0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: GoC on 12/01/2017 17:10:18the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?Ok GOC an interesting idea. What do I observe is wrong with relativity?Well firstly I do intermingle relativity and special relativity, a slight bit confused ''what'' goes where.Firstly I observe youtube videos from credible sources about Albert Einstein and his work, often showing thought experiments, however in viewing these videos I observe logical errors in thinking and interpretation. Certain things are not possible and the wording of impossible comes into the scenario. Secondly I look further into the work finding articles and reasonable sources that explain in words the work of Einstein, I observe the same thing as when watching the videos, the thinking and logic is flawed. There are several aspects which is ''wrong'', which I have tried to discuss previously, My main concern is the thinking on time, the past,present and future, also I have a big concern about time dilation which is in fact a timing dilation. So I suppose it would be better if I asked you where ''we'' should start. Maybe you should please post some relativity ''facts'' , then I will put agree or disagree , then we could take it from there?
the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?
Quote from: Thebox on 13/01/2017 10:30:51Quote from: GoC on 12/01/2017 17:10:18the boxLets try another approach. What do you observe wrong about relativity?Ok GOC an interesting idea. What do I observe is wrong with relativity?Well firstly I do intermingle relativity and special relativity, a slight bit confused ''what'' goes where.Firstly I observe youtube videos from credible sources about Albert Einstein and his work, often showing thought experiments, however in viewing these videos I observe logical errors in thinking and interpretation. Certain things are not possible and the wording of impossible comes into the scenario. Secondly I look further into the work finding articles and reasonable sources that explain in words the work of Einstein, I observe the same thing as when watching the videos, the thinking and logic is flawed. There are several aspects which is ''wrong'', which I have tried to discuss previously, My main concern is the thinking on time, the past,present and future, also I have a big concern about time dilation which is in fact a timing dilation. So I suppose it would be better if I asked you where ''we'' should start. Maybe you should please post some relativity ''facts'' , then I will put agree or disagree , then we could take it from there?1. The speed of light is measured to be the same in every frame in a vacuum.2. The speed of light is constant.This could seem impossible and illogical to normal understanding. It's a catch 22. You need to understand relativity correctly to understand the two statements as being correct. I can lead you to the correct understanding and actual meaning. Is your mind open enough to see the truth about relativity. Einstein once suggested only 10% of the population could understand Relativity. It's a connect the dots type of understanding. Lets say there are 6 dots to a circle. To understand relativity you need to follow the dots one to another to complete the circle. When you see the circle you understand Relativity. Those that do not understand relativity follow some of the dots and skip some to complete their understanding early. Those are the ones who claim that it is not logical.I spent many years missing some dots and not creating the circle. The logic of your environment is not the logic of Relativity understanding.You have to accept the postulates as stated no more and no less.1. The SPL is measured to be the same in a vacuum in every frame. Clock tick rates are different in every frame. Both statements are true but seem illogical.2. The SPL is constant. Now all three issues are true using relativity but seem illogical.
Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, seemingly the subjective dictation by yourself is very repetitive and presumptuous. A 10 year old could understand a complete circle and relativity so why do you assume I do not understand?
It does not matter how many times you repeat ''your'' subjective interpretation it would not be absolute and the underlying truth.
A clock having a different tick rate has no affect on time or reality, how many times must I repeat that before ''your'' subjective ear's finally listen to the objective truth's?
I have discoursed science to find logical errors and fairy tales, fairy tales that are defended as if absolute truth, things that ''they'' say exist but don't actually exist.
You and most do not have a clue how the Universe is or works where as I , without wanting to sound arrogant, 'see' the fundamental truths behind what science calls facts and put them into actual perspective instead of a fake perspective based on subjective thinking.
Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2017 03:31:28Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat, seemingly the subjective dictation by yourself is very repetitive and presumptuous. A 10 year old could understand a complete circle and relativity so why do you assume I do not understand? Because you believe in 0.QuoteIt does not matter how many times you repeat ''your'' subjective interpretation it would not be absolute and the underlying truth. Forever I suspect.Quote A clock having a different tick rate has no affect on time or reality, how many times must I repeat that before ''your'' subjective ear's finally listen to the objective truth's?Everything is in the present but at different reaction rates.QuoteI have discoursed science to find logical errors and fairy tales, fairy tales that are defended as if absolute truth, things that ''they'' say exist but don't actually exist. Like the BB I agree.QuoteYou and most do not have a clue how the Universe is or works where as I , without wanting to sound arrogant, 'see' the fundamental truths behind what science calls facts and put them into actual perspective instead of a fake perspective based on subjective thinking. A full mind has no room to grow.
'''Everything is in the present but at different reaction rates''
I sore this thought experiment once that shows by angle length contraction, however of cause this is wrongly misinterpreted and quite ''stupid''. In the below diagram is 3 photons that begin their journey synchronous from point zero travelling different but very equal vectors. When the Photons reach their destination they are reflected by a mirror in an invert direction returning them back to point 0. Each Photon , returns back to point 0 in the exact same amount of time, the constant speed of c showing no length contraction or time dilation. The original thought experiment showing the ''rising'' car is 1d and not the 4d I have just done.
I sore this thought experiment once that shows by angle length contraction, however of cause this is wrongly misinterpreted and quite ''stupid''. In the below diagram is 3 photons that begin their journey synchronous from point zero travelling different but very equal vectors. When the Photons reach their destination they are reflected by a mirror in an invert direction returning them back to point 0.
Each Photon , returns back to point 0 in the exact same amount of time, the constant speed of c showing no length contraction or time dilation.
The original thought experiment showing the ''rising'' car is 1d and not the 4d I have just done.
Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2017 14:27:54I sore this thought experiment once that shows by angle length contraction, however of cause this is wrongly misinterpreted and quite ''stupid''. In the below diagram is 3 photons that begin their journey synchronous from point zero travelling different but very equal vectors. When the Photons reach their destination they are reflected by a mirror in an invert direction returning them back to point 0. Each Photon , returns back to point 0 in the exact same amount of time, the constant speed of c showing no length contraction or time dilation. The original thought experiment showing the ''rising'' car is 1d and not the 4d I have just done. Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2017 14:27:54I sore this thought experiment once that shows by angle length contraction, however of cause this is wrongly misinterpreted and quite ''stupid''. In the below diagram is 3 photons that begin their journey synchronous from point zero travelling different but very equal vectors. When the Photons reach their destination they are reflected by a mirror in an invert direction returning them back to point 0. Do you measure the distance by light and then measure the distance light travels as the same?QuoteEach Photon , returns back to point 0 in the exact same amount of time, the constant speed of c showing no length contraction or time dilation. And all three would come back to the same point no matter what the vector velocity and measured as constant c.QuoteThe original thought experiment showing the ''rising'' car is 1d and not the 4d I have just done. You do not understand the physical process for visual contraction in SR nor the physical dilation in GR. It's simple vector speed geometry for SR and expansion of energy c in GR. Anyone should be able to follow it since it is taught in a 7th grade geometry class. There is no perpendicular view. Increase in vector speed increases the angle of view as both further light has to travel and rotation of the view. Your XY angle of a 90 degree view is impossible with vector speed. The contraction is of the view and not a physical contraction. Light is independent of the source so the source keeps moving but the light position event does not. This is the concept you are missing in order to understand relativity. Dilation of energy c is a physical increase in volume that both the electron and photon has to travel through space in the presence of mass.Of course you would think relativity is stupid if you do not have the correct concept of 7th grade math.Zero point energy is c and not really zero. The proof is the photon. There is no 0 in our universe. The concept of 0 transfer is just a local kinetic energy issue your not able to disconnect from in your abstract thinking. If you believe you have a better understanding of math than Einstein did so be it. I put in the work to understand his relativity and found it to be a beautiful understanding of the universe. There is a threshold of understanding. All struggle most fail. Calling relativity stupid is a failure. Learning relativity is a maze with many dead ends. I can only point out the dead ends in your thinking towards success. In the end does it really matter if you sail to far and fall off the Earth?
Do you measure the distance by light and then measure the distance light travels as the same?
I then know if the Photons were to be inverted , they would travel back in the exact same amount of unknown time to arrive back at 0 at the exact same unknown time and simultaneously.
Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2017 16:35:44I then know if the Photons were to be inverted , they would travel back in the exact same amount of unknown time to arrive back at 0 at the exact same unknown time and simultaneously. They will not be back at 0. They could possibly be where the mass is that caused the event. But the event began in a different place. Your descriptors show you do not have a precise knowledge of relativity
Quote from: GoC on 08/02/2017 18:23:44Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2017 16:35:44I then know if the Photons were to be inverted , they would travel back in the exact same amount of unknown time to arrive back at 0 at the exact same unknown time and simultaneously. They will not be back at 0. They could possibly be where the mass is that caused the event. But the event began in a different place. Your descriptors show you do not have a precise knowledge of relativityThey will be back at zero according to my example, in reality the emitter continues in motion while the Photon travels across the space, the mirror reflector is also in motion while the Photon travels and in reality if the vector was linear the Photon would miss the target as the target had moved. So yes, I do understand the true geometrical positioning and motion relative to linear vectors. I do not know why you would think in anyway that shooting ''ahead'' of a moving target is difficult to understand, a trajectory that allows the interception of a moving target. In short you don't aim directly at a moving target you aim for the intersection point.
Quote from: Thebox on 09/02/2017 00:32:18Quote from: GoC on 08/02/2017 18:23:44Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2017 16:35:44I then know if the Photons were to be inverted , they would travel back in the exact same amount of unknown time to arrive back at 0 at the exact same unknown time and simultaneously. They will not be back at 0. They could possibly be where the mass is that caused the event. But the event began in a different place. Your descriptors show you do not have a precise knowledge of relativityThey will be back at zero according to my example, in reality the emitter continues in motion while the Photon travels across the space, the mirror reflector is also in motion while the Photon travels and in reality if the vector was linear the Photon would miss the target as the target had moved. So yes, I do understand the true geometrical positioning and motion relative to linear vectors. I do not know why you would think in anyway that shooting ''ahead'' of a moving target is difficult to understand, a trajectory that allows the interception of a moving target. In short you don't aim directly at a moving target you aim for the intersection point. My understanding of your position is you believe your viewing the present physical position of all objects. My understanding is we view every position from their past physical position by the ratio of the constant speed of light c. This follows the postulate of light being independent of the source in relativity. What we view is the light image when it reaches our eyes.Was I incorrect in your understanding?
By relativity light is independent of the source. So light leaves the sun in one position in space that the sun moves away from for 8 minutes. So by the time we view the image the physical position of the view and the actual physical position of the sun are in two different places. Our image of the sun from our present is the suns past position.You seem to believe in circular arguments for your number 4. You refuse relativity and that is fine. Most do not understand it correctly.
I understand that a satellite signal takes time to travel GoC, I understand the said delay in images and why, however it still makes no sense when you consider number 4. If I was looking at you in your past then how can you walk over to me and my present? You can't be in a different time frame than me or an incorrect position.
We predict things because we can see through space, if in example a comet was going to strike the earth , we can plot its path because we can see it in its present position.
Let me prove it to you goc. Do you agree if I and you was in the same room we are both in the present?
Do you agree if you left the room, travelled anywhere in the Universe and then came back to the room, that we both are in the present and both have been away from each other the exact same amount of time?
The answer to both must be yes,
Do you agree that you leave me in my present, throughout the entire journey our presents run synchronised to allow you to return back to the present?
Logical axiom , there is no maybe's , absolute truths.
So if you travelled to the sun, do you agree we both are still in the same present and synchronous?
Now bare in mind I can watch your entire journey to the sun. I see you leave in my present, I see you at the half way in my present , I see you when you get there in my present the same present you are in. You never leave my present and I never leave your present, we both still observe each other in each others present. Because light is two way and not one way. Lets say it takes 1 second to the light from me to get to you, at thee same time synchronous the light travels from you and takes the same amount of time cancelling the other out and the one way perspective.
Its 0 net difference+ve=ct=1.s-ve=ct=1.snet difference 0t
Because I see you in the exact same amount of time as you see me, because c is constant in both directions, keeping a present equilibrium between us at all times.
Look you are BI am A AB=0 distance , 0ctA___B=1m distance We always see each other synchronous because light is two way not one way added- I just thought this might help you understand, You travel away from me at c, the light from you comes to me at c,
consider the time cancellation.
Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2017 04:01:23I understand that a satellite signal takes time to travel GoC, I understand the said delay in images and why, however it still makes no sense when you consider number 4. If I was looking at you in your past then how can you walk over to me and my present? You can't be in a different time frame than me or an incorrect position. I recognize your confusion. We can never view the present although every part of the universe is in the present at all times. This is simultaneity of relativity. We can only view the universe at the speed of light image in our view. When we say an object is 20 light years away that is actually a distance. When the image reaches us the object has moved to another position in the universe. Whatever the objects velocity it had 20 of our years to move an additional distance to be in our universal present. This concept is a hurdle to understanding relativity. Those that understand relativity will not listen to your lack of understanding. Quote We predict things because we can see through space, if in example a comet was going to strike the earth , we can plot its path because we can see it in its present position. We can predict things because we know the speed of light is finite and the image travels through space until we observe the vector image. All other vectors of a sphere are free to travel further. Quote Let me prove it to you goc. Do you agree if I and you was in the same room we are both in the present? Yes Quote Do you agree if you left the room, travelled anywhere in the Universe and then came back to the room, that we both are in the present and both have been away from each other the exact same amount of time? In Relativity that is an ambiguous statement. Time = motion=energy so while we are always in the present I used energy in motion which caused my electrons to travel further per cycle. This reduced my reaction rate of aging while still being in the universal present. I aged less than you. We are biological clocks always in the present but have different reaction rates due to our environment (tick rate). Quote The answer to both must be yes, Define time. Quote Do you agree that you leave me in my present, throughout the entire journey our presents run synchronised to allow you to return back to the present? Define run synchronized. We are always in the universal present. Our reaction rates are not synchronized. Quote Logical axiom , there is no maybe's , absolute truths. When understood correctly absolute truths can be useful. Quote So if you travelled to the sun, do you agree we both are still in the same present and synchronous? Always in the universal present. Our tick rate is probably different being so close to the sun by GR but yes we are in the present. Define synchronous. Quote Now bare in mind I can watch your entire journey to the sun. I see you leave in my present, I see you at the half way in my present , I see you when you get there in my present the same present you are in. You never leave my present and I never leave your present, we both still observe each other in each others present. Because light is two way and not one way. Lets say it takes 1 second to the light from me to get to you, at thee same time synchronous the light travels from you and takes the same amount of time cancelling the other out and the one way perspective. Here is where you make your mistake and no longer follow relativity. Light being independent of the source the image of me at half way to the sun would take 4 minutes to reach the earth. In those 4 minutes I moved away from the half way position towards the sun. My present is a different distance than you can view by simultaneity of relativity. You are confusing view with present time. Quote Its 0 net difference+ve=ct=1.s-ve=ct=1.snet difference 0t Math is a great tool but can prove nothing. We can only disprove with math. Quote Because I see you in the exact same amount of time as you see me, because c is constant in both directions, keeping a present equilibrium between us at all times. Define time. Quote Look you are BI am A AB=0 distance , 0ctA___B=1m distance We always see each other synchronous because light is two way not one way added- I just thought this might help you understand, You travel away from me at c, the light from you comes to me at c, Right so far Quote consider the time cancellation. Simultaneity of relativity yes, time cancelation no.
Please consider the rather simple ''maths'' in the time cancellation. Let me do it this way , You travel for one second away from me, speed doesn't matterEvent (A) : The light from you takes 1 second to reach me from you Event (B) : The light takes 1 second to reach you from me. Do you agree the net difference in time of both events is 0?
Quote from: Thebox on 11/02/2017 19:18:48Please consider the rather simple ''maths'' in the time cancellation. Let me do it this way , You travel for one second away from me, speed doesn't matterEvent (A) : The light from you takes 1 second to reach me from you Event (B) : The light takes 1 second to reach you from me. Do you agree the net difference in time of both events is 0?Distance for an image does not cancel. We are ~186,000 miles away from each other and in one second I moved into a position different from what you can observe. You view my image one second in my past position. I view your image one second in your past. We do not cancel. An image moves through space to reach our eyes. Time has passed as distance by the time the image reaches us. Your time cancelation idea is a incorrect use of math. Your ability to understand the abstract needs some work or those with better abstract abilitys will not listen