flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

 Index > Heap > does time exists? Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
sleepsleep wrote:
i still hold my view, twin paradox is impossible.
Why?

Think of it like this: an object moving with 1/2 the speed of light will make an object (let's say a clock) "move" or "operate" twice as slow. My theory is supposed to explain this mechanism. In case of computers, think of it that the clock speed (i.e CPU speed) halves because of movement. Actually it doesn't halve according to my theory, but it eats half of it.

It would be like running another application with the same priority. What is it so hard? Even without relativity (this is somewhat how my theory is btw )

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
12 May 2009, 21:45
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8897
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

Why?

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=93846#93846
Quote:

idk, i always find the twin paradox ill logic.

one part that really make me curious is,
if FTL speed couldn't make any difference, why we assume light speed could?

in a twinkling of an eye, i am in planet x (which requires 10 light years to come from earth).
in another twinking of an eye, i came back to earth.

so, my friends' age around me plus 10 years?

if it wouldn't make difference in FTL speed, i believe it wouldn't make any difference too in light speed.

one thing that i am concerned is,
Quote:
Earth moves at about 100,000 km/h around the Sun

we all on earth are travelling at high speed without our realized.

and another thing that make me ponder is,

if i put a cigarette box in my car, and my car is speeding 60 km/h, for sure my car is moving, but could i say this cigarette box is moving ??
12 May 2009, 22:03
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
I have a very cool and interesting question:

Suppose you have the "twins" in the paradox, and you blast one in space with speed 50% of the speed of light (ignore acceleration, suppose it is instant).

At the beginning they both synchronize their clocks at year=0. for simplicity.

At the end of his trip, which is long let's say 2 light years, he takes a PICTURE of his atomic clock. Then comes back and shows him the PICTURE, not the clock (let us ignore the return for the moment).

What will the picture look like? 4 years, as the one on Earth would predict without relativity (2 light years travelled at 1/2 speed of light means 4 years), or 2 years, if time goes twice as slow because of the 1/2 speed of light?

Very essential question. What will the PHOTO look like? This photo thing is very interesting because it "freezes" information.

this again will go into refinement of my theory, so please try to answer if you know it of course (I don't). Thanks

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
13 May 2009, 00:07
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8897
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

At the end of his trip, which is long let's say 2 light years, he takes a PICTURE of his atomic clock. Then comes back and shows him the PICTURE, not the clock (let us ignore the return for the moment).

Very essential question. What will the PHOTO look like? This photo thing is very interesting because it "freezes" information.

he travels 1/2 c for a 4 c journey (go and back), means, 4 years to go and 4 years to back.
(he take photos at planet x before coming back) photos will show 4. when he came back on earth, he will get a big shocked, coz non on his twin is getting older than him, they just don't see each other for 8 years.
13 May 2009, 00:40
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8897
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
but if he use 4 year to go, he definitely need more than 4 years to come back to earth, because earth keeps moving. earth is not on the location where he left last time.

so, assume earth move to a location that requires extra 1 year journey from his last left location, so, to come back, he needs 5 years.
so total journey is 9 years.
13 May 2009, 00:44
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
That's not what I meant. That's why I'm "cheating" here. I basically ignore his return because special relativists claim that the returning is the cause of the "paradox".

What I do is this (A is twin A, B is twin B):

Code:
`A B    `

Then B flies:
Code:
```   2 light years
A  ------------>  B    ```
Then B takes a picture of HIS atomic clock at that moment (BEFORE returning), and sends it to A by light-communication. A assumes that it must have taken B 4 years to reach there (cause his speed is 1/2 that of light), plus another 2 years for the light message to get across.

So once A receives the picture, he subtracts 2 years (the time for the 'picture data' to arrive) from HIS clock and compares it to B's picture. What will the difference be? (classic mechanics would predict 0 for example, or rather, both clocks (A's clock and B's picture) should show 4 years in classical mechanics).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
13 May 2009, 01:34
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8897
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i posted already,the picture will displays atomic clock shows 4.
13 May 2009, 01:53
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
yes I know but that would be the "classical mechanics" prediction.
Surely if it would display 4, then it means special relativity doesn't work, so the twin paradox doesn't work.

Don't get me wrong, I know I'm not saying that relativity is TRUE, I'm asking what would RELATIVITY predict in this case -- whether it is true or not, if it predicts wrong, then it means it's wrong.

If it says 2 years then don't worry I have another question

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
13 May 2009, 01:55
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17274
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
Think of it like this: an object moving with 1/2 the speed of light will make an object (let's say a clock) "move" or "operate" twice as slow.
Your figures are wrong (at the very least they don't match the experimental evidence). I think you need to review the time dilation equations again.
13 May 2009, 06:14
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Well that can be adjusted no problem, I don't know the equations. Can you simplify them, I hate math symbols.

I also got on this page and a lot of others that "prove" the relativity's inconsistencies (for example, here). Now I'm confused as to what is actually relativity and what is experimental data

EDIT: no one knows the answers to my questions? no relativists here to say what relativity would predict?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
13 May 2009, 23:07
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17274
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
there are some questions here that i wish if you could provide me with more information.
does the "adjusted clock value" increase from time to time or constant?

eg. satellite A needs to be adjust slower 5 seconds every each 7 days?

eg. or satellite A needs to be adjust random X seconds to a fixed Y value that we want it to be every each 7 days?
It is not random, it is predictable. It follows Einstein equations of relativity very closely (maybe perfectly, but measurements are not accurate enough to know for sure).
16 May 2009, 06:10
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8897
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

It is not random, it is predictable. It follows Einstein equations of relativity very closely (maybe perfectly, but measurements are not accurate enough to know for sure).

ok.

i am concerned with one question,
is there a maximum speed for a thing (mass) when it is "moving" / changing position?

eg.
if i go up a really tall tower, and i drop 1 egg. is there a maximum speed for this egg during it falls down from the top floor? or it will accelerates till it hits the ground?

i am quite sure the formular wouldn't works for light object, so, is there a minimum mass for the formular to function? (eg. calculating the maximum speed) if such formular exists?

the parameter would be (i just think wildly, never seen such formular before), ~ gravity, mass, weight, size (dimension), position from sea level, x value of forces gain (against the obstruction) while moving at y speed....
16 May 2009, 08:53
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17274
revolution
Maximum speed is known as terminal velocity. It depends upon the object shape, the object weight, the air density (temperature, humidity, altitude etc.), the gravity field strength, and other more minor things also.
16 May 2009, 09:20
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
"maximum" speed is speed of light. Of course to attain such speed you would need infinite energy, but who said you can attain a max speed?

Did a little digging, and still no conclusive data or answer on my relativity questions (how am I supposed to make my theory 'correct' if I or no one can answer my questions so I can adjust it accordingly? ). Even asked a science service and they told me the question was "too advanced" and "out of their domain" or something like that

I'm not asking how the universe is, I'm asking what would relativity predict (thus I don't need any measurements).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
16 May 2009, 19:35
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17274
revolution
Borsuc: What is(are) your specific question(s)?
17 May 2009, 04:22
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
1) Does matter weight less when it is moving? (weight, not mass, but the effect of it). By how much? Same equations that describe time dilation (but applied on weight)?

2) In a modified version of the Twin paradox, they synchronize their clocks to year 0. Assume Twin B goes 2 light years away at speed c/2, and then makes a photo of his atomic clock. He then sends this photo back digitally to his Twin, which takes 2 light years to arrive (speed of light). When Twin A receives it, he subtracts 2 years from HIS clock (i.e clock A), and compares the two.

What is the difference between the two clocks? Or rather, what would clock B show (clock A would show 4 years, after subtraction).

3) If we have 3 "twins", and they both launch but in opposite directions with same speed and same 2 light years distance, and send the pictures among themselves (A, B and C), will they be inconsistent?

Twin A (the stationary one) will see both of them as young, Twin B will see A old and B even older (moved more relative to him), and Twin C will see A old and C even older.

Apart from logically being inconsistent, it is also inconsistent with "freezed" information, aka photos. That's why photos are such a challenge for relativity.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
17 May 2009, 19:28
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17274
revolution
1) The question is not well formed. Weight is dependent upon many factors, gravity field, acceleration etc. But mass will increase with speed however you wouldn't 'feel' any heavier if you are not accelerating.

2) Clock B clearly shows an earlier time. Simple, because B has accelerated and thus time will pass slower. This is basic relativity stuff. The difference is in accordance with Einstein's equation. I can't give you a figure, you never gave enough information.

3) The description is contradictory, B won't see B older! Please restate.
18 May 2009, 00:55
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
1) The question is not well formed. Weight is dependent upon many factors, gravity field, acceleration etc. But mass will increase with speed however you wouldn't 'feel' any heavier if you are not accelerating.
Suppose that there's an object placed on a super-big and super-precise weighting machine. This object will accelerate until it moves at c/2 speed. Will the machine report x kilograms or some lower amount? (i.e does the time-dilation formula apply here, but obviously, on weight rather than time?)

revolution wrote:
2) Clock B clearly shows an earlier time. Simple, because B has accelerated and thus time will pass slower. This is basic relativity stuff. The difference is in accordance with Einstein's equation. I can't give you a figure, you never gave enough information.
Yes that is what I wanted to hear.

The information is simple: A stays, B moves 2 light years at c/2. So what will the photo look like? (B will travel 4 years, thus). Can you simply apply the time-dilation equation (which I have no idea what it is like btw ).

revolution wrote:
3) The description is contradictory, B won't see B older! Please restate.
Exactly, it's a logical inconsistency. The two twins go in opposite directions, and a third "twin" stays in the middle.

Diagram:

B <----------- A -----------> C

Now, A will see both younger, because relative to him, they moved at their speed. B will see C really younger, because he moved (relative to B) 2 times as fast as A would see. And C would see B really younger, same thing. Which is inconsistent (C sees B younger, B sees C younger).

When B and C return to A (no acceleration change, they do a 'U' path!!!!), they don't brake, and take photos of each other and of A and A takes as well and send them among themselves. They will clearly be inconsistent with this, and no "acceleration" excuse can be used (no acceleration change, remember? they didn't brake and they made a U path, like airplanes do).

I'm not sure how relativity responds to this, but I've seen many people using this as a basis for the fact that relativity is "wrong".

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
18 May 2009, 01:09
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17274
revolution
1) You can't talk about weight with relativity. Weight is dependant upon the machine you use. The X kg is dependant upon acceleration and the local gravity field. It has nothing to do the relativity.

3) When B and C return they DO accelerate. You can't turn around without accelerating, that is impossible. There is no inconsistency, when B and C are on the return path the time scales will catch up with each other. This is exactly where relativity is so useful. Everyone has their own version of what happens and passing photos around doesn't make it inconsistent. There is no universal time, you can't say they all took the photo at the same time, it doesn't work that way. Have you read about the light beam in the barn paradox? Go look for it.
18 May 2009, 01:29
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
1) You can't talk about weight with relativity. Weight is dependant upon the machine you use. The X kg is dependant upon acceleration and the local gravity field. It has nothing to do the relativity.
Relativistic mass increases with speed, contrary to classical mechanics, where mass is always the same. So what happens with weight? Or rather, what happens to the effect the object is pulled by a gravitation field? Does it change too?

revolution wrote:
3) When B and C return they DO accelerate. You can't turn around without accelerating, that is impossible. There is no inconsistency, when B and C are on the return path the time scales will catch up with each other. This is exactly where relativity is so useful. Everyone has their own version of what happens and passing photos around doesn't make it inconsistent. There is no universal time, you can't say they all took the photo at the same time, it doesn't work that way. Have you read about the light beam in the barn paradox? Go look for it.
A plane that turns 180 degrees does not accelerate at all. (U shape).

Acceleration would be if it would brake, turn instantly, accelerate in opposite direction.

And what do you mean "time scales will catch up"? By definition of "relativity", there is no universal frame of references. Since I explain it poorly, here's a quote from a reference:

Quote:
Here is a "perfect" experiment thought to show the inconsistency of Relativity Theory.

It’s a new version of the well known twins’ paradox with new features: a symmetrical travel and the possibility of them to take photographs of themselves at a crossover point and send them to the other.

Just to not consider the movement of Hearth we will think in a mother-ship that goes to some place at space and stop the quietest way you can imagine.

The mother-ship goes there brakes and stop remaining there. After that, two small space-ships with twins accelerate in opposite directions, travel some time and brake in the same manner making a perfect symmetric travel to stop at some far distance.

After that, they turn their space-ships in the opposite direction and at some time (may be synchronized by the mother-ship that is at equal distance from them) they accelerate and travel in a second symmetrical flight deviating a negligible little (to not collide) just to pass very near of them and the mother-ship at the same instant but they don't brake!

The intention is to capture the movement as they are flying at some considerable velocity to detect some relativistic effects.

We must consider that the state of both twins at the crossover point can be directly observed by them and by the people in the mother-ship. For example the twins can take photographs of their own face at the instant of crossing and be sent to everybody, even to us, to analyze the phenomenon.

We could observe for example that if one twin aged more he would have him with a long beard while the other would not.

Now the situation is:

Both are travelling at some velocity v but in opposite directions just in front of the mother-ship.

For simplicity we will consider time zero the instant they are in front of the mother-ship and apply Lorentz Transform to the twins to see how they are aging. We are going to consider the results in different frames and compare them.

First we will consider the problem as seen by the twins themselves.

Choosing the directions of the referentials as the directions of the relative velocity they see each other travelling at a velocity w (classically is 2v but with the relativistic addition of velocities is something different).

For them we must consider:

k = (1-w2/c2)-1/2

Then for both twins we will have the same:

t' = t/k

This means that for each twin the other one is getting younger. They both would see themselves with a long beard and the other one without it.

We must also note that the aging is different as seen in the mother-ship (velocity v) than seen by the twins (velocity w). The mother-ship would see both with a "half beard".

Then two inconsistencies were found because of contradictory results.

NOTE:

If we want to use clocks to compute times elapsed we can synchronize them simultaneously choosing the instant of take off of the space-ships out of the mother-ship.

This means that Relativity Theory is a wrong theory. A right theory cannot be inconsistent; the same phenomenon must have consistent predictions in different referentials of observation.

source: http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section1-1_Considerations_against_Relativity.htm

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
18 May 2009, 02:37
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

 Jump to: Select a forum Official----------------AssemblyPeripheria General----------------MainDOSWindowsLinuxUnixMenuetOS Specific----------------MacroinstructionsCompiler InternalsIDE DevelopmentOS ConstructionNon-x86 architecturesHigh Level LanguagesProgramming Language DesignProjects and IdeasExamples and Tutorials Other----------------FeedbackHeapTest Area
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Forum Rules:
 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum