And since you admit you think TIME exist still not seeing any proof from yourself, and others, about the properties of TIME
Strange that
Einstein view of time
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
Strange that
The trouble with your expositions is many words that tend to confuse rather than explain. From that link to your webpage:
This is completely incompatible with the true situation where in reality the traveling twin ages slower than the home twin! Each sees the other aging at a different rate. And, after many traveling twin orbiting cycles, they reunite and compare clocks, the net result will reflect accurately that absolute differential in aging rates.
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
You're still misunderstanding what I said. I DIDN'T say that the two twins are ageing at the same rate, and the CADO equation doesn't say that. I said the twins are in complete agreement about their ageing rates ... the traveling twin is ageing slower that the home twin, and they each agree about that. That's what the CADO equation says. IF, after reading again what I said in my previous posting, and trying to understand what the CADO equation is saying, you still don't get it, I will think you are NEVER doing to get it, and if so, I'll no longer be interested in trying to explain it to you.
Well then your 'equation' for circular motion of traveling twin, CADO_T = CADO_H, that doesn't mean what anyone would naturally take it to mean, is going to baffle pretty much everyone else imo.
As the notion of distant 'current time' has imo and that of most others, very limited value even philosophically, I'll let it rest here. Have fun.
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
I think all of us like to think that philosophy shouldn't influence our physics, but I also think that philosophy inevitably influences our thinking in physics to some extent. In my case, philosophy influences my thinking about the meaningfulness of simultaneity. When I imagine myself being on a long relativistic voyage, and thinking about someone very important to me back on earth (like a sister, for example), I'm sure that I would consider her to still EXIST, even though she was very far away. And if she exists at that instant for me, I would certainly feel that she was currently DOING SOMETHING right at that instant in my own life, and so, for me, she would be some definite current age at that instant for me. So philosophy's influence on me makes me believe that simultaneity is meaningful, and REAL.
In my case, that conclusion also goes BEYOND philosophy, into physics itself. In my paper, I gave a proof that the current age of the home twin (she), according to the traveler (he), as given by the CADO reference frame (which is equivalent to the "co-moving inertial frames montage"), AGREES with what he can determine himself, using only his own elementary observations, combined with his own elementary calculations. I first show how the traveler could do that if he were perpetually inertial. Then, I show how he can do that during his unaccelerated inertial periods. And finally I prove (by using a "counter-factual" argument, combined with a causality argument) that the same result holds even during each instant of his accelerating periods. IF my proof is valid, then it is NOT true that simultaneity conventions are arbitrary: there is only ONE valid definition of simultaneity. All of this is discussed in Section 10 of my webpage, and to a greater extent in my paper.
So is my proof valid? No one has ever contacted me and told me that they had found a flaw in my proof. And several times over the years, I have looked again carefully at my proof, and I have never spotted an error in it. If anyone reading this believes they have found an error in my proof, I would like to hear from you. Email me at PhysicsFiddler@gmail.com. Here is a link to my webpage:
https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame
and here is the reference to my paper:
"Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", PHYSICS ESSAYS, December 1999, p629.
__________________________
Bob-a-builder:
It would make your posts a lot clearer if you used "quote" tags to make it clear which words are yours and which are quotes from the person you're responding to. To use them, just enclose whatever text you want to quote in tags like this:
[quote=James R]This is a quote[/quote]
which produces:
Anyway, let's assume that Telsa wrote this. It's just his opinion. You could be mistaken for thinking that Tesla was some king of demigod, judging by the fan base he has among internet cranks. This is not to downplay his achievements, but his opinion of Einstein, or relativity, can easily be put next to other opinions saying that Einstein was a genius, that relativity is a supreme achievement of the intellect, etc. Nothing important turns on any of this.
Here is a video on it since you could not google before asking (thus causing me all this typing).
[/quote]
For starters, that video has very little, if anything, from Tesla. On the other hand, there's a lot of hand-waving nonsense from the guy who posted the video. In short, the video appears to be the work of a crank. The mystical way it mixes the diagrams with old film footage and atmospheric music ought to be enough to give you a hint. If that isn't enough, fast-forward to near the end where the guy starts talking about the supposed implications of his ideas for individual human harmony etc.
You're entitled to your opinion, misguided as it may be. There's little point in our comparing our respective qualifications, because there's no way for either of us to verify them, being anonymous on the internet and all. We'll just have to let our posts show our respective levels of expertise, or otherwise, agreed?
I thought you might get to discussing the thread topic somewhere in your reply, but I guess not. Maybe next time.
It would make your posts a lot clearer if you used "quote" tags to make it clear which words are yours and which are quotes from the person you're responding to. To use them, just enclose whatever text you want to quote in tags like this:
[quote=James R]This is a quote[/quote]
which produces:
----James R said:
That's not the same as saying time is memory.
Maybe he did. I'm having trouble tracking down a reliably referenced quote to that effect, though.
