8
   

einstein's clock tower

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2016 08:50 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
I went back to read the original answer given by the gentleman called "The Physicist" and fortunately it turns out the answer given by "The Physicist" is actually a good answer (that doesn't talk about "stationary". It turns out that this is a journalist reporting what he thinks a Physicist is saying. He has no clue about what the Physicist is actually saying, so what he is reporting is ridiculously wrong.

Has there ever been a case of a reporter NOT screwing up all the facts?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2016 09:09 pm
@oralloy,
Yes.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2016 09:34 pm
@maxdancona,
I've never seen it happen.
0 Replies
 
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jun, 2016 09:44 pm
@maxdancona,
Thank You. Will the lesson continue on to relative time?
I will wait either a very long time or not very long at all, depending on my perception.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2016 02:26 pm
@maxdancona,
So, if time slows down as one approaches the speed of light, can it be said that time does not exist for a light particle/ray?
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2016 03:49 pm
@Foofie,
Essentially, yes.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 08:08 am
@llanwydd,
The theory is imaginitive bollux.
Idiots have actually discussed this for decades.

Allow me to introduce you to simple logic.

A man travels (In anything you like) to the moon, at 'c' light-speed' (which is NOT a constant) (Moon=240k miles from earth) takes approx 1.5 seconds, and then returns to earth (+ 1.5 seconds).
Journey over in 3 seconds.

His CLOCK shows 3 seconds.
Anyone observing (alternate clock) welcomes him back 3 seconds later, and lo and behold - BOTH clocks have advanced by EXACTLY the same.

HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND?

Indoctrination is a fantastic TOOL!
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 09:03 am
@mark noble,
You clearly don't know what you are talking about. This is an example of General Relativity ( in accelerated reference frames). Actual experiments with matched clocks where one is accelerated relative to the initial reference frame clearly indicate 'time dilation' in the accelerated one which has 'lost time' relative to its twin. I suggest your use of the phrase 'simple logic' should be replaced with 'simpletons logic'.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 09:08 am
@fresco,
Gen-rel is bollux.
And you know it.

And you will defend said bollux - coz you must.

Now - Prove it, or shussssh...?

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 09:10 am
@mark noble,
Thanks for reminding me why I put you on ignore several years ago.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 09:11 am
@fresco,
Good opportunity to do it again....?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 09:18 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
So, if time slows down as one approaches the speed of light


This statement doesn't make any sense. What would it mean for you to approach the speed of light? Relativity means that your speed according to your perspective.

You will never measure yourself going near the speed of light, and there will never be an experiment that you can do that will show you going near the speed of light.

Time dilation happens when you compare what is happening in another frame of reference compared to what is happening in your frame of reference. If these two frames of reference are different, you will measure time going slower in the other frame of reference.

Let's take the spaceship example where you on spaceship A notice that the distance between you and spaceship B is rapidly decreasing. You interpret this as you being stopped and the other spaceship moving rapidly toward you.

If you can measure the rate that a second hand moves on a clock on spaceship B, and compare it to a clock sitting next to you on spaceship A... you will say correctly that the clock on spaceship B is ticking slower (i.e. when your clock clicks 60 time, the other clock will click fewer times).

Of course on your spaceship... the clock always clicks once every second because the definition of a second is how often a clock clicks.

So saying that "your spaceship is approaching the speed of light" doesn't make any sense.

What you could say is "your spaceship is approaching the speed of light as measured by someone on spaceship B"? Of course in your perspective it is spaceship B that is approaching the speed of light... since from your perspective you aren't moving.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 09:21 am
@mark noble,
Mark I am going to ignore your posts here. If it helps you, you can preface everything I say with the phrase "According to the modern understanding of Physics..."

An argument about whether our modern understanding of Physics is bollux or not doesn't interest me on this thread. If you actually had taken the time to gain a modern understanding of Physics so that you could argue against it... your point of view might be little more interesting... but they aren't.
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 09:28 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
What you could say is "your spaceship is approaching the speed of light as measured by someone on spaceship B"? Of course in your perspective it is spaceship B that is approaching the speed of light... since from your perspective you aren't moving.

Is this dependent on your decision? Could you choose to perceive your own spaceship as the one that's moving?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 11:03 am
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:
Is this dependent on your decision? Could you choose to perceive your own spaceship as the one that's moving?


Of course. The math works either way. The verb "perceive" may be confusing (although it is understandable given my use of the word "perspective"). We are really talking about accurate measurements.

When we solve Physics problems, we choose a "Frame of Reference". When you choose a Frame of Reference we say... for the sake of solving this problem, we define "spaceship A" as the fixed spaceship (which means that spaceship B) is moving.

Once you choose a frame of reference, you then need a way to make a measurement and you can use the math to predict what that measurement will be.

As a Physics student, you learn that there are several frames of reference that are convenient to use (since in a certain frame of reference the mathematics will be simpler). When I was doing experiments with particles colliding, we used what we called the "laboratory frame" (in which the room was fixed), and what was called the "center of mass frame" (in which the center of mass of the particles we were measuring was fixed)... these were two different frames that we needed to be able to convert the answers from one to the other. Often the center of mass frame was much simpler... so we used that one.

It turns out that you can make valid predictions using many different frames of reference. The math to convert between one to another are well known and accurate.
mark noble
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 12:39 pm
@maxdancona,
Prove the experiment - Then apply the math.
Don't do the math and then expect the reality to fit the bill.

Duh....
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 12:42 pm
@maxdancona,
Utter bollux.
PROVE GEN-REL or Spec-rel?
Don't just regurgitate the shite you were indoctrinated with.
Haven't you realised -It doesn't fit the bill.

Evidence, Please?
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 08:03 pm
@mark noble,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Have a look at this. This is proof of time dilation as predicted by Einstein's math.
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 08:14 pm
@maxdancona,
OK, and the time dilation; if I'm the one travelling at near light speed, time moves slower for me than for those not traveling at that speed. That's the confusing part.
Say I leave Earth in my spaceship, travel at 99% of light speed (relative to Earth) for some distance and return. For me, only a short time has passed, let's say one year, but for those on Earth a long time has passed let's say one hundred years. Why is this not the same as motion? Why does this not depend on point of view? From my point of view, I was standing still while the Earth moved away at high speed and then returned. In that case I would have experienced one hundred years while the Earth experienced only one year. Please explain.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Jun, 2016 08:25 pm
@TomTomBinks,
Does it matter which way you travel around earth?
 

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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 04:00:18