Jump to content
Science Forums

Xyz's Request That Sluggo Listen To Him


Recommended Posts

xyz;

 

I don’t understand your question about distance, since it’s explained in the text. I listened to your argument. It seems you assume the twins travel in time similar to traveling in space, and their rate of motion is determined by their clock rates. This is somewhat backward, since the light clock example shows the clock rates are determined by their speed in space.

Consider the basic expression x=vt. This can be rearranged as t=x/v. Notice if x is constant, t decreases as v increases. Why should "a clock runs slower the faster It  moves"  be less acceptable than that basic expression

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A clock provides a beat or rhythm to record events. 1. The light clock contains the essential features of a precision timekeeping device in a very simple form. A single photon (packet of em energy)

Xyz, you are misusing the term “troll”. An internet troll is someone who purposefully tries to upset and argue with people in internet forums, such as by insulting people or making outrageous claims. 

I'm reporting you. It is monstrous to accuse billvon of all people of being a troll. I've had the pleasure of reading his solid and polite scientific contributions, for several years, on three differe

Posted Images

You are thinking about this wrongly.

They Do meet up because the space-faring twin does time travel, but it is into the future, not the past!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H3ksmxwpWc&feature=youtu.be

None of you seem to understand the difference in reality and imagination.    

 

Your thinking is wrong , believe me. 

 

 

Of course they meet up because the returning twin comes back. I think you miss the ''picture'' completely.  

 

Time travel is  not possible. 

 

 

Let me take this really really slow, I do not mean to sound rude but most of you seem to be slow on the uptake. 

 

 

 

 

Let me start with a short distance and an easy question to see what level your education is. 

 

 

You travel to the shop which is exactly 1 mile along the road from your house. You walk at a constant 2 mph all the way and back again, not entering the shop realising you left your money at home. Your wife awaits your return, can you please answer -

 

how long does your wife await for you? 

 

how long are you away from your wife?

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

xyz;

 

I don’t understand your question about distance, since it’s explained in the text. I listened to your argument. It seems you assume the twins travel in time similar to traveling in space, and their rate of motion is determined by their clock rates. This is somewhat backward, since the light clock example shows the clock rates are determined by their speed in space.

Consider the basic expression x=vt. This can be rearranged as t=x/v. Notice if x is constant, t decreases as v increases. Why should "a clock runs slower the faster It  moves"  be less acceptable than that basic expression

Huh?  you are reading with ambiguity. 

 

 

You emit a Photon from (A) emitter  to  ( :cool:  detector , the photon takes 1 second to arrive at detector.   Relative to the Photons speed, the Photon has relatively travelled 1 second of space-time.   

 

 

 

In a second experiment you do not emit a Photon from (A) to ( :cool: , however the distance, i.e space time, remains there with no photon travelling through  it , i.e darkness

 

 

Time exists with no light. 

 

 

In xyzt     there is no light mentioned

 

 

Do any of you actually interpret the single interwoven manifold correctly?

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I had better correct your misinterpretation of time travel also.  

 

 

Try this,  

 

walk down the road looking ahead, you see your future position ahead of you because of the clear line of sight. turn around and look at your where you come from, you see your past position, however make a return journey, you are again looking at your future position , a past position you came from. 

 

 

 

The present travels with you always. The present remains in your past position and the present remains in your future position. 

 

 

present_________________________you_______________________________present      CORRECT

 

 

Past___________________________you_______________________________future        INCORRECT

 

YOU___me

you____________me

you____________________me

you___________________________me

 

you_______________________________________me

You_______________________________________________________________me       BOTH IN PRESENT

 

 

I start in your present , walk away from you, I am always still in your present, you do not see me in my past. 

 

 

added - you might see it this way better

 

 

 

you(present)Me(present)

 

 

you(present)_______________Me(present)

 

 

 

you(present)________________________________________Me(present)

 

 

 

d/t(A) = d/t(B @ v(x)

 

Travel from the earth to the sun, the sun is your future position, the earth is your past position.  But neither are in the past, they remain in the present always, past and future is relative to position and which way you look. No more no less. 

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

None of you seem to understand the difference in reality and imagination.    

 

Your thinking is wrong , believe me.

 

 

In your imagination, if two people are in two different frames, then they "disappear" and become invisible to each other.

 

In reality, this happens all the time.  388 have been to the ISS, and all have experienced some slight time dilation.  They have returned slightly younger than they would have otherwise.  None have disappeared.

 

This is the difference between reality and imagination.

Edited by billvon
Link to post
Share on other sites

None of you seem to understand the difference in reality and imagination.    

 

Your thinking is wrong , believe me.

:) You obviously don't even understand the basics so how can you realistically expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

You travel to the shop which is exactly 1 mile along the road from your house. You walk at a constant 2 mph all the way and back again, not entering the shop realising you left your money at home. Your wife awaits your return, can you please answer -

 

how long does your wife await for you? 

 

how long are you away from your wife?

How long does your wife wait for you? Exactly one hour (assuming instant acceleration).

How long are you away from your wife? Very slightly less than one hour because of the distance between the two points being slightly less than one mile and the time it takes to travel that distance being slightly reduced compared to original frame of reference.

 

Time dilation and length contraction keep the speed of light constant so using examples where the velocity is that low aren't appropriate to demonstrate time dilation and length contraction. If you can't even understand that then you have no business telling others that they're the ones who don't get it!

 

Huh?  you are reading with ambiguity. 

 

 

You emit a Photon from (A) emitter  to  ( :cool:  detector , the photon takes 1 second to arrive at detector.   Relative to the Photons speed, the Photon has relatively travelled 1 second of space-time.   

 

 

 

In a second experiment you do not emit a Photon from (A) to ( :cool: , however the distance, i.e space time, remains there with no photon travelling through  it , i.e darkness

 

 

Time exists with no light. 

 

 

In xyzt     there is no light mentioned

 

 

Do any of you actually interpret the single interwoven manifold correctly?

The speed of light is constant regardless of whether or not photons are emitted.

 

I suppose I had better correct your misinterpretation of time travel also.  

 

 

Try this,  

 

walk down the road looking ahead, you see your future position ahead of you because of the clear line of sight. turn around and look at your where you come from, you see your past position, however make a return journey, you are again looking at your future position , a past position you came from. 

 

 

 

The present travels with you always. The present remains in your past position and the present remains in your future position. 

 

 

present_________________________you_______________________________present      CORRECT

 

 

Past___________________________you_______________________________future        INCORRECT

 

YOU___me

you____________me

you____________________me

you___________________________me

 

you_______________________________________me

You_______________________________________________________________me       BOTH IN PRESENT

 

 

I start in your present , walk away from you, I am always still in your present, you do not see me in my past. 

 

 

added - you might see it this way better

 

 

 

you(present)Me(present)

 

 

you(present)_______________Me(present)

 

 

 

you(present)________________________________________Me(present)

 

 

 

d/t(A) = d/t(B @ v(x)

 

Travel from the earth to the sun, the sun is your future position, the earth is your past position.  But neither are in the past, they remain in the present always, past and future is relative to position and which way you look. No more no less. 

Meaningless bollocks! If you're looking at something then you're seeing it as it was in your past because light takes time to move through space.

 

You're completely ignoring the consistency of the speed of light. This is from A's perspective:

 

0.5c

B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                        1c

 

The light passes B at 0.5 in A's frame of reference because in that frame it's moving at c relative to A and B is moving away from A at 0.5c. Without time dilation and length contraction B would have to agree that the light is passing them at 0.5c but that's not what happens, it passes them at c because the speed of light is constant, it moves at c relative to every inertial observer from their own perspective. If the light is moving past B at c in B's frame of reference but moving past B at 0.5c from A's frame of reference then B is time dilated and length contracted from A's frame of reference so that the speed of light is reduced to 0.5c relative to B in A's reference frame.

 

There's no way that the speed of light can be constant without time dilation and length contraction!

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites

In your imagination, if two people are in two different frames, then they "disappear" and become invisible to each other.

 

In reality, this happens all the time.  388 have been to the ISS, and all have experienced some slight time dilation.  They have returned slightly younger than they would have otherwise.  None have disappeared.

 

This is the difference between reality and imagination.

huh?  I have not mentioned invisible or disappearing twins. 

 

 

You are completely ignoring objective reasoning and not thinking about what I have said at all. 

 

 

pffff wasted breathe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The underlying issue with xyz is not comprehension but rejection

If you mean rejection in the sense that I reject bogus information then indeed yes.  I reject anything that is subjective without foundation. 

 

 

If you mean it in some sort of weird way, then not at all. 

 

I couldn't care less if anyone listens but I am not ignorant so will reply to posts from members. 

 

But it is ignorant and arrogant of most to not ''listen'' and only hear their subjective education.

 

People replying are not thinking.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) You obviously don't even understand the basics so how can you realistically expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

How long does your wife wait for you? Exactly one hour (assuming instant acceleration).

How long are you away from your wife? Very slightly less than one hour because of the distance between the two points being slightly less than one mile and the time it takes to travel that distance being slightly reduced compared to original frame of reference.

 

Time dilation and length contraction keep the speed of light constant so using examples where the velocity is that low aren't appropriate to demonstrate time dilation and length contraction. If you can't even understand that then you have no business telling others that they're the ones who don't get it!

 

The speed of light is constant regardless of whether or not photons are emitted.

 

Meaningless bollocks! If you're looking at something then you're seeing it as it was in your past because light takes time to move through space.

 

You're completely ignoring the consistency of the speed of light. This is from A's perspective:

 

0.5c

B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                        1c

 

The light passes B at 0.5 in A's frame of reference because in that frame it's moving at c relative to A and B is moving away from A at 0.5c. Without time dilation and length contraction B would have to agree that the light is passing them at 0.5c but that's not what happens, it passes them at c because the speed of light is constant, it moves at c relative to every inertial observer from their own perspective. If the light is moving past B at c in B's frame of reference but moving past B at 0.5c from A's frame of reference then B is time dilated and length contracted from A's frame of reference so that the speed of light is reduced to 0.5c relative to B in A's reference frame.

 

There's no way that the speed of light can be constant without time dilation and length contraction!

You assume a lot Awal , not once though do you reply with thinking about what I have said. 

 

Meaningless ''bollox'' is not remotely a discussion. 

 

 

But out of everyone on here, I deem you should be clever enough to understand. 

 

 

 

So please no more this that and the other, think Awal. 

 

 

 

Forget relativity for one minute if you can !

 

 

 

You put 

 

''How long are you away from your wife? Very slightly less than one hour because of the distance between the two points being slightly less than one mile and the time it takes to travel that distance being slightly reduced compared to original frame of reference.''

 

 

 

Right Awal, pretend you do know about relativity if you can . 

 

 

Your wife waits for you for one hour, you are away for one hour.    

 

 

So what of that statement do you disagree with?

 

 

 

The wife and husband are equally away from each other, which part do you not get?

 

 

The husband can not be away for less than hour, he does not return in the past. 

 

 

wife time line = 0________________________________1hr

 

 

husb time line =0________________________________1hr

 

 

the space time the wife and husband are away from each other has to be equally proportionate. 

 

 

Look, imaginary time dilation, the husbands clock runs slower, the husband experiences slower time than the wife

 

wife time line = 0________________________________1hr

 

 

 

husb time line =0____________________________________________________________1hr

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

huh?  I have not mentioned invisible or disappearing twins. 

 

XYZ: "  If there was a contraction of time, the twins could never meet up."

 

There is, in fact, a contraction of time. The twins do, in fact, meet up. 

So again there is the difference between imagination and reality.  You have an idea in your imagination.  In reality, two twins did this exact experiment, albeit at a lower speed.  One twin did in fact experience a contraction of time; this was easily measured.  They did in fact meet up again. 

 

What do you choose?  Imagination or reality?

Link to post
Share on other sites

XYZ: "  If there was a contraction of time, the twins could never meet up."

 

There is, in fact, a contraction of time. The twins do, in fact, meet up. 

So again there is the difference between imagination and reality.  You have an idea in your imagination.  In reality, two twins did this exact experiment, albeit at a lower speed.  One twin did in fact experience a contraction of time; this was easily measured.  They did in fact meet up again. 

 

What do you choose?  Imagination or reality?

Time dilation is a contraction of frequency/wavelength. light is not time, why do you keep insisting that the Caesium rate is time?

Why do you think that the slowing down of a frequency means time slows down? 

 

The frequency of time is adjoined is it not, a constant with no spacing?

 

i.e _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

added- may i remind you that the caesium and its rate exist in space- time. Are you neglecting Minkowski and Einsteins space-time the interwoven continuum?

 

 

I do not believe that XYZ and the Caesium atom is the four dimensions. 

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume a lot Awal , not once though do you reply with thinking about what I have said.

What you have said is very easily shown to be wrong.

 

Meaningless ''bollox'' is not remotely a discussion.

You were ignoring the fact that light moves at a finite speed, therefore, meaningless bollocks.

 

But out of everyone on here, I deem you should be clever enough to understand.

Super.

 

So please no more this that and the other, think Awal.

 

Forget relativity for one minute if you can !

 

 

You put

 

''How long are you away from your wife? Very slightly less than one hour because of the distance between the two points being slightly less than one mile and the time it takes to travel that distance being slightly reduced compared to original frame of reference.''

 

 

 

Right Awal, pretend you do know about relativity if you can . 

 

 

Your wife waits for you for one hour, you are away for one hour.    

 

 

So what of that statement do you disagree with?

I take it you mean pretend you don't know relativity. So you want me to ignore what has been demonstrated as factual and pretend we live in universe that uses your rules of physics? Why?

 

From you wife's perspective you are away for one hour if you ignore the acceleration time.

 

The wife and husband are equally away from each other, which part do you not get?

The part where two inertial observers that are in motion relative to each other measure the same lengths in time and space given that the speed of light is the same fir both of them. That doesn't work. The husband has to be away for less time than he's away from his wife's perspective.

 

The husband can not be away for less than hour, he does not return in the past.

You've been told over and over that there's no traveling into the past. What on Earth gives you that impression? It's just that the husband was moving into the future at a slightly slower rate than his wife if you want to look at it like that.

 

wife time line = 0________________________________1hr

 

 

husb time line =0________________________________1hr

 

 

the space time the wife and husband are away from each other has to be equally proportionate. 

 

 

Look, imaginary time dilation, the husbands clock runs slower, the husband experiences slower time than the wife

 

wife time line = 0________________________________1hr

 

 

 

husb time line =0____________________________________________________________1hr

Wife elapsed time =        0__________________________________________________________________1hr

Husband elapsed time = 0_________________________________________________________________Slightly less than 1hr.

(Not to scale.) This version has the benefit of being consistent with the reality that we observe.

 

 

You're still completely ignoring this and it completely invalidates what you're claiming:

 

A's perspective:

 

0.5c

B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                         1c

 

Light moves past B at 0.5c in this frame but at 1c in B's frame so B is time dilated and length contracted in this frame. Switch to B's frame and the amount of time light takes to cover any distance is shortened and the distance it travels in any given amount of time is lengthened. The combination of the two brings light back to moving past B at 1c in B's frame.

 

 

 

That doesn't seem to work though in reverse.

B's perspective:

 

0.5c

B---------------------------------->A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

1c                                        1.5c

 

A is time dilated and length contracted from B's perspective so switching to A's frame increaces the speed that the light is moving past A to 3c in A's frame. It only seems to work if light is moving in the same direction as the object that's in motion relative to the observer, like this:

 

B's perspective:

 

0.5c

B---------------------------------->A

Light------------------------------------------------------------------------->

1c                                         0.5c

 

I've been trying to resolve this in my head for a while. Craig?

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have said is very easily shown to be wrong.

 

You were ignoring the fact that light moves at a finite speed, therefore, meaningless bollocks.

 

Super.

 

I take it you mean pretend you don't know relativity. So you want me to ignore what has been demonstrated as factual and pretend we live in universe that uses your rules of physics? Why?

 

From you wife's perspective you are away for one hour if you ignore the acceleration time.

 

The part where two inertial observers that are in motion relative to each other measure the same lengths in time and space given that the speed of light is the same fir both of them. That doesn't work. The husband has to be away for less time than he's away from his wife's perspective.

 

You've been told over and over that there's no traveling into the past. What on Earth gives you that impression? It's just that the husband was moving into the future at a slightly slower rate than his wife if you want to look at it like that.

 

Wife elapsed time =        0__________________________________________________________________1hr

Husband elapsed time = 0_________________________________________________________________Slightly less than 1hr.

(Not to scale.) This version has the benefit of being consistent with the reality that we observe.

 

 

You're still completely ignoring this and it completely invalidates what you're claiming:

 

A's perspective:

 

0.5c

B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                         1c

 

Light moves past B at 0.5c in this frame but at 1c in B's frame so B is time dilated and length contracted in this frame. Switch to B's frame and the amount of time light takes to cover any distance is shortened and the distance it travels in any given amount of time is lengthened. The combination of the two brings light back to moving past B at 1c in B's frame.

 

 

 

That doesn't seem to work though in reverse.

B's perspective:

 

0.5c

B---------------------------------->A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

1c                                        1.5c

 

A is time dilated and length contracted from B's perspective so switching to A's frame increaces the speed that the light is moving past A to 3c in A's frame. It only seems to work if light is moving in the same direction as the object that's in motion relative to the observer, like this:

 

B's perspective:

 

0.5c

B---------------------------------->A

Light------------------------------------------------------------------------->

1c                                         0.5c

 

I've been trying to resolve this in my head for a while. Craig?

Of course you completely ignore what I am saying as per normal. 

 

The only relevant answer I needed from you was - ''From you wife's perspective you are away for one hour ''

 

Very good awal we are getting somewhere in helping you understand simple time values. 

 

 

So how long away is the husband from the wife awal?

 

 

and why do you keep mentioning light and c when we are discussing time?

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you completely ignore what I am saying as per normal.

I haven't ignored what you've said. It's completely incompatible with a constant speed of light and therefore completely incompatible with the universe that we live in.

 

The only relevant answer I needed from you was - ''From you wife's perspective you are away for one hour ''

 

Very good awal we are getting somewhere in helping you understand simple time values.

 

So how long away is the husband from the wife awal?

An hour in the wife's frame of reference, slightly less than an hour in the husband's because they both measure the same speed of light despite their motion relative to each other so they have to each be time dilated and length contracted from the others frame of reference and the one that accelerates is the one that that was time dilated and length contracted in the frame that they both start and finish in so the husband is the one that experiences less proper time.

 

Another way of looking at it is that the husband follows a curved path through spacetime while the wife follows a straight path and all objects overall velocity through spacetime is always the speed of light so the increased distance from following the curved path is compensated for by the husband experience less proper time (the time that passes from the observer's own perspective) than the wife.

 

And you're still ignoring this and it still completely invalidates what you're claiming:

 

A's frame of reference:

 

0.5c

B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                         1c

 

Light moves past B at 0.5c in this frame but at 1c in B's frame, so B must be time dilated and length contracted in this frame.

 

Switch to B's frame and the amount of time light takes to cover any distance is shortened and the distance it travels in any given amount of time is lengthened. The combination of the two brings light back to moving past B at 1c in B's frame.