Well, it doesn't matter much either way. Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. Nothing hangs on that other than Tesla's opinion.
I'm not sure why you can't provide the link for me, rather than asking me to google it myself.
Anyway, let's assume that Telsa wrote this. It's just his opinion. You could be mistaken for thinking that Tesla was some king of demigod, judging by the fan base he has among internet cranks. This is not to downplay his achievements, but his opinion of Einstein, or relativity, can easily be put next to other opinions saying that Einstein was a genius, that relativity is a supreme achievement of the intellect, etc. Nothing important turns on any of this.
Sorry if it came across like that. I was really just asking for a reliable source.
Well, no, you can't, because Tesla never published anything about his "dynamic theory of gravity".
Yes. One usually gets a page of search results when one googles something. So what?
Here is a video on it since you could not google before asking (thus causing me all this typing).
For starters, that video has very little, if anything, from Tesla. On the other hand, there's a lot of hand-waving nonsense from the guy who posted the video. In short, the video appears to be the work of a crank. The mystical way it mixes the diagrams with old film footage and atmospheric music ought to be enough to give you a hint. If that isn't enough, fast-forward to near the end where the guy starts talking about the supposed implications of his ideas for individual human harmony etc.
And so?
Bob-a-builder said:
You're entitled to your opinion, misguided as it may be. There's little point in our comparing our respective qualifications, because there's no way for either of us to verify them, being anonymous on the internet and all. We'll just have to let our posts show our respective levels of expertise, or otherwise, agreed?
All of them made contributions. Einstein was certainly barking up the wrong tree in regard to quantum mechanics for a while there.
Yeah, I do think that. I'm sure Telsa had his reasons for saying those things about Einstein, but they do make him look a bit of a dick. Don't you think?
Fine. I like Queen more than I like Metallica. So what?
I thought you might get to discussing the thread topic somewhere in your reply, but I guess not. Maybe next time.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It just occurred to me that time cannot exist as a separate dimension. If time was a dimension it would have to exist in the the past, the present, and the future and we are merely travelling through the medium of time.
IMO, that cannot be. Time cannot exist in the future. Our present hasn't gotten there yet, so how can it be measured?
We can say, "the future holds promise", but that is never based on a specific time frame.
We know "when the past" was, we know "when the present" is, but we know nothing of when "when it will be future"?
IMO, that cannot be. Time cannot exist in the future. Our present hasn't gotten there yet, so how can it be measured?
We can say, "the future holds promise", but that is never based on a specific time frame.
We know "when the past" was, we know "when the present" is, but we know nothing of when "when it will be future"?
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Would it be more accurate to say that neither get younger under any circumstance. Each may age at a slower or faster rate depending on relative speeds, but neither will actually get younger. That would present an unsolvable time paradox, no?
We can't measure time in the past, either. Does that mean the past doesn't exist?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Time in the past has been measured and recorded. That's "history", no?
Last edited:
Measuring anything in the past is as unaccessible to us in the present as measuring something in the future is. We can't visit the past or the future. We can't affect anything in the past.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That's a different thing. We cannot change the past but everything we see in the present comes from the past and the recorded past is the measurement of duration. This event took this much time in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
IMO, time is a latent permittive potential of spacetime. It does not exist if not associated with "duration", but emerges as the temporal permission along with a chronology of duration (aging) of physical permissions (expressions) ....
Last edited:
New view point
Very interesting thank you
Will think about and add your nugget thought to my collection
New view point
Very interesting thank you
Will think about and add your nugget thought to my collection
Just read your like re above, along with
And
Seems like "the TIMES they are a'changing" thanks Bob
the times they are a'changing by bob dylan
That sounds like something I would say in a fit and no one would take me seriously...
Just as James R said:
I would like to no more on this.
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
Some respected physicists are proponents of the "block universe" concept, which holds that all times (from the infinite past to the infinite future) always exist. Different observers, who happen to be momentarily co-located at some instant in their lives, and who are traveling at different velocities with respect to the home twin, will come to very different conclusions about the current age of the home twin (she) then. So that would seem to imply that ALL of her ages exist at that instant of co-location of the observers.
I was resistant of that view at first, but it's been seeming more reasonable to me lately. The YouTube clip (that I have previously referenced) of Brian Greene's portrayal of spacetime as a loaf of bread seems to support the block universe view.
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
The home twin (she) never thinks she gets younger. And she is right about that. But the accelerating traveler (he) DOES legitimately conclude that she does get younger, whenever he is accelerating in a direction AWAY FROM her (when they are not co-located). He is right, also! She and he don't agree about that. And other observers, accelerating in different ways wrt her, will all disagree with each other about her ageing. And each of their conclusions is valid!
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I was making a distinction between getting younger and aging slower, which is not the same thing.
Can you clarify your post?
Last edited:
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
Yes, they are not the same thing at all. And I didn't say they were the same thing. I don't see anything I need to clarify in my post ... can you point out exactly where you think I should clarify?