Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:27 am

davidm wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:23 pm
What is frame independent in the speed of light, from which all the rest follows: time dilation, length contraction, etc.

I have just been made aware of the point that the set of mathematical simplifications, which special relativity is largely based on, and thus which time dilation, length contraction, et cetera, are the results of also, has bugger all to do with reality Therefore, that explains A LOT, to Me anyway, and thus more likely the very reason for all of the conflicting information been given from what I have observed.
davidm wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:23 pm
But this has also been explained to you. Again and again. In every way imaginable.
Do you want to give any links?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:40 am

davidm wrote:
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.
Where has it been shown to Me? Any links?

What was the name of this "actual" twin experiment where actual twin human bodies were measured against each other and a noticeable age difference was evident?

davidm wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:52 pm
'Motion', relative to WHAT EXACTLY?
This question has been answered six million tines. Are you capable of cognition?
Obviously NOT, to you.

Any links?
davidm wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:52 pm
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?
Are you aware that it would have been quicker for you to write the name of the experiment, which you say was performed, and the name of the person, who you say done the experiment, than it was to write what you just did?

Also, are you aware that human beings have been giving whole pages, and whole books, of "information", for thousands of years, and continue to do so, supposedly "validating" various numbers of things?

And, while human beings continue to insist on these supposed truths, then I will continue to question them seeking clarification. If human beings insist that they individually, or a group of them, KNOW the absolute truth of things, then it would be far more beneficial for them if they could absolutely back what they say.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:18 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
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

Tachyons cannot travel faster than c but that limitation only applies to objects within the Universe not to the Universe as such

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:31 am

ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:40 am
Also, are you aware that human beings have been giving whole pages, and whole books, of "information", for thousands of years, and continue to do so, supposedly "validating" various numbers of things?
For somebody who regularly complains about assumptions being made of the views you won't state, you making a lot of them about these human beings you seem not to number yourself among. Can you back this absurd claim that books are used to validate things? You're always asking for links, so I thought your claim here needs one. I think I said in my prior post that science is a about falsification, not validation, and nowhere did I say that books (or links for that matter) are what are used to either validate or falsify something.

surreptitious57 gave a nice description of the process a few posts back, and using links and books was not part of it. I presume that he's human. Not so confident of that assumption with you.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:12 am

Science is not in the business of proving or validating hypotheses as proof is not in its remit only evidence. And evidence and proof are not the same even though some times they are taken to be. Proof is the remit of deductive systems such as mathematics and syllogisms. But science is
not a deductive system but an inductive one. And so nothing can be proven using only evidence for future evidence could invalidate it. So then
if you never see a black swan that does not mean that every swan is white. They could be but this would only be an assumption not an absolute

uwot
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:24 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.
Eh? That's not what I said. And take it from me; you have not just recently started "to observe special relativity had not much to do with reality."
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:10 am
Also, I would hope einstein quickly realized that special relativity has bugger all to do with reality...
That's not what I said.
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:10 am
...einstein was the one who made up special relativity, right?
Well, after 54 pages, I suppose we should be grateful that at least one fact has sunk in.
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:10 am
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.
That is not the point. You are closer with this:
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:27 am
I have just been made aware of the point that the set of mathematical simplifications, which special relativity is largely based on.....................................................has bugger all to do with reality
Which is true and a number of these simplifications have been made so explicit, that to have missed them is the equivalent of a piano falling on your head, and you not feeling it. For example, for the purposes of special relativity:

1. Space is a void. No it isn't.
2. Steam trains can travel at 0.6c. No they can't.
3. Inertial frames travel in straight lines. No they don't.

It is woeful enough that you think you have only just been made aware of this, but when we fill in the gap...
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:27 am
I have just been made aware of the point that the set of mathematical simplifications, which special relativity is largely based on, and thus which time dilation, length contraction, et cetera, are the results of also, has bugger all to do with reality
...your confirmation bias leaps from the screen. It simply does not follow that because the mathematical model is nonsense that the predictions and results are nonsense. This too, has been pointed out in the examples of Ptolemy, Newton and Einstein himself.
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:27 am
Therefore, that explains A LOT, to Me anyway, and thus more likely the very reason for all of the conflicting information been given from what I have observed.
There is no conflicting information regarding the slowing down of clocks, for the simple reason that no experiment has ever been conducted that didn't find it. That people interpret and explain facts like that in different ways, is exactly why some physicists say that philosophy is useless and stick to the maths. 'Shut up and calculate.' All we know for certain is that if an interpretation or explanation fails to include time dilation, it is wrong.

Anyway; when are you going to stick your neck out and present us with your 'Theory of everything'?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 am

I too would very much like to see ken produce this Theory Of Everything so can you do that please
Make it as detailed as you can so that there is no ambiguity and also no need to ask any questions
I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm

Asking ken for that TOE is about as pointless as ken continuously asking for a link to one specific test that he knows very well has not been performed. We all know he has no TOE.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 am
I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
It wouldn't unite them, but rather eliminate them, else it would not serve the purpose of proving that we're all wrong. That's what science is about, right? Proving wrong all those other guys.

His post asked if we would accept his TOE if he produced it. That is not a claim that it exists, and of course we all know it doesn't. The asking of the question was I think hoping to show our biases that nothing he says can be right. But on the contrary, if a TOE is produced, it would be better than the current not-TOE that we have. It would be a sensation. Of course we would embrace it.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:52 pm

ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:40 am
<snip>
I gave you tons of links dealing with all your questions, and you have the nerve to ask for them again?

Go hunt 'em up. They're in this thread.

This is why people have concluded that you're a troll.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2231
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Lacewing » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:57 pm

ken wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:46 pm
...
Good luck to you. I'm not interested in investing any more in this.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:49 pm

Many of you arguing this topic, are simply reciting what others have said, as if they are necessarily the authorities. And I'm certain that you believe you understand their understanding of the topic, but that does not necessarily indicate that either you or they 'know' for certain that their solutions are necessarily correct. The long list of people that have given them such authority, did not necessarily 'know' that their understanding was necessarily correct either. So you should see yourself standing in a very long line indeed, of believers, that don't necessarily know, rather simply believe they know.

Here let me give you an example that proves my point. I've said it here before many years ago, before some of you peoples time here, and it may have fallen on the deaf ears of those that were present.

As to time, it's a construct of mans mind. As Kant would say, 'it's neither a thing nor can it be traveled, it's simply a means for humans to account for sequence, so as to measure events.' As to something that is invisible, that cannot be directly measured, the models, the math, may seem to indicate that what's actually happening is what's thought to be happening, that it's a sound theory, yet the truth of what is actually happening might simply parallel the model, the math, thus our belief.

So here it that example I promised above:

We have a clock that measures time, or so we say it does. In this case it's a pendulum clock, not for the sake of accuracy, but rather for the sake of the point easily being understood by you all. Now I can slow this clock by various means, but does it necessarily mean that time is slowing or simply the mechanism that we say is measuring time, that is slowing. As there is no necessary connection between this man made devise that is said to measure time, and time, which is simply a human mental construct, a human mental conceptualization.

If it were several hundred years ago when clocks existed, but knowledge of electromagnetism didn't. And I showed you the pendulum clock, and I touched the pendulum and told you I was slowing time, you'd probably tell ne that I was a liar and that I was simply slowing down the mechanism that is said to measure time. But if a had coils of wire, magnets, a battery and a remote control all hidden in the device and/or my pocket, and said that I was just kidding, but that I would now really slow time by simply passing my hand in front of the clock and I did so while secretly pressing the remote control in my pocket, thus energizing the electromagnetic field on either side of the pendulum which had a hidden magnet within it, such that it obviously slowed, you probably would believe my model, (my math) that I was capable of slowing time, when in fact I was just slowing the mechanism that is said to measure time. In such a case how would you know the difference?

That processes seem to slow or speed up might not be due to time being dilated, but rather simply the process that is being manipulated in some fashion that we are currently unaware. So then how can we say we definitively know that it's time that is being manipulated? In truth we can't! We can only say that as of this 'time' in our universal education, still in it's infancy, all that we 'believe' we know, seems to indicate that time is slowing, as it's the best guess of what's actually happening, that we currently have available to us.

That is, if we truly want to be honest with ourselves!

Remember, that I'm not saying that I necessarily know, I'm simply saying that you can't truthfully say that you necessarily do. ;-)


Happy Holidays to all you thinkers and clones alike, as I 'understand' much of the current human condition.

Peace be with you!

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:13 pm

Nope, doesn’t work.

When we say, “a clock runs slow,” the “clock” is a figure of speech called a metonymy — a figure of speech in which a part stands for a whole.

The part is the clock.

The whole is all physical processes run slow.

This is why, of course, that no one, stationary in his own frame, can ever notice a slowing clock — because all processes, including mental, also slow as judged by a different observer in relative motion.

All clocks tick normally in one’s own frame. If one notices a clock ticking slow, it just means the clock is broken — or subject to outside influences.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Metamorphic Elemental

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:23 pm

davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:13 pm
Nope, doesn’t work.

When we say, “a clock runs slow,” the “clock” is a figure of speech called a metonymy — a figure of speech in which a part stands for a whole.

The part is the clock.

The whole is all physical processes run slow.

This is why, of course, that no one, stationary in his own frame, can ever notice a slowing clock — because all processes, including mental, also slow as judged by a different observer in relative motion.

All clocks tick normally in one’s own frame. If one notices a clock ticking slow, it just means the clock is broken — or subject to outside influences.
Dead Wrong! You're ignorance of the topic shows!!

"According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers, either due to a velocity difference relative to each other, or by being differently situated relative to a gravitational field. As a result of the nature of spacetime,[2] a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference. A clock that is under the influence of a stronger gravitational field than an observer's will also be measured to tick slower than the observer's own clock.

Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated, for instance by small
disparities in a pair of atomic clocks after one of them is sent on a space trip, or by clocks on the Space Shuttle running slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, or clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites running slightly faster." --wikipedia--

Disparities after, Idiot!

I mean do you even know what a magnetosphere is? Or cosmic radiation? Or that EMR can be either reflected scattered or absorbed?

Obviously not! or at least their possible implications as related to the topic at hand.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:41 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:23 pm
Disparities after, Idiot!
:lol:

And "peace be with you too," lol, you ignorant troll.

How does ANYTHING you quoted above contradict ANYTHING that I wrote, idiot?

It doesn't!

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:43 pm

What is quoted above in the weird multicolors by yet another troll is EXACTLY what I have been saying!

Our newest troll doesn't seem to grasp the point -- that no one will find his OWN clock ticking slow! Which is what the quoted material is ALSO SAYING!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest