Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:16 am

Oh dear, I seem to have fallen quite behind. Been off the grid for 48 hours. Was nice, but that's why the delay.
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:41 pm
I have some questions about your latest posts but since you brought up hard determinism I wanted to segue briefly into that.

Soft determinism is a species of determinism also known as compatiblism (free will is not just consistent with determinism, it actually requires it).

Hard determinism, roughly, is the thesis that compatibilism fails.

Libertarianism is the thesis that decisions are agent-causal or self-caused — entirely outside of determinism.

In my opinion, if the eternalist view of reality is true — also known as the block universe — nothing about this implies hard determinism or invalidates free will.
Free will definition depends a lot on what exactly has the free will, essentially what an individual is. Without that definition, hard to comment. Eternalism seems deterministic to me, and the distinction between hard and soft seems to also revolve around that definition of what would or would not have free will.
To say that the future is “set in stone” or “fixed” is not the same thing as saying that it is pre-determined or that our choices don’t matter.
Our choices very much affect the future. If not, evolution of the tools to make a better choice would have been pointless. But few define free will as the ability to make a choice.
What it means is that I can’t change the future. But — note —I also can’t change the past or the present. If anyone thinks he or she can change even the present, try it and let me know what you find.
To 'change' the future (or the present, which is just some other moment's future) is to use a different definition of 'change' than the usual one, which is 'a difference of state between (typically) two different times'.
Having free will does not require changing the past, present or future, but merely making, in some small part by our own acts, the past, present and future be what they were, are, and will be. On this account, the block world is perfectly in accord with free will since what “fixes” the future, in the same way that the past and present are fixed, are in part free choices that we make (or more precisely that our past, present and future temporal parts make).
Like I said, few would agree to a definition of free will like that. The ability to choose is not the same as the ability to freely choose. Trick is to identify the distinction between those two cases.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:40 am

davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:04 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying here seems to be perfectly aligned with Petkov's argument: That if 3D is true relativity is false and if relativity is true 3D is false. Have I misunderstood?
Relativity has been well established. The guy going to AC and back will age 140 days, assuming quite unreasonably that he survives the sort of acceleration the scenario entailed.

In the 3D model, the guy not actually stationary is incorrect in his assessment of two events being simultaneous. So the guy on the platform is basing his simutaneity assessment on the false fact that the two marks on the ground are where the lightning struck. Since the ground is moving, this is clearly not true. The marks are not the point in space where the strikes took place. The endpoints of the train (wherever it has gone off to) are the actual spot, assuming it is the train that is stationary.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:42 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:28 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:15 pm
thedoc wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:12 pm


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.
Space, or what you call 'space', could only move faster than light if the Universe is NOT infinite nor eternal.
Incorrect.

Also space is not "moving."
You are the one who said, "so space can move faster ...".

What do you mean by 'space can move faster than c' BUT ALSO 'space is not "moving"?

What is the difference?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am

uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:39 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:27 am
uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:41 pm
You can make up your own mind about the metaphysics, as can any of us, but I very much doubt that any of us will contradict any other regarding the empirical data.
Of course you would NOT. You all totally accept and/or believe that the "empirical" data is 100% absolutely correct, right?

It could NOT be any thing else, right?

It is, after all, called "empirical data".
Right again, ken. Empirical data is simply the observations. So, for instance, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the clocks were observed to tell different times. Not only that, the clocks in all subsequent refinements of the experiment also showed different times. That is "100% absolutely correct". As I said, you can make up your own mind about why that should be so. Here's a couple of suggestions:
1. The people loading the clocks are all equally clumsy and all break the clocks in exactly the same way.
2. The scientists don't get paid if the clocks all tell the same time, so they fiddle with them.
3. There is a god in heaven who thinks it is a bit of a laugh to fuck with our minds.
4. Speed and gravity affect mechanical processes, even at the atomic level.

The list is not exhaustive, and I gather you have your own suggestion. So what is it?
I have already expressed a suggestion, which was laughed at and dismissed, almost instantly, which is totally understandable due to the way human beings still think and assume, in this day and age.

The difference between you and I is I do NOT, as you would put it, 'make up my own "mind" about the metaphysics', like you do. I just observe what IS, instead. Whereas, you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", and have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is. I, however, do NOT this. I just remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:42 am

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:14 pm
Noax wrote:It just naively assumes that a twin in space still ages at the pace of one day per day, something that ken apparently finds implausible.
NO I do NOT find that implausible.
Assuming that a living organism will react the exact same way a human made clock does, is some thing I will NOT assume.
You just said you do not find that implausible, and then that you do find it implausible.
I did NOT say that, and I would probably never say any thing like that.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:14 pm
You need to pick one.
I do NOT need to pick one.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:14 pm
Do you or do you not accept that the age of a person will be reasonably tracked by the non-defective watch he is wearing?
No I do NOT accept that, for reasons that you could NOT even begin to fathom, yet.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:14 pm
I've been asking which part you contest, and you give conflicting answers like above.
They are NOT conflicting. They may, however, APPEAR conflicting, to you.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:14 pm
Either you suggest that the speed makes his watch (and only his watch) wrong, or you accept that less time goes by, but the guy ages far more than 140 days during that time.
OR, there might be multiple other things that I accept and would suggest.

I would NOT use the wording you use here, and would probably never say any thing like that.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:23 am

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:42 am
I did NOT say that, and I would probably never say any thing like that.
...
No I do NOT accept that, for reasons that you could NOT even begin to fathom, yet.
...
They are NOT conflicting. They may, however, APPEAR conflicting, to you.
...
I would NOT use the wording you use here, and would probably never say any thing like that.
You've made no corrections or clarifications on the perceptions I apparently get continuously wrong.
Excepting the rhetorical, you seem to ask no questions. Was the post above intended to gather some specific response?
Palin wrote:This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.
Cleese wrote:No it isn't.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:32 am

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Although there is NO actual evidence, yet, some human beings will still accept and/or believe that human bodies will age slower with speed?
It is the wording of others that claims they do. I say they age normally with speed.
"Normal" to what, exactly?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Why is it important that they be twins? If somebody actually did this thing that no human can survive,
What is this 'thing' that you say "no human can survive"?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
perhaps you would just deny it because they've not yet tried it with a squirrel.
And perhaps I might not?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Your argument seems to deny any evidence until every possible scenario has been run.
WHAT argument?

I have NOT provided any argument yet, have I?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
There will always be untested scenarios.
And to some that does NOT matter at all. They still already KNOW what the actual truth is.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Every aspect of the twins experiment has been done, just not all in the same experiment.
As long as you are 100% sure that EVERY aspect has been done, and are completely satisfied with the results, then there is NO thing to dispute nor discuss at all, right?

To you, what you say happens here, HAPPENS, correct?

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
I base My ability to know some thing with more accuracy on first hand experience than I do just on what others say or write down. I can express what I observe with accuracy, (but obviously what if what I observe is accurate or not is another matter). I can not, however, accurately express what others observe.
So even if somebody managed to pull off the twins scenario, would you not accept the second-hand results because you are not personally both of the twins?
No, of course NOT. I obviously would have had first hand experience. You seem to still be missing the mark by a tremendous amount.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
How is this not a statement of willful ignorance?
You are the one who came up with that statement, which was based solely on some assumption of yours, and of which you obviously had already jumped to a conclusion. It was all of your own doing, so maybe you would like to enlighten us better? HOW IS THAT NOT a statement of willful ignorance?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Fair enough. What does 'demonstrated' mean to you?
All non-relativistic models have been falsified, much in the same way that all the flat Earth models have been falsified. Perhaps a new flat-Earth model will emerge and somehow make better predictions, but until then, I think my beliefs on the subject are reasonably justified.
EVERY person who has beliefs thinks that their beliefs, on any subject, are reasonably justified. Obviously they would not have those beliefs, otherwise.

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Again My apologies for NOT properly being able to qualify for you. I meant when the "stationary traveler" is "traveling" 'at a faster speed' than another speed, ...
If he's stationary, he's not travelling, even if 'traveler' is printed on his shirt and ship.
Is there an actual 'stationary', which one could ever actually be in?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
At current times do human beings have the technology to take the trip in just 70 days, from ANY frame?
If I can choose ANY frame, I can go to where A-C is now in 70 seconds with no technology at all.
But, unfortunately, you are unable to choose THE frame where you can go to where alpha centauri is now in no seconds, with no technology at all, is this right?

If only you could, then I could start again by re-asking the same questions again.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
We lack the technology to make such a trip and expect A-C to be there when the trip ends, and still have the human alive.
What is lacking is the ability to accelerate a heavy object to any but trivial delta velocities, and also the technology to keep a human alive under such acceleration if it were feasible.
Do you mean human beings lack the technology to make such a trip forever more, or human beings lack the technology to make such a trip in those times of when this is written?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Of course an open person would NOT assume that. For the very fact that the 140 days has NOT yet been proven and shown to true and correct. Therefore, it is NOT yet verified.
Science does not prove things. It falsifies other things. The not-140 day thing has been completely falsified.
As long as, to you, it has be COMPLETELY FALSIFIED, then is there any point in discussing this issue?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Perhaps you feel one needs to visit every possible destination before deciding none of them is an exception.
And perhaps that is NOT how I feel at all.

Perhaps you feel there is NO need for any other tests because the not-140 day thing has been COMPLETELY FALSIFIED, well to you anyway.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Are you proposing that it is A-C that is an exception? No, probably not.
Once again, you have proposed a question but also already thinking or knowing that you have the answer already. This continual making assumptions, and disguising them as questions, but having already jumped to a conclusion your self, was very obvious to Me from the outset, but would be becoming far more clearer to others now also.

You do NOT know what My answers are, unless of course I specifically give them to you. And then, as you have already proven, are still very confused about what I am actually wanting to say.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
You seem to only have issues with the most tested parts of relativity.
Do I?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
You deny that it is that humans might age at a pace greater than one day per day,
Do I?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
but you persist in only wanting to see results that involve a human with significantly age mismatch from his birthdate.
Do I?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
You need to pick an argument.
Do I?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
It is that humans are special or not?
'Special', relative to what exactly?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
If not, why do you persist that humans participation is necessary?
It is NOT, not.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Considering it is you that says one person ages 8.6 years, another person ages about 6.2 days, and another person will age 140 days in the exact same 140 days period, depending on where they are,
I did not say this. Nothing depends on where you are. These figures are frame dependent, not location dependent. It works everywhere. It is you that seems to suggest A-C is some sort of place that is an exception, which would be quite bizarre.
It appears as though we both seem to think the other is saying some they are NOT.

I have NEVER said any thing is an exception.

Are the figures that others came up with, and which you accept as being true, and which you say are frame dependent, based upon a frame that is actually real and/or possible, or are they based upon a frame that does not even exist in reality?

Is it possible to have these different frames separating, and then meeting up again?


Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Noax wrote:Right. Theory of Relativity doesn't change that. The principle of relativity actually asserts that in fact.
So, we agree on the principle of relativity.
Not really sure if you grasp the principle, so I hesitate to agree with what you might think it is.
Finally.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
I thought 'thought experiments' would involve mental concepts or perceptions of what would happen, and which those experiments are usually used when physical experiments are not, yet, possible. But you are saying, thought experiments do not involve perceptions.
They are exercises of logic. If (postulates), what logically follows from the postulates. The original relativity thought exercises did not involve human subjects or their perceptions, even if the 'observer' might be depicted as one.
Yes I know. To you did the original relativity thought exercises, as you like to put it, still not involve perceptions?

But, if a person perceives what logically follows from the (if) postulates, are they perceptions, or just exercises of logic?

Are perceptions used in thought experiments at all?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
In reality, humans cannot differentiate nanosecond timing differences.
Will that be the case, and the reality, forever more?

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Will you give an example of a 'frame' in which My speed could possibly be .999c of?
The frame of any object at the origin of the light from the cosmic microwave background.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
But have you not expressed that a human being on earth would age 4.3 years in the frame of a traveler who traveled for 70 days at .999c for about 4.3 light years in distance.
I said Earth guy would age 3 days in the frame of the traveler.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Yes 'reputation' is a very important part of accepting and believing.

For example a human being who is given the label "professor" is usually listened to and believed far more about a subject than just an ordinary 'person' is, although the one labelled 'ordinary person' may KNOW far more than any one labelled "professor" ever has.
The view of the professor may have zero content that can be falsified. The title is not the reputation for which I am looking.
I wonder about the way you put words in quotes, like these two people are disputably a professor or a person.
Finally.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Does the sentence convey what you intended if the quotes are left off?
NO.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
If so, leave of the quotes. It makes the sentence more clear.
Okay I will do that. By the way I have been leaving off the quotes if the sentenced conveyed what I intended from the outset.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Human beings can have both conscious and unconscious biases, which both tend to direct people to only finding and seeing what confirms their biases. For example there once was a story about how EVERYONE believed the earth was flat, and if you were to ask any of those people, then they ALL would have "verified" and accepted that the earth was flat.
How so?
If a person BELIEVES some thing, then they have already verified, and accepted that, to them self. That is how. If that thing has actually been "verified" is another matter.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
How might you go about verifying that?
But I would NOT go about verifying that.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
What falsification test was proposed?
When?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Your example is meaningless unless you show a falsification test with biased results.
If you believe My example is meaningless for reasons given, then so be it.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Nobody found the edge where the ships fall off. The model predicted one.
I think you are completely missing the mark again.

For ANY person to BELIEVE any thing, then they have already "verified" that, what is being believed, and have accepted that "verification's" authenticity ALREADY.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Noax wrote:For a sheep, I think I'm pretty good at spotting the stories that are lies.
But what about if the person telling the stories that are lies does not even know they are lies, is it just as easy to spot those stories?
For one, everybody believes they are better than average at spotting lies.
Does EVERY one believe that?

If so, then I am NOT one.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
My grounds for my assessment is that I still believe some of the lies.
I have questioned some human beings a bit about WHY do they believe some thing that may not even be true? But rarely do I come across a human being who says they still BELIEVE some of the lies they hear. If still find it somewhat bewildering WHY human beings still believe any thing (although I KNOW WHY they still do it) but I find this even more intriguing, WHY do you still BELIEVE some of the lies that you are told?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
I know very much that I have biases.
Are you aware of, and know, ALL of the biases?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
That is, I hope, a reasonable step to better understanding. If I'm wrong, then I am.
There is a way to NOT be wrong.

But there is for another thread.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
As to those who believe their own lies, one definition of a lie might make that impossible.
What is that one definition you so speak of?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
They can not be to effective a liar if they can be spotted. Or do you mean that some people who tell stories that are liars, even if those liars are pretty subtle, and that are effective of fooling some or a majority of people you can spot?
This is getting off topic and I don't see anything productive coming from it that is on-subject.
Fair enough, just about ALL people WANT TO change the subject when I start questioning them, personally or more thoroughly.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
I have no intention of opening up the sort of things I'm talking about here.
That is fine. You are free to do whatever you like.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Noax wrote:It has been falsified, not verified.
So, do you accept and believe that there is no actual 'time', itself?
I said 'absolute time' has been falsified.
What is the difference to you between 'actual time' and 'absolute time'?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
This is unrelated to the philosophical position of time being something that is actual or not, a seeming ontological issue that is not within the scope of the theory of relativity.
If the theory of relativity has some thing to do with 'time dilation', and some people want to insist that "time" dilates, then I would have thought a discussion about if 'time', itself, is an actual thing or not would arise in this type of discussion.

But unfortunately most of My questioning is usually NOT wanted to be looked at, discussed, nor answered when the questioning gets deeper and/or into looking into the subject far more thoroughly. People, for obvious reasons, tend to WANT TO STOP at a level of answering, of which they are only capable of.

By the way if you are unaware, EVERY thing, including the theory of relativity, leads to ontological issues, that is if any one is prepared enough to go that deep, and to look that thoroughly. ONLY from doing these things is WHERE ALL the meaningful answers LIE.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
So, what do you say about all those people and "textbooks" that say and suggest that light takes an actual and certain amount of time to get from one place to another, for example from the sun to earth?
A frame is presumed.
Is a frame presumed, or is the frame in the answer?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Much of language presumes frames and/or a present.
Do you presume a frame when I ask you how long does light actually take light to get from the sun to earth?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Language is not proof of things.
Language can be, and is, the biggest cause of confusion of things. But, fortunately though, language, when learned how to be used correctly, can show the truth and reality of ALL things also.

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Would it be better if they explain that there are many different frame-dependent answers? Would it be better that students are asked "from what frame are you asking" when they ask questions like, How long does it take light to get from the sun to earth?
No, the text is not discussing relativity.
BUT absolutely every thing is relative, to the observer.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
The presumed frame is known by all, and it answers the question correctly in that context.
Is it KNOWN by ALL?

How are some things KNOWN by ALL, but other things are NOT known by ALL?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
If the question concerns a different frame, then it needs to be called out.
Do some questions concern a different frame?

If so, which ones?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Or, could there be any possibility at all that in ALL truth and reality there really is in fact only ONE frame, from which EVERY thing belongs in and with?
Even if one of them is more correct, it does not make the others go away.
That is for sure. It appears as though human beings, in this era, will TRY TO keep all these seemingly different "frames" in existence.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
If one is indeed more correct, it would be a philosophical difference, and relativity would still stand since it takes no stance on this issue.
If the truth be KNOWN, relativity actually supports the One that is indeed actually true and correct. It is just a shame that people, in the days of these writings, want to continue BELIEVING that they KNOW what the truth is already.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Noax wrote:No, I am not suggesting that this is your view. My assessment of your view is expressed above.
Is that assessment fixed or changeable?
Quite changeable if new empirical evidence comes to light.
Is your ability to change based ONLY on when new empirical evidence comes to light?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Could it be possible that I have worked things out differently than you have, which has led to a very different outcome than what you have "worked out" or maybe have just read and copied, so the only real difference is I just observe things differently, and thus just have a very different view from yours?
I think you don't understand how a simple postulate leads to the predicted results.
Is that 'simple postulate', which "leads to the predicted results", you talk about here, the same one that suggests or assumes the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

If it is, then I might just understand far more HOW ALL the distortions of reality are actually caused.

Understanding HOW a very simple ASSUMPTION, of ANY thing, especially the existence, fact, or truth of (some thing), which is then used as a BASIS for reasoning, discussion, or belief that then leads to 'predicted results', has distorted what IS, actually true and correct, is very simple, easy, and quick to understand. In fact it more or less speaks for itself.

If you are going to predict, and find, results BASED upon ASSUMPTIONS, instead of just looking at, seeing, and understanding what actually IS, then you want to hope what was ASSUMED, in the beginning, had some sort of actual reality and truth behind it.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
If you've worked out something else, it is either by refusing to accept the one empirically tested postulate, or an error in following that postulate to its necessary implications.
OR, just maybe, it is because of some OTHER reason.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
No, I'm not claiming to have originated the theory. A complete description of it is beyond my comprehension. I'm an engineer who builds useful things from the work conveyed by the physicists.
If you built useless things, then would have you told us that part?

Or did you just want to make sure that we KNEW that you built useful things?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
I'm not one of the physicists, but I understand their work (not just taking it for granted) enough to work out the simultaneity implications from these simplified scenarios. Time dilation is nothing more complicated than manipulating simultaneity with choice of frames.
And to manipulate simultaneity with choice of frames all it takes is some conscious (and conscience) effort, and perceptions.

Thank you very much for this part.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:44 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:36 pm
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
I think we need to break up these long posts.
You could start by addressing only a part of the post in question, but then the writer of the post will accuse you of ignoring the other parts of the post, even if you answer them in another post.
WILL they? HOW do you KNOW that they WILL do that?
thedoc wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:36 pm
BTW, I rarely read a long post all the way through, too boring, even if I am interested in the subject.
Thanks for sharing that with us.

I rarely read any thing written all the way through also, also way to boring, as I have yet to see or find any real insight into Life and Existence, Itself, from the written word. I gain far more insight and understanding from just looking at what IS, and observing how THAT actually IS, then I ever found from how it is said to be, within literature. Life, Itself, reveals far more about truth and reality than any book, ever could.

Belinda
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Belinda » Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:53 am

Ken wrote:
The difference between you and I is I do NOT, as you would put it, 'make up my own "mind" about the metaphysics', like you do. I just observe what IS, instead. Whereas, you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", and have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is. I, however, do NOT this. I just remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.
Good for you! Do you also admit that your observation can on occasion be your optical illusion?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am
The difference between you and I is I do NOT, as you would put it, 'make up my own "mind" about the metaphysics', like you do.
You have completely missed the point, ken. Have another go.
These are the key elements of a theory in physics:
1. The empirical data.
2. The mathematical analysis.
3. The metaphysical hypothesis.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am
I just observe what IS, instead.
Unless by 'observe' you mean something that does not include visual contact, "what IS" is 1. The empirical data.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am
Whereas, you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", and have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is.
That is 3. The metaphysical hypothesis. If your claim to "just observe what IS" is true, you cannot have failed to notice that davidm and Noax are having a discussion about whether the universe is 3D or 4D, right under your nose. They, at least, demonstrably have not "already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is." Your hypothesis, "you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", has been falsified; it is wrong. You can either accept that and ditch your hypothesis, or you can patch it up with some extra hypothesis to explain why the original hypothesis failed. You can add a few such patches, but ultimately if you refuse to accept that any test could undermine your original hypothesis, you "have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is." You are, in short, a crank.
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am
I, however, do NOT this. I just remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.
Great. So you accept that 'we', davidm and Noax at least, remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:32 am
Noax wrote:So even if somebody managed to pull off the twins scenario, would you not accept the second-hand results because you are not personally both of the twins?
No, of course NOT. I obviously would have had first hand experience. You seem to still be missing the mark by a tremendous amount.
I seem to be unaware of what you consider to be first hand experience.
EVERY person who has beliefs thinks that their beliefs, on any subject, are reasonably justified. Obviously they would not have those beliefs, otherwise.
Disagree. There are plenty of beliefs that are not reasonably justified. I have some myself.
Is there an actual 'stationary', which one could ever actually be in?
There can be if you want one. Nothing suggests itself. Many people use the ground under them, but that reference is different for every person. Perhaps some object, but I cannot think of one that is not accelerating. The mean velocity of the CMB is often used, but that defines a different inertial frame at every point in space, so again, it is an arbitrary choice.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
At current times do human beings have the technology to take the trip in just 70 days, from ANY frame?
If I can choose ANY frame, I can go to where A-C is now in 70 seconds with no technology at all.
But, unfortunately, you are unable to choose THE frame where you can go to where alpha centauri is now in no seconds, with no technology at all, is this right?
Not in zero time, no.
Do you mean human beings lack the technology to make such a trip forever more, or human beings lack the technology to make such a trip in those times of when this is written?
I think we'll be extinct before we invent that one, but given time, some sort of technology might be able to achieve such acceleration without fatality or destruction of the planet.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
Perhaps you feel one needs to visit every possible destination before deciding none of them is an exception.
And perhaps that is NOT how I feel at all.
Your every post seems to suggest otherwise.
Are the figures that others came up with, and which you accept as being true, and which you say are frame dependent, based upon a frame that is actually real and/or possible, or are they based upon a frame that does not even exist in reality?
My statements do not rely on the ontological status of the frames.
Is it possible to have these different frames separating, and then meeting up again?
Unclear. They describe the same spacetime, so I don't know what you mean by separating.
If a person BELIEVES some thing, then they have already verified, and accepted that, to them self. That is how. If that thing has actually been "verified" is another matter.
I was talking about belief based on scientific verification, not just on uniformed assumption. Nobody thought a flat Earth needed proving until another choice appeared on the list of options.
If you believe My example is meaningless for reasons given, then so be it.
Finally.
WHY do you still BELIEVE some of the lies that you are told?
They seem to be part of my core programming and not subject to alteration.
Noax wrote: I know very much that I have biases.
Are you aware of, and know, ALL of the biases?
Nope. Always looking for new ones.
Noax wrote:As to those who believe their own lies, one definition of a lie might make that impossible.
What is that one definition you so speak of?
"A lie is a misrepresentation of one's beliefs".

Noax wrote:
So, do you accept and believe that there is no actual 'time', itself?
I said 'absolute time' has been falsified.
What is the difference to you between 'actual time' and 'absolute time'?
I used the terms interchangeably. What has been falsified is the non-relativistic view that temporal separation between events is not frame dependent. The philosophical position that there is a time that it actually is (presentism) has not been falsified, lacking an empirical difference.
If the theory of relativity has some thing to do with 'time dilation', and some people want to insist that "time" dilates, then I would have thought a discussion about if 'time', itself, is an actual thing or not would arise in this type of discussion.

But unfortunately most of My questioning is usually NOT wanted to be looked at, discussed, nor answered when the questioning gets deeper and/or into looking into the subject far more thoroughly. People, for obvious reasons, tend to WANT TO STOP at a level of answering, of which they are only capable of.
So answer the question yourself. Say it is real or not. This is philosophy of science section after all. Unless it makes a difference, I find it irrelevant to this topic.
By the way if you are unaware, EVERY thing, including the theory of relativity, leads to ontological issues, that is if any one is prepared enough to go that deep, and to look that thoroughly. ONLY from doing these things is WHERE ALL the meaningful answers LIE.
Agree, but we were looking for scientific answers, not meaningful ones. The twin aging 140 days is not a philosophically deep quesiton.
Is a frame presumed, or is the frame in the answer?
Presumed.
Do you presume a frame when I ask you how long does light actually take light to get from the sun to earth?
Normally, I probably would, but not not in the context of this topic.
Noax wrote: If the question concerns a different frame, then it needs to be called out.
Do some questions concern a different frame?
If so, which ones?
Any discussion of relativity.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pm

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:32 pm
What is 'time', itself, to you?
Don't really know, lacking hard evidence one way or another.
Do you want to take a guess?

Have you NOT made any presumption at all about what 'time' actually IS?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
The measure of it between two events is frame dependent.
When you say the measure of "it", did you mean the word 'time'?

If so, then what do you mean by, "The measure of time between two events"?
Yes and yes.
Yes does NOT answer the second question.

What is "it" that you say can be measured between two events?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
If, for example, you had said, "The measure of THE time between two events", then I could better understand this. Although it does sound clumsy it makes more sense, to Me anyway. I understand the words 'the time' usually refers to the actual measurement, itself, taken. But when you say, "The measure of time between two events" I do NOT understand what is it EXACTLY that is being measured? How does one measure 'time', itself?
Clocks are nice, and a selection of frames is needed to give the figure meaning.
And, what is 'it' [time], itself, that one is measuring?
I gave no answer to this. It doesn't matter to this discussion.
This sounds very familiar, especially when asking some people about what 'God' actually is when they absolute certainty that God created every thing. They also are unable to explain and answer what 'God' is, although they insist God does things.

You insist, with absolute certainty, that 'time' does things, like, dilates with speed, but you are clearly unable to explain and answer what 'time' actually is.

Does the answer to what 'God' is, matter to the discussion of what 'It' could do?

Even after thousands upon thousands of years I find it hilarious that some human beings still TRY TO argue for some things, like God creates things or that time dilates YET still have NO clue as to what 'IT' is that they are actually talking about. What is even more funny and humorous is to sit back and observe some people even try to insist that KNOWING what the actual thing is that they say does certain things does NOT even matter to the discussion. Observing some of human being practices is hysterical to watch some times.


Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Of course mars is NOT west of jupiter. In the Universe there is NO west, nor east, nor south, nor north, nor up, nor down, nor left, nor right, et cetera, et cetera. Only a human being's perspective, relative to earth, would consider and ask such a meaningless question.
But if one chose an arbitrary direction for north, and one more orthogonal for west, then the question can be answered.
I NEVER said the question could NOT be answered. I just said, WHAT I SAID.

Human beings can pretend any thing they like. They can also conceptualize any thing they like. I am NOT here to stop them doing that.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
That's what a frame is. An arbitrary assignment (human or otherwise) of a coordinate system, without optional specification of an origin.
So, let Me see if I have this right, human beings assign certain things 'arbitrarily', or based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
How far west of Mars is Jupiter?
I have already told you that there is NO west.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
The answer is frame dependent, on which way you arbitrarily decided was west.
But I do NOT arbitrarily decide. You may do that, but I do NOT. I much prefer to just look at and observe what IS, instead. From this perspective I can see HOW, WHEN, and WHY human beings are still so very confused and puzzled about what Life actually IS.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
In one possible frame, Mars is straight north of Jupiter and is zero distance to the west.
In another arbitrarily decided possible frame, there will be yet ANOTHER answer. What that causes and where that leads to is already very obvious to see and understand.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Nobody magically brought Jupiter closer. We just moved the coordinate system.
Yes, human beings, at the present event of when this is written, truly love to move things around to fit in nicely with their already preconceived ideas and conceptions of what the "world" really is, or should be, like.

A 'theory' is more or less a made up version of what thing SHOULD be like.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Time dilation is no more magical than that.
Very true there. Moving coordinated human made systems around so as they fit in nicely, especially so they fit in nicely with already predicted results, made by those that are worshiped and/or followed is NOT magical at all. Although some people would find it very "magical" that some things come about exactly how they were predicted.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
How many actual and real spatial frames are there?
None or infinite, depending on what you mean by actual and real.
I was meaning actual and real in the sense that they actually exist, and are NOT just human conceived systems that can be moved around or juggled depending on an observer, and/or how they are feeling and/or thinking at any particular moment.

Does the answer have to none or infinite? Is there NO in between here?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
By the way are 'frames' actual real things, or just words used to fathom things in conceptual thinking?
Probably the latter. They are reference systems, not objects, but if a different direction is considered west, then Jupiter really is more or less west than some other choice of orientation. So it is real in that sense.
So, it is ONLY real in the sense if you consider it real?

If you CONSIDER west to be in a certain direction, then to you it is real, is that what you are saying?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
What does 'relativity' hinge on, to you?
Knowledge of it hinges on empirical observation, much in the same way that knowledge of it does not hinge on the ontological status of what time is.
So, to you, 'time' might NOT actually be real in any sense at all, other than in conceptualized thinking only, but knowledge of relativity hinges on the "empirical evidence" that "time dilates with speed", is this some what correct?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
It would also be easy if the sphere is expanding. Also, what do you mean by the 'hubble sphere' is shrinking? Is that what is really happening, or is that only how it appears to be happening?
The radius of it is getting smaller.
Do you KNOW this for absolute certainty?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Stuff out that far passes beyond the sphere as the radius shrinks and no longer includes them.
Does ALL stuff supposedly "out that far" passes beyond the sphere? Could some stuff pass into the sphere?

If so, then could that make the so called radius enlarge, or appear to enlarge, and would thus obviously include them?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
The reason I asked, Could that even be done?, is because it would be virtually impossible for a human being to leave the 'visible universe' because wherever the human being is the size of the 'visible universe' would be roughly the exact same, depending upon deterioration of eyesight and of visibility of course, right?
Yes, human have no way of getting out there, so it isn't possible for us, but this is from a race still incapable of reaching the nearest planet.
What do you mean by "human have no way of getting out there"?

Do you mean forever more, or, for some limited existence that you know of or imagine of ?

Who is the 'us' you are referring to?

How do you KNOW what human beings are capable of?

In your era human beings may have not yet reached the nearest planet, but only looking from that perspective you will ONLY see a very narrow and small view of reality.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
By the way is the 'visible universe' the same as the 'observable universe'? If it is, then the 'observable universe' is larger than the 'hubble sphere', so objects could move from inside the hubble sphere to outside of it and still be in the observable or visible universe.
The Hubble Sphere is defined as the distance where a comoving object increases its particular velocity at the rate of c.
Do ALL dictionaries, textbooks, literature, teachings, and people who talk about the hubble sphere have the same as, agree upon, or accept your version of the definition here?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
The visible universe is larger than that since light can come from not far outside the sphere and travel inside it, eventually reaching us. The most distant visible thing is defined by the past light cone at time=infinity. Objects beyond that can never be detected in any amount of time from here.
Are you absolutely sure about the "in any amount of time from here" prediction?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Hardly local to who?
Close enough that adjustments for bent or expanding space are insignificant. SR is bunk as uwot points out. It works locally, but GR totally dominates if you start talking of distances to galaxies not part of our cluster.
You seem to have missed the whole point in My questioning.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
In physics, 'local' often means 'from with a box', but the box can get pretty big. A million light-years is fine.
That's why I put our control twin in a ship nearby Earth. It puts him in the same sort of box as his twin.
You are really missing the mark again now.

You really can NOT yet get out of only being able to look from the human being perspective, correct?

Are you fully aware that NOT ALL THINGS revolve around human beings, and their tiny little made up conceptualized "world" of things?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Sounding more like special relativity really does have bugger all to do with reality more and more.
Yes, exactly. It just doesn't cover that non-local case.
And, just as obvious, is general relativity does NOT cover much, at all really, relative to the big and true picture of ALL-THERE-IS.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
That answer is subject to either the still-moving stationary traveler or the object "traveling" at .999c, right? It is just that it was not properly qualified in THIS quote here.
Yes. I forgot. The answer was not qualified. The distance that AC moves is about 70 light days in the traveler frame, and the traveler moves 4.3 light years in about that time in the Earth/AC frame.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Also, before the traveler set off the distance they were about to "embark" on was just over for light years and not just under 70 light days, right?
Only in Earth frame, which the traveler is in before he's shot out of his cannon or however it is done. After that, he's stationary in a different frame.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
But the traveler can only verify this when the traveler is with one of the clocks, correct?
That is the only time the comparison is not frame dependent, yes.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
That is right, the traveler's clock is not one of the two OTHER clocks. The traveler has their own clock, a third clock, right?
If we want to describe his elapsed time, it would be nice to say he has a clock, yes.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Considering we were talking about the traveler's clock being synchronized with earth's clock at departure event, the traveler's clock and earth would have been synchronized and in the same frame on earth
No, they're not in the same frame, so cannot be synchronized to either frame. They're in each other's presence at the departure event and synchronize to that event (time zero). They don't stay in sync because each clock is dilated in the frame of the other.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
and the earth and alpha centauri clocks are synchronized together in the earth frame, then that would mean the travelers clock, earth's clock, and alpha centauri's clock would have been synchronized the same also, correct?
The traveler clock is synced at one event, unable to continue to be synced to any moving clock that runs at a different pace.
I thought you said before that ALL clocks run at the SAME pace, that is one day per one day, did I think wrong here?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
If the three clocks are the same at departure event, then when did the earth and alpha centauri clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler?
Different events are simultaneous in the traveler frame. This is super important to understanding it all. In the traveler frame, the A-C clock already reads 4.3 years (minus 3 days) at traveler time zero which is Earth time zero. This is what is meant when the say that simultaneity is relative, or frame dependent. Different frames define different spatially separated events that are simultaneous with any given event.
So, when you say earth's clock is synced with alpha centauri's clock, what do both clocks read at the event of syncing?
The exact same time? Or,
Different times?

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Was it just after departure, during acceleration, during "rest" at .999c, during deceleration, or at some other point or time?
It is the frame in which the simultaneity is considered. It is not something that happens or is caused.
When is simultaneity considered?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Also, if at acceleration (and/or deceleration) the traveler is not in 'inertial frame' does that mean that the traveler is ageing slower than the people on earth and the traveler's clock is "ticking" slower than the earth and alpha centauri clocks?
GR covers accelerating (non-inertial frames). For simplicity, we assume high enough acceleration that it is a negligible computational overhead. He's in an unpowered box shot out of a cannon. If a trip like this was actually done, GR computations would need to be made because acceleration takes time. Going .999c would kill a human even at slow steady acceleration. Would not survive the first second of that.
If it is NOT possible, then WHY do we talk about?

When I question what would happen if, and only IF, a traveler could travel at the speed of light? I am almost inevitably told that that is impossible so there is no use in talking about it.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
If so, then what happens if the traveler is only in an inertial frame of reference for say 1 minute or 30 days for example, then how does that effect the ageing and/or physical dilation processes, relative to the differing frames of references?
The math gets more complicated then. The trip takes a little bit longer, and he comes back still a bit over 140 days older than when he left. No, I'm not going to do the math when the simple example suffices. Nobody can survive the scenario anyway, instantaneous acceleration or not.
I find it funny when people want to talk about some thing, then it does not matter if it is impossible. But if they do NOT want to talk some thing, then the "it is an impossible scenario anyway so I will NOT even attempt to answer your question" responses come out.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
For example earth and alpha centauri would be in "stationary" or inertial frame during the traveler's acceleration and deceleration periods, right?
Right. Only the traveler is accelerating, so only his frame is non-inertial.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
But when the traveler was constantly still-moving .999c, then the traveler would be in constant still-moving inertial frame? If this is right, then we would have to be changing our 'frame of reference' and views of what is happening, right?
Yes.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
I was SAYING and ASKING, if the travelers clock is synchronized to earths clock, at the start of the trip in the traveler frame, and alpha centaur's clock is synchronized to earth's clock also, then the three clocks must be synchronized the same, right?
Not if the traveler frame is different than Earth frame. Said this above. His clocked was synced to an event, and A-C clock is not synced to time zero in the traveler frame.[/quote]

But the "travelers" is NOT different than earth frame at the start of the trip or departure event. We had already gone through this.

If earth clock, alpha centauri's clock, and so called "travelers" clock, were synced when "traveler" was present on the earth at departure event, and earth clock and "travelers' clock are synced to zero time, what is the time on alpha centauri's clock?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
WHY is the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock reading a bit over four years ahead in traveler frame if the traveler clock is synchronized to the exact same as the earth clock BEFORE the trip begins?
The frame defines which event is simultaneous with the departure event. That event on A-C happens to be 3 days short of time 4.3 years on their clock.
WHAT EVENT, and WHY does that event, on alpha centauri JUST HAPPEN TO BE 3 days short of time 4.3 years on "their" clock?

Also, who is "their"?
Noax wrote:
... if they do, between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock if at some stage from the "traveler's" frame there was zero difference between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock?
There is only negligible discrepancy between those two clocks in Earth frame if we synced them in that frame. They stay synced.
What do you mean by "negligible discrepancy"? In other words "by how much"?

What "two" clocks in earth frame if we synced "them" in that frame? Does "that" mean earth frame?

And, WHAT is "they" that stay synced?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
So, when and why does traveler's clock become out of sync?
He's moving in Earth frame. His clock logs less time in Earth frame. A clock that logs 70 days in 4.3 years is not able to stay synced.
And, according to you, earth's clock logs less time in "travelers" frame. A clock that logs 3 days in 70 days is not able to stay synced, is that right?
Remember the traveler's clock was synced with the earth clock when the traveler and earth were in the same frame, which was also synced with alpha centauri's clock, which you just stated stays synced with earth's clock.
Yes, but only in Earth/AC frame.[/quote]

But why ONLY in earth/alpha centauri frame?

Why not in earth/"traveler" frame or in alpha centauri/earth frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Noax wrote:That's not a frame dependent question because the traveler is present at that event.
What do you mean by that answer?
I think the comment above spoke of the departure event. Clocks were synced to zero there, in all frames, since both were present at that event. No frame redefines an event. It might redefine the order in which two different events occurred.
How many frames are there, since both were present at that event?

If earth's clock and travelers clock were synced to zero at the departure event, then what was alpha centauri's clock synced to at the same departure event?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
If you can give Me an answer from traveler's frame regarding the change on earth's clock, then why can you NOT give Me an answer from earth's frame regarding the change on traveler's clock?
The traveler clock changes 70 days between the two events because that's how much time elapses for the traveler.
But that is FROM the "travelers" frame. I am NOT asking about that. I am asking about WHY you can NOT give Me an answer as to what the "travelers" clock changes by between the two events from the earth's frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
He ages 70 days.
Again, that is from the "travelers" frame. What does the clock read from the earth's frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
140 if he comes back, defining a 3rd event of being reunited with his older brother.
But how come now the "travelers" brother is older when you said before the time passed on the earth's clock would only be 6.2 days from the "travelers" frame, of which would be 140 days on the "travelers" clock?

How could the one who, you say, aged less, from the "travelers" frame, now be the older of the two brothers?

Are you proposing some thing magical happened? Is the "travelers" frame magically completely erased and "come back" into earth's frame? Or, is there some purely logical reason for what happens here that you will now explain to us?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
His clock reads 70 days in any frame at that second event.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
I thought the traveler's clock would read just over 4.3 years from earth's frame and/or alpha centauri's frame because from those frames that is how long it would take a traveler to take a trip from earth to alpha centauri at .999c, is this right?
The traveler clock is dilated due to high speed in the Earth frame.
Are you absolutely 100% positively sure that this would be the case?

Also, is earth's clock and/or alpha centauri's clock dilated due to high speed in the traveler frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
His clock logs only 70 days during the 4.3 year time it takes in that frame.
So, in earth's frame the time the trip takes is 4.3 years, right?

If so, is this 4.3 years the same length of time from alpha centauri's frame?

And, what about from the moon's frame, jupiter's frame, this solar system's frame, the galaxy this solar system is in's frame, do they measure the time the trip took was about 4.3 years also? Or, do they read completely different readings, like maybe 70 or maybe 3.1 days too?

Are you saying that earth's clock logs only 3 days during the 70 days time it takes in "travelers" frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
It's 4.3 light years away and he can't go faster than light.
If I recall correctly this is just about EXACTLY what I have been saying.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Noax wrote:No, if those two clocks were synchronized in Earth frame, they'd not be synchronized in travler frame.
But both were synced with traveler clock at departure event.
Both Earth and AC clocks are synced with each other in Earth frame, not with traveler clock in any frame since the clocks don't run at the same pace in any frame we'd find useful.
But "travelers" clock WAS synced with earth's clock in earth's frame when they were present at departure event, which you also say earth and alpha centauri's clock are ALSO synced with each other.

What do you mean by 'we'?

I am finding ALL of this useful, to better explain, eventually.

I am finding your words describing that clocks run at the same pace, that is one day per day, AND also saying that clocks do NOT run at the same pace in any frame very helpful and useful. Looking at ALL the frames you talk about and the different and same paces that clocks do or do not run at and at all the conflicting figures I find useful, so I am not sure who is the 'we' you are referring to.

Clocks, themselves, and frames are NOT very useful at all for day-to-day living and staying alive, but both clocks and "frames" have become very useful for Me to better describe and explain what it is that I want to describe and explain.
So, what does earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock read now at arrival event, from traveler's frame?
3.1 days, 1/22nd of the 70 days the trip took. 70 is 1/22nd of 4.3 years. The dilation factor at .999c is pretty close to 22.[/quote]

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Noax wrote: but if the Earth and AC clocks were syncronized in Earth/AC frame, AND time was zero at the first even (departure), then the traveler clock reads about 70 days at the 2nd event and the AC clock reads 4.3 years plus about 40 hours.
But why would the traveler's clock read about 70 hours, from alpha centauri frame, and alpha centauri clock reads 4.3 years plus from alpha cenatauri frame, when before, and correct Me if I am wrong here, which no doubt you will anyway, you said that only 3.1 days past on alpha centauri because it was the traveler who was at rest and alpha centauri was moving?
The traveler is present at the event of arriving at AC so what is clock says at that event is not frame dependent. It reads 70 days at that event, and a frame specification is unnecessary.
When you say "It" reads 70 days at that event", what is the "it"?

Remember, if, as you say, only 3.1 days pass, from travelers frame, on alpha centauri, then WHY would alpha centauri clocks read 4.3 years?

WHEN "traveler" is present at the event of arriving at alpha centauri what does the "traveler" read on the clock on alpha centauri?
1. 3.1 days
2. 70 days
3. 4.3 years
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
You're not in need of correction. Only 3 days passed on AC in traveler frame during the trip. In that frame, the clock on AC already read about 4.3 years at the departure time.
So, what does alpha centauri's clock read when the so called "traveler" is present at the event of arrival on alpha centauri?

Did you just NOT go through saying that earth clock and alpha centauri clock WERE synced at zero time at the departure event and stayed in sync?

But now are you suggesting that alpha centauri clock was NOT synced with earth's clock, as alpha centauri clock supposedly already read about 4.3 years at the departure time?

Or, did alpha centauri clock "jump" 4.3 years as soon as the "traveler" started moving or staying "stationary", however you want to word it?

When you say "synced" what do you actually mean? If for example two clocks are "synced", do they read the exact same time, or, do they read different times, depending on their distance apart from each other, or, some thing else?

If your answer is some thing else, then will you explain that?

And, if your answer is only part of the other two, then will you explain that?

When you write, "In that frame" what is 'that'? In other words, in which frame are you now talking about?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
That's 75 hours the clock logged and about 4.296 years of Earth and AC being out of sync.
What is "THE" clock, which has logged 75 hours?
The AC clock (the Earth one as well), in the traveler frame.
How can earth clock and alpha centauri's clock now be out of sync, when they were synced at departure event?

And when you say both alpha centauri clock and earth clock have logged 75 hours, "in the traveler frame", is that while the "traveler" was in its own frame or when the "traveler" was present at the event of arrival on alpha centauri?

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
And, how can earth and alpha centauri clocks now be out of sync when you have said, they stay synced?
They're still in sync in Earth/AC frame. Earth clock also reads 4.3 years in Earth frame, since the trip took that long.
But is that not a "frame dependent" answer?

Are you now saying the trip actually took 4.3 years?

Also how can earth clock "ALSO" read 4.3 years when you said alpha centauri clock reads 3.1 days?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
AC is 4.3 light years away in that frame, remember?
In 'WHAT' frame?
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
The twin back home is 4.3 years older now in Earth frame, but only 3 days older in traveler frame.
And if the "stationary traveler" returns to earth, at the same "stationary speed" will the twin back home be older or younger?
Noax wrote:
Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 am
zero at the departure event, and reading 70 days at the arrival event.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
Noax wrote: Yes, you actually expressed that correctly. Time is dilated for moving things. In the traveler frame, it is the other clocks that are moving.
Therefore, the clock on alpha centauri would read about 3.1 days, from the traveler's frame, but would be reading 4.3 years plus, from alpha centauri's frame, right?
It traveler frame, Both Earth and AC clocks advance by 3 days during the 70 day trip, but AC clock already was at 4.3 years at departure time.
But you also just said the twin back home had advanced by 4.3 years, so what did the earth clock advance by? 3 days or 4.3 years?

When the so called "traveler" is present at arrival event on alpha centauri what does earth clock read? 3 days or 4.3 years
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
And, the traveler's clock would read about 70 days, from the traveler's frame, and you have already stated that the traveler's clock would be reading about 70 days from alpha centauri frame also, right?
Not frame dependent question since the traveler is present at that event, so yes to all.
So, the "traveler" when present at the arrival event would see the "travelers" clock reading 70 days had passed.

What would the "traveler" when present at the arrival event see alpha centauri's clock reading?

And, what would the clock on earth be reading when the "traveler" is present at the arrival event on alpha centauri?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:41 pm

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:16 am
Eternalism seems deterministic to me...
To me this is somewhat contestable as determinism seems to be an ambiguous concept in a block universe in which everything is simply given. However, whether the universe is 3D or 4D, determinism is not (necessarily) inconsistent with free will, hence the distinction often made between hard determinism (no free will) and soft determinism (compatibilist but not libertarian free will).

But few define free will as the ability to make a choice.
Here I would have to disagree with your statement, absent further context. The ability to choose — to act on one’s (determined) motives — just is compatibilism.
To 'change' the future (or the present, which is just some other moment's future) is to use a different definition of 'change' than the usual one, which is 'a difference of state between (typically) two different times'.
My point is simply that free will, whether defined as compatibilist or libertarian, does not involve changing anything. No one supposes we lack free will because we can’t change the past. We now extend the no-change principle as a matter of logic to the present and the future. If, right now, I raise my hand, I have not changed the present. I have made the present be, what it is.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:55 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pm
Even after thousands upon thousands of years I find it hilarious that some human beings still TRY TO argue for some things, like God creates things or that time dilates YET still have NO clue as to what 'IT' is that they are actually talking about. What is even more funny and humorous is to sit back and observe some people even try to insist that KNOWING what the actual thing is that they say does certain things does NOT even matter to the discussion. Observing some of human being practices is hysterical to watch some times.
Agreed all this is hilarious. Unfortunately, the joke's on you.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:04 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pm
A 'theory' is more or less a made up version of what thing SHOULD be like.
It's stuff like this that make me think you must be troll -- or hopelessly uneducable. Maybe both.

How many times, in this thread, has the definition of "theory" been explained to you?

Yet there you go again, making the above preposterous claim -- just as if you never read a word anyone wrote.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests