0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 20/01/2016 04:35:34Do you or anyone else interested , not understand why ''time'' can not possibly dilate?Relative to an individuals personal time, it won't appear to dilate. However, we have through experiment proven that, relative to the observer, time is variant. The observers experience of times passage for the observed depends upon several things. One is the velocity at which the object being observed is accelerating and another is the influence of a gravitational field upon the one being observed. My personal observance of how time passes in my reference frame will not appear to change. But for an observer witnessing those same events, depending on my velocity and the gravitational field in which I exist, it can.
Do you or anyone else interested , not understand why ''time'' can not possibly dilate?
so I'm not sure why you are yet again trying to claim the moral high ground.
energy variance at a guess , just like light and most things have a variance.
Quote from: Thebox on 20/01/2016 05:11:56energy variance at a guess , just like light and most things have a variance.I think this is where I get off Mr. Box. The speed of light has been accepted by every physicist the world over as the one thing that is invariant. It remains the same in all frames of reference whether in varied degrees of motion or in varied degrees of gravitational influence. I therefore leave it to someone else to sort out the errors you evidently don't yet understand.
Also, your idea that anything more than zero is history is correct, but so evidently correct to be uninteresting beyond belief. That may be why nobody really cares. Just my 2 cents.
The point Sam7 is making is that this is so obvious that it is taken as given and really doesn't make any difference to science.Science measures the time between events and uses this info in the same way distance is used. This is a very useful process. We can use history to predict the future - if an object has been falling for 10s, if nothing changes its fall we can predict where it will be in another 10s. Time like distance has a consistency at low relative speeds.People may just have got tired of entering into another pointless discussion full of misunderstandings about basic science.
The past is now.
Not true .. and Einstein never said it was invariant ..
Quote from: Alohascope on 23/01/2016 02:08:07Not true .. and Einstein never said it was invariant .. In the proper vacuum of space, c is most certainly invariant. And as I was addressing Mr. Box about his flawed view of time and space, the wise member should have recognized the context to which I was responding. I think most of the individuals involved in this thread quite understood why I made the statement about the invariance of c. Welcome to my ignore list..............Mr. Aloha........
My ideas revolve around the fact that the speed of light is constant and invariant in a vacuum, without this I would of never considered the clarity of space was also an invariant while light is present.
Are you saying that not only is the past and future irrelevant, but that they don't physically exist?
I can not say if the past or the future is irrelevant or relevant , because it would be an impossibility to know if they really physically exist.
Quote from: Thebox on 24/01/2016 07:07:35I can not say if the past or the future is irrelevant or relevant , because it would be an impossibility to know if they really physically exist. Let's establish one important fact about the search for truth. Proving anything is something science rarely achieves. In my estimation, the only thing science can effectively prove is that change occurs in nature. In quantum mechanics, we've learned not to predict exact outcomes, we call that scientific philosophy: The science of probabilities."I'm not asking you for proof my friend. The truth is, none of us can prove anything to another if they are unwilling to first believe the evidence. That being said, what I believe or what you believe is based upon the mental picture of how probable our speculations line up with our observations. Even Einstein began his work on Relativity using mental pictures and the calculations came later. Unless you can identify what you believe about this question, whether you can prove it or not, our combined scrutiny will get us nowhere. So, I'll ask you one more time, "does the past and future exist in our physical reality?"
Relatively the past and future exists simultaneously in the now is my answer. Would you like me to explain more relatively why this is relativity?
Quote from: Thebox on 24/01/2016 15:02:40Relatively the past and future exists simultaneously in the now is my answer. Would you like me to explain more relatively why this is relativity?Not so fast my friend, as I said before let's proceed slowly so we both have a chance to absorb these thoughts.Another question: If the past and future exist simultaneously, how do you explain "change"? For change to occur, things are different now from what they were. If the past and future exist instantly together, "simultaneously", it seems to me nothing would ever change.
,'' things are different now from what they were''what they were is a memory of now of what they were.