Author Topic: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!  (Read 7835 times)

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #90 on: August 29, 2018, 12:06:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And again, I do not have any problems with the mathematics.
I have a problem with what is claimed with the results, on what is observed.
The mathematics have a direct effect on what you will observe. That's why they're used: to make predictions on what should be observed so they can be tested. The predictions of special relativity is what is observed at high speeds; Newtonian mechanics is only the low speed approximation of relativistic mechanics.

Quote
And with these long posts where you try to throw all the info as evidence that I am wrong, you are allowing a huge amount of info to smother a few important facts.
You have not presented "facts" at all. You have presented speculations and assertions as if they are facts, but they are not facts. You have asserted that the speed of light would appear slow to a receeding observer, when our instruments were good enough to detect tiny differences in the speed of light to the tune of one part in ten thousand even in the nineteenth century (Michelson and Morley), and are only better today. Evanson et al. measured the speed of light to 299,792.4574 ± 0.0001 km/s in 1973 — that's as good as 10 cm/s, and that was forty years ago. If there were any truth to your notion that you could observe red-shifted Doppler shifted light as slower, it would have been noticed long ago. Furthermore, other experiments show that light follows the relativistic Doppler effect of relativity and not the non-relativistic Doppler effect. They produce different degrees of redshift and there's also an asymmetry in the non-relativistic Doppler effect that we don't find in light.

I refer you to my Feynman video once more. Evidence is king. What we see about light is consistent with Einstein and not with Newton.

Quote
Please note.
We have ample time to go through the SR and GR theory.
one post at a time.
If you don't spam posts at me, I won't throw huge compilation posts at you. You do realize that my posts are really large because I'm responding to multiple posts, right?

Quote
Now, before we continue, all I want to clarify is the following.
If we flash a light on THE OUTSIDE OF a moving satellite traveling at say, 0.5 C, will the light now travel at C when observed from a stationary satellite, next to the position of the stationary one when it fired?
If so, do you agree that the exact point of where the light flashed, is the starting point for the light to travel parallel with the moving satellite?
How do you figure out that the satellite you're shooting that light at is really moving at 0.5c, or the satellite you're on is really stationary? Every other speed we use is referenced to something else, the thing it is moving at that speed relative to. It's vital in Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics doesn't have a notion of absolute speed, and "stationary" is a term of convenience — if you say some frame is stationary, it's stationary, regardless of any motion we know it to have. For most of our history, we've been calling a platform that has been puttering about at around 29.78 km/s in various directions "stationary" — the Earth.

Even in Newton's world, you can't build a speedometer that could tell you your absolute speed. It was principally impossible to do. To be an absolute speedometer, an aparatus is required to work differently depending on how fast the whole setup is "really moving." However, none of our laws of physics is sensitive to that — every aparatus works the same regardless of the speed of the physical setup. All speeds are equivalent in Newton's world as well as in Einstein's.

So you've barely left the gate and already you're entangled in a snarl. I'm sitting on this satellite and I'm calling it "stationary," but I don't know that it's stationary in any absolute sense. You say that I'm stationary, but the me on the satellite doesn't know that and has no means of finding that out. All Isatellite know is that the other satellite is moving at 0.5c in a frame of reference I have labeled as "stationary" as a matter of convenience. Isatellite see the flash traveling at c in all directions from the space coordinates they began from, but Isatellite don't know if that's really the same point in any absolute sense, or even if that term means anything at all. All Isatellite can tell you is that it's the same space coordinates in my frame's coordinate system, and in that coordinate system all the light is moving at c away from that coordinate. That is all. Anything further would be speculation.

Now, let's suppose Isatellite were on the other satellite, the one that the first satellite sees as going 0.5c. I'satellite would also call this satellite "stationary," as a label of convenience. Again, I'satellite don't know if that's true in any absolute sense. You say that it's moving, but I'satellite have no means of assessing that. I'satellite see the first satellite, which you claim is stationary, is moving at 0.5c, and for good measure let's turn our frame's orientation 180° so that the first satellite is moving along the same nominal axis and in the same sense in this new frame as this one is moving in the old frame.

Let's hold off the emission of our light flash for the moment to assess our scenario. We are right now in a scenario that, even in Newtonian mechanics, would be perfectly symmetrical from both satellites. There would be no means of assessing whether Isatellite or I'satellite are "really moving" or "stationary," if either of us are. At least one of us is definitely moving, to be sure, but we can't tell who is; it may be that we are both moving in opposite directions at the same speed, or we're moving in the same direction but at speeds that would make our partner appear to move at 0.5c relative to us. We don't know and have no means of assessing our absolute state of motion, or even if we had an absolute state of motion.

Now let's emit that flash. I've already discussed what Isatellite would observe and what Isatellite would be able to say and not say. Now, what does I'satellite observe? The exact same thing! I'satellite would observe the flash spreading out at c from the same space coordinates they began from in my' frame, but I'satellite don't know if that's really the same point in any absolute sense either, or even if that term means anything at all. All I'satellite can tell you is that it's the same space coordinates in my' frame's coordinate system, and in that coordinate system all the light is moving at c away from that coordinate. That is all. Anything further would be speculation.

So the scenario is completely symmetrical from both ends! I've derived the above answer using only basic principles of Einstein's relativity, but a Lorentz transformation would reveal the same answer. Before emitting the flash, neither of us know who's "really moving" and after, we still don't know.

Quote
Lets keep it simple and short.

It's not simple and it's not short because a simple and short answer requires us to be on the same page as far as physics understanding goes, and we're not.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline aitm

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #91 on: August 29, 2018, 07:37:13 PM »
That really is fascinating stuff that is nowhere in the babble.....but god thinks how a guys drinks water from a river is very important. Odd how xians seem to "pretzelize" themselves into all kinds of science and yet can't figure out why god thinks it is incredibley important how a guy drinks water or keeping women away when they are dirty.....

Xians love to ignore what the babble really says and invent all the sciencey shit the babble doesn't say and proclaim their god is all that.

Still ignoring that 2/3rds of the stars fell to the earth already....but seem to ignore that one as a typo....
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #92 on: August 29, 2018, 07:38:28 PM »
The river water lappers ... were transgenic ... part dog.
𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎌𐎀𐎍𐎎𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀𐎟𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎁𐎀𐎍𐎉𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #93 on: August 30, 2018, 02:14:36 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The mathematics have a direct effect on what you will observe. ...

It's not simple and it's not short because a simple and short answer requires us to be on the same page as far as physics understanding goes, and we're not.
Thank you for staying on the one point of the discussion.
And what you said is 100% true.
I would like to take this examination a bit further.

Please do not think I am being mischievous, all I am doing is to cut through some thinking I have been working on for a very long time, and the only way to find answers, is to speak to someone with the knowledge you have.

Now, I would like you to critique the following.

Light travels at C in any reference point, no matter where it comes from, or where you are in space.
If, lets say it is possible that you can see the actual light waves in your position (because you made a special contraption to observe it), and you observe the waves coming from head on towards you.
You turn to your side and let it pass through your contraption.
You will see that the waves are actually running the frequencies of the color you observe, and it will be one of 2 colors indicating its origin.
If it is blue, you will know that the origin point of this light source was moving towards you, if red, you will know it was moving away from you.
You will not be able to measure the speed of the light, because you dont know when the light started to shine, and it's nose passed at any uncertain time which you did not observe. (As Roemer did when he measured light speed in 1676 with Io, he measured the nose of the light beam)

Now you turn to your rear, and let some head-on light coming in the opposite direction from the first, pass your contraption.
Again, you will see the waves of the light as exactly observed in the first. Red shift, tells you the source was moving away, blue tells you the source advanced.

Now my logical conclusion says,
1. Light is directional.
2. its position in relation to velocity can be determined with the adjustment of your velocity, to have equilibrium in the light spectrum.
3. If you adjust your velocity on that very light beam, you will discover the light source's direction.
4. Maintaining the light's true spectrum, will now give you the means you are observing the correct wave frequency.
5. Looking at the light coming from the opposite direction, will now give you the true shift in relation to the first light beam, and it will also supply you with the information about its source, and velocity it is moving in relation to the first source of light. So, we will have the X co ordinates of light source 1 and of light source 2.

Now we continue with our experiment.

We hyper speed at almost C towards the first light beam.
1. We look at the light waves and notice it is turning blue shift (actually we will move into X rays and beyoned), because more waves passes us than before we began our movement.
2. The light shift we measured coming from behind turns more red-shift (we will see slower than Ultra low frequencies.)

Now, do you also perceive that what is going on is that we are measuring light frequencies, (if I can compare the light waves with the keys of a piano that continue for millions of miles), and we are looking at these keys, and not the nose or tail of the light beam.

