Hi My Name Is Steve.

[A-wal]

''That fact that light moves slower through a medium is irrelevant. ''

 

Objectively incorrect, to state that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames is untrue , the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and not all inertia reference frames, different medium densities allow for different speed, if a distant planet had a ''thick'' atmosphere, the measurement in the inertia reference frame would be slower than that with a less dense atmosphere. So for 100% accuracy your statement would be incorrect.

Time dilation and length contraction are objective reality because of the consistency of the speed of light through space in all inertial frames of reference. The fact that light moves slower through a medium is irrelevant.

Listen!

 

'''Time dilation is not flawed''

 

You say that without objectively listening to any reason of why it is flawed. You must try to remember that theory does not mean 100% facts and there is always room for improvement or change.

You haven't given a single reason as to how it could be flawed. All you've done is state misconceptions as evidence of flaws in the theory instead of recognising them flaws in your understanding of the theory.

 

 

''You will never understand if you continue to think it's not your understanding that's wrong. The model is fine, your conceptions aren't. Get over it and realise that you're the one who needs understand or you'll keep going round in circles thinking you know better.''

 

Clearly you have no objective opinion and can only give comments by your subjective education. Please do not take offence by this.   I already understand the present version and models, it is your assumption I do not .

I do have many opinions that are very different from what taught as factual. I don't agree with general relativity as a very relevant example. I don't believe anything just because it's what I'm told by science, science that's deeply influenced by self-interest.

 

I have discoursed the information and from a subjective and objective perspective come to strong belief by my discourse  that the information has flaws. 

And there in lies the problem, you're unable to comprehend the information. The only flaws are your own failure to understand the subject matter and as long as you continue to persist in looking outwards rather than inwards for the flaws in understanding you will remain stuck.

[xyz]

Listen!

 

You haven't given a single reason as to how it could be flawed. All you've done is state misconceptions as evidence of flaws in the theory instead of recognising them flaws in your understanding of the theory.

 

 

I do have many opinions that are very different from what taught as factual. I don't agree with general relativity as a very relevant example. I don't believe anything just because it's what I'm told by science, science that's deeply influenced by self-interest.

 

And there in lies the problem, you're unable to comprehend the information. The only flaws are your own failure to understand the subject matter and as long as you continue to persist in looking outwards rather than inwards for the flaws in understanding you will remain stuck.

I am not stuck, your assumptions are quite astonishing. 

You have not even questioned the flaws pointed out and clearly you do not understand the difference between subjective and objective reality. 

[A-wal]

Of course I understand the difference. You haven't pointed out any flaws in the theory, only flaws in your understanding of the theory.

[xyz]

Of course I understand the difference. You haven't pointed out any flaws in the theory, only flaws in your understanding of the theory.

You have not understood the flaws, any explanation of time dilation that uses light beams is flawed by the very fact that we do not subjectively see light beams to begin with, we subjective ''see'' an whole and ''see'' all things simultaneously in this subjective whole. 

The strongest evidence is probably the Keating experiment, this evidence is flawed by the same very fact, we observe the experiment happening in the subjective whole. 

[A-wal]

You have not understood the flaws, any explanation of time dilation that uses light beams is flawed by the very fact that we do not subjectively see light beams to begin with, we subjective ''see'' an whole and ''see'' all things simultaneously in this subjective whole.

That makes no sense! Time dilation is the slowing down of clocks (time) in relative motion to an observer. Length contraction is the shortening of length in the direction of motion. Both together cause the moving object to cover less space in more time from the observer's frame of reference and allows them to measure the same speed of light as the observer.

 

The fact that speed of light is the same in all inertial frames proves that time dilation and length contraction (same thing, time/space) are a real effect.

 

You can keep on thinking that your misunderstandings are flaws in the theory but they're not. The flaws are in you!

[xyz]

That makes no sense! Time dilation is the slowing down of clocks (time) in relative motion to an observer. Length contraction is the shortening of length in the direction of motion. Both together cause the moving object to cover less space in more time from the observer's frame of reference and allows them to measure the same speed of light as the observer.

 

The fact that speed of light is the same in all inertial frames proves that time dilation and length contraction (same thing, time/space) are a real effect.

 

You can keep on thinking that your misunderstandings are flaws in the theory but they're not. The flaws are in you!

Can I ask do you even know what time is and the difference between something that is abstract and something that is an entity?

 

 

An abstract clock slowing down has no affect on time and time is not affecting the clock.   In the Caesium atom's case gravitational shift causes the frequency rate to change it has nothing to do with time,  Time dilation is just a name ''they'' call it, it just ironic that it is not related in any way to the entity of time. 

