Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Deecart on 08/08/2022 18:46:05
-
I dont think i really understand your explaination.
Not sure if it is right or wrong but at least you tried to answer the question.
Concerning the "now".
Is there a universal now ?
I think that yes,"everywherewhen" (a new word that should exist if we really understand relativity), there is a "now" that is unambiguous for every point of view.
The proof of that is that everytime someone that had some other point of view would approach the "local position" (in position and in time), he would agree with any other who had some other point of view, of the local reality (when he can understand the transformation from his point of view toward the local reality it would be more easy)
Saying this, the "now" we talk about in special realivity, is only "some illusion" (yes, an illusion has some real visual effect onto the far away observer) of what happens localy.
But localy we have what we can tell "the now" : The full phenomenon.(not only the light related illusion).
It is not because light can travel the fatsest that it is representativ of the full local reality.
-
Is there a universal now ?
I think that yes,"everywherewhen" (a new word that should exist if we really understand relativity), there is a "now" that is unambiguous for every point of view.
There isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
Saying this, the "now" we talk about in special realivity, is only "some illusion" (yes, an illusion has some real visual effect onto the far away observer) of what happens localy.
It's not an illusion. Events literally happen at different times for different observers. The train thought experiments outlined in the link above demonstrate that it is a direct consequence of a frame-invariant speed of light.
-
There isn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
You dident contradict what i said.
It's not an illusion. Events literally happen at different times for different observers. The train thought experiments outlined in the link above demonstrate that it is a direct consequence of a frame-invariant speed of light.
Since the events are placed along the axis of train movement, their time coordinates become projected to different time coordinates in the moving train's inertial frame. Events which occurred at space coordinates in the direction of train movement happen earlier than events at coordinates opposite to the direction of train movement. In the moving train's inertial frame, this means that lightning will strike the front of the train car before the two observers align (face each other).
It is still an illusion.
i dont understand why you (and many others) cant agree with this obvious thing.
The phenomenon appears localy, and yes when you start with the UNIQUE phenomenon you will have some different points of view of the phenomenon.
Why is it an "illusion" ?
I repeat : Because the full phenomenon is not available at distant observers. (so the mathematical proof can not be a physical proof).
Just to give you some insigth : Do you think the sound of the thunder is "nothing" ? And do you think you should think that "the reality" (local phenomenon) of this sound should be linked to the "cone of light" ? So linked to the same speed limit as the speed of light ?
-
It is still an illusion.
i dont understand why you (and many others) cant agree with this obvious thing.
First of all, it is important to note that "and many others" is actually all of the scientific community.
The reason we can't agree it is an illusion is because it isn't an illusion.
Why is it an "illusion" ?
I repeat : Because the full phenomenon is not available at distant observers.
Please explain what you mean by this statement.
So the mathematical proof can not be a physical proof.
What do you mean by this, AFAIK the mathematical explanation matches the physical observations
-
The reason we can't agree it is an illusion is because it isn't an illusion.
Are you what whe could name a sophist ?
"I am great because i am great. kneel before the king !!"
Lol.
I am sorry, but your "demonstration" (lol) can not be accepted by any scientist.
Please explain what you mean by this statement.
If only one quanta of "change" stay localy, so the relativity theory (sorry, not "the theory", but "the interpretation" of the theory of many peoples) shut down.
Why cant you understand this obvious fact ?
Light is not the only thing involved in phenomenons, and many of the light never reach any distant observer
So what ?
And if you finaly understand that the gravitational effect not reach the light speed (i dont speak of gravitational waves that is some other phenomenon)... how can you accept the block univers ?
-
I repeat : Because the full phenomenon is not available at distant observers. (so the mathematical proof can not be a physical proof).
If you're trying to say that distant observers see the timing of events differently because it takes longer for light to reach them, that's not relativity of simultaneity. The train thought experiments take observational delay out of the picture. Relativity of simultaneity is a direct consequence of Lorentz invariance. Since Lorentz invariance has been demonstrated to extremely high precision experimentally, then we know by consequence that relativity of simultaneity is also a physically real phenomenon. It's not an illusion.
-
An illusion is something that you think it is, but it isnt what it looks like.
Thats what an illusion is.
Here, you talk about some "event".
But the real event only exists localy : This is the physical event : The real event occuring only one time and having only one description when observed localty.
What you see of the event from some other point of view is not the local event.
It can not be the full event (the local event).
So if you say : Oh i can describe this event exactly how "it is"; doeing some translation and this is the same event far away... you are wrong.
The full event is where it happens, and what you can say of it, further away is only a fraction of the real local event.
The lorentz invariance has been prooved ?
Surely you can proove something when you only take in account what you can proove.
Here, you only assume the movement.
Sure this is not enough to define the reality of some event.
You dont agree ?
-
I think it's commonly believed that if different momentarily-co-located observers come to different conclusions about the current age of the same distant person, then that IMPLIES that those results cannot be meaningful or real. But I'm convinced that each of those different conclusions IS meaningful and real, TO THAT OBSERVER.
This is what i have already said.
Saying that it is an illusion is not saying it is "nothing"'.
If you see a mirage in the desert, this mirage is "real to the observer", we can do some photography etc of it.
But it is not real, so it is what we can tell an illusion, in the sense where it lacks of the full phenomenon that occur localy.
Localy, the mirage is not "so old", "so shaped" etc.and the best to know this is to travel to the place where the mirage happens.
Every distant observer will finally observe the same local phenomenon when they are at the same place.
At the same place they will experiment "the now".
-
Are you what whe could name a sophist ?
"I am great because i am great. kneel before the king !!"
Lol.
No nothing like that. I am saying I agree with the scientific community. You on the other hand have something you made up on your own, that does not agree with observation.
-
No nothing like that. I am saying I agree with the scientific community. You on the other hand have something you made up on your own, that does not agree with observation.
Dont call mommy.
Why do you no want to use your own brain ?
You. What do you think about all that ?
Explain with your own words. What did you understand ? What is wrong with the things i say ?
If not, it is useless to do some some discussion. I already have read wikipedia.
-
Dont call mommy.
Why do you no want to use your own brain ?
You. What do you think about all that ?
No need to be a jerk.
What is wrong with the things i say ?
This.
"Saying this, the "now" we talk about in special realivity, is only "some illusion" (yes, an illusion has some real visual effect onto the far away observer) of what happens localy"
-
I already have read wikipedia.
Read it again.
-
An illusion is something that you think it is, but it isnt what it looks like.
Thats what an illusion is.
And relativity of simultaneity isn't an illusion.
Here, you talk about some "event".
But the real event only exists localy : This is the physical event : The real event occuring only one time and having only one description when observed localty.
What you see of the event from some other point of view is not the local event.
It can not be the full event (the local event).
So if you say : Oh i can describe this event exactly how "it is"; doeing some translation and this is the same event far away... you are wrong.
The full event is where it happens, and what you can say of it, further away is only a fraction of the real local event.
I don't know what you're talking about. A supernova is just as real whether it is happening next door or 1,000 light-years away.
The lorentz invariance has been prooved ?
There generally isn't proof in science, but there is very great evidence for Lorentz invariance.
Here, you only assume the movement.
No, it isn't assumed. It is demonstrable that the Earth rotates on its axis and accelerates around the Sun. If Lorentz invariance was incorrect, then the experiment would have measured a varying local speed of light due to those factors.
-
If you cant disproof with some example (calling mommy is not an example) that SR is not based on illusions, then i must conclude that you do not understand how SR work.
You could (and i could, because i know at least how to prove it, and this is what we atttend of some physicists) and you dident.
But this "illusion thing" (very complicated to understand if you really try) is not what permit to think that the "now" reality is true.
I claim that, within all the "realities", we can state that we can find some invariant that can be understand as the "ground state" of every point of view.
Noether theorem.
-
If you cant disproof with some example (calling mommy is not an example) that SR is not based on illusions, then i must conclude that you do not understand how SR work.
Please give an example of one of these illusions.
-
Noether theorem.
What about it?
-
Please give an example of one of these illusions.
Please be more specific.
Starting with the assertion of your post, nobody will ever understand what you are talking about.
What about it?
i can help you :
Noether's Theorem
*In 1915, the German mathematician Emmy Noether formulated her famous theorem. It states that every symmetry transformation of a system leads to the conservation of some quantity that is a property of the system
A symmetry transformation is any transformation that preserves the equation(s) of motion for the system.
https://go.owu.edu/~physics/StudentResearch/2005/LauraBecker/SymmetrytoConservation.html
This leads to the fact that there should be some conservation of some quantity that is a property of the system, so the now.
Why dont you agree that some "now" consideration could exists within all the points of views ?
-
Please give an example of one of these illusions.
Please be more specific.
Starting with the assertion of your post, nobody will ever understand what you are talking about.
What about it?
i can help you :
Noether's Theorem
*In 1915, the German mathematician Emmy Noether formulated her famous theorem. It states that every symmetry transformation of a system leads to the conservation of some quantity that is a property of the system
A symmetry transformation is any transformation that preserves the equation(s) of motion for the system.
https://go.owu.edu/~physics/StudentResearch/2005/LauraBecker/SymmetrytoConservation.html
This leads to the fact that there should be some conservation of some quantity that is a property of the system, so the now.
Why dont you agree that some "now" consideration could exists within all the points of views ?
I'm aware of Noether's theorem.
It tells us that conservation laws form a 1 to 1 correspondence with symmetries.
So, for example, the fact that the universe is symmetrical in time (the laws of physics are the same tomorrow as they were yesterday) tells us that mass/energy is conserved.
The fact that the universe is isotropic tells us that momentum is conserved and the fact that there is no preferred rotation tells us that angular momentum is conserved.
What symmetry are you putting forward as the counterpoint to your idea that ""now" is conserved?
-
What symmetry are you putting forward as the counterpoint to your idea that ""now" is conserved?
I dont say anything like that.
I only say that if you dont agree that Noether theorem states that there is some "now" within the block universe, then you are stupid.
You can say : Oh no ! i dont believe ! Or whatever you can say.
This will not change the fact (and i am totaly sure some non stupid guys will understand that; soon they read it).
-
What symmetry are you putting forward as the counterpoint to your idea that ""now" is conserved?
I dont say anything like that.
I only say that if you dont agree that Noether theorem states that there is some "now" within the block universe, then you are stupid.
You can say : Oh no ! i dont believe ! Or whatever you can say.
This will not change the fact (and i am totaly sure some non stupid guys will understand that; soon they read it).
I believe the usual meme here is "Tell me you don't understand Noether's theorem without saying you don't understand Noether's theorem".
-
I only say that if you dont agree that Noether theorem states that there is some "now" within the block universe, then you are stupid.
Please provide an authoritative source where Noether's theorem supports such a thing.
Secondly, don't insult people on this board. It's against the rules.
-
Please provide an authoritative source where Noether's theorem supports such a thing.
Me ?
Secondly, don't insult people on this board. It's against the rules.
What insult ?
If i say you are stupid because you are not understanding some obvious facts, i do not insult you.
I inform you.
But it is not too late to start your brain.
-
I believe the usual meme here is "Tell me you don't understand Noether's theorem without saying you don't understand Noether's theorem".
Dont try to fool me with such primitiv recursif trick.
-
Me ?
You're the one who made the claim, so yes, you.
If i say you are stupid because you are not understanding some obvious, thing i do not insult you.
It's a (not so subtly) veiled attempt to call Bored Chemist stupid because he recognizes that Noether's theorem isn't about "nows" in time.
I inform you.
Then back it up with an authoritative source. So far, it just looks like your misinformed opinion.
But it is not too late to start your brain.
Another implication that we aren't thinking clearly. Again, provide a source.
-
You're the one who made the claim, so yes, you.
So yes, i agree to be "the authoritativ source" (do you even understand what you say).It's a (not so subtly) veiled attempt to call Bored Chemist stupid because he recognizes that Noether's theorem isn't about "nows" in time.
i am not subtile, sorry.
Then back it up with an authoritative source. So far, it just looks like your misinformed opinion.
You just said two lines above that i am the one with the authorative source.
So just read what i already wrote before.
Another implication that we aren't thinking clearly. Again, provide a source.
A source...
So you cant be sure of anything if nobody but you has never thought of something new ?
This only confirm my first opinion.
-
So yes, i agree to be "the authoritativ source" (do you even understand what you say).
No, I'm asking you to give us a link to support your claim from a website with material written by scientists.
You just said two lines above that i am the one with the authorative source.
No, I said that you need to provide an authoritative source. So far, you have not.
So you cant be sure of anything if nobody has never thought of something new ?
Having a new idea is one thing. Having evidence that the idea is correct is another.
So how about giving us a source link that supports your claim that Noether's theorem applies to "now" moments in time?
-
You are answering very fast...
I cant be so fast, sorry, i need to think before answering.
-
Please be more specific.
What parts of relativity do you think are illusions? Seems like an easy question. Is time dilation an illusion? Is length contraction an illusion?
-
What parts of relativity do you think are illusions? Seems like an easy question. Is time dilation an illusion? Is length contraction an illusion?
And another thing to point out about illusions is that they aren't real for anyone. Illusions are things that only look real. So saying that, "X is true for one person but not for another" doesn't mean that X is an illusion.
-
What parts of relativity do you think are illusions? Seems like an easy question. Is time dilation an illusion? Is length contraction an illusion?
If it is an easy question for you (nobody agree with this but if it is easy for you...)
Both: Haha.
And another thing to point out about illusions is that they aren't real for anyone. Illusions are things that only look real. So saying that, "X is true for one person but not for another" doesn't mean that X is an illusion
I dont agree (you can tell me stupid if you like, like i did for you, i myself dont care of any external opinion, so stop saying (without saying it directly but i am not stupid and i know when you insult me !) i am stupid, and i will stop saying you are stupid)
I already many time (so if you dont understand it, it is why i think you are "stupid", sorry) explained what reality is : It is what localy happens.
-
I dont agree
Then you disagree with the definition of the word "illusion": https://www.dictionary.com/browse/illusion
(you can tell me stupid if you like, like i did for you, i myself dont care of any external opinion, so stop saying (without saying it directly but i am not stupid and i know when you insult me !) i am stupid, and i will stop saying you are stupid)
At no point did I say you are stupid. I said that you are wrong. There is a difference.
It is what localy happens.
If it actually happened, then it's not an illusion.
So where is that link I asked for?
-
If it actually happened, then it's not an illusion.
This is exactly what i say.
What happens localy is not an illusion :This is what we can call reality.
EVERYTHING that depends on this localy reality is at some point some illusion.
(Yes i am sorry , many of our experimentation of the world is illusion).
-
This is exactly what i say.
EVERYTHING that depends on this localy reality is at some point some illusion.
Those two statements are contradictory.
When are you going to give us that link I asked for?
-
Dont try to fool me with such primitiv recursif trick.
So, you also don't know what recursive means.
The point remains; you don't understand Noether's theorem.
-
What insult ?
This sort of thing.
Dont call mommy.
(calling mommy is not an example)
But the interesting thing is that you don't seem to understand that you are insulting people.
Do you behave like that in real life?
-
Those two statements are contradictory.
When are you going to give us that link I asked for?
Not sure you really understand anything (thats why i suppose you could be stupid).
Here, you are in the "New theories forum".
Therefore you cant request, like you do, some reference like you did.
I dont need any reference to claim anything.
In the physic or general physic forum, i will not claim anything like this , because i agree that i would need some reference.
-
But the interesting thing is that you don't seem to understand that you are insulting people.
Do you behave like that in real life?
I dont insult you.
I have a cool mind.
You can "insult me" (thats how you understand it) if you want, i dont care about, i am a scientist and i only account on facts.
-
This is exactly what i say.
What happens localy is not an illusion :This is what we can call reality.
EVERYTHING that depends on this localy reality is at some point some illusion.
(Yes i am sorry , many of our experimentation of the world is illusion).
You're going to have to be much clearer than that. You are starting to post word salad here.
In the twin paradox both twins experience time locally at the normal rate but when they reunite the traveling twin is younger. Doesn't sound like an illusion to me.
-
Not sure you really understand anything (thats why i suppose you could be stupid).
Reported for insulting members.
-
The point remains; you don't understand Noether's theorem.
Perhaps me, perhaps you.
Whats the proof of that ?
-
Not sure you really understand anything (thats why i suppose you could be stupid).
Here, you are in the "New theories forum".
Therefore you cant request, like you do, some reference like you did.
Okay then, so you finally admit that it is not currently recognized by science that Noether's theorem has any application to the concept of "now".
I dont need any reference to claim anything.
Right, but now you need some evidence that your idea is correct or there is no reason for any of us to believe you.
i am a scientist and i only account on facts.
You are? In what field? Where did you get your PhD?
-
Reported for insulting members.
Reported to saying i am insulting members.
-
So what part of relativity is illusion? I'm really curious what you think is illusion.
-
Okay then, so you finally admit that it is not currently recognized by science that Noether's theorem has any application to the concept of "now".
I dont know the full human science, so yes you could be right.
You are? In what field? Where did you get your PhD
I have some mastery in biology (and a long life in information technology) and i can assure you that biologists are also trained in physics.
Right, but now you need some evidence that your idea is correct or there is no reason for any of us to believe you.
i dont need you to believe me (Believing..... thats not how science work !! This would be religion !!!)
I only need you to start you brain.
-
I have some mastery in biology and i can assure you that biologists are also trained in physic.
But what did you get your PhD in? You said you were a scientist, right? So what is your science job?
i dont need you to believe me (Believing..... that not how science work !! This would be religion !!!)
Belief is perfectly fine so long as it is backed up by evidence.
I only need you to start you brain.
Mine's working quite fine.
-
Mine's working quite fine.
Thats what every malfunctioning brain will say.
-
Thats what every malfunctioning brain will say.
Are you implying that my brain is malfunctioning?
-
But what did you get your PhD in? You said you were a scientist, right? So what is your science job?
General science is now my hobby.
Information science is my job.
-
Mine's working quite fine.
Thats what every malfunctioning brain will say.
What is wrong with you? Can't you just answer questions without being insulting?
-
Are you implying that my brain is malfunctioning?
If you do this deduction, this mean your brain is ill.
Because, if your brain is healthy you would conclude that it is either yours or mine that is malfunctioning.
-
If you do this deduction, this mean your brain is ill.
Because, if your brain is healthy you would conclude that it is either yours or mine that is malfunctioning.
Or that one is simply wrong. You don't have to have something wrong with your brain in order to be wrong. Everyone makes mistakes.
-
What is wrong with you? Can't you just answer questions without being insulting?
You say that saying my car is not fonctioning imply that you insult me ?
-
Or that one is simply wrong. You don't have to have something wrong with your brain in order to be wrong. Everyone makes mistakes.
I never do mistakes, i learn.
Not sure how you do.
-
So I guess you are not going to answer the question, "what part of relativity do you think is an illusion"?
-
I never do mistakes
You never make mistakes?
Yeah, right...
-
"what part of relativity do you think is an illusion"?
The non local phenomenon, i already answered ... not sure but i think 5 times.
-
You never make mistakes?
What, you do mistakes ? ? ?
Is your brain ill ?
A mistake is something not accurate.
If you dont have the good facts, doing some false result is not making mistake.
At contrario, doing false result is a good result if the logical reasoning lead to the false result.
-
The non local phenomenon, i already answered ... not sure but i think 5 times.
Please define non local. Are you saying you see illusion when you are observing another reference frame?
-
Please define non local. Are you saying you see illusion when I observing another reference frame.
No, when "i am observing", not "when i observing" (this doesent mean anything).
And... no, "the observation" has nothing to do with relativity (i surely lknown you already heard about).
I repeat : The reality is what happens localy.
Non local is what happens "around" (concerning space or time) where the phenomenon is occuring.
I am totaly convicted that real physic has to do with what happens at some point, at "the time" it occurs (time and space "position", so "the time" for some local observer).
-
This is a public warning. Cool it, guys. Please stick to the subject and avoid personal accusations.
-
I repeat : The reality is what happens localy.
Non local is what happens "around" (concerning space or time) where the phenomenon is occuring.
I am totaly convicted that real physic has to do with what happens at some point, at "the time" it occurs (time and space "position", so "the time" for some local observer).
This is terribly vague.
Let's assume someone is eating an omelet and I observe him through a telescope from 100 miles away. Is what happens to him from his position 'reality' but what I observe from a distance an illusion?
-
Let's assume someone is eating an omelet and I observe him through a telescope from 100 miles away. Is what happens to him from his position 'reality' but what I observe from a distance an illusion?
Good job !
It is an illusion.
Everytime you dont stick to the local phenomenon, you have to understand that "the local phenomenon" you are observing elsewhere is not the phenomenon itself.
(This is my opinion, and i will be most poud of it if nobody agree with it... please dont try to understand it)
-
What, you do mistakes ? ? ?
Is your brain ill ?
Making mistakes doesn't make your brain ill. You've made plenty of grammar mistakes in your posts, for example, but that doesn't mean your brain is ill. Everyone makes mistakes.
It is an illusion.
Are you saying that the omelet doesn't exist for Origin when he looks at it through a telescope or what?
-
Good job !
It is an illusion.
That could be the issue right there. You may be defining the term 'illusion' in a nonstandard way.
Please define illusion.
Everytime you dont stick to the local phenomenon, you have to understand that "the local phenomenon" you are observing elsewhere is not the phenomenon itself.
How far away do you have to be from a phenomena to make it non-local? Is there any mathematical equation that defines the distance at which something is non-local?
-
The point remains; you don't understand Noether's theorem.
Perhaps me, perhaps you.
Whats the proof of that ?
The proof that you don't understand it is your inability to explain what symmetry corresponds to your suggested "conservation of now".
-
I never do mistakes, i learn.
OK, both instances of the word "I" there should be a capital letter.
And the word "do" is incorrect, the correct word is "make".
You can't even tell us that you don't make mistakes without making mistakes.
-
Not sure you really understand anything (thats why i suppose you could be stupid).
Here, you are in the "New theories forum".
Therefore you cant request, like you do, some reference like you did.
I dont need any reference to claim anything.
Fortunately you do not make the rules here. We expect everyone in New Theories to defend their assertions with experimental evidence or references.
If you continue to insult people you will find your posting rights are withdrawn.