about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[Lighthouse]

You didn't simplify it. You were simply wrong.

Is it focused light?

Where are you going with this? The magnetic radiation can be focused using a convex lens. How does this have anything to do with the topic?

Not what I asked. What does it do?

Technically not. But in your case, I don't think you are either formally or informally educated in relativity, or even science beyond a highschool level (which is virtually nothing). I think you're basing your objections on misunderstandings, and this makes you incredulous to the explainations given.

You do realize that my objections have only been to two things, right? And one of them was justified by someone other than you who said that light photons do have mass, just not any amount that can be measured effectively.

You mean people who understand more about the subject under discussion than you?

Nope.

I have had people who knew more about a subject explain the subject to me, and tell me that I am extremely intelligent because I understood it.

It is only people who have not explained a subject that have accused me of being unintelligent. Including people who have directed me to someone else's explanation.

And the only teachers who ever regarded me as not smart enough were the ones who were regarded by the majority of the student body who had ever been under them as extremely poor teachers, who were incapable of teaching the simplest basics of their subjects, let alone any other subject.

And that has actually only happened to me three times.

Why be repetative? Johnny is doing an excellent job (he knows more about it than I do anyway) and you won't even read his responses. I call that being intellectually dishonest.

I am reading his posts. But if I weren't then it wouldn't be repetitive, would it?

RE: Clete's posts.

Clete is merely rehashing, in short form, the objections from Bob Enyart. And these objections have been refuted.

Not with any proof.

I've already explained to you how time is relative. So has Johnny. And we've both posted video's on it with superb graphical illustrations. Your response so far has been nothing more than "Pffffft. That's impossible. My common sense says so."

You have yet to prove it.

In fact, using the argument of someone at sea level and someone on a mountain I even asked a question. And no one answered it.

What more do you want?!

See above.

Foolish?! Field leading physists haven't been able to falsify relativity, but you can just because it doesn't make sense to you?! Do you realise how incredibly arrogant you are being?

So the relativity of time is unfalsifiable?:think:

The real problem is that they haven't verified it. You believe it because they haven't falsified it, and I don't believe it because they haven't verified it. So what's your problem?

Also, something I have learned in my life, the smarter someone is the more likely they are to think they know it all. To think their ideas are fact. To be too smart for their own good. Out of a sense of superiority, i.e. arrogance. And to then not think through the logic of their ideas. But, rather, use circular reasoning to support them.

And because they are so esteemed for being so smart the world simply assumes they must be right, so if anything seems to verify their theories they accept it, without questioning any other possible explanations.

 

[eveningsky339]

Lighthouse, you are trying to disprove relativity for one reason: you believe God is not outside of time. This is an absurd statement in light of relativity.

Approaching science with preconceived notions about how everything already works is not science at all, and therefore your arguments have little merit. I believe in relativity because the evidence obviously points in that direction. Red shift, supernovae/black hole formation, GPS systems, gravity-gradient torque and non-spherical gravity sources (which is why the space shuttle docks tail-down), and much more all point to the correctness of Einstein's theory.

Where is your evidence?

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse, you are trying to disprove relativity for one reason: you believe God is not outside of time. This is an absurd statement in light of relativity.

:rotfl:

Approaching science with preconceived notions about how everything already works is not science at all, and therefore your arguments have little merit. I believe in relativity because the evidence obviously points in that direction. Red shift, supernovae/black hole formation, GPS systems, gravity-gradient torque and non-spherical gravity sources (which is why the space shuttle docks tail-down), and much more all point to the correctness of Einstein's theory.

I never said Einstein's theory was completely wrong. Only that time is not relative. I actually see no error in logic, reason, or anything else with the rest of the theory. At least what I know of it.

Where is your evidence?

Same place as the proof that time is relative?

My evidence is that there is no proof. Time travel is impossible, for one. So that can't be verified. Also, I know that if I call someone in Denver, Colorado from Anderson, Indiana, that our conversation takes the same amount of time for both of us. And the same would be true if I called someone in a shuttle orbiting the Earth.

I also know how highly illogical it is that every nanosecond that happens has already happened, and continues to happen, and will continue to happen, over and over again.

 

[pozzolane]

RE: Refutation to Bob's objections regarding relativity of time.

Not with any proof.

Incorrect. And BTW, I hate that you keep using the word "proof" or "prove" here. I have corrected you regarding the lax use of this term on this thread earlier. More than a few experiments have been pointed out to you suggesting the validity of relative time. You on the other hand have not offered a single credible source that would validate any of your objections.

You have yet to prove it.

If an explanation (or hypothesis) withstands the scrutiny of many repetitious tests, then they can advance to the scientific level of explanation entitled theory. But even this does not mean they are "proved". They are still capable of being falsified should we uncover more evidence in the future.

In fact, using the argument of someone at sea level and someone on a mountain I even asked a question. And no one answered it.

What question was that? Ask again, please.

So the relativity of time is unfalsifiable?:think:

No. It is very much falsifiable. Any scientific explanation must be falsifiable.

The real problem is that they haven't verified it. You believe it because they haven't falsified it, and I don't believe it because they haven't verified it. So what's your problem?

What's yours? The process of falsification IS verification. This is the only method as to which one can potentially validate an explanation. If the hypothesis survives enough scrutiny by falsification, then it can be called a theory. It has explanitory and predictive power. It is verified.

Also, something I have learned in my life, the smarter someone is the more likely they are to think they know it all.

That's funny because I have come to learn the exact opposite. A smart man is one who is fully aware of the extent of their ignorance. It is only the most insecure who claim to know it all. And guess what, you are in that category. It is you (and Clete and Stripe) who are sitting in your arm chairs telling me that your common sense is superior to a physicists reasoning and experiment.

And because they are so esteemed for being so smart the world simply assumes they must be right, so if anything seems to verify their theories they accept it, without questioning any other possible explanations.

You have an extremely narrow, biased, and insecure view of the scientific community. Nobody is more harsh or critical to a scientists hyptheses, than his peers.

 

[pozzolane]

I never said Einstein's theory was completely wrong. Only that time is not relative. I actually see no error in logic, reason, or anything else with the rest of the theory. At least what I know of it.

If time is not relative, than Einstein was/is wrong. It's a package deal, Lighthouse.

 

[Stripe]

You have said over and over that relativity is a basically a set of mathematical models, nothing more. You are half right. You neglect to mention that these mathematical models are applied in every day life.

All mathematics is only a mathematical model, nothing more. Our ability to use mathematics does not make the equations we use into a physical part of the universe.

And you never explained the Newtonian stance on the formation/nature of black holes. Only relativity has been able to offer a clear and logical explanation for their existence.

Newton's models need to be corrected to account for environments of high gravity.

Oh, and the space shuttle still docks with its tail to the earth.

You keep saying that. I'm not sure why.

 

[Memento Mori]

I never said Einstein's theory was completely wrong. Only that time is not relative. I actually see no error in logic, reason, or anything else with the rest of the theory. At least what I know of it.

Are you willing to accept that distance is not absolute but contracts when approaching the speed of light?

 

[Stripe]

Are you willing to accept that distance is not absolute but contracts when approaching the speed of light?

What a ridiculous suggestion.

Why would people accept such a weird notion?

 

[Memento Mori]

What a ridiculous suggestion.

Why would people accept such a weird notion?

That's part of Special Relativity. Neither space nor time are absolute but relative to the observer.

L = Lo ( sqrt[1 - v^2/c^2])

There's the equation for length contraction if you're interested. For instance, a 1 meter board will appear to be .1m if it's moving toward or away from you at 99% the speed of light.

 

[Stripe]

That's part of Special Relativity. Neither space nor time are absolute but relative to the observer.

Why not just make the mathematical correction and leave reality alone?

There's the equation for length contraction if you're interested. For instance, a 1 meter board will appear to be .1m if it's moving toward or away from you at 99% the speed of light.

That's because of the contraction of the light waves. We don't suggest that distance is relative when we measure sound waves at a higher frequency from an approaching aircraft.

 

[Memento Mori]

Why not just make the mathematical correction and leave reality alone?

This is reality. It is what is observed and the mathematics is correct. Otherwise we'd be stuck in the Newtonian age of mathematics (and I don't think I could stand that many proofs by geometry :dizzy

That's because of the contraction of the light waves. We don't suggest that distance is relative when we measure sound waves at a higher frequency from an approaching aircraft.

You mean red shift and the Doppler effect? It is relative except we're all on the same plane of velocity. So, all the effects appear the same and it's unnecessary to bring in relativity. But if you traveled closer to the speed of light, those measurements would be a little different.

 

[Stripe]

This is reality. It is what is observed and the mathematics is correct.

We cannot observe time and space being altered.

Otherwise we'd be stuck in the Newtonian age of mathematics (and I don't think I could stand that many proofs by geometry :dizzy

There is no reason why we cannot do the maths with an alternative explanation.

You mean red shift and the Doppler effect? It is relative except we're all on the same plane of velocity. So, all the effects appear the same and it's unnecessary to bring in relativity. But if you traveled closer to the speed of light, those measurements would be a little different.

Yes, I mean the Doppler effect and red shift. That why the board would appear shorter. Why are you using relativity to explain this?

 

[Memento Mori]

We cannot observe time and space being altered.

We can observe the effects of a dilated time and a contracted length. Such as with this board, or a clock, or a person (their height and metabolism). (But first we need to get them closer to the speed of light....)

There is no reason why we cannot do the maths with an alternative explanation.

I'm sorry. I must have missed whatever your explanation was. What math and science are you using? And where can I find an example?

Yes, I mean the Doppler effect and red shift. That why the board would appear shorter. Why are you using relativity to explain this?

So, what if the time it took to travel a specific distance changed closer to the speed of light (less distance means less required time to travel). That's the observed effect. Plus red shift would just make the board appear a different color (and it only deals with waves, not physical lengths).

 

[Stripe]

We can observe the effects of a dilated time and a contracted length. Such as with this board, or a clock, or a person (their height and metabolism). (But first we need to get them closer to the speed of light....)

Or we could be observing the effects of something else. That's the thing with theories. You should not confuse them for facts. And relativity, to maybe not coin a phrase, is just a theory.

I'm sorry. I must have missed whatever your explanation was. What math and science are you using? And where can I find an example?

My explanation is that gravity affects the instruments with which we measure. Thus a mathematical correction needs to be applied. My examples will be exactly the same as yours.

So, what if the time it took to travel a specific distance changed closer to the speed of light (less distance means less required time to travel). That's the observed effect. Plus red shift would just make the board appear a different color (and it only deals with waves, not physical lengths).

Do sound waves from an approaching object travel over a different distance? Is that the explanation you are going to use to explain the difference in the sound?

 

[dan1el]

Why?

In the Tevatron, protons are accelerated with up to 120 gigaelectronvolts (GeV). If you solve the classical equation for kinetic energy for v, you get v=sqrt(2E/m). Putting 120 GeV and the mass of a proton into that equation gives you about 4.8*10^9 m/s, or 16 times the speed of light.

How else is something going to have energy?

What prevents a particle from having energy without having mass?

How else would you be able to condense something to the point in which it had enough energy to cut through something if it has no mass.

You have yet to establish that mass is indeed required for a particle to have energy.

:rotfl:

Even if relativity explains how magnets work, that isn't what I asked. Nor is the relativity, or non relativity for that matter, relevant to magnetism. It isn't necessary for time to be relative in order for magnets to work.


And?

What did you mean, then?

That was unnecessary. I never said, or assumed, otherwise. That never had anything to do with the question.

So you don't think gravity acts instantaneously over any distance?

This is only true if time is a dimension. As far as I am concerned space is all three of the dimensions in which we reside.

You need the three spatial dimensions and a time dimension to properly describe our universe. Try getting through the day without placing events in time as well as space.

However, that is not the issue. While things reside in space, space itself is nothing. If it were something then nothing could exist within it.

If space occupied itself, I agree we'd have a problem.

The energy is in the charge, which has mass. Not in the object which has the charge. However, any actual object has some amount of mass, even if it is immeasurable in its smallest state.

Charge doesn't have mass. Charge and mass are both properties of particles.

Why must everything have mass?

How so?

Do you think we can actually see everything? I can't see the air I breathe. I can't see gravity. I can't even see light. And I certainly can't see time.

However, I can certainly see the effects of each of these things, and even measurements of some. Though not all are tangible.

I didn't mean only things we can see with our eyes, but everything that can be observed objectively in some way. Newtonian physics agree quite nicely with observation at low speeds, but at high speeds the predictions of classical mechanics are plain wrong. Relativity, on the other hand, agrees nicely with observation at any speed.

However, Clete has done the exact opposite.

He just mixed relativity and classical mechanics together. The only thing that shows, is that he's clueless about the subject.

In fact, using the argument of someone at sea level and someone on a mountain I even asked a question. And no one answered it.

Was that the thing about your cell phone on the mountain?

My evidence is that there is no proof. Time travel is impossible, for one. So that can't be verified. Also, I know that if I call someone in Denver, Colorado from Anderson, Indiana, that our conversation takes the same amount of time for both of us. And the same would be true if I called someone in a shuttle orbiting the Earth.

The Rossi-Hall experiment is pretty strong evidence for time dilation or length contraction, depending on which frame you choose.

As for your phone example, it has already been explained. The difference is simply too small to notice without precision equipment.

How does one do it with relativity?

Calculate how much time is dilated and figure out how many halflives the muons would go through before reaching the base of the mountain. Qualitatively, less time would pass for the muons, resulting in fewer halflives on their way towards Earth.

Let's hear how you think the difference between the classical prediction and the actual observations can possibly be blamed on the instruments being affected by gravity.

My explanation is that gravity affects the instruments with which we measure. Thus a mathematical correction needs to be applied. My examples will be exactly the same as yours.

That can't explain why we see the effects even when the measuring equipment is stationary and gravitational influence is negligible.

 

[Stripe]

Let's hear how you think the difference between the classical prediction and the actual observations can possibly be blamed on the instruments being affected by gravity.

I have no idea about how to measure muons. Can you outline the process?

That can't explain why we see the effects even when the measuring equipment is stationary and gravitational influence is negligible.

:squint: If the equipment is not being affected by gravity or velocity then it will not show much departure from classical models. If you're able to measure departure from classical models then you need to be in a higher gravitational or velocity environment. Can you explain to us how you are able to measure something without putting the measuring devices into the same environment?

 

[Lighthouse]

Incorrect. And BTW, I hate that you keep using the word "proof" or "prove" here. I have corrected you regarding the lax use of this term on this thread earlier. More than a few experiments have been pointed out to you suggesting the validity of relative time. You on the other hand have not offered a single credible source that would validate any of your objections.

Evidence does not equal proof, especially when there is reasonable doubt. That's the way it is. Get over it.

And the actuality here is that I object because no one has given me any reason to believe beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't need to offer any source, credible or otherwise, to validate that.

If an explanation (or hypothesis) withstands the scrutiny of many repetitious tests, then they can advance to the scientific level of explanation entitled theory. But even this does not mean they are "proved". They are still capable of being falsified should we uncover more evidence in the future.

Thank you.

What question was that? Ask again, please.

Well, I'll have to adjust it, since it involved something specific to that night.

If I go to work and call one of my friends in CO, while they're camping in the mountains, and I'm in IN, and I clock in at the exact moment they pick up the phone and we talk the whole time I'm at work, and I clock out eight hours later, exactly, how much time has passed for them?

No. It is very much falsifiable. Any scientific explanation must be falsifiable.

It isn't falsifiable until we can travel through time, is it?

If there's another way, I'd like to hear it.

What's yours? The process of falsification IS verification. This is the only method as to which one can potentially validate an explanation. If the hypothesis survives enough scrutiny by falsification, then it can be called a theory. It has explanitory and predictive power. It is verified.

If it can still be shown to be false at some point in the future, if it is agreed upon that such is possible, then it is not verified.

That's funny because I have come to learn the exact opposite. A smart man is one who is fully aware of the extent of their ignorance. It is only the most insecure who claim to know it all. And guess what, you are in that category. It is you (and Clete and Stripe) who are sitting in your arm chairs telling me that your common sense is superior to a physicists reasoning and experiment.

I got better grades in math in school than Einstein did.

But the bottom line is that some people are too smart for their own good.

You have an extremely narrow, biased, and insecure view of the scientific community. Nobody is more harsh or critical to a scientists hyptheses, than his peers.

Really? I'm not more critical?

P.S.
I don't think all scientists are like that.

If time is not relative, than Einstein was/is wrong. It's a package deal, Lighthouse.

FAIL.

Are you willing to accept that distance is not absolute but contracts when approaching the speed of light?

Nope.

Because that isn't what the theory actually says, is it? The time it takes to reach the distance varies, that is all.

The only way it can be said that the distance varies is if time actually dilates.

In the Tevatron, protons are accelerated with up to 120 gigaelectronvolts (GeV). If you solve the classical equation for kinetic energy for v, you get v=sqrt(2E/m). Putting 120 GeV and the mass of a proton into that equation gives you about 4.8*10^9 m/s, or 16 times the speed of light.

But they can't do that, can they?

What prevents a particle from having energy without having mass?

I don't know. Einstein said it.

You have yet to establish that mass is indeed required for a particle to have energy.

E-MC²

What did you mean, then?

I asked how a magnet works. That is all I asked.

So you don't think gravity acts instantaneously over any distance?

I didn't say that either.

You need the three spatial dimensions and a time dimension to properly describe our universe. Try getting through the day without placing events in time as well as space.

It is necessary to use it to describe events, yes. Not the issue. Referring to time as a dimension is only necessary as a "for the sake of the argument" type deal.

If space occupied itself, I agree we'd have a problem.

Anything else?

Charge doesn't have mass. Charge and mass are both properties of particles.

:blabla:

Why must everything have mass?

When did I say that?

I didn't mean only things we can see with our eyes, but everything that can be observed objectively in some way. Newtonian physics agree quite nicely with observation at low speeds, but at high speeds the predictions of classical mechanics are plain wrong. Relativity, on the other hand, agrees nicely with observation at any speed.

[sarcasm]Things act differently when they speed up? You're kidding![/sarcasm]

He just mixed relativity and classical mechanics together. The only thing that shows, is that he's clueless about the subject.

:kookoo::kook:

Was that the thing about your cell phone on the mountain?

Nope.

The Rossi-Hall experiment is pretty strong evidence for time dilation or length contraction, depending on which frame you choose.

As for your phone example, it has already been explained. The difference is simply too small to notice without precision equipment.

:blabla:

I have no idea about how to measure muons.

Well, you take pozzolane, dan1el and Memento Mori and have them stand at full attention. Then you take a tape measure. Oh, you said "muons." Never mind.

 

[pozzolane]

:nono:

Just when I thought there was a spark of hope for you Lighthouse...You aren't even worthy of ridicule in the hopes that it inclines you to correct yourself. You are simply a bigoted and arrogant fool.

Evidence does not equal proof, especially when there is reasonable doubt. That's the way it is. Get over it.

But of course evidence does lend ideas as credit worthy. Only a fool such as you will choose to ignore evidence.

And the actuality here is that I object because no one has given me any reason to believe beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't need to offer any source, credible or otherwise, to validate that.

No, you object because you are an arrogant fool who ignores evidence for personal reasons, but claims higher intellectual authority.

If I go to work and call one of my friends in CO, while they're camping in the mountains, and I'm in IN, and I clock in at the exact moment they pick up the phone and we talk the whole time I'm at work, and I clock out eight hours later, exactly, how much time has passed for them?

Your objection is hardly worthy of a laugh. It is to be pitied since it's been answered and you still won't accept that your objection is so weak. However, I too will give you an answer. The difference wouldn't be enough to measure with cell phones. But you could measure it assuming you did have an accurate enough device. The difference would only be trillionths of a second, or less.

It isn't falsifiable until we can travel through time, is it?

You arrogant miserable fool. It could have been falsified many times by now with previously run experiments. I will not waste my time listing them because they have been listed already in this thread. Taking a page from your book, I will not waste pearls on swine.

If it can still be shown to be false at some point in the future, if it is agreed upon that such is possible, then it is not verified.

You lazy half wit fool. Just because something doesn't explain it all, doesn't mean it is all wrong.

I got better grades in math in school than Einstein did.

And your point? Other than to stroke your own wretched fool-hearted ego? If Einstein stood on the shoulders of giants, you are a hapless worm in the mud at their feet.

Really? I'm not more critical?

No, because you have nothing to critique with. Your objections are foolish and pitiable.

 

[chair]

...

I got better grades in math in school than Einstein did.

... Oh, you said "muons." Never mind.

Folks, it isn't worth the bother. Waste of ink, or pixels, or whatever.

 

[Memento Mori]

Because that isn't what the theory actually says, is it? The time it takes to reach the distance varies, that is all.

The only way it can be said that the distance varies is if time actually dilates.

I'm sorry but you're mistaken. The theory says that lengths are not absolute but contract as you approach the speed of light. Wiki. Lengths do change with velocity. The greater the velocity, the shorter the distance.