 

You clearly do not have an objective mind and do not understand. 

[A-wal]

Clocks are a measurement of time. Time dilation is an actual slowing of time, Doppler shift isn't. Time dilation is what you get after Doppler shift has been accounted for.

 

Time dilation is not just a "name they call it". Time dilation and length contraction are an actual change in length of time and space, That's how light (and the only way it could) has the same measured velocity in every inertial frame of reference.

 

You do not understand.

[xyz]

Clocks are a measurement of time. Time dilation is an actual slowing of time, Doppler shift isn't. Time dilation is what you get after Doppler shift has been accounted for.

 

Time dilation is not just a "name they call it". Time dilation and length contraction are an actual change in length of time and space, That's how light (and the only way it could) has the same measured velocity in every inertial frame of reference.

 

You do not understand.

Clocks are not a measurement of time, you are mistaken, clocks are for the purpose of synchronising our everyday activity.   Let me explain some history for you.   

Time is an abstract creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities,  time was originally derived by the rotation of the Earth relative to the motion of the Sun with the likes of sun dials to measure one rotation which we called a day. 

We then moved on to mechanical clocks, 1 second being 1 second and equal to 0.288 mile of the Earths rotation.  However the Earth did not have a stable rotation so eventually they came up with the Caesium clock, they counted how many cycles were equal to  second and defined that the new 1 second.  However it was still equal to its origin. 

The cycles were defined to 1 second at ground state, but the problem is when the clocks are in motion they are not very good clocks and inaccurate , one clock having a different rate than another clock. 

However this means nothing to the entity of time because it is abstract and abstract can not cause affect on reality. 

If you actually thought objective about this, you will see that I am correct in my objective thoughts about time dilation. 

Ask yourself this, what relationship does the entity of time have and the Caesium atom?  answer - an abstract one we have created

[pzkpfw]

No, clocks measure time. You're confusing the units with the measurement.

 

Say we want to measure distance. We could use a stick.

 

For reasons of history, my stick might be marked with in cm and mm, and yours might be marked with feet and inches - but both sticks measure distance.

 

A theory that correctly gave an effect, like "do X to the stick and it will halve in length", that doesn't care what units the markings are in, would be considered a successful theory in regards to distance.

 

That's how it is with time and clocks. Sure, there are fairly mundane historical reasons why we have days, hours, minutes and seconds; but that doesn't take away that it's time we are measuring. An alien on a different World may well have a clock with different markings on it (i.e. their equivalent of "second" won't be the same amount of time as ours) but that doesn't matter.

 

The parts of relativity that concern time, don't care what kind of clock is used. Sure, they are based on things like light clocks, but it's not a requirement of the result of the theories that light clocks are used. The effects of relativity on that aliens clocks will be the same as on ours.

 

Actual experiments have borne out the effects of relativity on time. Unless you have conducted conflicting alternate experiments, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[xyz]

No, clocks measure time. You're confusing the units with the measurement.

 

Say we want to measure distance. We could use a stick.

 

For reasons of history, my stick might be marked with in cm and mm, and yours might be marked with feet and inches - but both sticks measure distance.

 

A theory that correctly gave an effect, like "do X to the stick and it will halve in length", that doesn't care what units the markings are in, would be considered a successful theory in regards to distance.

 

That's how it is with time and clocks. Sure, there are fairly mundane historical reasons why we have days, hours, minutes and seconds; but that doesn't take away that it's time we are measuring. An alien on a different World may well have a clock with different markings on it (i.e. their equivalent of "second" won't be the same amount of time as ours) but that doesn't matter.

 

The parts of relativity that concern time, don't care what kind of clock is used. Sure, they are based on things like light clocks, but it's not a requirement of the result of the theories that light clocks are used. The effects of relativity on that aliens clocks will be the same as on ours.

 

Actual experiments have borne out the effects of relativity on time. Unless you have conducted conflicting alternate experiments, you're barking up the wrong tree.

It is clear to me by your post that you do not understand what time is or what a clock is.   We can measure a distance because the distance exists, we can measure  a weight because the force exists,  so what do you think we ''measure'' when we ''measure'' time?

 

 

Do not reply with time.

[exchemist]

It is clear to me by your post that you do not understand what time is or what a clock is.   We can measure a distance because the distance exists, we can measure  a weight because the force exists,  so what do you think we ''measure'' when we ''measure'' time?

 

 

Do not reply with time.

Saying do not reply with "time" makes it impossible to answer, of course. How unreasonable. 

 

Unless, that is, you think you can give a different answer. Can you? 

 

Consider two events taking place at the same location, say a traffic light changing from red to green and then later back to red. What do you think it is that makes these events distinct and how would you quantify whatever it is that separates them?

[xyz]

Saying do not reply with "time" makes it impossible to answer, of course. How unreasonable. 

 

Unless, that is, you think you can give a different answer. Can you? 

 

Consider two events taking place at the same location, say a traffic light changing from red to green and then later back to red. What do you think it is that makes these events distinct and how would you quantify whatever it is that separates them?

The events are distinct because we subjectively ''see'' the change from red to green and back again.  Why must there be something that separates the events?  

Objectively I could ''twist'' your statement and say something like another set of traffic lights is on planet X, every ''time''  the traffic light is red on Earth it is simultaneously red on planet x, then reply with red, green, red, green=tick tock and the traffic lights are simultaneous in their timing objectively destroying simultaneity. 

''Time'' is not something that has physicality, it is something of mentality.  My best objective guess at what ''time'' really is , time was created in the fear of death to know how long we existed and exists no more than Santa Clause in reality. 

I base the thought on the Pharaoh's and their desire for an elixir of life and their fascination with ''time''.  

Edited June 20, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

The events are distinct because we subjectively ''see'' the change from red to green and back again.  Why must there be something that separates the events?

Throwing the word "subjectively" into a sentence doesn't actually make that thing subjective.

 

No matter how you measure time, you can use that measure to objectively (to use one of your new favourite words) see the progression of events, and make comparisons.

 

Say you count drops of water into a cup, while watching the lights. You'll be able to actually measure how many drops fell while wait for red to green. You can then measure how many drops fell going from green back to red. You'll be able to use this data to say which cycle lasts longer, maybe even compare with another set of traffic lights to see if they are using the same timing.

 

You might dismiss this as "subjective", based on having to watch the lights or something, but then all (and I mean all) of your arguments in this and other threads dissolve into meaningless, utterly pointless, meta physics (navel gazing). Any person counting those drops will get the same answers.

 

Objectively I could ''twist'' your statement and say something like another set of traffic lights is on planet X, every ''time''  the traffic light is red on Earth it is simultaneously red on planet x, then reply with red, green, red, green=tick tock and the traffic lights are simultaneous in their timing objectively destroying simultaneity.

This time, saying "objective" doesn't make something objective. Your "twist" is pointless. A thought experiment doesn't mean make up whatever gibberish you like and saying "this proves it".

 

''Time'' is not something that has physicality, it is something of mentality.  My best objective guess at what ''time'' really is , time was created in the fear of death to know how long we existed and exists no more than Santa Clause in reality.

Something is severely broken in your understanding of the World.

 

If I hold something up 1 m, that's a distance I can measure (metric or imperial). If I hold something up 0.5 m, that's also a distance I can measure. If I drop both as nearly as possible to the same moment (maybe rig a machine to do it for me), I'll be able to measure (in seconds, or whatever, that doesn't matter) that one hits the ground before the other. Over time, I can formulate equations that relate the mass of the objects and the height they're dropped from, to the time it takes them to hit the ground.

 

None of that is subjective, it's as close as anything can be to objective "fact".

 

Whatever time is, it's something that is observable and measurable.

 

----

 

We can measure a distance because the distance exists, we can measure a weight because the force exists, so what do you think we ''measure'' when we ''measure'' time?

 

Do not reply with time.

If I can't say time measures time, why can you say distance measures distance?

Edited June 20, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Throwing the word "subjectively" into a sentence doesn't actually make that thing subjective.

 

No matter how you measure time, you can use that measure to objectively (to use one of your new favourite words) see the progression of events, and make comparisons.

 

Say you count drops of water into a cup, while watching the lights. You'll be able to actually measure how many drops fell while wait for red to green. You can then measure how many drops fell going from green back to red. You'll be able to use this data to say which cycle lasts longer, maybe even compare with another set of traffic lights to see if they are using the same timing.

 

You might dismiss this as "subjective", based on having to watch the lights or something, but then all (and I mean all) of your arguments in this and other threads dissolve into meaningless, utterly pointless, meta physics (navel gazing). Any person counting those drops will get the same answers.

 

 

This time, saying "objective" doesn't make something objective. Your "twist" is pointless. A thought experiment doesn't mean make up whatever gibberish you like and saying "this proves it".

 

 

Something is severely broken in your understanding of the World.

 

If I hold something up 1 m, that's a distance I can measure (metric or imperial). If I hold something up 0.5 m, that's also a distance I can measure. If I drop both as nearly as possible to the same moment (maybe rig a machine to do it for me), I'll be able to measure (in seconds, or whatever, that doesn't matter) that one hits the ground before the other. Over time, I can formulate equations that relate the mass of the objects and the height they're dropped from, to the time it takes them to hit the ground.

 

None of that is subjective, it's as close as anything can be to objective "fact".

 

Whatever time is, it's something that is observable and measurable.

 

----

 

 

If I can't say time measures time, why can you say distance measures distance?

Firstly you are not being entirely objective in your thought about what I have said and what you replied with. 

 

Let me discourse your statement

 

''Say you count drops of water into a cup, while watching the lights. You'll be able to actually measure how many drops fell while wait for red to green. You can then measure how many drops fell going from green back to red. You'll be able to use this data to say which cycle lasts longer, maybe even compare with another set of traffic lights to see if they are using the same timing.''

 

You will be able to count how many drips fell while waiting for the observed change in the lights, this is quite obvious, you are comparing the amount of drips to the change of the light colour. Comparing!   then you would call this comparison timing, you are not timing time! you are in reality comparing two things that have change and trying to synchronise the two things. 

You call it time which is obviously abstract in this sense and not an entity, you are creating the ''time'' by comparison. 

 

 

you then say

 

 

''This time, saying "objective" doesn't make something objective. Your "twist" is pointless. A thought experiment doesn't mean make up whatever gibberish you like and saying "this proves it".''

 

 

The thing is I do not make up thought experiments, they are objectively created using present facts of objective and subjective thoughts.  If you thought objectively about what I said and considered the very fact of subjective gin-clear space, we would subjectively observe both sets of traffic lights simultaneously. 

 

While you count the drips of water comparing both sets of lights, you would ''see'' they were in ''time''. 

 

 

 

''If I can't say time measures time, why can you say distance measures distance?''

Because distance is a real provable thing.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by xyz

[exchemist]

The events are distinct because we subjectively ''see'' the change from red to green and back again.  Why must there be something that separates the events?  

Objectively I could ''twist'' your statement and say something like another set of traffic lights is on planet X, every ''time''  the traffic light is red on Earth it is simultaneously red on planet x, then reply with red, green, red, green=tick tock and the traffic lights are simultaneous in their timing objectively destroying simultaneity. 

''Time'' is not something that has physicality, it is something of mentality.  My best objective guess at what ''time'' really is , time was created in the fear of death to know how long we existed and exists no more than Santa Clause in reality. 

I base the thought on the Pharaoh's and their desire for an elixir of life and their fascination with ''time''.  

There must be something that separates the events or we would not perceive them as distinct. 

 

That something is what we call "time". That is what we mean by the concept of time. And if we watch the light long enough we notice that they change again and again. We can count the changes. And we will also perceive that to observe five changes takes longer ( a perception we sense) than three changes.

 

We can even use the number of traffic light cycles to describe the separation between other events. We have then made a clock, measuring time in units of traffic light cycles.

 

Time is the concept we need in order to be able to describe change. Without time, we are unable to do this.

Edited June 20, 2016 by exchemist

[xyz]

There must be something that separates the events or we would not perceive them as distinct. 

 

That something is what we call "time". That is what we mean by the concept of time. And if we watch the light long enough we notice that they change again and again. We can count the changes. And we will also perceive that to observe five changes takes longer ( a perception we sense) than three changes.

 

We can even use the number of traffic light cycles to describe the separation between other events. We have then made a clock, measuring time in units of traffic light cycles.

 

What's your problem? 

I have no problem, I do not give time a physicality, I understand it is abstract and any perceived dilation of time is nothing more than a comparison offset. 

There is something that separates events, it is called space.  If everything was stationary we would not subjectively notice change, (not accounting for decay of course). 

 

Real time is a rate of decay, you can only exist until your body decays. My point is people take time dilation out of context, there is no time travel etc, we can not undo decay.   

[exchemist]

I have no problem, I do not give time a physicality, I understand it is abstract and any perceived dilation of time is nothing more than a comparison offset. 

There is something that separates events, it is called space.  If everything was stationary we would not subjectively notice change, (not accounting for decay of course). 

 

Real time is a rate of decay, you can only exist until your body decays. My point is people take time dilation out of context, there is no time travel etc, we can not undo decay.   

No, time separates events and thus enables us to perceive change of any sort, of which decay processes are just one type.

 

It most definitely is physical. The interval (of time) between 3 traffic light changes is physically observed to be less than that for five. And if you cross the road allowing too little time before the bus you can see gets to your crossing point, you will be physically knocked down by it.

 

I'm beginning to suspect you may be some kind of anti-relativity nut. Is that why you've chosen xyz as a name? 

Edited June 20, 2016 by exchemist