, like Ken, you think that relativity is like religious dogma that people read and pass on without understanding?
Why assume that?

I might think that, but why assume another does? Why not just clarify, BEFORE assuming? You obtain far more accurate knowledge that way, as well as learning far more, and far more quickly.
davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:04 pm
I'm thinking on getting a myna bird for my wife for Christmas, what do you think David? ;-)
Maybe she can get you an education in return.

I notice, like Ken, you fail to respond to any of my responses to your claims. Just throw out insults and BS.
I was unaware that I was MEANT TO or HAD TO respond, to responses. If I have just missed to respond to any of your responses to My claims, which you wanted Me to respond to, then just point them out to Me, I WILL gladly respond.

I thought a more appropriate way to obtain a response, if a response was seriously wanted, was to ask a clarifying question. The question mark (?) specifies a response. The only thing a 'response', in of itself, specifies is that that was just a thought from another human body.

If you would like Me to respond to your responses to My claims, then would you also like to do the courtesy of answering My clarifying questions, to you? The question mark (?) is asking for you to respond.

By the way, if I recall correctly I HAVE actually responded to SOME of your responses to My claims. Are you absolutely sure that I have failed to respond to ANY of your responses to My claims?

Also, to you, is throwing out insults and bull shit just what I do, instead of responding to ANY of your responses to My claims?

By the way, is telling some one that they could get an education, a form of flattery, or an attempt at an insult?

Do you ever "throw out" insults?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:00 am

DNFTT

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:10 am

uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:49 am
As Einstein quickly realised, special relativity is based largely on a set of mathematical simplifications which have bugger all to do with reality;
I was starting to observe special relativity had not much to do with reality, and pondered questioning this earlier.

Also, I would hope einstein quickly realized that special relativity has bugger all to do with reality, einstein was the one who made up special relativity, right?
uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:49 am
a point which is lost on some of the contributors to this thread.
If a point is not yet known, then it is not lost. It is just not yet known.

If the point that special relativity has bugger all to do with reality has been written clearly earlier in this thread, then I, for one, missed it.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:13 am

davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:00 am
DNFTT
davidm EXPECTS others to respond to davidm's responses, but this is all davidm can give in return.

Which is by the way just ANOTHER completely WRONG assumption made.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:16 am

ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:13 am
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:00 am
DNFTT
davidm EXPECTS others to respond to davidm's responses, but this is all davidm can give in return.
:lol:

I've given you TONS of stuff in return, which you've IGNORED.

You're a TROLL. As everyone here now knows.

DNFTT

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:17 am

ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:10 am
uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:49 am
As Einstein quickly realised, special relativity is based largely on a set of mathematical simplifications which have bugger all to do with reality;
I was starting to observe special relativity had not much to do with reality, and pondered questioning this earlier.

Also, I would hope einstein quickly realized that special relativity has bugger all to do with reality, einstein was the one who made up special relativity, right?
uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:49 am
a point which is lost on some of the contributors to this thread.
If a point is not yet known, then it is not lost. It is just not yet known.

If the point that special relativity has bugger all to do with reality has been written clearly earlier in this thread, then I, for one, missed it.
Special relativity is an idealization of local flat spacetimes that ignores gravity, troll. As has been explained to you. That is why it is subsumed under general relativity, which has also been explained to you. Troll.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:18 am

davidm wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:21 pm
ken wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:42 pm

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'.
There are no "frame independent answers" if by this you mean, "two frames in relative motion that will agree on an objective time and space."
But that is NOT what I mean.
davidm wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:21 pm
But of course this has been explained to you.
Would you like to provide a link to where this has been explained to Me?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests