Post by: guest39538 on 27/08/2017 15:07:38
Both observers have a Caesium clock and are going time a journey of observer two's trip into deep space and back.
Now because of SR both observers know that both their clocks will run at different tick rates and know their result from using this clock will give two different time values and their times will not be synchronous.
However, the relative timing of light travelling from each observer to the other observer remains synchronous.
The time it takes light to travel from themselves to the observer in motion is the same time it takes for the light from the observer in motion to reach the relative stationary observer showing both observers clocks are inaccurate and faulty.
The sight of both observers remaining synchronous always.
=c
=c
aero.jpg (30.99 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5244 times)Added below error :
error.jpg (37.85 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5244 times) pos12.jpg (33.84 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5265 times) pres.jpg (29.75 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5249 times)Post by: guest39538 on 27/08/2017 16:03:31
(x-)=(x+)=ytp.s I don't bite , you can discuss it with me to reach a conclusion.
p.s If ''you'' were to discuss the content instead of saying it is wrong because blah blah say this, then we will sort out whether it is me who misunderstands or ''you'' that misunderstands relativity between two observers.
added- below is a simplified version
translate.jpg (17.65 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5134 times)Post by: guest39538 on 28/08/2017 15:21:42
I am not difficult to talk to, my notions involve mainstream . But if anyone can tell me how am I as a science minded person suppose to ignore the truth, I would like to hear it?
My notion are observations of the Universe, they are not made up things , they are possibilities. Why do so many readers of my posts ''fear'' engaging in the discussion of the notions?
No answer is the validation of the truth, it means you are at a loss for an answer which means you have no disagreement in my notions which by silence means agreement.
memo - maybe I should seek private funding and develop an ''atomiser''. (I know how Tesla felt for sure).
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2017 17:04:10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Post by: guest39538 on 28/08/2017 17:44:59
I didn't read it in detail, but is this thread a variation on the twins paradox?Thank you for the link , BUT there is no actual dilation of time. Let me try to explain and I will try to do it using a quote from your link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Quote
Consider a space ship traveling from Earth to the nearest star system: a distance d = 4 light years away, at a speed v = 0.8c (i.e., 80 percent of the speed of light).
(To make the numbers easy, the ship is assumed to attain full speed immediately upon departure-even though it would actually take close to a year accelerating at 1 g to get up to speed.)
The parties will observe the situation as follows:[14][15]
The Earth-based mission control reasons about the journey this way: the round trip will take t = 2d/v = 10 years in Earth time (i.e. everybody on Earth will be 10 years older when the ship returns). The amount of time as measured on the ship's clocks and the aging of the travelers during their trip will be reduced by the factor {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\epsilon ={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}} \scriptstyle {\epsilon ={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}, the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor. In this case ε = 0.6 and the travelers will have aged only 0.6 × 10 = 6 years when they return.
The ship's crew members also calculate the particulars of their trip from their perspective. They know that the distant star system and the Earth are moving relative to the ship at speed v during the trip. In their rest frame the distance between the Earth and the star system is εd = 0.6d = 2.4 light years (length contraction), for both the outward and return journeys. Each half of the journey takes 2.4/v = 3 years, and the round trip takes 2 × 3 = 6 years. Their calculations show that they will arrive home having aged 6 years. The travelers' final calculation is in complete agreement with the calculations of those on Earth, though they experience the trip quite differently from those who stay at home.
If twins are born on the day the ship leaves, and one goes on the journey while the other stays on Earth, they will meet again when the traveler is 6 years old and the stay-at-home twin is 10 years old. The calculation illustrates the usage of the phenomenon of length contraction and the experimentally verified phenomenon of time dilation to describe and calculate consequences and predictions of Einstein's special theory of relativity.
I will pause here for a moment why I try to understand the paragraph fully so I can then try to draw a new conclusion related to my notion in the form of the paragraph.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/08/2017 17:50:07
Quote
Consider a space ship travelling from Earth to the nearest star system: a distance d = 4 light years away,
Ok, I have drawn this first bit, do you agree that it would be 4 light years in either direction?
d1.jpg (17.03 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5107 times)I have inserted the spaceship in the below diagram.
d2.jpg (23.69 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5097 times)Quote
The Earth-based mission control reasons about the journey this way: the round trip will take t = 2d/v = 10 years in Earth time (i.e. everybody on Earth will be 10 years older when the ship returns). The amount of time as measured on the ship's clocks and the aging of the travelers during their trip will be reduced by the factor {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\epsilon ={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}} \scriptstyle {\epsilon ={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}, the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor. In this case ε = 0.6 and the travelers will have aged only 0.6 × 10 = 6 years when they return.
This bit is just totally a wrong assumption, I can explain this away by using the light between the earth and the distance stars timing. The focus is on the spaceship and inside the spaceship ignoring what is happening with time outside the spaceship .
The speed of the spaceship and the speed of measurement of time on the spaceship is not relative. What is relative is the constant of timing between the Earth and the distant stars.
The spaceship and the spaceship clock is operating within the above boundaries of c.
While Lorentz and Einstein would like you to believe that all that matters is the ticking of the clock and the length contraction of the light clock on board the spaceship, the light outside the spaceship continues as per normal .
If I make the light clock bigger, i.e 4 light years between ticks. Both the star system and Earth ignoring any radius variation would have synchronised ticks outside of the spaceship . So ''your'' spaceship and clock are within my time measurement and not a part of the measurement.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2017 18:02:30
BUT there is no actual dilation of time.
Every experiment that has looked for it has found it.
Time dilation is real.
If your opinion doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/08/2017 18:07:02
Read what I added, there is no time dilation. I know what your experiments show but the conclusion of results is wrong .BUT there is no actual dilation of time.
Every experiment that has looked for it has found it.
Time dilation is real.
If your opinion doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.
added-
Earth experiences 1 tick every 4 light years
The distant star system experiences 1 tick every 4 light years.
Your clock and Aeroplane is relative to nothing in this universe.
tick.jpg (23.12 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5077 times)
=
=t=4ly
Post by: guest39538 on 29/08/2017 17:28:58
1/2(v)=t*2 relative to c
Time dilation can not explain that away.
If a spaceship travels at 0.5c for 8 light year, the astronaut experiences 8 light year.
The person on earth observing also experiences 8 light year and can even predict this before the journey starts.
There is not a length contraction of
of space the spaceship is travelling within, Lorentz and Einstein only considered the action onboard the carriage. =v(c)=4ly No length contraction.
In simplicity imagine a carriage in motion relative to the relative stationary stations.
Imagine a street lamp sent a photon to a detector at the other station.
Then simply imagine the length contraction happening inside the moving carriage of the light clock.
Simply a moving light clock within a relative stationary light clock .
Post by: guest4091 on 29/08/2017 17:49:28
While Lorentz and Einstein would like you to believe that all that matters is the ticking of the clock and the length contraction of the light clock on board the spaceship, the light outside the spaceship continues as per normal .The earth and the star are assumed to be the same frame.The earth twin edith and the anaut twin alice have synchronized clocks even though alice is moving faster. Synchronization does not determine aging, speed does. The Alice clock runs slower and that decides who is younger.
If I make the light clock bigger, i.e 4 light years between ticks. Both the star system and Earth ignoring any radius variation would have synchronised ticks outside of the spaceship . So ''your'' spaceship and clock are within my time measurement and not a part of the measurement.
If you used some type of standard space-time drawings, with time and space scales, your examples would be easier to understand.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/08/2017 17:57:21
I can only draw what I ''see'' in my thoughts , see my last post with added content. Then see the diagram below.While Lorentz and Einstein would like you to believe that all that matters is the ticking of the clock and the length contraction of the light clock on board the spaceship, the light outside the spaceship continues as per normal .The earth and the star are assumed to be the same frame.The earth twin edith and the anaut twin alice have synchronized clocks even though alice is moving faster. Synchronization does not determine aging, speed does. The Alice clock runs slower and that decides who is younger.
If I make the light clock bigger, i.e 4 light years between ticks. Both the star system and Earth ignoring any radius variation would have synchronised ticks outside of the spaceship . So ''your'' spaceship and clock are within my time measurement and not a part of the measurement.
If you used some type of standard space-time drawings, with time and space scales, your examples would be easier to understand.
stat.jpg (45.57 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5045 times)Ping + pong (c) = 2.s
v(carriage)=0.5c
journey
t = 2.st1=t1'
No length contraction see....no time dilation see....just some really incomplete thoughts by science.
p.s you can put my train stations on any planet the same length apart and the result will always be equal and proportional to the observer on the train or on the embankment.
Would you like me to write it in Einstein style which will take me some time or can you just accept the truth and we can then move on to something more ''fun''?
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/08/2017 23:46:11
Post by: guest39538 on 30/08/2017 01:15:38
@Thebox Stop winding up other members. You should know better.How exactly am I winding up other members?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/08/2017 11:58:29
Post by: guest39538 on 30/08/2017 12:00:02
@Thebox Stop winding up other members. You should know better.Are you sure they are not becoming restless because all they have learnt about time dilation ,I am showing to be inaccurate?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/08/2017 12:42:47
Quote
THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light. The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent on the direction “in space” is in itself improbable. 1
In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school. Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties? Let us consider how these difficulties arise. 2
Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light (and indeed every other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system). As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. 3
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage—a result contradictory to the principle of relativity. 4
In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity. The development of theoretical physics shows, however, that we cannot pursue this course. The epoch-making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on the electrodynamical and optical phenomena connected with moving bodies show that experience in this domain leads conclusively to a theory of electromagnetic phenomena, of which the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence. Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this principle. 5
At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later. In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the special theory of relativity.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
In respect to the embankment, the light from one embankment to another embankment a distance away is constant in the amount of time it takes to travel
. Likewise can be said for the invert journey of the journey, as the fixed points are a relative stationary reference frame and the boundaries set by a fixed measurement with no variation. Let us now return to the carriage travelling between the embankments within our defined fixed point boundaries.and look for any affect the carriage could have on the light travelling from each embankment to the other embankment.
We shall firstly define the parameters of our thought and firstly define the length between embankments which are North and South aligned to avoid length contraction which we will label (L). We shall also look at light in a way that is not conventional and give it a set of wheels to also help avoid length contraction.
L=300,000 km
We shall define the time it takes from each embankment for the light to travel (L). We will define from
time ct1 and we shall define as ct2 .We already know the outcome of our first two questions about the time it takes by knowing the constant speed of light velocity c = 300,000 km./sec.
