0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/11/2018 15:45:11I'm also a good scientist Got any evidence?
I'm also a good scientist
Hmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.Your return has quite ruined my celebration.
Quote from: Ophiolite on 24/11/2018 17:19:09Hmm. Two posts since you posted the above statement.Your return has quite ruined my celebration.Every time he says he's going to leave he never does. By this point it seems like an attention-gathering stunt.
I have ''destroyed'' some of Einstein's work
I will not give up until science takes me seriously
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/11/2018 16:59:38Quote from: Thebox on 25/11/2018 15:45:11I'm also a good scientist Got any evidence?Why ? Shrugs shoulders !
Quote from: Thebox on 25/11/2018 17:15:37Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/11/2018 16:59:38Quote from: Thebox on 25/11/2018 15:45:11I'm also a good scientist Got any evidence?Why ? Shrugs shoulders !Because, without it, nobody will take you seriously.
Does that look like I do not know what I'm doing ?
Quote from: Thebox on 25/11/2018 18:08:49Does that look like I do not know what I'm doing ?It looks like you are stating the obvious, and pretending that it is science by putting long words in it from time to time.A bit like thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
you tell him!
Note that I have been talking about the different rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time in different acceleration conditions. I think if you apply that perspective to each of the examples you have given, you will see that the examples you have given ignore that critical factor. To make your examples corresponded to the premise I have presented, your two identical clocks will be measuring the rate of the passing of time on their faces in two different environments where their respective rates of motion differ relative to a rest position.
Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.
Start with my two identical light clocks at rest. Move one of them away from the other (i.e. accelerate it and then have it move away at a constant speed), then move it back again, bringing it to a halt next to the one that never moved. The one that moved has recorded less time, but the moving part in the moving clock, the light pulse, covered exactly the same distance through space as the moving part in the stationary clock. That component never ran slow, but the clock ticked fewer times, just like the ball in the football clock.
I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.
It’s easy enough to have two identical light clocks at the same location as one moves past the other (which is at rest). One of them is ticking more slowly because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks. How am I ignoring any critical factor there?
Quote from: David Cooper on 25/11/2018 21:26:52I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more slowly than when it's moving.Let’s start with that fact about your light clock at rest in deep space. You say it ticks more slowly when it is at rest.
Those two statement seem inconsistent to me. Are they supposed to be the other way around, i.e., the rest clock ticks faster, and the moving clock ticks slower? That would make more sense to me.
I've been talking about a light clock in deep space which when at rest ticks more quickly than when it's moving. It's easy enough to have two identical light clocks at the same location as one moves past the other (which is at rest). One of them is ticking more slowly because its movement increases the cycle distance for the light to cover between ticks. How am I ignoring any critical factor there?
Start with my two identical light clocks at rest. Move one of them away from the other (i.e. accelerate it and then have it move away at a constant speed), then move it back again, bringing it to a halt next to the one that never moved. The one that moved has recorded less time,
… but the moving part in the moving clock, the light pulse, covered exactly the same distance through space as the moving part in the stationary clock. That component never ran slow, but the clock ticked fewer times, just like the ball in the football clock.
I’ll repeat: “Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.”
To start that talk, is this the right link to use to describe the light clocks that you use? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_clock
If so, then from that Wiki:“We also know that the speed of light, c, is constant. No matter who measures it, it turns out to be the same speed. So we can use that fact to get another way of calculating how long it takes for the flash of light to go from the base to the top of the pole and back again…”
But wait; c is a constant at 0 degrees Kelvin in an environment that is not influenced by gravity or magnetic fields or any outside influences like the relative motion of massive objects. We certainly don’t have any such perfect vacuums or locations uninfluenced by the presence of massive objects in relative motion to each other when we discuss twins and rocket ships and acceleration through the medium of space. I equate those events to real situations of relative motion through the real medium of space that is filled with light and gravity waves coming and going in all directions, at all points.
The velocity of the light and gravity waves is variable under real conditions, depending on the local gravitational wave energy density of the local space (akin to the curvature of spacetime in GR). Does that statement leave you cold, ...
...or do you get where I am coming from when I say:Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 25/11/2018 01:11:37Please note that I have not said that time slows down. I have said that the rate that two identical clocks measure the passing of time differs when they are in relative motion to each other. I also include the twin's human bodies as clocks. When one twin is accelerated relative to one at rest, the accelerated twin ages slower, just like the accelerated clock measures a different rate of time passing, as confirmed by the experiments with atomic clocks.
In my scenarios, the difference in the rate of time passing is not in accord with the axioms of Special Relativity, it is governed by the difference in the gravitational wave energy density profile of the local space in which the identical clocks are functioning. They function at different rates because they are in different gravitational wave energy density situations (different relative acceleration conditions).
So, one issue that we need to work out is that you seem to be talking from the perspective of Special Relativity, where the speed of light is always c, and I am talking about events in the real medium of space, where there are light waves and gravitational waves being emitted and being absorbed to/from the surrounding medium of space, and where massive objects are all in relative motion and are influencing what I like to call the gravitational wave energy density profile of space.Do you have any inclination to talk through these issues, and see where we agree and where we don’t?