It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: WeAreAllNext
a reply to: NorEaster
Ah, I think I see the problem with your understanding of Relativity - you don't actually understand Relativity.
Like, at all.
Perhaps you should take the time to understand Einstein before deciding that he's wrong.
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Clocks are material systems and, as such, are vulnerable to the influences of the material systems that they exist as integral to. Take the gravity-time dilation claim. In this claim, relative field strength "slows down time" (which Einstein then transfers to acceleration as also slowing down time, since to a human observer acceleration and gravity can feel similar), but since Einstein uses the term "clock" instead of "time" his assertion cannot be truthfully said to violate the fundamental requirement of system coherence - which is a basic staple of reality that trumps indication regardless of what that indication is.
What that means is that while gravitational field strength can certainly affect the dynamic properties of a mechanical clock - especially the extremely delicate mechanical properties of those clocks that have measured time progression since the first caesium standard went on line - time itself cannot be vulnerable to gravitational field strength and certainly not to the intermittent whims of simple acceleration.
If that were the case, air travel would feature a lot more change on this planet than bringing people closer together, when one considers the scattered and relentless impact on the universal quantum of Now (or Planck Time) - as the quantized basis of ongoing progressive development within this or any other universal reality confine - of such burps and halts and skids that would be the result of so many violations of that quantized structure.
Don't know if Einstein was aware of the diff between clock time as opposed to ambient time.
Air travel time dilations are miniscule, but with heavy time dilation genetics can change. Going at the speed of light stops time and if you actually move at the speed of light, your heart will also stop, not to mention dna changes.
Air travel time dilations are miniscule, but with heavy time dilation genetics can change. Going at the speed of light stops time and if you actually move at the speed of light, your heart will also stop, not to mention dna changes.
Yes he would say that wouldn't he? Cos ambient time completely overturns his GR
originally posted by: [post=18558136]mbkennel Yes, he was aware that there is no time worth its name other than clock time.
Originally posted by Nochzwei
Perhaps you should take the time to understand Einstein before deciding that he's wrong.
*
The only one who really understands Einstein is Einstein. So i dont think anyone of should brag.
WHAT A BLOODY JOKE
originally posted by: [post=18559589]Astyanax Relativity is not a big mystery but it is not intuitively graspable. That is NorEaster's error. I believe it is also others'. They want relativity to 'make sense' according to their preconceptions, to be 'visualizable'. It will never happen. Relativity, like quantum mechanics, can only be understood intellectually — mathematically. Lamentable, perhaps, but there it is.
Well it dosent matter what you think.
Because it dosent make them more right at all.
The truth has nothing to to whith how many you think are right.
If they are wrong.
originally posted by: Astyanax
Relativity is not a big mystery but it is not intuitively graspable. That is NorEaster's error. I believe it is also others'. They want relativity to 'make sense' according to their preconceptions, to be 'visualizable'. It will never happen. Relativity, like quantum mechanics, can only be understood intellectually — mathematically. Lamentable, perhaps, but there it is.
originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: spy66
Your consideration of the effects of observing objects, information transmission at the speed of light, and underlying time dialation has long been considered in relativity.
When making predictions about observable properties in specific experiments, both effects are taken into account with relativistic computations.
You need both to match experiment. The local time dialation is real, as proven experimentally with facts about particle decay lifetimes, and atomic clocks synchronized, one flown separately, and then rejoined. No fast information transmission needed to take place and still the entirely local effects of time dialation were real and observed.
The reason you dont bother is because you dont understand it.
I have challenged, but no one dares. Not even you.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66
The reason you dont bother is because you dont understand it.
Don't understand it? I didn't even read it.
I have challenged, but no one dares. Not even you.
Not that don't dare, I can't be bothered. Why should I waste time reading something I already know is wrong?
originally posted by: mbkennel
What's a "fundamental requirement of system coherence"?
Me, I call giving experimentally confirmed results and unifying mechanics and electromagnetic kinematics a good start.
Why? Simply by assertion? You're assuming there is some alternate-'time'-phenomenon that is distinct from the known-to- physicists-as-time that is intrinsic to underlying equations of motion, dynamical evolution and experimentally observed consequences.
EInstein uses 'clock' to mean clock because time is nothing other than that which clocks---dynamical evolution of atoms and fields---measure.
If that were the case, air travel would feature a lot more change on this planet than bringing people closer together, when one considers the scattered and relentless impact on the universal quantum of Now (or Planck Time) - as the quantized basis of ongoing progressive development within this or any other universal reality confine - of such burps and halts and skids that would be the result of so many violations of that quantized structure.
WTF? universal quantum of Now? This falls into 'not even wrong'.
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: NorEaster
There is also a big difference between People who anderstand mathematics and them that can solve Equation.
A person who can solve Equations dont have to know what he is solving. And there are a lot of them on ATS.
How do you know that it is wrong when you havent read it.
You are basically admitting that you are a ATS troll.