We can say:
ct1 =1.s
ct2 =1.s
ct1=ct2
Now I would like to confirm at this stage that my associates agree with this so far? You can simply imagine a car driving at
Post by: guest39538 on 30/08/2017 13:12:10
ct1=1.s
ct2=1.s
ct1=ct2
Do my associates agree with this calculation?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/08/2017 13:33:45
The observer on platform (A) observes as before the constant of light between two constant fixed points. A second observer observing from above the embankment observes a length contraction considering the embankments aligned (A) east, (B) west. As we know the Earth rotates Easterly .
If we were to emit the light from embankment (A) , the second observer , observes embankment (B) contracting towards the incident ray of light by :
0.44444444km/s.
Observer two can calculate that the light as not travelled the L=300,000 km and it took less than 1 second to complete the event.
Diagram 1:Observers two view
di.jpg (29.38 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4904 times)(I think my diagram might be westerly sorry but its the same either way around. )
In respect to the observer on the embankment (A) and the observer on embankment (B) and the overhead observer (C), all observers can conclude that (A) and (B) have both moved an equal and proportional distance and experienced an equal and proportional amount of time.
Post by: David Cooper on 31/08/2017 00:28:19
However, the relative timing of light travelling from each observer to the other observer remains synchronous.
The time it takes light to travel from themselves to the observer in motion is the same time it takes for the light from the observer in motion to reach the relative stationary observer showing both observers clocks are inaccurate and faulty.
You can assert that as much as you like, but it won't make it true.
It is quite clear that I have learnt quite a bit of science, ''you'' have helped me to learn over the years.
All you have learned is to put your fake science into more scientific-sounding language. You steadfastly refuse to learn any actual science.
Quote
I do not understand why though as science minded people, you do not want to discuss some ''real'' science.
Your idea of "real science" is sticking with half-baked ideas which are riddled with basic errors while denying that the errors are there.
Quote
I am not difficult to talk to, my notions involve mainstream.
The problem you have is that you can't see your errors no matter how clearly they're pointed out to you, which makes talking to you a rather unrewarding.
Quote
But if anyone can tell me how am I as a science minded person suppose to ignore the truth, I would like to hear it?
Why would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you.
Quote
My notion are observations of the Universe, they are not made up things , they are possibilities. Why do so many readers of my posts ''fear'' engaging in the discussion of the notions?
The only thing people fear is that they will waste a valuable chunk of their life holding yet another pointless conversation with you over many pages.
Quote
No answer is the validation of the truth, it means you are at a loss for an answer which means you have no disagreement in my notions which by silence means agreement.
The only thing they're at a loss for an answer to is how you can fail to see things that are put in front of your eyes.
Quote
If a spaceship travels at 0.5c for 8 light year, the astronaut experiences 8 light year.
The person on earth observing also experiences 8 light year and can even predict this before the journey starts.
Do you realise that a lightyear is a distance and not a time?
Quote
No length contraction see....no time dilation see....just some really incomplete thoughts by science.
The incompleteness is in your thinking. Here's an illustration of why moving clocks run slow and why there must be length contraction if perpendicular co-moving clocks are to tick in sync:-
http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm)
Post by: guest39538 on 31/08/2017 01:21:55
I can only assert that you do not have the mental capability to understand the notion. Quite clearly you are not listening to anything but what you were taught. You can not comprehend that what you were taught may be incorrect.However, the relative timing of light travelling from each observer to the other observer remains synchronous.
The time it takes light to travel from themselves to the observer in motion is the same time it takes for the light from the observer in motion to reach the relative stationary observer showing both observers clocks are inaccurate and faulty.
You can assert that as much as you like, but it won't make it true.It is quite clear that I have learnt quite a bit of science, ''you'' have helped me to learn over the years.
All you have learned is to put your fake science into more scientific-sounding language. You steadfastly refuse to learn any actual science.QuoteI do not understand why though as science minded people, you do not want to discuss some ''real'' science.
Your idea of "real science" is sticking with half-baked ideas which are riddled with basic errors while denying that the errors are there.QuoteI am not difficult to talk to, my notions involve mainstream.
The problem you have is that you can't see your errors no matter how clearly they're pointed out to you, which makes talking to you a rather unrewarding.QuoteBut if anyone can tell me how am I as a science minded person suppose to ignore the truth, I would like to hear it?
Why would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you.QuoteMy notion are observations of the Universe, they are not made up things , they are possibilities. Why do so many readers of my posts ''fear'' engaging in the discussion of the notions?
The only thing people fear is that they will waste a valuable chunk of their life holding yet another pointless conversation with you over many pages.QuoteNo answer is the validation of the truth, it means you are at a loss for an answer which means you have no disagreement in my notions which by silence means agreement.
The only thing they're at a loss for an answer to is how you can fail to see things that are put in front of your eyes.QuoteIf a spaceship travels at 0.5c for 8 light year, the astronaut experiences 8 light year.
The person on earth observing also experiences 8 light year and can even predict this before the journey starts.
Do you realise that a lightyear is a distance and not a time?QuoteNo length contraction see....no time dilation see....just some really incomplete thoughts by science.
The incompleteness is in your thinking. Here's an illustration of why moving clocks run slow and why there must be length contraction if perpendicular co-moving clocks are to tick in sync:-
http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm (http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm)
You are what I call a ''god'' scientists, you believe present theories to be absolute fact and will not sway from your belief.
Answer me one question without referring to present information,
When is your next chronological position, how far/long away is it from now?
End of argument, you lose.
This is what you are doing,
I am reporting a ''crime''
You are putting in a defence of the ''crime''
The ''crime'' itself is not a defence.
You would like the world and readers to think I am in some way stupid, I could explain the present information easy, however it would still be incorrect. I am correcting the error but the ignorance is on your part.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/08/2017 01:33:54
It is very very simple, Anybodies next now is right away, there is no space between now and now, all of time dilation theory becomes frivolous litigation with this single logical axiom.
So come on David, explain where you are getting a length from that contracts or time that is a variant?
My next now, your next now, even the cat in the box next now, is right away . There is no uncertainty whether my sentence is dead or alive. It is alive and kicking.
added - Below is a graph of time. I have placed a dot to represent every moment of now into the future.
now.jpg (13.4 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4695 times)''But it looks like an unbroken line Mr Box''
Exactly, the dots are all adjoined with no space between now's.
Everything's now is continuous into the future.
added- See David, our now's can never be out of synchronisation. I explained this earlier in the thread with a present diagram where two presents move apart .
Quote
Do you realise that a lightyear is a distance and not a time?
A light year is the distance light travels in a year, a year is an amount of time. Light is constant and tends to give a constant amount of time to travel a distance. Light makes a good clock.
Quote
The incompleteness is in your thinking. Here's an illustration of why moving clocks run slow and why there must be length contraction if perpendicular co-moving clocks are to tick in sync:-
http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm
I am sick of showing this imaginary piece of type work to be incorrect.
Quote
Why would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you
Because the proof you are offering is the ''crime''.
Quote
The only thing they're at a loss for an answer to is how you can fail to see things that are put in front of your eyes
I see things put before my eyes very well thank you, do you mean I do not accept these things to be the absolute truth?
People rarely answer so they must be at a loss for an answer.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2017 21:41:37
I am sick of showing this imaginary piece of type work to be incorrect.
How can you be sick of doing something you have never done?
Post by: David Cooper on 31/08/2017 22:19:52
I can only assert that you do not have the mental capability to understand the notion. Quite clearly you are not listening to anything but what you were taught. You can not comprehend that what you were taught may be incorrect.
I wasn't taught it - I worked it out independently, just as you try to work things out for yourself, and I like that about you.
Quote
You are what I call a ''god'' scientists, you believe present theories to be absolute fact and will not sway from your belief.
When something is demonstrably wrong, that is the time to abandon it. That is the way to rule out ideas that don't add up, leaving the ones that are still potentially viable.
Quote
Answer me one question without referring to present information,
When is your next chronological position, how far/long away is it from now?
End of argument, you lose.
I can't lose an argument by not knowing the answer. I don't know if time is digital or contains an infinite number of time slices per second. I suspect it's digital because an infinite series of cause-and-effect processes in a second would never terminate, but I have no way to telling how small a smallest time unit might be.
Quote
This is what you are doing,
I am reporting a ''crime''
You are putting in a defence of the ''crime''
The ''crime'' itself is not a defence.
I can't work out how your analogy relates to anything, and it doesn't even appear to add up within itself.
Quote
You would like the world and readers to think I am in some way stupid, I could explain the present information easy, however it would still be incorrect. I am correcting the error but the ignorance is on your part.
I have no desire to suggest that you're stupid because I don't think you are, just as Einstein wasn't stupid. Like most people though, you are so determined to believe in what you already believe in that you cannot see the proof that you're wrong about anything no matter how clearly it's presented to you. You are not some kind of freak in that regard, but very much the norm. The big thing in your favour though is that you think for yourself instead of swallowing the establishment line.
Members think they are getting annoyed , you could not imagine how annoyed I feel that nobody actually listens. It is as if people want to just show off how much present knowledge they have, they do not seem to be able to think other than this.
Sharing knowledge is not about showing off, but represents a belief that other people are capable of taking things in and getting past the things that are blocking their progress to a proper understanding.
Quote
It is very very simple, Anybodies next now is right away, there is no space between now and now, all of time dilation theory becomes frivolous litigation with this single logical axiom.
I linked to something that shows you the workings of light clocks, one pair of perpendicular clocks which are stationary and another pair which are moving. There is no possibility of the moving clocks ticking at the same rate as the stationary ones, and no possibility of the uncontracted one aligned the same way as it is moving from ticking as quickly as the perpendicular one moving with it. You object to the idea of time dilation, and so do I - it is not time that's dilating, but moving clocks being unable to record all the time that has passed for them because their movement slows their functionality.
Quote
So come on David, explain where you are getting a length from that contracts or time that is a variant?
The MMX null result shows that the length of the arm aligned with its direction of travel must be contracting, but time is not affected by movement - the light is still running about in the clock at c, completely unslowed, and that light is part of the clock. The rest of the clock is moving along at high speed too, and it is completely unslowed in its movement through space - the only thing that is slowed is its functionality because the cycle length has increased. It is the interaction between all the components that is slowed, but all of them have to go through the same amount of time.
Quote
My next now, your next now, even the cat in the box next now, is right away . There is no uncertainty whether my sentence is dead or alive. It is alive and kicking.
You can't know that it's right away. You could be frozen in time for a million years of an external time in between each of the shortest moments that you might imagine are passing for you. Alternatively, a billion years of action could run through in a single second of some external time - that a year feels like a long time to us tells us nothing about how long any kind of time really takes to run through. But it cannot all happen in zero time because there are cause-and-effect processes tied up in everything which have to run through in order. We can never really know anything about how quickly those processes run, except that it cannot be instantaneous.
Quote
added - Below is a graph of time. I have placed a dot to represent every moment of now into the future.
''But it looks like an unbroken line Mr Box''
Exactly, the dots are all adjoined with no space between now's.
Everything's now is continuous into the future.
Lovely.
Quote
added- See David, our now's can never be out of synchronisation. I explained this earlier in the thread with a present diagram where two presents move apart .
I haven't seen any viable theory that suggests otherwise - those that do so depend on magic.
Quote
A light year is the distance light travels in a year, a year is an amount of time. Light is constant and tends to give a constant amount of time to travel a distance. Light makes a good clock.
Great, so why did you describe a stationary observer as experiencing 8 lightyears?
Quote
I am sick of showing this imaginary piece of type work to be incorrect.
That's because you can't show it to be correct. You want to believe that light can complete cycles in moving light clocks in some magical way where it covers less distance than it actually has to, and so long as you believe that it can do this impossible thing, you'll continue to be plain wrong.
Quote
QuoteWhy would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you
Because the proof you are offering is the ''crime''.
So you see it as a crime when you're shown how reality works?
Quote
I see things put before my eyes very well thank you, do you mean I do not accept these things to be the absolute truth?
I mean that you don't accept things that have been demonstrated to be correct. Moving clocks run slow, and without length contraction they would perform differently from clocks in the real universe. You seem to imagine that light in a light clock can complete a cycle at a speed that would either require it to go faster than the speed of light or force it to turn back before it reaches a mirror that it's required to bounce off, but that's where you become a magical thinker rather than a rationalist.
Quote
People rarely answer so they must be at a loss for an answer.
That's another mistake you keep making in your thinking. People have plenty of answers, but if you aren't able to accept anything that they prove to you, they decide that there is no point in going on speaking with you, and then they leave you to talk to yourself.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/09/2017 02:34:04
Perhaps my judgement of you was wrong, I apologise. I have this feeling that for some reason nobody is understanding the notion to my understanding of the notion. I suppose this is because we think as individuals and can read things and interpret these things wrongly, even if they are wrote correctly.I can only assert that you do not have the mental capability to understand the notion. Quite clearly you are not listening to anything but what you were taught. You can not comprehend that what you were taught may be incorrect.
I wasn't taught it - I worked it out independently, just as you try to work things out for yourself, and I like that about you.
QuoteYou are what I call a ''god'' scientists, you believe present theories to be absolute fact and will not sway from your belief.
When something is demonstrably wrong, that is the time to abandon it. That is the way to rule out ideas that don't add up, leaving the ones that are still potentially viable.QuoteAnswer me one question without referring to present information,
When is your next chronological position, how far/long away is it from now?
End of argument, you lose.
I can't lose an argument by not knowing the answer. I don't know if time is digital or contains an infinite number of time slices per second. I suspect it's digital because an infinite series of cause-and-effect processes in a second would never terminate, but I have no way to telling how small a smallest time unit might be.QuoteThis is what you are doing,
I am reporting a ''crime''
You are putting in a defence of the ''crime''
The ''crime'' itself is not a defence.
I can't work out how your analogy relates to anything, and it doesn't even appear to add up within itself.QuoteYou would like the world and readers to think I am in some way stupid, I could explain the present information easy, however it would still be incorrect. I am correcting the error but the ignorance is on your part.
I have no desire to suggest that you're stupid because I don't think you are, just as Einstein wasn't stupid. Like most people though, you are so determined to believe in what you already believe in that you cannot see the proof that you're wrong about anything no matter how clearly it's presented to you. You are not some kind of freak in that regard, but very much the norm. The big thing in your favour though is that you think for yourself instead of swallowing the establishment line.Members think they are getting annoyed , you could not imagine how annoyed I feel that nobody actually listens. It is as if people want to just show off how much present knowledge they have, they do not seem to be able to think other than this.
Sharing knowledge is not about showing off, but represents a belief that other people are capable of taking things in and getting past the things that are blocking their progress to a proper understanding.QuoteIt is very very simple, Anybodies next now is right away, there is no space between now and now, all of time dilation theory becomes frivolous litigation with this single logical axiom.
I linked to something that shows you the workings of light clocks, one pair of perpendicular clocks which are stationary and another pair which are moving. There is no possibility of the moving clocks ticking at the same rate as the stationary ones, and no possibility of the uncontracted one aligned the same way as it is moving from ticking as quickly as the perpendicular one moving with it. You object to the idea of time dilation, and so do I - it is not time that's dilating, but moving clocks being unable to record all the time that has passed for them because their movement slows their functionality.QuoteSo come on David, explain where you are getting a length from that contracts or time that is a variant?
The MMX null result shows that the length of the arm aligned with its direction of travel must be contracting, but time is not affected by movement - the light is still running about in the clock at c, completely unslowed, and that light is part of the clock. The rest of the clock is moving along at high speed too, and it is completely unslowed in its movement through space - the only thing that is slowed is its functionality because the cycle length has increased. It is the interaction between all the components that is slowed, but all of them have to go through the same amount of time.QuoteMy next now, your next now, even the cat in the box next now, is right away . There is no uncertainty whether my sentence is dead or alive. It is alive and kicking.
You can't know that it's right away. You could be frozen in time for a million years of an external time in between each of the shortest moments that you might imagine are passing for you. Alternatively, a billion years of action could run through in a single second of some external time - that a year feels like a long time to us tells us nothing about how long any kind of time really takes to run through. But it cannot all happen in zero time because there are cause-and-effect processes tied up in everything which have to run through in order. We can never really know anything about how quickly those processes run, except that it cannot be instantaneous.Quoteadded - Below is a graph of time. I have placed a dot to represent every moment of now into the future.
''But it looks like an unbroken line Mr Box''
Exactly, the dots are all adjoined with no space between now's.
Everything's now is continuous into the future.
Lovely.Quoteadded- See David, our now's can never be out of synchronisation. I explained this earlier in the thread with a present diagram where two presents move apart .
I haven't seen any viable theory that suggests otherwise - those that do so depend on magic.QuoteA light year is the distance light travels in a year, a year is an amount of time. Light is constant and tends to give a constant amount of time to travel a distance. Light makes a good clock.
Great, so why did you describe a stationary observer as experiencing 8 lightyears?QuoteI am sick of showing this imaginary piece of type work to be incorrect.
That's because you can't show it to be correct. You want to believe that light can complete cycles in moving light clocks in some magical way where it covers less distance than it actually has to, and so long as you believe that it can do this impossible thing, you'll continue to be plain wrong.QuoteQuoteWhy would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you
Because the proof you are offering is the ''crime''.
So you see it as a crime when you're shown how reality works?QuoteI see things put before my eyes very well thank you, do you mean I do not accept these things to be the absolute truth?
I mean that you don't accept things that have been demonstrated to be correct. Moving clocks run slow, and without length contraction they would perform differently from clocks in the real universe. You seem to imagine that light in a light clock can complete a cycle at a speed that would either require it to go faster than the speed of light or force it to turn back before it reaches a mirror that it's required to bounce off, but that's where you become a magical thinker rather than a rationalist.QuotePeople rarely answer so they must be at a loss for an answer.
That's another mistake you keep making in your thinking. People have plenty of answers, but if you aren't able to accept anything that they prove to you, they decide that there is no point in going on speaking with you, and then they leave you to talk to yourself.
So in consideration to this perhaps I should change my approach...I feel we have drifted off topic slightly so shall try to return to the title topic.
Ok, I am quite sure David that you would know a little something about vectors, so if you do not mind I would like to discuss a simple vector.
If we have a vector David that we shall call v(x) which you know is vector x . a straight horizontal line.
Then we define this vector is L=300,000km
Then light was travelling v+(x) at the speed of c, do you agree it takes the light 1.s to arrive at the end point of the journey?
Then in a return trip the light travelled v-(x) at the speed of c, do you agree that the light takes 1.s to arrive at the end point of the journey?
If you agree with both, do you agree that t1=t2?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/09/2017 18:51:58
Post by: guest39538 on 01/09/2017 19:30:03
Yes - it takes one second to cover the distance in each direction.Thank you, so we are in agreement with this relative simple vector. So we can agree on things if we both ''see'' them things to be correct on what we know about the present information of the Universe.
Well David even at this early stage in our proper conversation, I can tell you by the end of this discussion you will understand me and understand why I suggest there is no actual time dilation. Your already agreement of the first question is telling me I am correct. However before moving onto any sort of time dilation , I would please like to continue synchronisation.
So David if by the power of thought we can now imagine our v(x) is a constant L and absolute stationary, I would like to discuss the synchronisation of light between two observers. In doing this David can we please ignore any relativistic affects of different rates of time for each observer.
I would like us to imagine observer (A) and observer (B) who is L away both simultaneous releasing light at 00:00:00. Now we already know that the light is going to take 1.s to travel v(x) in either direction.
Do you agree that Observer (A) observes (B) and Observer (B) observes (A) at the same time?
The time being 00:00:01
di1.jpg (18.36 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4573 times)Post by: David Cooper on 02/09/2017 00:54:08
Well David even at this early stage in our proper conversation, I can tell you by the end of this discussion you will understand me and understand why I suggest there is no actual time dilation.
We both agree that there is no actual time dilation. I told you a while ago that your rebranding it as "timing dilation" is a good move - it emphasises that clocks run slow but makes it clear that time does not, and that is a description of reality.
Quote
In doing this David can we please ignore any relativistic affects of different rates of time for each observer.
As they're not moving, that won't be a problem anyway - their clocks are ticking close to the maximum possible tick rate, slowed only an infinitesimal amount by their own gravity (an amount that is so irrelevant that it can simply be ignored).
Quote
I would like us to imagine observer (A) and observer (B) who is L away both simultaneous releasing light at 00:00:00. Now we already know that the light is going to take 1.s to travel v(x) in either direction.
Do you agree that Observer (A) observes (B) and Observer (B) observes (A) at the same time?
The time being 00:00:01
Absolutely - with an absolute frame, there is simultaneity at a distance. Theories without an absolute frame fall apart when you explore them properly, so this is a place where you are more rational than the mainstream.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/09/2017 01:16:36
We are in agreement that there is no actual time dilation will be beneficial to our discussion. It will make the next part of my our discussion much easier.Well David even at this early stage in our proper conversation, I can tell you by the end of this discussion you will understand me and understand why I suggest there is no actual time dilation.
We both agree that there is no actual time dilation. I told you a while ago that your rebranding it as "timing dilation" is a good move - it emphasises that clocks run slow but makes it clear that time does not, and that is a description of reality.QuoteIn doing this David can we please ignore any relativistic affects of different rates of time for each observer.
As they're not moving, that won't be a problem anyway - their clocks are ticking close to the maximum possible tick rate, slowed only an infinitesimal amount by their own gravity (an amount that is so irrelevant that it can simply be ignored).QuoteI would like us to imagine observer (A) and observer (B) who is L away both simultaneous releasing light at 00:00:00. Now we already know that the light is going to take 1.s to travel v(x) in either direction.
Do you agree that Observer (A) observes (B) and Observer (B) observes (A) at the same time?
The time being 00:00:01
Absolutely - with an absolute frame, there is simultaneity at a distance. Theories without an absolute frame fall apart when you explore them properly, so this is a place where you are more rational than the mainstream.
A space ship is going to travel from observer (A) to observer (B), we shall define the spaceships velocity 0.5c.
The spaceship will launch from (A) simultaneous to the emitted light from (A) at 00:00:00
At exactly one second of the event by the power of thought we are going to freeze time .
Observer (A) as experienced 1 second gone by
Observer (B) as experienced 1 second gone by
The rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by
The identical triplet on the rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by
d3.jpg (24.12 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4497 times)Do you agree with this ?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/09/2017 15:11:00
Looking back over the thread I came across and thought of a new reply for this.BUT there is no actual dilation of time.
Every experiment that has looked for it has found it.
Time dilation is real.
If your opinion doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.
Read What David said:
Quote
We both agree that there is no actual time dilation. I told you a while ago that your rebranding it as "timing dilation" is a good move - it emphasises that clocks run slow but makes it clear that time does not, and that is a description of reality.
Now do you understand?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/09/2017 18:59:11
The rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by
The identical triplet on the rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by
The rocket and person inside it have spent one second travelling, but their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second - that's the timing dilation due to their clocks failing to record all the time that has passed for them (because of the increased travel distances for all moving components to complete cycles). Every atom in the rocket and its contents has also suffered from slowed functionality for the same reason as the clock has been slowed, and every component of every atom has likewise had its functionality slowed - all functionality depends on moving components cycling and all cycle distances have been increased due to the movement of the rocket through space. In every case though, this has nothing to do with time slowing - time was running at full speed throughout for every atom in the rocket, but every atom in the rocket was incapable of recognising that its functionality was slowed.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/09/2017 19:11:18
In the scenario David at this time a clock was not mentioned. You have jumped the gun slightly there , but never mind I shall take the jump with you.The rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by
The identical triplet on the rocket ship as experienced 1 second gone by
The rocket and person inside it have spent one second travelling, but their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second - that's the timing dilation due to their clocks failing to record all the time that has passed for them (because of the increased travel distances for all moving components to complete cycles). Every atom in the rocket and its contents has also suffered from slowed functionality for the same reason as the clock has been slowed, and every component of every atom has likewise had its functionality slowed - all functionality depends on moving components cycling and all cycle distances have been increased due to the movement of the rocket through space. In every case though, this has nothing to do with time slowing - time was running at full speed throughout for every atom in the rocket, but every atom in the rocket was incapable of recognising that its functionality was slowed.
You say :
Quote
but their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second
Is it not, their experience is of 1 second of time passed but their measurement of time is not quite a whole second?
Their clock tick functioning slower than the speed of light ''tick'' between A and B points.
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here. The distant the light travels is directly proportional to the amount of time passed by all observers. What I mean by this is if all observers in my scenario have observed the light travelling between A and B points, all observers in the scenario have experienced the time it takes for light to travel 300,000km?
Because
=1.s and is constant in this scenario , the absolute frame allowing no Length contraction between A and B points.The triplet on the rocket ship could not claim that it only took 0.866 of a second for light to travel from A to B or from B to A.
added- After thinking further more, my conclusion would be that 0.866 of a second measured by the triplet aboard the rocket ship, would still be equal to 1.s of time passed. The constant of light between the A and B points confirming this.
To me science is seemingly measuring :
0.866 /1.s and 1.s/1.s
,
Post by: David Cooper on 02/09/2017 21:28:30
In the scenario David at this time a clock was not mentioned.
The rocket and the person in it are clocks. Every atom is a clock.
Quote
You say :Quotebut their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second
Is it not, their experience is of 1 second of time passed but their measurement of time is not quite a whole second?
Their experience is of 0.866s passing - that is how much time they perceive passing for them. That is what they will tell you because it is what they experienced. There are two different meanings of the word "experienced" though, one of them for things that can measure the apparent passing of time (such as a person and the computers running a rocket ship), and a different meaning which is found in descriptions such as "the rock experienced an acceleration force" - the rock doesn't experience anything in the first sense of the word because it is incapable of processing any kind of thought or of feeling anything, so the second meaning applies instead, and this is really a metaphorical use of the word. It would be better to say that a rock undergoes an acceleration rather than that it experiences one.
Quote
Their clock tick functioning slower than the speed of light ''tick'' between A and B points.
All clocks have components that interact with each other using speed-of-light communications or forces, so the slowing is entirely down to them having to work over increased distances due to the shifting goalposts with the destinations moving.
Quote
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding something here. The distant the light travels is directly proportional to the amount of time passed by all observers. What I mean by this is if all observers in my scenario have observed the light travelling between A and B points, all observers in the scenario have experienced the time it takes for light to travel 300,000km?
All the observers have been exposed to the same amount of time passing, but the experience of the moving observer is of that time being shorter than for the stationary observers. This happens because he is a clock, and his clock is running slow because it is moving fast through space. His entire functionality is running slow, so like any moving clock, he under-records the passage of time.
Quote
Because
There is indeed no length contraction on AB, though the moving observer will perceive it to be contracting a bit while he is moving.
Quote
The triplet on the rocket ship could not claim that it only took 0.866 of a second for light to travel from A to B or from B to A.
He would measure his journey from A to B as taking 2 x 0.866s, but everyone else would tell him it took him 2 seconds to make the trip and that he shouldn't believe his own clock as it was running slow.
Quote
added- After thinking further more, my conclusion would be that 0.866 of a second measured by the triplet aboard the rocket ship, would still be equal to 1.s of time passed. The constant of light between the A and B points confirming this.
To me science is seemingly measuring :
0.866 /1.s and 1.s/1.s
0.866es = 1s. We could say that a clock moving at 0.5c measures time in extended seconds rather than seconds, and extended seconds have to be converted into seconds to work out the actual passage of time. An extended second is a variable time unit though, so the conversion depends on the speed of travel used.
The complication with all of this though is that we can never tell in the real universe whether A and B are stationary or moving. They may actually be moving at 0.5c, and when the rocket travels at what it thinks is 0.5c, it may actually be stationary, which means its clock might now be ticking more quickly than the moving clocks at A and B, and in such a situation, A and B will also be physically closer together. This means that the rocket really could travel from A to B in 2 x 0.866s in such a situation, but the observers at A and B would still insist that it took 2 seconds to make the trip - they would be fooled by their own timings which are based on clocks that have been synchronised in such a way that A's clocks always tick later than B's. The reverse journey for the rocket would take longer than 2 seconds, but the rocket's clocks would still record it as taking 2 x 0.866s (they would be ticking more slowly than the clocks at A and B this time), and the observers at A and B would still measure the trip as taking 2 seconds.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/09/2017 23:21:39
Ok, I understand what you are saying but I don't really agree with the summation.In the scenario David at this time a clock was not mentioned.
The rocket and the person in it are clocks. Every atom is a clock.QuoteYou say :Quotebut their experience is of 0.866 of a second passing rather than a whole second
Is it not, their experience is of 1 second of time passed but their measurement of time is not quite a whole second?
Their experience is of 0.866s passing - that is how much time they perceive passing for them. That is what they will tell you because it is what they experienced. There are two different meanings of the word "experienced" though, one of them for things that can measure the apparent passing of time (such as a person and the computers running a rocket ship), and a different meaning which is found in descriptions such as "the rock experienced an acceleration force" - the rock doesn't experience anything in the first sense of the word because it is incapable of processing any kind of thought or of feeling anything, so the second meaning applies instead, and this is really a metaphorical use of the word. It would be better to say that a rock undergoes an acceleration rather than that it experiences one.QuoteTheir clock tick functioning slower than the speed of light ''tick'' between A and B points.
All clocks have components that interact with each other using speed-of-light communications or forces, so the slowing is entirely down to them having to work over increased distances due to the shifting goalposts with the destinations moving.QuotePlease correct me if I am misunderstanding something here. The distant the light travels is directly proportional to the amount of time passed by all observers. What I mean by this is if all observers in my scenario have observed the light travelling between A and B points, all observers in the scenario have experienced the time it takes for light to travel 300,000km?
All the observers have been exposed to the same amount of time passing, but the experience of the moving observer is of that time being shorter than for the stationary observers. This happens because he is a clock, and his clock is running slow because it is moving fast through space. His entire functionality is running slow, so like any moving clock, he under-records the passage of time.QuoteBecause
There is indeed no length contraction on AB, though the moving observer will perceive it to be contracting a bit while he is moving.QuoteThe triplet on the rocket ship could not claim that it only took 0.866 of a second for light to travel from A to B or from B to A.
He would measure his journey from A to B as taking 2 x 0.866s, but everyone else would tell him it took him 2 seconds to make the trip and that he shouldn't believe his own clock as it was running slow.Quoteadded- After thinking further more, my conclusion would be that 0.866 of a second measured by the triplet aboard the rocket ship, would still be equal to 1.s of time passed. The constant of light between the A and B points confirming this.
To me science is seemingly measuring :
0.866 /1.s and 1.s/1.s
0.866es = 1s. We could say that a clock moving at 0.5c measures time in extended seconds rather than seconds, and extended seconds have to be converted into seconds to work out the actual passage of time. An extended second is a variable time unit though, so the conversion depends on the speed of travel used.
The complication with all of this though is that we can never tell in the real universe whether A and B are stationary or moving. They may actually be moving at 0.5c, and when the rocket travels at what it thinks is 0.5c, it may actually be stationary, which means its clock might now be ticking more quickly than the moving clocks at A and B, and in such a situation, A and B will also be physically closer together. This means that the rocket really could travel from A to B in 2 x 0.866s in such a situation, but the observers at A and B would still insist that it took 2 seconds to make the trip - they would be fooled by their own timings which are based on clocks that have been synchronised in such a way that A's clocks always tick later than B's. The reverse journey for the rocket would take longer than 2 seconds, but the rocket's clocks would still record it as taking 2 x 0.866s (they would be ticking more slowly than the clocks at A and B this time), and the observers at A and B would still measure the trip as taking 2 seconds.
Just to recap you have agreed that the amount of time from A to B and B to A is equal because of the constant of c.
Now I would like to discuss speed. If our rocket ship is travelling at 0.5c how far as it travelled in 1.s? I am sure you will agree 150,000 km.
I am also sure you will agree a constant speed will travel a distance in the same amount of time , every time.
So are you saying that the rocket ship as not travelled 150,000 km because according to the clock aboard the rocket ship, it hasn't been travelling for a second so would not have travelled 150,000 km or at a speed of 0.5c.
Because is speed over a distance not equal to the time it takes?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/09/2017 01:25:05
Now I would like to discuss speed. If our rocket ship is travelling at 0.5c how far as it travelled in 1.s? I am sure you will agree 150,000 km.
Indeed (as we're doing this for the absolute frame with A and B stationary).
Quote
I am also sure you will agree a constant speed will travel a distance in the same amount of time , every time.
No problem there either.
Quote
So are you saying that the rocket ship as not travelled 150,000 km because according to the clock aboard the rocket ship, it hasn't been travelling for a second so would not have travelled 150,000 km or at a speed of 0.5c.
The rocket has travelled the full 150,000km, and it will calculate that too if it bases its calculations on the same frame of reference in which A and B are stationary, in addition to calculating that its clocks will not record all the time that has passed for them. If it calculates on a different basis, using the frame of reference in which it is at rest during the trip from A to B, it will determine at the halfway point that A has moved away from it at 0.5c for 0.866s and that it is by this time 130,000km away.
Quote
Because is speed over a distance not equal to the time it takes?
The time is less and the distance is less to match. Importantly, when this other frame of reference is used as the base for the calculations, the rocket has travelled zero distance - it's A and B that are moving at 0.5c instead, and they have moved less far than 150,000km because only 0.866s has gone by.
We have two sets of figures documenting the action based on these two different frames, and they make claims which contradict each other, but in this case we know which ones are true because we know which frame is the absolute frame, so we can rule out the account of events generated by the frame of reference in which the moving rocket is at rest. Inside the real universe though, we don't know which is the absolute frame, so we can't identify which accounts of the action are the true ones. We do know though that there will be an account of the action that is true and that all the other accounts that contradict it must be false - we just can't tell which is the true one because it could be any of them.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/09/2017 12:53:38
Thank you David for explaining that. If you noticed in my diagram , at the A and B points I have not placed any bodies. My reason for this is that the absolute frame I am using is a length of space. My rocket ship is travelling a length of space from A to B points of space. My bodies of inertia reference frames are none existence in my diagram. Space is relatively an absolute frame of rest .Now I would like to discuss speed. If our rocket ship is travelling at 0.5c how far as it travelled in 1.s? I am sure you will agree 150,000 km.
Indeed (as we're doing this for the absolute frame with A and B stationary).QuoteI am also sure you will agree a constant speed will travel a distance in the same amount of time , every time.
No problem there either.QuoteSo are you saying that the rocket ship as not travelled 150,000 km because according to the clock aboard the rocket ship, it hasn't been travelling for a second so would not have travelled 150,000 km or at a speed of 0.5c.
The rocket has travelled the full 150,000km, and it will calculate that too if it bases its calculations on the same frame of reference in which A and B are stationary, in addition to calculating that its clocks will not record all the time that has passed for them. If it calculates on a different basis, using the frame of reference in which it is at rest during the trip from A to B, it will determine at the halfway point that A has moved away from it at 0.5c for 0.866s and that it is by this time 130,000km away.QuoteBecause is speed over a distance not equal to the time it takes?
The time is less and the distance is less to match. Importantly, when this other frame of reference is used as the base for the calculations, the rocket has travelled zero distance - it's A and B that are moving at 0.5c instead, and they have moved less far than 150,000km because only 0.866s has gone by.
We have two sets of figures documenting the action based on these two different frames, and they make claims which contradict each other, but in this case we know which ones are true because we know which frame is the absolute frame, so we can rule out the account of events generated by the frame of reference in which the moving rocket is at rest. Inside the real universe though, we don't know which is the absolute frame, so we can't identify which accounts of the action are the true ones. We do know though that there will be an account of the action that is true and that all the other accounts that contradict it must be false - we just can't tell which is the true one because it could be any of them.
In my scenario the observer on the rocket ship is also not using a clock aboard the rocket ship, the observer is using the time outside of the rocket ship, i.e the light between points.
Correct me if I am wrong, the travelling light outside of the rocket ship still measures constant in speed regardless of the observers reference frame.
Anyway moving on , I am quite sure you aware of that we see things in their past. The absolute diagram shows that the observers see each other at the same time but are observing each other as they were 1.s ago. However this breaks down if we look at our scenario differently.
In this scenario we will keep all the parameters of the thought, except this time our vector length is L=0
Now do we agree that observer A and observer B who are nose to nose, see each other at the same time?
They both occupy the same present/now?
Post by: GoC on 03/09/2017 14:04:15
There is no absolute frame unless of course we are discussing c being total photon energy for distance as a constant. The rest is just timing which is different for different frames. When David claims time as an absolute without regard to timing and reaction rate differences that is not within the realm of relativity. Thebox is correct at t=0 the distance between two objects is defined but cannot be measured accurately using light or any spectrum waves. We only have orthogonal measurements of a ping for two way and reflected light for one way when we look at an object.
There is a fractal change in perception. Your measuring stick increases while your clock decreases tick rate with speed. You measure a smaller universe with slower timing. So your clock measures the distance by time the same in all frames. This also auto corrects for the speed of light to be measured the same in a vacuum. Distance and timing are always confounded. Time itself is directly related to c. You cannot measure something that is part of what is being measured. Timing either by the electron or photon is based on c. So you cannot really measure c using c. So looking for an absolute frame is meaningless.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/09/2017 14:36:24
But the absolute reference frame of space is itself an absolute , space is not observed to be moving, it is relative stationary, things move within this frame and relative to this frame.. If we observed space moving as well, we would feel rather sick from all the chaos of observation.
There is no absolute frame unless of course we are discussing c being total photon energy for distance as a constant. The rest is just timing which is different for different frames. When David claims time as an absolute without regard to timing and reaction rate differences that is not within the realm of relativity. Thebox is correct at t=0 the distance between two objects is defined but cannot be measured accurately using light or any spectrum waves. We only have orthogonal measurements of a ping for two way and reflected light for one way when we look at an object.
There is a fractal change in perception. Your measuring stick increases while your clock decreases tick rate with speed. You measure a smaller universe with slower timing. So your clock measures the distance by time the same in all frames. This also auto corrects for the speed of light to be measured the same in a vacuum. Distance and timing are always confounded. Time itself is directly related to c. You cannot measure something that is part of what is being measured. Timing either by the electron or photon is based on c. So you cannot really measure c using c. So looking for an absolute frame is meaningless.
L=0 will show why we do not see things in the past.
Now expanding from a point to another point remains now because of the constant of light between spacial points.
Let us look at the twin Paradox , twin two leaves twin one now. they start their journey at 00:00:00 and travel at 0.5c for 1.s.
Twin ones time is now 00:00:01
Twins two time is now 00:00:01
The light between observers is constant and retains synchronisation of sight always.
The light from A to B in this situation takes 0.5 s to reach from A to B.
The light from B to A takes 0.5s to reach from B to A .
Both observers see each other at the same time and the synchronisation of sight remains constant by the light between the observers.
now1.jpg (17.26 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4426 times)added- In some way the time it takes for the light to travel from different positions in the length of journey should add up to 1.s
v(twin) + v(c) =1.s
I am unsure how to calculate this , I can only give a pointer in the right direction.
vc.jpg (17.41 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 4423 times)1/2 v(c) = t*2
added- If we start with a length and interpret this as seeing things in the past, because of light and how sight works, this works and is true.
However if we start within and work our way out, this becomes untrue and we don't see things in the past.
So which way is correct?
Post by: David Cooper on 03/09/2017 22:07:33
Thank you David for explaining that. If you noticed in my diagram , at the A and B points I have not placed any bodies. My reason for this is that the absolute frame I am using is a length of space. My rocket ship is travelling a length of space from A to B points of space. My bodies of inertia reference frames are none existence in my diagram. Space is relatively an absolute frame of rest .
You have an infinite number of frames of reference there whether you want them or not, and as soon as you decide that A and B are definitively stationary, you are using the absolute frame.
Quote
In my scenario the observer on the rocket ship is also not using a clock aboard the rocket ship, the observer is using the time outside of the rocket ship, i.e the light between points.
The observer on the ship is a clock - we can count seconds accurately enough to tell when they don't match up to other clocks ticking at different rates. He knows that his functionality will run slow while he's moving at high speed though, so he can easily go by the time of the absolute frame instead and not be surprised by its higher tick rate.
Quote
Correct me if I am wrong, the travelling light outside of the rocket ship still measures constant in speed regardless of the observers reference frame.
It does indeed (while for any other frame it is misrepresented, warped to make out that it's moving at the same speed in all directions relative to that frame).
Quote
Anyway moving on , I am quite sure you aware of that we see things in their past. The absolute diagram shows that the observers see each other at the same time but are observing each other as they were 1.s ago. However this breaks down if we look at our scenario differently.
In this scenario we will keep all the parameters of the thought, except this time our vector length is L=0
Now do we agree that observer A and observer B who are nose to nose, see each other at the same time?
They both occupy the same present/now?
And the same location, so no delays in what they see of each other (apart from the time taken to process the data, but we can ignore that complication and just say it's instant).
Post by: David Cooper on 03/09/2017 22:33:34
There is no absolute frame unless of course we are discussing c being total photon energy for distance as a constant. The rest is just timing which is different for different frames. When David claims time as an absolute without regard to timing and reaction rate differences that is not within the realm of relativity.
The absolute frame is the one in which light travels in opposite directions at the same speed relative to that frame. If you want to describe it in some obfuscated way, that's your choice, but it doesn't provide any improvement over the clearest way of looking at it, and the absolute frame has a fundamental role in real relativity.
Quote
...So looking for an absolute frame is meaningless.
It's essential that there be one, and we even have an experiment that proves that there is one - we just can't pin down which frame it is. We know that light takes longer to do a circuit round the Earth eastwards than westwards when the start/finish line is a point that tied to the moving surface of the rotating Earth, and we also know that if you use a start/finish line which doesn't rotate with the planet, light takes the same time to go round each way, so this tells us that on average at points along the circuit, the light is most certainly moving at different speeds relative to the surface of the planet in opposite directions, something which destroys a key assertion of SR.
[Incidentally, we also have improved versions of MMX which work to such high precision (many magnitudes better than the original experiment) that they would fail to produce a null result if there wasn't length contraction acting on it, and this just from the Earth's rotation even if the Earth was always stationary in space - it no longer depends on the Earth changing speed as it orbits the sun because the rotation should be sufficient on its own to produce a positive result if there was no contraction of one of the arms.]
Post by: David Cooper on 03/09/2017 22:51:35
Let us look at the twin Paradox , twin two leaves twin one now. they start their journey at 00:00:00 and travel at 0.5c for 1.s.
By "they start their journey", I hope you mean "they" in the singular.
Quote
added- In some way the time it takes for the light to travel from different positions in the length of journey should add up to 1.s
You have placed the twins half a lightsecond apart (I assume that the moving twin has stopped there), so the journey time for light to travel between them is 0.5s.
Quote
added- If we start with a length and interpret this as seeing things in the past, because of light and how sight works, this works and is true.
They will see each other as they were 0.5s back in the past.
Quote
However if we start within and work our way out, this becomes untrue and we don't see things in the past.
So which way is correct?
Hard to tell until you translate that into a form that makes sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/09/2017 22:59:51
I think we 'see' eye to eye on some things. Yes there would be a very small delay with the time taken to process the data.Thank you David for explaining that. If you noticed in my diagram , at the A and B points I have not placed any bodies. My reason for this is that the absolute frame I am using is a length of space. My rocket ship is travelling a length of space from A to B points of space. My bodies of inertia reference frames are none existence in my diagram. Space is relatively an absolute frame of rest .
You have an infinite number of frames of reference there whether you want them or not, and as soon as you decide that A and B are definitively stationary, you are using the absolute frame.QuoteIn my scenario the observer on the rocket ship is also not using a clock aboard the rocket ship, the observer is using the time outside of the rocket ship, i.e the light between points.
The observer on the ship is a clock - we can count seconds accurately enough to tell when they don't match up to other clocks ticking at different rates. He knows that his functionality will run slow while he's moving at high speed though, so he can easily go by the time of the absolute frame instead and not be surprised by its higher tick rate.QuoteCorrect me if I am wrong, the travelling light outside of the rocket ship still measures constant in speed regardless of the observers reference frame.
It does indeed (while for any other frame it is misrepresented, warped to make out that it's moving at the same speed in all directions relative to that frame).QuoteAnyway moving on , I am quite sure you aware of that we see things in their past. The absolute diagram shows that the observers see each other at the same time but are observing each other as they were 1.s ago. However this breaks down if we look at our scenario differently.
In this scenario we will keep all the parameters of the thought, except this time our vector length is L=0
Now do we agree that observer A and observer B who are nose to nose, see each other at the same time?
They both occupy the same present/now?
And the same location, so no delays in what they see of each other (apart from the time taken to process the data, but we can ignore that complication and just say it's instant).
So in continuance of our conversation David, I will now like us to discuss Observer (B) moving away from observer (A).
Let us stick to our previous start position of 00:00:00. We both agree they are in the same location and so no delays in what they see of each other (apart from the time taken to process the data, but we can ignore that complication and just say it's instant).
Now this next part is a little bit complicated because the motion of observer B will be continuous and not discrete .
If observer B moves at 0.5 c away from observer A, the reflected light from observer B is travelling towards Observer A and vice versus .
We have already established by the synchronous of the absolute frame that both observers will continue to observe each other at the same time.
So how is it possible that observer A is observing observer B in the past, when their original position and ''now'' has remained synchronous by the light through every ''step'' of the journey?
added- sorry i was typing as you were . Will read your other post.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/09/2017 23:06:13
Yes I meant they as singular.Let us look at the twin Paradox , twin two leaves twin one now. they start their journey at 00:00:00 and travel at 0.5c for 1.s.
By "they start their journey", I hope you mean "they" in the singular.Quoteadded- In some way the time it takes for the light to travel from different positions in the length of journey should add up to 1.s
You have placed the twins half a lightsecond apart (I assume that the moving twin has stopped there), so the journey time for light to travel between them is 0.5s.Quoteadded- If we start with a length and interpret this as seeing things in the past, because of light and how sight works, this works and is true.
They will see each other as they were 0.5s back in the past.QuoteHowever if we start within and work our way out, this becomes untrue and we don't see things in the past.
So which way is correct?
Hard to tell until you translate that into a form that makes sense.
Translation : If we consider L=300,000 km then consider a photon travelling back to our eyes , we can easily see why we see things as they were 1.s ago.
But if we reverse it and work our way outwards from L=0km we get an opposite result. We see the object now as it is.
For this very reason do I think we have something incorrect about the nature of light.
Post by: David Cooper on 04/09/2017 20:56:45
Now this next part is a little bit complicated because the motion of observer B will be continuous and not discrete .
If observer B moves at 0.5 c away from observer A, the reflected light from observer B is travelling towards Observer A and vice versus .
We have already established by the synchronous of the absolute frame that both observers will continue to observe each other at the same time.
So how is it possible that observer A is observing observer B in the past, when their original position and ''now'' has remained synchronous by the light through every ''step'' of the journey?
The further apart they are, the further back in time they see each other, but it's also the case that B will see A further back in time than A sees B because the light from B to A is not chasing A, but the light from A has to chase after B (which is moving away from it).
Quote
Translation : If we consider L=300,000 km then consider a photon travelling back to our eyes , we can easily see why we see things as they were 1.s ago.
But if we reverse it and work our way outwards from L=0km we get an opposite result. We see the object now as it is.
For this very reason do I think we have something incorrect about the nature of light.
If you start with A and B zero distance apart, they initially see each other as they are "now", but as soon as they've moved apart, delays start to come into play, and those delays are greater for B seeing A than for A seeing B. Even once B has stopped with A and B now 1 lightsecond apart, they see each other different amounts back in time until A starts to see light from B which was sent out from B when B stopped moving.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/09/2017 21:40:11
If you start with A and B zero distance apart, they initially see each other as they are "now", but as soon as they've moved apart, delays start to come into play, and those delays are greater for B seeing A than for A seeing B. Even once B has stopped with A and B now 1 lightsecond apart, they see each other different amounts back in time until A starts to see light from B which was sent out from B when B stopped moving.
Ok , this will become our first disagreement as I see it differently. To explain my disagreement will not be easy though. I can manifest the thought experiment into pictures in my mind but I am struggling to ''see'' the times involved.
I shall try to show my disagreement indirectly , then hopefully you can understand this directly.
Ok David, I will make up a scenario.
I and you are standing next to each other in our absolute frame, we see each other in a near instant, as we are now in the present. You leave me at 00:00:00 and by the power of thought you can travel at c and travel for 300,000 km , the time for you is now 00:00:01, the time for me is 00:00:01.
We are still in each others present are we not?
I do not see you as 1 second ago because 1 second ago you had not departed?
added- I am not sure you will understand this part but here goes.
Imagine we split the 300,000 km into discrete steps, a vehicle that as travelled at 0.5c will travel 150,000 km in 1.s. The returning light to observer A will take 0.5 s to return. The other steps before 150,000 km should add up to 0.5s.
Added- However I know the steps add up a whole lot more than 0.5s. Something '''smells'' bad to me.
Added - although you are travelling away from me in our absolute reference frame I am relatively at rest, relative to you I am moving also , so surely David this counter acts the view of length contraction? I.e we are expanding from each other directly and proportionally.
Added- Sorry David, I am thinking out ''aloud''. If you are moving away from me at 0.5c, relative to you , it is me that is moving at 0.5c away from you.
Something is telling me that their is a counter act in this somewhere that shows we do not see things in the past.
I am still a little ''ropey'' in explaining this David, please bare with me.
Post by: David Cooper on 06/09/2017 00:09:07
Ok , this will become our first disagreement as I see it differently. To explain my disagreement will not be easy though. I can manifest the thought experiment into pictures in my mind but I am struggling to ''see'' the times involved.
I have modified a program that I wrote for Le Rapteux. If you click on select to highlight the code, you can then copy it and paste it into a text editor like Notepad. Once you've done that, save it while replacing the .txt ending with .htm. Then open the saved file - it should open in a browser. This should help you see what happens when light is sent out simultaneously from A and B and why B sees A as A was further back in time than A sees B.
Code: [Select]
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Light Delays</TITLE>
<script type="text/javascript">
window.setInterval("run()",40)
function run()
{ t++;
if(t==400){s=0} // this stops the blue dot moving
if(t==800){s=1; b=y; t=0} // this sends it back to the start
r-=c; g+=c; // this controls the speed of the bars across the screen
if(f==1){f=0; r=b; g=y; ig.style.top=2} // reuses light bars
if(s==1){b+=0.5} // this moves the blue object at 0.5c
if(g==150){g=-100; ig.style.top=-220} // this prevents browser window widening infinitely
ir.style.left=r*4+ro;
ig.style.left=g*4+go;
iy.style.left=y*4;
ib.style.left=b*4+bo;
// yloc.innerHTML=y; bloc.innerHTML=b;
}
function setup()
{ }
// All variables are created and initialised here:-
c=1; t=0; f=0; s=1;
y=-100; b=-100; // initial x-coord locations of the dots
bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location
r=-100; g=-100; // initial locations of the bars
ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s
function send()
{ f=1}
</script>
</HEAD>
<BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote>
<center><H1>Light Delay Demo</H1><br><br>
<tt>
<b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b>
<b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:-450;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b>
<b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b>
<b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b>
</tt></center>
<p><a id="yloc"></a> <a id="bloc"></a>
<p><input type="button" value="Send" onclick="send()"/>
<p>
Click the button to see the communication delays. The light (red and green bars) travels at c while the blue object travels at 0.5c.
</BODY>
</HTML>
Quote
Ok David, I will make up a scenario.
I and you are standing next to each other in our absolute frame, we see each other in a near instant, as we are now in the present. You leave me at 00:00:00 and by the power of thought you can travel at c and travel for 300,000 km , the time for you is now 00:00:01, the time for me is 00:00:01.
Yes, so long as I correct my clocks to make up for the time they lost while moving.
Quote
We are still in each others present are we not?
Absolutely.
Quote
I do not see you as 1 second ago because 1 second ago you had not departed?
Correct - you will see me half way across to the place where I stopped, so you're seeing me as I was half a second back in time (because I was there half a second ago and the light took half a second to reach you from there). I will see you as you were a whole second ago though, because the light that's now reaching me from you set out a second ago.
Quote
Imagine we split the 300,000 km into discrete steps, a vehicle that as travelled at 0.5c will travel 150,000 km in 1.s. The returning light to observer A will take 0.5 s to return. The other steps before 150,000 km should add up to 0.5s.
You've returned to the previous scenario, and that's the one my program illustrates. The vehicle reaches the 150,000km point in 1 second and sees A as A was half a second ago. The light that is reaching A from B though is not the light now leaving B (because that will take another 0,5s to reach A), but light that left B a third of a second before B stopped.
Quote
Added - although you are travelling away from me in our absolute reference frame I am relatively at rest, relative to you I am moving also , so surely David this counter acts the view of length contraction? I.e we are expanding from each other directly and proportionally.
Length contraction hasn't come into this in any relevant way, although B will be contracted in length while moving.
Quote
Added- Sorry David, I am thinking out ''aloud''. If you are moving away from me at 0.5c, relative to you , it is me that is moving at 0.5c away from you.
If you want to change the absolute frame so that A is moving instead of B, what then happens is this. A and B are initially moving, but B stops for a while. B imagines that its clock is running slow, so it starts moving again early, thereby ensuring that their separation is shorter in distance than it was in the previous case where A was at rest in the absolute frame. That is length-contraction.
Quote
Something is telling me that their is a counter act in this somewhere that shows we do not see things in the past.
Of course we see things in the past, the only exception being when there is no light delay because we are zero distance away from the thing we're looking at.
Quote
I am still a little ''ropey'' in explaining this David, please bare with me.
Is that an invitation to the sauna?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/09/2017 13:14:10
Ok David, I will attempt the script later thank you. At this time I am still in disagreement with that we see things in the past. The exception of d=0 where we see each other in the present playing a part. I can not ''see'' how somebody can move away from me , then I am in some way seeing them in the past, they were at now when they left me so my thoughts are saying it seems obvious we see them now but just a distance away.Ok , this will become our first disagreement as I see it differently. To explain my disagreement will not be easy though. I can manifest the thought experiment into pictures in my mind but I am struggling to ''see'' the times involved.
I have modified a program that I wrote for Le Rapteux. If you click on select to highlight the code, you can then copy it and paste it into a text editor like Notepad. Once you've done that, save it while replacing the .txt ending with .htm. Then open the saved file - it should open in a browser. This should help you see what happens when light is sent out simultaneously from A and B and why B sees A as A was further back in time than A sees B.Code: [Select]<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Light Delays</TITLE>
<script type="text/javascript">
window.setInterval("run()",40)
function run()
{ t++;
if(t==400){s=0} // this stops the blue dot moving
if(t==800){s=1; b=y; t=0} // this sends it back to the start
r-=c; g+=c; // this controls the speed of the bars across the screen
if(f==1){f=0; r=b; g=y; ig.style.top=2} // reuses light bars
if(s==1){b+=0.5} // this moves the blue object at 0.5c
if(g==150){g=-100; ig.style.top=-220} // this prevents browser window widening infinitely
ir.style.left=r*4+ro;
ig.style.left=g*4+go;
iy.style.left=y*4;
ib.style.left=b*4+bo;
// yloc.innerHTML=y; bloc.innerHTML=b;
}
function setup()
{ }
// All variables are created and initialised here:-
c=1; t=0; f=0; s=1;
y=-100; b=-100; // initial x-coord locations of the dots
bo=-50; // offset to correct b's display location
r=-100; g=-100; // initial locations of the bars
ro=-87; go=-112; // offsets to correct bar display loc.s
function send()
{ f=1}
</script>
</HEAD>
<BODY onload="setup()" style="background-color:black;color:white;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:18pt"><blockquote>
<center><H1>Light Delay Demo</H1><br><br>
<tt>
<b id="iy" style="position:relative;left:-400;top:0;font-size:60;color:yellow">.</b>
<b id="ib" style="position:relative;left:-450;top:0;font-size:60;color:#0020ff">.</b>
<b id="ir" style="position:relative;left:313;top:2;font-size:18;color:red">|</b>
<b id="ig" style="position:relative;left:-512;top:2;font-size:18;color:#00ff00">|</b>
</tt></center>
<p><a id="yloc"></a> <a id="bloc"></a>
<p><input type="button" value="Send" onclick="send()"/>
<p>
Click the button to see the communication delays. The light (red and green bars) travels at c while the blue object travels at 0.5c.
</BODY>
</HTML>QuoteOk David, I will make up a scenario.
I and you are standing next to each other in our absolute frame, we see each other in a near instant, as we are now in the present. You leave me at 00:00:00 and by the power of thought you can travel at c and travel for 300,000 km , the time for you is now 00:00:01, the time for me is 00:00:01.
Yes, so long as I correct my clocks to make up for the time they lost while moving.QuoteWe are still in each others present are we not?
Absolutely.QuoteI do not see you as 1 second ago because 1 second ago you had not departed?
Correct - you will see me half way across to the place where I stopped, so you're seeing me as I was half a second back in time (because I was there half a second ago and the light took half a second to reach you from there). I will see you as you were a whole second ago though, because the light that's now reaching me from you set out a second ago.QuoteImagine we split the 300,000 km into discrete steps, a vehicle that as travelled at 0.5c will travel 150,000 km in 1.s. The returning light to observer A will take 0.5 s to return. The other steps before 150,000 km should add up to 0.5s.
You've returned to the previous scenario, and that's the one my program illustrates. The vehicle reaches the 150,000km point in 1 second and sees A as A was half a second ago. The light that is reaching A from B though is not the light now leaving B (because that will take another 0,5s to reach A), but light that left B a third of a second before B stopped.QuoteAdded - although you are travelling away from me in our absolute reference frame I am relatively at rest, relative to you I am moving also , so surely David this counter acts the view of length contraction? I.e we are expanding from each other directly and proportionally.
Length contraction hasn't come into this in any relevant way, although B will be contracted in length while moving.QuoteAdded- Sorry David, I am thinking out ''aloud''. If you are moving away from me at 0.5c, relative to you , it is me that is moving at 0.5c away from you.
If you want to change the absolute frame so that A is moving instead of B, what then happens is this. A and B are initially moving, but B stops for a while. B imagines that its clock is running slow, so it starts moving again early, thereby ensuring that their separation is shorter in distance than it was in the previous case where A was at rest in the absolute frame. That is length-contraction.QuoteSomething is telling me that their is a counter act in this somewhere that shows we do not see things in the past.
Of course we see things in the past, the only exception being when there is no light delay because we are zero distance away from the thing we're looking at.QuoteI am still a little ''ropey'' in explaining this David, please bare with me.
Is that an invitation to the sauna?
However, turning away from this discussion slightly I hope you will please discuss something I have on my mind, this is related to the previous discussion but again indirectly.
I am looking at an object now in my room that is a short distance away, I understand the time light takes to reach my eyes is almost negligible. But I can not understand why light would need to travel to my eyes from the object when I can clearly see and measure the entire distance to the object. My thinking on this is that I am seeing that object in its exact location and now, this of course being measurable relative to myself. The same obviously applying to greater distances.
So if I can see the entire distance, measure the distance, am I not seeing visible light in its exact location?
Post by: David Cooper on 06/09/2017 20:35:37
Ok David, I will attempt the script later thank you.
I'm hoping you can get it to work, because this will allow you to change numbers in it to prove to yourself that the program really does what's claimed of it, and it might encourage you to try other experiments with programming which will help you understand things better.
Quote
At this time I am still in disagreement with that we see things in the past. The exception of d=0 where we see each other in the present playing a part. I can not ''see'' how somebody can move away from me , then I am in some way seeing them in the past, they were at now when they left me so my thoughts are saying it seems obvious we see them now but just a distance away.
There is a delay of one nanosecond for every 30cm of separation. That can't stop happening just because someone starts off right next to you before moving away. The delay is directly proportional to how far away they are from you (or how far away they were at the time when the light left them).
Quote
I am looking at an object now in my room that is a short distance away, I understand the time light takes to reach my eyes is almost negligible.
One nanosecond of delay for every 30cm, so if it's at arm's reach, it's going to be two nanoseconds of delay. A slightly longer delay applies to any signals you get from touching it, although it's not impossible that they may get your attention faster because visual processing may be slower.
Quote
But I can not understand why light would need to travel to my eyes from the object when I can clearly see and measure the entire distance to the object.
How else are you going to be able to see it without light travelling from it to you?
Quote
My thinking on this is that I am seeing that object in its exact location and now, this of course being measurable relative to myself.
It seems that way because the delays are too short for us to perceive.
Quote
The same obviously applying to greater distances.
With greater distances, the delays add up to significant ones, but our thinking is too slow to pick up on it until we start talking to people on the moon.
Quote
So if I can see the entire distance, measure the distance, am I not seeing visible light in its exact location?
You're always seeing the light in your eye - the retina is covered in sensors that feel light, but that light is no longer touching the objects it came from - it has taken time to get from there to your eyes.
There's an experiment I'd like you to try out which doesn't have anything to do with delays due to the time light takes to get to your eyes, but it does make you think a bit more about how "now" actually relates to what you're seeing. Find a gadget like a pocket radio with an LED light on it which lights up when it's tuned in correctly. Then go into a dark room, but make sure there's some light coming in through the door from a lit area. Start in the darkest corner and move into a brighter area if you can't see the radio. Once you can see it, stop. (If you can see it too easily even in the darkest corner, close the door a bit to make the room darker - you want it to be on the edge of visibility.) Now switch the radio on and tune it until the LED lights up. Next, wave the radio from side to side gently, starting slowly and speeding up if necessary. You should find a frequency of this movement at which you see the light and the radio moving in opposite directions - the LED appears to detach from the radio and move independently of it. This happens because you process brighter parts of the scene more quickly than dark parts, so different parts of the image get through to you out of sync with each other. Notice how hard it is to work out which part of what you're seeing matches up with which way you feel that you are moving the radio.
All inputs reach our consciousness with delays, so we're never seeing now. The delays from light taking time to cross the space between us and the things we're looking at are trivial in comparison with these other delays, until we look away from the Earth towards the moon, sun and stars, and then the delays caused by processing are the ones that become trivial in comparison with the years and centuries of delay caused by great distances (and two million years of delay when we look at the M31 galaxy).
Post by: guest39538 on 07/09/2017 15:08:38
Ok David , I do understand what you are saying about light as to travel to your eye and it takes an amount of time to do this. However I still can not accept this to be true when the logic says something different.Ok David, I will attempt the script later thank you.
I'm hoping you can get it to work, because this will allow you to change numbers in it to prove to yourself that the program really does what's claimed of it, and it might encourage you to try other experiments with programming which will help you understand things better.QuoteAt this time I am still in disagreement with that we see things in the past. The exception of d=0 where we see each other in the present playing a part. I can not ''see'' how somebody can move away from me , then I am in some way seeing them in the past, they were at now when they left me so my thoughts are saying it seems obvious we see them now but just a distance away.
There is a delay of one nanosecond for every 30cm of separation. That can't stop happening just because someone starts off right next to you before moving away. The delay is directly proportional to how far away they are from you (or how far away they were at the time when the light left them).
QuoteI am looking at an object now in my room that is a short distance away, I understand the time light takes to reach my eyes is almost negligible.
One nanosecond of delay for every 30cm, so if it's at arm's reach, it's going to be two nanoseconds of delay. A slightly longer delay applies to any signals you get from touching it, although it's not impossible that they may get your attention faster because visual processing may be slower.QuoteBut I can not understand why light would need to travel to my eyes from the object when I can clearly see and measure the entire distance to the object.
How else are you going to be able to see it without light travelling from it to you?QuoteMy thinking on this is that I am seeing that object in its exact location and now, this of course being measurable relative to myself.
It seems that way because the delays are too short for us to perceive.QuoteThe same obviously applying to greater distances.
With greater distances, the delays add up to significant ones, but our thinking is too slow to pick up on it until we start talking to people on the moon.QuoteSo if I can see the entire distance, measure the distance, am I not seeing visible light in its exact location?
You're always seeing the light in your eye - the retina is covered in sensors that feel light, but that light is no longer touching the objects it came from - it has taken time to get from there to your eyes.
There's an experiment I'd like you to try out which doesn't have anything to do with delays due to the time light takes to get to your eyes, but it does make you think a bit more about how "now" actually relates to what you're seeing. Find a gadget like a pocket radio with an LED light on it which lights up when it's tuned in correctly. Then go into a dark room, but make sure there's some light coming in through the door from a lit area. Start in the darkest corner and move into a brighter area if you can't see the radio. Once you can see it, stop. (If you can see it too easily even in the darkest corner, close the door a bit to make the room darker - you want it to be on the edge of visibility.) Now switch the radio on and tune it until the LED lights up. Next, wave the radio from side to side gently, starting slowly and speeding up if necessary. You should find a frequency of this movement at which you see the light and the radio moving in opposite directions - the LED appears to detach from the radio and move independently of it. This happens because you process brighter parts of the scene more quickly than dark parts, so different parts of the image get through to you out of sync with each other. Notice how hard it is to work out which part of what you're seeing matches up with which way you feel that you are moving the radio.
All inputs reach our consciousness with delays, so we're never seeing now. The delays from light taking time to cross the space between us and the things we're looking at are trivial in comparison with these other delays, until we look away from the Earth towards the moon, sun and stars, and then the delays caused by processing are the ones that become trivial in comparison with the years and centuries of delay caused by great distances (and two million years of delay when we look at the M31 galaxy).
I know you don't know yet why this is , but when something is seemingly true but not necessarily true I know it will take some convincing to anything other than this.
I will try to work in nano seconds and with 30 cm distance. You agreed at the start before the journey that both observers see each other at the same time and they both occupy ''now''.
So observer B moves off for L=30cm , by the power of thought observer B travelled at c. Observer B by using the light for timing experiences 1 nano-second.
Observer A by using the timing of the light , experiences 1 nano second. Now must be still now for either observer so how can we be seeing them in the past? Surely we are seeing them now a distance away?
Also you avoided commenting on the distance observed between observers. Both observers can see the entire length between them.
Also there is fact that I do not see individual photons with my eyes.
I want you to imagine a light sphere please David that was the size of the visual Universe, however I want you to imagine this as you being an infinite space. Could you imagine that relative to you the Visual Universe is a 0 point and all the information within this point is contained at the same time. So unless somebody travels to the dot or the dot travels to you, you can not observe the information in the dot until the light sphere enters yours eyes.
I do not 'see' photons like you and science 'see' photons. I believe electromagnetic radiation as to enter your eyes to allow you connectivity to the dot. The thought of propagating waves through space is on par to a torpedo travelling through an ocean.
visual universe.jpg (15.95 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3339 times)In the above picture there is two equal dimensions visual Universes, the one on the left you can observe as a visible universe. The one on the right you also observe but as a black hole.
The one on the left is near, the one on the right is far. If only father Ted knew how good the science was involved in that gag hey, I did!
Post by: David Cooper on 07/09/2017 21:13:19
However I still can not accept this to be true when the logic says something different.
How is logic saying something different?
Quote
Now must be still now for either observer so how can we be seeing them in the past? Surely we are seeing them now a distance away?
They are both there in the now, but they are seeing each other as they were in the past. As for what we might see of them, it depends on how far they are away from us and how long the light took to get from them to us. The only things anyone can see now are the things that are right up against their eyes, and even there there will be a delay with the time it takes from light to travel from lens to retina.
Quote
Also you avoided commenting on the distance observed between observers. Both observers can see the entire length between them.
Also there is fact that I do not see individual photons with my eyes.
I didn't avoid it - I just couldn't see the relevance of it. How can you see the distance? You can certainly see things along the path, but the delay in seeing each of those things is proportional to their distance away from you. If you're standing at the back of a boat and looking forwards, you're seeing the bow further in the past than the mast, and seeing the mast further in the past than the wheel - you don't see the whole boat as it is now.
Quote
I want you to imagine a light sphere please David that was the size of the visual Universe, however I want you to imagine this as you being an infinite space. Could you imagine that relative to you the Visual Universe is a 0 point and all the information within this point is contained at the same time. So unless somebody travels to the dot or the dot travels to you, you can not observe the information in the dot until the light sphere enters yours eyes.
If the sphere is a point, it isn't a sphere.
Quote
I do not 'see' photons like you and science 'see' photons. I believe electromagnetic radiation as to enter your eyes to allow you connectivity to the dot. The thought of propagating waves through space is on par to a torpedo travelling through an ocean.
I prefer the simplest explanation of how we see things - there's no need for complicating it with superfluous weirdness.
Quote
In the above picture there is two equal dimensions visual Universes, the one on the left you can observe as a visible universe. The one on the right you also observe but as a black hole. The one on the left is near, the one on the right is far.
Why can't the black one be nearer than the white one?
Quote
If only father Ted knew how good the science was involved in that gag hey, I did!
I've never seen Father Ted (other than a few trailers for the show), so any allusions won't register.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/09/2017 21:52:56
Why can't the black one be nearer than the white one?
Ok David I can 'see' that my thoughts on this are ahead of your understanding . You do not seem to be grasping what I am grasping, which is ok as two minds are not alike.
I never said there was a ''black one'' in the picture. The ''black hole'' is a white one also but it is beyond your boundaries of sight.
The ''black one'' could be close up but really small.
Quote
I didn't avoid it - I just couldn't see the relevance of it. How can you see the distance?
We can see the distance because space is not opaque. I can certainly see A and B points in our scenario at the same time in a single frame whole. We can measure the space between the points we are observing. How can you not see the distance?
Quote
How is logic saying something different?
Because the notion makes no sense to reality, the reality is the space is transparent and is not opaque to sight , we simply see through this space which seems more logical and reality.
Objectively if I can see the entire distance from my eye to an object , I am seeing that object now a distance away.
p.s The light propagating through space is not the same as a radio wave.
Post by: David Cooper on 08/09/2017 22:26:38
Ok David I can 'see' that my thoughts on this are ahead of your understanding .
Oh, of course - it couldn't possibly be the other way round.
Quote
I never said there was a ''black one'' in the picture.
You said "The one on the right you also observe but as a black hole." But misunderstandings are inevitable if you present people with loose wording (how do you observe the invisible thing that you now say isn't there) and a black flag with a white spot on it to serve as a diagram.
Quote
We can see the distance because space is not opaque. I can certainly see A and B points in our scenario at the same time in a single frame whole. We can measure the space between the points we are observing. How can you not see the distance?
You don't see distance - you see things at a distance and calculate how far away they are based on how they appear, and if they're close enough you use your stereo vision to help calculate the distance. And while you see light from A and B at the same time, those are two lots of light which have taken different amounts of time to reach you, so it did not leave A and B at the same time.
Quote
Because the notion makes no sense to reality, the reality is the space is transparent and is not opaque to sight , we simply see through this space which seems more logical and reality.
If something is completely transparent, you can't see it. You would only see space if it wasn't transparent.
Quote
Objectively if I can see the entire distance from my eye to an object , I am seeing that object now a distance away.
You are seeing the object and calculating the distance to it. You can be fooled by things that you're seeing being bigger than normal and looking nearer than they actually are. For example, I once thought a harbour was about a mile away, judging by a house on a headland. Five miles of sailing later, it became clear that the house was actually a giant warehouse and it was still miles away. (I wasn't navigating and hadn't seen the chart.)
Quote
p.s The light propagating through space is not the same as a radio wave.
If you could run into radio waves fast enough, you'd see them as light.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/09/2017 23:22:48
You said "The one on the right you also observe but as a black hole." But misunderstandings are inevitable if you present people with loose wording (how do you observe the invisible thing that you now say isn't there) and a black flag with a white spot on it to serve as a diagram.
The one on the right is not invisible David, it has the same circumference as the one on the left. However it is out of range of your visual limitation or it is not the same size David, it is really small and close.
For what can't be seen is emitting light David, but you can only observe the localised affects.
Quote
You don't see distance - you see things at a distance and calculate how far away they are based on how they appear, and if they're close enough you use your stereo vision to help calculate the distance. And while you see light from A and B at the same time, those are two lots of light which have taken different amounts of time to reach you, so it did not leave A and B at the same time.
I disagree, for if we was to extend a tape measure , I can confirm I can see the tape measures entire length and can also confirm that I can see the entire length of space as far as the tape measure is extended. Even if the direction of the tape measure extended to between the stars.
I conclude that tape measure never left my present even when extended into ''oblivion''. I conclude I was seeing either end of the tape measure at the same time in a single frame.
A Photon travelling from B to A to our eyes does not explain why I can see the start point and end point of the journey at the same time.
Quote
If something is completely transparent, you can't see it. You would only see space if it wasn't transparent.
Or you would see the transparent space relative to the tape measures measure. That is my point David, we can see the transparent space as transparent space. It is see through, i.e there needs nothing to travel anywhere to be able to see through it. In the ''dark'' it is still see through, proven by a laser dot with no medium, In the ''light' it is see through.
An infinite of nothingness where visible dark and visible light are of objects and not of the transparent space.
Yes David it is hard to get our heads around, but think about it for a while and you may 'see' what I 'see'.
Imagine a block of glass with the lights on, now imagine a block of glass with the lights off. The block of glass as not changed in appearance from when it was light.
Or try it this way, imagine you are inside a block of glass in the day time. Now imagine somebody puts walls and a lid on the block . The walls look dark, the lid looks dark, but the block of glass is exactly the same in appearance as in the light. The ''space'' inside the block of glass is never light or dark, the ''space'' remains constant in transparency.