 

This is the only way that they can possibly both measure the light moving past themselves at the same speed! By ignoring this fact you're ignoring the reality of the consistency of the velocity of light. In other words ignoring proven facts that disprove your claims and therefore wasting everybody's time including your own.

 

and why do you keep mentioning light and c when we are discussing time?

Because the consistency of the speed of light is what shows that it's totally impossible for objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same values for lengths in time and space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't ignored what you've said. It's completely incompatible with a constant speed of light and therefore completely incompatible with the universe that we live in.

 

An hour in the wife's frame of reference, slightly less than an hour in the husband's because they both measure the same speed of light despite their motion relative to each other so they have to each be time dilated and length contracted from the others frame of reference and the one that accelerates is the one that that was time dilated and length contracted in the frame that they both start and finish in so the husband is the one that experiences less proper time.

 

Another way of looking at it is that the husband follows a curved path through spacetime while the wife follows a straight path and all objects overall velocity through spacetime is always the speed of light so the increased distance from following the curved path is compensated for by the husband experience less proper time (the time that passes from the observer's own perspective) than the wife.

 

And you're still ignoring this and it still completely invalidates what you're claiming:

 

A's frame of reference:

 

0.5c

B<----------------------------------A

<-------------------------------------------------------------------------Light

0.5c                                         1c

 

Light moves past B at 0.5c in this frame but at 1c in B's frame, so B must be time dilated and length contracted in this frame.

 

Switch to B's frame and the amount of time light takes to cover any distance is shortened and the distance it travels in any given amount of time is lengthened. The combination of the two brings light back to moving past B at 1c in B's frame.

 

This is the only way that they can possibly both measure the light moving past themselves at the same speed! By ignoring this fact you're ignoring the reality of the consistency of the velocity of light. In other words ignoring proven facts that disprove your claims and therefore wasting everybody's time including your own.

 

Because the consistency of the speed of light is what shows that it's totally impossible for objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same values for lengths in time and space.

You keeping repeating this rubbish that is nothing to do with time.  

 

I don't mean to sound rude Awal but do you have mental issues or English is not your native language?   Because I am talking about ''apples'' and you are talking about ''pairs''

 

 

''Because the consistency of the speed of light is what shows that it's totally impossible for objects that are in motion relative to each other to measure the same values for lengths in time and space.''

 

 

 

 

What on earth are you talking about?, I am talking about time. You reply with unrelated ''gibber''. 

 

 

This - 

 

''An hour in the wife's frame of reference, slightly less than an hour in the husband's because they both measure the same speed of light despite their motion relative to each other so they have to each be time dilated and length contracted from the others frame of reference and the one that accelerates is the one that that was time dilated and length contracted in the frame that they both start and finish in so the husband is the one that experiences less proper time.''

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huh ? I asked you a very basic and simple question and you fail to give an answer a 5 year old could give. 

 

 

You are without doubt a troll and only here to keep repeating the same gibber you have been repeating for years. 

 

 

BUt..but.....but...the speed of light is constant blah blah, I do not care if the speed of light is constant, the speed of light has NOTHING to do with time,  

 

 

But in saying that I will remain calm and try for one last time to get you to understand instead of being so naive .

 

I will take it really slow for you.  

 

 

Your answer only needs to be an answer related to the question asked or just dont bother. 

 

 

1. Do you know what equal means?   please explain in your own words

 

2. Define time ? 

 

3. How many seconds in 24 hours?

Link to post
Share on other sites

added post 

 

seem's how awal likes light so much I will ask you all the question by using Photons. 

 

A photon travels away from (A) to ( :cool: a mirror and reflects back again from ( :cool: to (A). 

 

 

The distance between (A) and ( :cool: is 299 792 458 m and the distance has no medium. 

 

 

How much time is the Photon and (A) apart?

 

My  fast track calculation says 

 

(A) is away from the Photon for 2.s

 

 

The Photon is away from (A) for 2.s

 

 

does anyone disagree?

 

Because the constant speed of light shows why there cant be a time dilation or a younger returning twin. 

Edited by xyz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...