This is my whole story.
Light is all around us, and we observe it's waves.
We do not observe the speed of light at all, but the ribs of this huge snake that passed us a long time ago.
The light spectrum we do not see, is the speed at which the frequencies are passing us, either because we are moving towards, or away from the source at a speed that changes the frequency out of our perception.

Now, it will be clear to you on what I say about the speed of light when, if I flash a beam, for a millionth of a second towards the Moon (our old experiment) it will take one second to get there.
the same if it is flashed from the Moon,
AND IF IT IS FLASHED ON THE SPACE SHIP.
Because now we will measure the head, and the tail of the light beam, and not the frequencies of the piano key.
If this light beam was switched on say a few minutes ago, then all the calculations on SR will hold true, but not when we change the situation where we pulse a beam, and measure it's speed.

I hope you understand what I say, and I am not doing this to mock, or to say I am somehow above science.
It is just some long thought out problems I worked on for a few years.
Greetings


« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 02:25:19 AM by Mousetrap »
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #94 on: August 30, 2018, 12:16:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Light travels at C in any reference point, no matter where it comes from, or where you are in space.
If, lets say it is possible that you can see the actual light waves in your position (because you made a special contraption to observe it), and you observe the waves coming from head on towards you.
You turn to your side and let it pass through your contraption.
You will see that the waves are actually running the frequencies of the color you observe, and it will be one of 2 colors indicating its origin.
If it is blue, you will know that the origin point of this light source was moving towards you, if red, you will know it was moving away from you.
Let's say that you know that the light emitted is monochrome light of a middling frequency, like green. Then the above will be true, except to note that you don't know that it's because the light source is moving towards you or you are moving towards it or both of you are moving towards each other. All you can say is that it's moving towards you in your frame of reference.

Quote
You will not be able to measure the speed of the light, because you dont know when the light started to shine, and it's nose passed at any uncertain time which you did not observe. (As Roemer did when he measured light speed in 1676 with Io, he measured the nose of the light beam)
No. Any real light pulse would be made up of untold bajillions of photons traveling in formation. You can use a semi-silvered mirror to pick off some of the light as it passes by the nose into a detector, and catch the rest some known distance away in another detector, and measure the time between when the first detector goes off and the second detector goes off. We have come up with many ways of measuring the speed of light, some of them are immune to the particular frequency the light comes in as.

Of course, we're assuming that our special contraption is able to track light along its path, so all we have to do is note when a pulse of light passes a known point, and then passes another known point a known distance away, do your math and Bob's your uncle.

Quote
Now you turn to your rear, and let some head-on light coming in the opposite direction from the first, pass your contraption.
Again, you will see the waves of the light as exactly observed in the first. Red shift, tells you the source was moving away, blue tells you the source advanced.
Again, I'm assuming that you know ahead of time that the light is monochromatic and some middling frequency like green.

Quote
Now my logical conclusion says,
1. Light is directional.
That statement is vague. I do not really know what you mean by that statement. If you mean that these light beams come to us in a specific direction, well, yeah. If you mean light has an anisotropy —that it's behavior is fundamentally different depending which direction it's traveling in the universe— then no.

Quote
2. its position in relation to velocity can be determined with the adjustment of your velocity, to have equilibrium in the light spectrum.
What? I think you mean that you know by how much the frequency of your light is shifted due to the Doppler effect. In many cases we do know the unshifted spectra of various sources because of absorption lines, which take place at very specific frequencies. Figuring out what the unshifted spetrum is takes some doing, but it can be done. In our example, we're assuming a monochromatic source at a known frequency.

Quote
3. If you adjust your velocity on that very light beam, you will discover the light source's direction.
Don't you already know the light source's direction? You did point your aparatus in the right direction, correct?

Or do you mean the velocity your light source is going? First off, you already know how fast it's approaching or receeding in your frame of reference from the Doppler shift. (We're assuming that the source is far off so transverse effects are minimal.) Adjusting your speed accordingly will bring you nearly comoving with the light source. But I must stress that you don't know that's the source's "true" velocity. Once again, "stationary" is a term of convenience in both Newtonian and relativistic mechanics.

Quote
4. Maintaining the light's true spectrum, will now give you the means you are observing the correct wave frequency.
I've been assuming that you already knew the light's true spectrum because you had prearranged it with your compatriots. If you don't already know what spectrum the incoming light should be, you will not be able to recover it without knowing the relative velocity of your source. All the frequencies get shifted, after all, so if your Doppler shift is D, then the frequency f gets shifted to Df, but the frequency f/D now gets shifted to Df/D = f. If you had a uniform spectrum, it will look exactly the same under the Doppler effect, no matter what the shift.

Quote
5. Looking at the light coming from the opposite direction, will now give you the true shift in relation to the first light beam, and it will also supply you with the information about its source, and velocity it is moving in relation to the first source of light. So, we will have the X co ordinates of light source 1 and of light source 2.
"True shift"? They're all true shifts, dearheart. You'll get the Doppler effect for the second source as it would appear to the first, because you are now comoving with the first source.

Quote
Now we continue with our experiment.

We hyper speed at almost C towards the first light beam.
1. We look at the light waves and notice it is turning blue shift (actually we will move into X rays and beyoned), because more waves passes us than before we began our movement.
It's still called a "blue shift" even if the frequency goes into the X-rays. If the original light is microwaves that get shifted to the red part of the visible spectrum, it's still called a blue shift.

Quote
2. The light shift we measured coming from behind turns more red-shift (we will see slower than Ultra low frequencies.)
Yes.

Quote
Now, do you also perceive that what is going on is that we are measuring light frequencies, (if I can compare the light waves with the keys of a piano that continue for millions of miles), and we are looking at these keys, and not the nose or tail of the light beam.

This is my whole story.
Light is all around us, and we observe it's waves.
We do not observe the speed of light at all, but the ribs of this huge snake that passed us a long time ago.
The speed of light is an inference. We have to involve our measuring sticks in some way, because that is how we get the vital distance measurement to divide the time traveled by. That's just simple dimensional analysis. However, once we have a distance to work with, we can measure the speed of light as directly as we measure anything.

Quote
The light spectrum we do not see, is the speed at which the frequencies are passing us, either because we are moving towards, or away from the source at a speed that changes the frequency out of our perception.
Why are you bringing perception into it? We're doing measurements. Relativity affects measurements.

Quote
Now, it will be clear to you on what I say about the speed of light when, if I flash a beam, for a millionth of a second towards the Moon (our old experiment) it will take one second to get there.
the same if it is flashed from the Moon,
With respect to the frame of reference that the two both share because they are co-moving. This is because they're using the same time coordinate, t, to judge that this would be one second.

I'm puzzled what the hell this has to do with your previous discussion, though. I don't see any sort of connection between your discussion of the Doppler shift and our Earth-Moon supership example. It's actually a little jarring, this segue.

Quote
AND IF IT IS FLASHED ON THE SPACE SHIP.
Yes, if the space ship emitted a light pulse just as it was staring off from the Earth, the Earth-Moon frame of reference will say that it will take one second to reach the moon. But the rocket is using it's own time coordinate, t', to judge that time, and it does not agree with the Earth-Moon time.

Quote
Because now we will measure the head, and the tail of the light beam, and not the frequencies of the piano key.
You're using really confused terminology. I think I understand, but I'm still confused what this has to do with the previous discussion.

Quote
If this light beam was switched on say a few minutes ago, then all the calculations on SR will hold true, but not when we change the situation where we pulse a beam, and measure it's speed.
SR applies to pulsed beams just as well as applies to beams turned on for minutes on end.

The statement, "The light pulse takes one second to go from the Earth to the Moon" is an inference based upon the sighting of the Earth clock reading 12:00:00 from the moon at 12:00:01 (moon time) and the knowledge that the Earth clock and Moon clock are synchronized within their frame of reference. The Earth clock measures Earth time, as the Earth clock travels with the Earth's world line (its path through time and space). The Moon clock measures Moon time, as the Moon clock travels with the Moon's world line. Neither the Moon clock nor the Earth clock measures the time along the ship's world line; that job falls to the shipboard clock.

Just as in calculating the length of a diagonal of a rectangle, the separation of the two sides must be taken into account as well as the length of those sides, in calculating the duration between two events, the spatial separation between the two events also enters into it. Measuring one side of the rectangle is not enough to tell you the length; you must measure across the adjacent side and use the Euclidean distance to get the diagonal's length (or use a ruler across the diagonal, which gives you a direct measurement of the length). Consulting the Earth and moon clock is not enough to tell you the duration along the path of the rocket; you must consider the distance traveled and use the proper time formula (which is the Minkowskian distance formula) to get the duration along the rocket's flight path (or just consult the shipboard clock, which gives a direct measurement of the rocket's flight time).

And don't forget that your background assumption that the Earth and Moon aren't moving is just that, an assumpiton. Once more, "stationary" is a term of convenience in mechanics, Newton or Einstein. For all you know, your Earth-Moon system may be itself moving at a pretty good clip in either direction, so that in this new frame of reference, the Earth-Moon travel time for light of one second is just as false to them as the rocket travel time of 81.6 µs is to the Earth people.

Quote
I hope you understand what I say, and I am not doing this to mock, or to say I am somehow above science.
It is just some long thought out problems I worked on for a few years.
Greetings
The problem with thought experiments is that they require a thorough understanding of physics in order to come up with the correct answers. You can only perform gedanken experiments with physics you understand. Einstein understood the physics at the time, including the Newtonian physics he eventually overthrew. That's why he was able to come up with relativity and revolutionized physics. You have revealed that your grasp of physics is not nearly as solid.

The other thing is that you've been thinking about it for years, but you haven't been performing experiments to test what you've been thinking, or even referencing experiments that have already been done to test your ideas, have you? I refer you once again to Professor Feynman:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So far, you have taken your guess, which is the first step, and have attempted the calculation of consequences step in some cases to varying success, which is the second step. I have never seen you proceed to the third, most vital step, which is to compare your calculations with reality — to experiment or observation.

You seem to believe that physics swallowed Einstein's relativity whole and unexamined because Einstein was so briliant. This is not true. At the time, Einstein was working as a patent clerk, and was a nobody. Relativity is what made him. His theory of relativity was tested (along with quantum mechanics) throughout the first part of the 20th century, with very carefully designed experiments to test all aspects of it, and relativity passed all of them. It might be difficult to see how a particular experiment tests ideas like time dialation, but they do because all of the concepts of relativity are very intimately woven together.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #95 on: August 30, 2018, 12:46:41 PM »
With sophists of any stripe, it is mental masturbation all the way down.  Unless of course you have a repeatable quantitative experiment.
𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎌𐎀𐎍𐎎𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀𐎟𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎁𐎀𐎍𐎉𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Online trdsf

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #96 on: August 30, 2018, 01:18:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let me take a stab at trying to explain the error in your thinking, MT.
Will you have enough time?  I mean, the sun is going to burn out in just a few billion years... ;)
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Online trdsf

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #97 on: August 30, 2018, 01:39:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You seem to believe that physics swallowed Einstein's relativity whole and unexamined because Einstein was so briliant. This is not true. At the time, Einstein was working as a patent clerk, and was a nobody. Relativity is what made him. His theory of relativity was tested (along with quantum mechanics) throughout the first part of the 20th century, with very carefully designed experiments to test all aspects of it, and relativity passed all of them. It might be difficult to see how a particular experiment tests ideas like time dialation, but they do because all of the concepts of relativity are very intimately woven together.
it's worth noting that Einstein's Nobel prize wasn't for what he's usually remembered for: Special Relativity, mass/energy equivalence, or General Relativity.  It was for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, the first of the four papers of his You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login.  Although Eddington had provided some observational evidence for General Relativity by measuring the bending of starlight during the 1919 eclipse, it really was considered too theoretical in 1921.  They settled on the photoelectric effect paper as the basis for his Nobel (one of the founding papers of quantum mechanics, as it turned out) because everyone agreed he deserved the honor, but Relativity was still too "far out".

I have always considered it one of the Nobel Committee's great oversights that they never awarded him a second Physics prize for General Relativity.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #98 on: August 31, 2018, 02:33:07 AM »
Quote from: HR
Consulting the Earth and moon clock is not enough to tell you the duration along the path of the rocket; you must consider the distance traveled and use the proper time formula (which is the Minkowskian distance formula) to get the duration along the rocket's flight path (or just consult the shipboard clock, which gives a direct measurement of the rocket's flight time).
Which (the clock on the rocket that traveled to the moon) will be the one that ran for a second inside the rocket, but when it came to the moon, it seemed to have stood still for one second and everyone shook their heads because they dont understand SR, but those who does, understood that this was an natural observation.
HR, I can see where the interpretation of Lorentz and Mickelson Morley is incorrect.
To me it has nothing to do with time dilation, or length contraction, but everything to do with Observation of light.

I am very thankful for your contribution you made so far, due to me having to test a few ideas with someone who understands SR.
I am quite happy with what I collected, and I am finally ready to complete my findings on Time that can not change.

Greetings

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #99 on: August 31, 2018, 08:11:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Which (the clock on the rocket that traveled to the moon) will be the one that ran for a second inside the rocket,
No.
It doesn't.
That's the point.

The clock on the rocket does not run for a second inside the rocket. The rocket going at near c to the moon travels along a path that has a physically shorter proper time than the ones on the moon and the Earth. The same way that the diagonal line from one corner of a rectangle to the opposing corner is physically longer than either of the two sides, a path traveling at speed doesn't have as much physical time elapse between two points that the stationary clocks consider to be "now."

It's not a seeming, either. It's a physical measurement. Every means of determining time on that rocket will register that not as much time passed on it. The reason why those clocks don't measure more time is that there was no more time to measure. Short-lived radioactive particles do not show as much decay on the rocket during that time because there was no more time to expect more decay. Quartz clocks don't register as much time because their crystals didn't go through as many oscillations for the time keeping circuit to count. In our example, our passengers haven't even had a single heartbeat between departure and arrival.

The guys on the moon and the Earth don't even need to see that the clock on the rocket has slowed down during the trip to know that it has done so. They can see all the passengers come off with their wristwatches saying 12:00:00, while the moon clock reads 12:00:01. None of the clocks jump ahead a second when the rocket stops. They keep ticking at 1 second per second of elapsed time, but they are one second behind the Moon clocks and will remain one second behind the moon clocks until they reset their own clocks.

The reason why you don't see it in your ordinary life is because you don't travel very far compared to the time it takes you to travel that distance. Approximating the length of a diagonal of a rectangle by taking the length of its long side and saying that this is the length of the diagonal will work well enough when the rectangle is long and skinny, but not so well when the rectangle is more squat. The same thing occurs with the shipboard clocks compared to the Earth and Moon clocks; you're using the Earth and Moon clocks to approximate the rocket's elapsed time in exactly the way that you would use a side of a rectangle to estimate the length of its diagonal. It only works well with slow trips the same way that using the side only works well with long, skinny rectangles.

In order to calculate the time elapsed on the rocket, you have to use the proper time formula or use the onboard clocks to judge this. Both say that time dilation does happen.

Quote
I am quite happy with what I collected, and I am finally ready to complete my findings on Time that can not change.
Then you are in conflict with SR, and every experiment that has done so far that confirms it, and there are many.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #100 on: September 01, 2018, 09:44:43 AM »
QM and RT don't make sense in classical physics terms, let alone in Biblical terms ...

Mouse, watch this .. you can't really do RT without QM ... but we can leave out gravity/acceleration for now ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login part 1 of 3 ... not too hard to follow if you have college maths

Basically it is an abstract exercise ... which hardly touches on ordinary common sense experience, but it does match up with experiment.

Macro-studies of RT ... generally aren't done ... with the exception of RT + gravity.  After all, only subatomic particles can be accelerated to near light speed.

QFT ... QM for the EM field is quite a bit more complicated, here is a qualitative description ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login part 4 of 7

Notice you end up with an infinite series of Feynman diagrams (or path integrals) ... this is the origin of the multiple universe interpretation of QFT.  The math is very hard, and the usual infinite series converge very slowly (bitch to calculate, you need a supercomputer).

In the later part of the second film, perturbation theory is mentioned.  Why leave out gravity .. because it messes up perturbation theory, and nobody has actually solved that problem, not Feynman, not Hawking, nobody.

Hawking was one of several people in the 1970s, who worked on the thermodynamics of black holes, and a hack was developed, not an actual theory.  And since we don't have any nearby black holes to study (thank G-d) ... it is rather hard to experimentally backup this hack.  It may be right, at least as a first approximation, but we don't know.  That is why Feynman got a Nobel, but Hawking didn't.  But at least Hawking was a real person, unlike Dr Who.

Here is the macroscopic GRT ... done by the same folks as the last film

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login part 4 of 4

The practical effect of this is GPS that you use in your car or phone.  GRT is necessary to make this accurate, because time is modified by the gravitational field, and exact timing is necessary for accurate location finding.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2018, 10:23:55 AM by Baruch »
𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎌𐎀𐎍𐎎𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀𐎟𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎁𐎀𐎍𐎉𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #101 on: September 02, 2018, 03:50:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...
Then you are in conflict with SR, and every experiment that has done so far that confirms it, and there are many.
.HR, I always find references to experiments done that proves SR.
But I never find any criticism or scrutiny on what was tested.
However, once I started questioning just one claim, (The claim that an observer inside a space ship will see his flashing light touch the Back and front of the space ship at the same time, travelling from the center), I realized that this is an assumption, and not fact.

I knew that even though we are travelling through space, the one thing that will be observed as a point in space, will be a flash of light.
You, or the whole universe, can travel at whatever speed, the exact point where light was flashed, will be its source of measurement for it's velocity.

Therefore, you can travel in a space ship, at half the speed of light, you will not measure light at c, but at 0.5c.
what will be observed is that the space ship traveled with the light from the lights origin, and light will measure c only from that point.

Now, to come up with non falsification tests on experiments such as "we tested it by atomic clocks on flights around the world, is simply a parrot speech with zero credibility.

I will give you a small bit of facts I already studied and collected.

Look at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Please note on the sloppy scientific work, and the assumptions made by SR scientists.

Luckily there are scientists who do scrutinize claims made by ones that want to become famous in being the first to prove SR true.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #102 on: September 02, 2018, 04:03:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
QM and RT don't make sense in classical physics terms, let alone in Biblical terms ...

Mouse, watch this .. you can't really do RT without QM ... but we can leave out gravity/acceleration for now ...

...

The practical effect of this is GPS that you use in your car or phone.  GRT is necessary to make this accurate, because time is modified by the gravitational field, and exact timing is necessary for accurate location finding.

Well, I also tried to find any falsification testing on that claim (GPS).
I just could not found any.
However, there are very highly educated scientists who prove that making such claims that without SR and GR, our GPS would not work, are pure nonsense.
[qrl=https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619]Gatot Soedarto, why GPS does not prove GR and SR[/url]
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 04:05:20 AM by Mousetrap »
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #103 on: September 02, 2018, 05:00:34 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, Hahurei Reimu.
It seems as if the 2 evidences for SR and GR, actually proves SR and GR is one big error!

Planes flying around the world with Cesium clocks, as well as Global positioning systems does not prove Relativity at all.
On the contrary, when there are scientists who would like to get the calculations correct, they realized....
Einstein was wrong, and he fed us BS!!!
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #104 on: September 02, 2018, 08:45:08 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, I also tried to find any falsification testing on that claim (GPS).
I just could not found any.
However, there are very highly educated scientists who prove that making such claims that without SR and GR, our GPS would not work, are pure nonsense.
[qrl=https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619]Gatot Soedarto, why GPS does not prove GR and SR[/url]

The usual educational descriptions of STR (standard relativity theory) are hoary pedantry ... of cable cars of Berne Switzerland, moving at near light speed past the coffee shop where Einstein took his breaks while a patent clerk ... Einstein's original thought experiment (or even earlier, moving at light speed, on a bicycle in N Italy before he started college).

But really, one should today start with actual experimental results ... which is basically just one item ... the decay rate of unstable particles such as muons varies as the Lorentz transformation equation for time indicates.  The other consequences are not experimentally observed, because moving rulers at near light speed has never been attempted ;-)

The other results are the logical consequence ... but rationality isn't real, just virtue signaling by autistic males ;-)

For QM, the first simple QT comes from just trying to figure out an incandescent light bulb (Planck) not even the photoelectric effect.  A regular light bulb doesn't behave according to Newton or Maxwell.  Almost everyone has experience with that quantum mechanics (but not experience with accelerated muon particles).

And many people have experience with GPS ... though don't appreciate how "parts per billion" accuracy is required to get sub-kilometer accuracy.  Not only satellites are required, but also atomic clocks.  One part in 40 million or 250 parts per billion to get 1 meter accuracy.

Advice ... don't listen to hacks and quacks.  And yes, the actual story of how these ideas developed, is "saving of appearances" and opponents of early 20th century physics had the same objection as the quacks you listen to.  But only lay people bother to listen to them.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 11:26:27 AM by Baruch »
𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎌𐎀𐎍𐎎𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀𐎟𐎍𐎜𐎜𐎟𐎁𐎀𐎍𐎉𐎀𐎀𐎚𐎀
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk