1

# Relativity revisited once more still again

dalehileman

1
Mon 27 Oct, 2014 12:32 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
The evidence is actually all around us, within us, and present in every decision we make.
Thanks once more Que. However, wonder what's meant by "The evidence." If the hologram is evidence of the possibility that the Universe could be a hologram, well, okay. However if evidence that it really is, I'd say sheerest nonsense
Quehoniaomath

0
Mon 27 Oct, 2014 12:35 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Thanks once more Que. However, wonder what's meant by "The evidence." If the hologram is evidence of the possibility that the Universe could be a hologram, well, okay. However if evidence that it really is, I'd say sheerest nonsense

You are welcome.
You are right in a superficial way. If you read the books there is actually tons of evidence. I even heard yesterday that there were a few scientist who found that their data was like a computer ( bits and bytes ect) but couldn't understand why.
Now you can!

Read the book and connect a lots of dots and voila!

After years of studying this kind of material I am convinced we are living in a virtual reality.

For a feel of thes kind of a thing you can watch the following movies

The source code
The Matrix (yes! we are living in a matrix)
The thirtheent floor

dalehileman

1
Mon 27 Oct, 2014 12:41 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Once more Que thanks, but I'll need to be convinced

Letcha know my conclusions
Quehoniaomath

1
Mon 27 Oct, 2014 12:44 pm
@dalehileman,
Dalehileman, ok, but I can't convince you here and now. You have to do the work now for yourself.

I can only show you the door.
dalehileman

1
Mon 27 Oct, 2014 12:58 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
I can only show you the door.
Thanks again Que but illusion aside, I wonder if you might have a take on the possibility of that stationary reference
0 Replies

Quehoniaomath

0
Mon 27 Oct, 2014 12:59 pm
some more then:

0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Fri 14 Nov, 2014 02:41 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
1: Deceleration is just a form of acceleration. So the person who decelerates is the one who has time slow down for them.
I'm still thinking about this, Ora. I decelerated in order to come to a standstill with the rest of the Universe; yet when we meet again I'm very old and you're very young; so wasn't it you whose time had "slowed down"
Quehoniaomath

0
Fri 14 Nov, 2014 03:44 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
I'm still thinking about this, Ora. I decelerated in order to come to a standstill with the rest of the Universe; yet when we meet again I'm very old and you're very young; so wasn't it you whose time had "slowed down"

Relativity is stupid, illogial and weird!

dalehileman

1
Fri 14 Nov, 2014 04:07 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Relativity is stupid, illogial and weird!
Illogical and weird Que but hardly stupid

Though the relativistic effects upon a moving object hold up mathematically and have repeatedly been experimentally verified, they do indeed seem strange. I've yet encountered no revelation explaining them in plain language intended for your Average Clod (me)

http://able2know.org/topic/241809-1#post-5661305
Quehoniaomath

0
Fri 14 Nov, 2014 04:10 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Though the relativistic effects upon a moving object hold up mathematically and have repeatedly been verified, they do indeed seem strange. I've yet encountered no revelation explaining them in plain language intended for your Average Clod (me)

O yes, stupid! Even very stupid!

you wrote the relativistic effects have been verified, hold up mathematically?

Really???

Have you studied relativity? Your statement is very simply not true.

E.g there is no time dilation and no curved space, all stupid inventions by extremely stupid scientists.

dalehileman

1
Fri 14 Nov, 2014 04:19 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Have you studied relativity?
I'ver perused two or three books and have to admit there seem a few loose ends but nothing even suggesting it's dead wrong

But repeating my general q, can anyone explain not "scientifically" or "mathematically" but to the satisfaction of everyday logic and the intuition how these relativistic effects happen at this arbitrary speed c
oralloy

0
Fri 14 Nov, 2014 05:39 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
I'm still thinking about this, Ora. I decelerated in order to come to a standstill with the rest of the Universe; yet when we meet again I'm very old and you're very young;

No. You would be the one who was very young. I would be the one who was very old.

In your experiment, the person who decelerates is the one who has time slow down for them.
Quehoniaomath

1
Sat 15 Nov, 2014 02:32 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
No. You would be the one who was very young. I would be the one who was very old.

In your experiment, the person who decelerates is the one who has time slow down for them.

S, you don't get it. Well, keep the accelariation out ( as Dingle did) and you will see how logically flawed it all is!
0 Replies

Quehoniaomath

1
Sat 15 Nov, 2014 02:38 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
I'ver perused two or three books and have to admit there seem a few loose ends but nothing even suggesting it's dead wrong

well, that depends of course on what books they are.
Can you tell?
I have studied physics and believed relativity for years, untill I started to look closer at it all and found out it really is all bullshit and very stupid.

Quote:

Might, yeah.

Quote:
But repeating my general q, can anyone explain not "scientifically" or "mathematically" but to the satisfaction of everyday logic and the intuition how these relativistic effects happen at this arbitrary speed c

But there is no relativistic effect! that is my whole point.
It has never been proven. Of course I am aware of the 'experiments'
but they are extremely flawed or the data is 'masaged'.
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Sat 15 Nov, 2014 01:16 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
No. You would be the one who was very young. I would be the one who was very old.
Perhaps Ora you perhaps misunderstood my experiment. You and I are the same age, taking off eg from nearby planets opposite Earth. When I reach home I decelerate, remaining at the same age of course. But you keep going, thus without apparently aging. Presumably when you've circumnavigated the Universe without running into anything you are still the same youth as we were at departure whereas I am very old
Brandon9000

1
Sat 15 Nov, 2014 01:33 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Quote:
No. You would be the one who was very young. I would be the one who was very old.
Perhaps Ora you perhaps misunderstood my experiment. You and I are the same age, taking off eg from nearby planets opposite Earth. When I reach home I decelerate, remaining at the same age of course. But you keep going, thus without apparently aging. Presumably when you've circumnavigated the Universe without running into anything you are still the same youth as we were at departure whereas I am very old

This is pretty much wrong. Here would be a similar, but correct, description. We have three people, A, who is on the Earth and B and C who are on a planet circling the star Sirius, 8.6 light years away. At the start of the experiment, all three people are 20 years old. Now, B and C leave Sirius. Both travel to Earth, but B by a straight path and C by a long, indirect path. Both B and C quick accelerate up to about 99.999% the speed of light. Their bodies can only tolerate just so much acceleration (or deceleration), but let's ignore this. B arrives on Earth having aged only slightly (I'm too lazy to calculate how much). From his point of view, his trip took a very short time and he is still 20 years old. He finds that A is now 8.6 or so years older, so 28 or 29. C, who travels a total distance of 15 light years because he took the scenic route also feels that his trip has taken less than a year, but he arrives on Earth to find A about 35 and B about 26 or 27. You should read a book about special relativity, rather than trying to get the facts from a message board. You've been doing this for a year and still seem to lack a basic understanding. Get a book.
Quehoniaomath

1
Sat 15 Nov, 2014 01:51 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
This is pretty much wrong. Here would be a similar, but correct, description. We have three people, A, who is on the Earth and B and C who are on a planet circling the star Sirius, 8.6 light years away. At the start of the experiment, all three people are 20 years old. Now, B and C leave Sirius. Both travel to Earth, but B by a straight path and C by a long, indirect path. Both B and C quick accelerate up to about 99.999% the speed of light. Their bodies can only tolerate just so much acceleration (or deceleration), but let's ignore this. B arrives on Earth having aged only slightly (I'm too lazy to calculate how much). From his point of view, his trip took a very short time and he is still 20 years old. He finds that A is now 8.6 or so years older, so 28 or 29. C, who travels a total distance of 15 light years because he took the scenic route also feels that his trip has taken less than a year, but he arrives on Earth to find A about 35 and B about 26 or 27. You should read a book about special relativity, rather than trying to get the facts from a message board. You've been doing this for a year and still seem to lack a basic understanding. Get a book.

LOL. also wrong, it is all garbage! just change the reference frames!

It is all very very stupid. Like space curving? How idiotic can you get????

0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Sat 15 Nov, 2014 02:05 pm
@Brandon9000,
Your analysis Bran pretty much agrees with mine, the apparent discrepancy doubtless arising from my oversimplifications. I probably shouldn't have had us taking off from "nearby planets"

Also I had inadvertently reversed our roles. Returning to the OP I see it was I who kept going. Blame my age, 84 day before yesterday, incipient Alz's

Anyhow it's the guy who accelerates who stays young

So instead here are you and I 20 years old, approaching Earth where A lives, also 20. You apply your retros, joining A for lunch, where we're all three of course still 20. Much (much) later when I reappear (coming from the opposite direction?) A and you are very (very) old while I'm still 20

Sorry Bran if I was misunderstood. I am continually amazed at how easily misunderstandings arise

Incidentally I'd been making the assumption that my clock had stopped for my entire trip but I'm no expert. Perhaps owing to the curvature of space, my movement slowly resumes, reversing at the "halfway" mark, in which case upon my return we're all three the same old age. Just wild speculation
Quehoniaomath

1
Sat 15 Nov, 2014 02:24 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Perhaps owing to the curvature of space

Please explain how the hell space can curve???
It can't! It is an impossibility!!!

dalehileman

1
Sat 15 Nov, 2014 02:37 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Please explain how the hell space can curve???
Dunno Que but if the Universe is finite and one proceeds in what seems like a straight line he presumably returns to where he started

What got me going was the notion that relativity tacitly required a stationary reference, which my OP seemed to contradict--tho I'll be first to admit that somewhere along the line I might'v' stepped off the lory and from that point forward got everything wrong

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek