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
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Don't confuse weight with mass, they are not the same thing.

U-turns involve acceleration. You can't change speed or direction without acceleration. Do you turn corners in your car and feel absolutely no force pushing you sideways? That is acceleration.
18 May 2009, 03:13
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc, from some unnamed reference wrote:
This means that for each twin the other one is getting younger.
No one ever gets younger, that is plainly false.

Also person that wrote the "reference" you gave plainly does not understand relativity. It is called a strawman argument. The writer has used a false statement of relativity and then proved the false statement to be false. Basically, it says nothing about how relativity works as stated by Einstein.

I think this explains what happens under Einstein's relativity: Both pilots will age slower (they never get younger) on both the outgoing and the incoming trips. When they see each other again they are the same age as each other, since they have both experienced identical travel regimens. The "mother ship" will have aged more than both pilots. It makes no difference how many photos they exchange, they can never see themselves as older at any time.
18 May 2009, 08:37
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Oh, I forgot to mention what I meant about the time frames catching up.

As the twins travel apart, they see each other age slower than themselves since the light travel time between them takes a finite time. When they see the light from the other ship they look into the past. This is normal for everything we do now when viewing things in a telescope.

But after they have turned and begin to travel back they are going "upstream" into the light given off by the other ship and start to see their other twin ageing faster.

At the time they eventually meet again, the difference in ages cancels to zero. Slow at the start (moving away from the incoming light) and fast at the end (moving into the incoming light).

At no time does any twin "feel" themselves to be ageing fast or slower, it would all seem like perfectly normal passage of time.
18 May 2009, 08:50
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8870
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
if i use speed of light and orbit around the earth for 1 light year, would relativity theory applied to me?
18 May 2009, 13:22
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep wrote:
if i use speed of light and orbit around the earth for 1 light year, would relativity theory applied to me?
Well you wouldn't age at all, but you would also be dead from the acceleration forces needed to keep you in orbit at such a speed!
18 May 2009, 15:00
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
Don't confuse weight with mass, they are not the same thing.

that's why I asked this in the first place. I know mass increases, but I asked what happens to the weight (aka the FORCE).

If I thought they are the same, then I would already know the answer.

revolution wrote:
U-turns involve acceleration. You can't change speed or direction without acceleration. Do you turn corners in your car and feel absolutely no force pushing you sideways? That is acceleration.
Well probably you're right if you consider direction, but I was thinking like having a car. You don't accelerate but you can still turn around (without braking), ignoring friction, this would mean you're not decelerating at all.

But what about having another ship waiting at the end already in full motion, and when they pass by each other, the other ship synchronizes its clock to the original one. E.g:

Code:
```                B <--------------A
--------------->Bx-------------->A    ```

At the moment B reaches that point and meets Bx which is already in motion, Bx synchronizes his clock just so that he has the same effects as B, but no acceleration. What will happen?

revolution wrote:
I think this explains what happens under Einstein's relativity: Both pilots will age slower (they never get younger) on both the outgoing and the incoming trips.
Age slower, compared to who? To A? (yes I agree)

You always have to compare WITH SOMETHING. Otherwise, your explanation uses a Universal frame of references, which invalidates "relativity". Simply put, B doesn't see him moving at all, he sees the OTHERS moving away from him.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
18 May 2009, 17:42
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
revolution wrote:
Don't confuse weight with mass, they are not the same thing.

that's why I asked this in the first place. I know mass increases, but I asked what happens to the weight (aka the FORCE).

If I thought they are the same, then I would already know the answer.
But I already told you the main factors, the weighing machine, the acceleration and the local gravity field. Relativity is not involved.
Borsuc wrote:
Well probably you're right if you consider direction, but I was thinking like having a car. You don't accelerate but you can still turn around (without braking), ignoring friction, this would mean you're not decelerating at all.
You are using the wheels and the Earth to change your momentum vector, decelerate (negatively accelerate) you in one direction and (positively) accelerate you in a different direction. Just because you don't press the brake pedal doesn't mean no acceleration.
Borsuc wrote:
But what about having another ship waiting at the end already in full motion, and when they pass by each other, the other ship synchronizes its clock to the original one. E.g:

Code:
```                B <--------------A
--------------->Bx-------------->A    ```

At the moment B reaches that point and meets Bx which is already in motion, Bx synchronizes his clock just so that he has the same effects as B, but no acceleration. What will happen?
I don't understand the Q. Who travels where? "waiting at the end already in full motion"? Erm, waiting but also moving?
Borsuc wrote:
Age slower, compared to who? To A?
Yes, sorry, I was referring to the "mother ship" as the reference point in my above posts.

Another interesting unanswered paradox is the light beam (sometimes people use a ladder instead) in the barn. I mentioned it previously, did you look for it? If you can explain it with your theory then it would be a great advance to physics.
18 May 2009, 17:59
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
But I already told you the main factors, the weighing machine, the acceleration and the local gravity field. Relativity is not involved.
So the weight increases, since the mass does? If there's no special consideration, this is what happens.

revolution wrote:
You are using the wheels and the Earth to change your momentum vector, decelerate (negatively accelerate) you in one direction and (positively) accelerate you in a different direction. Just because you don't press the brake pedal doesn't mean no acceleration.
Well I always thought acceleration or deceleration involved some kind of energy and since you neither brake (friction) neither accelerate pedal (burn gas) then there's no extra energy involved.

revolution wrote:
I don't understand the Q. Who travels where? "waiting at the end already in full motion"? Erm, waiting but also moving?
Well when B arrives at his spot (to the left of A as illustrated) Bx would be there but coming from the opposite direction. You can even say that he accelerated 10000 years ago and now happens to be there when B arrives at the spot and synchronize his clock to B's clock when they pass by each other.

This is to avoid the acceleration at the 'U' turn. In other words, Bx comes from FURTHER left at exactly that time -- and he synchronizes his clock to effectively print that information on him. So acceleration is eliminated from the equation (and explanation).

Bx will arrive at A then, with B's synchronized clock at the moment they met (when B would, in the previous example, make the turn), but Bx came from 5000 light years on the left so his acceleration is negligible totally (assuming he goes with c/2 speed). Not to mention that whatever effects the acceleration has on Bx is nullified since all information is discarded when he synchronizes his clock with B.

See what I mean?

revolution wrote:
Another interesting unanswered paradox is the light beam (sometimes people use a ladder instead) in the barn. I mentioned it previously, did you look for it? If you can explain it with your theory then it would be a great advance to physics.
No sorry I didn't have the time to do it yet, but I'll look it up.

EDIT: Did a little search, and lol this seems like another inconsistency?

I mean what happens if you have a really large pole, move at high speed, and someone closes doors? What happens if you brake? Will the pole expand and break apart?

From your frame of reference, the doors can't even close right? I mean they will be blocked by the pole. But from the outsider's frame of reference, they get closed?

What the hell?

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
18 May 2009, 23:38
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Twin Paradox is WRONG

It's a bit lengthy though, but you may want to check it out. If you do check it out I'd love to hear your opinion

EDIT: Also check this out (this is really short!)

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
19 May 2009, 00:20
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
So the weight increases, since the mass does? If there's no special consideration, this is what happens.
No, the weight is not affected by speed. Only acceleration, gravity field and the measuring device. You can be travelling at 0.999999c and be completely weightless, or travelling at 0.000c and weight 1000 tons, or vice versa. There is no relativistic consideration to include in the computation.
Borsuc wrote:
Well I always thought acceleration or deceleration involved some kind of energy and since you neither brake (friction) neither accelerate pedal (burn gas) then there's no extra energy involved.
You are using energy from your forward motion and transferring it to your sideways motion. Even using a brake/gas pedal is just a transfer of energy from one place or form to another.
Borsuc wrote:
Well when B arrives at his spot (to the left of A as illustrated) Bx would be there but coming from the opposite direction. You can even say that he accelerated 10000 years ago and now happens to be there when B arrives at the spot and synchronize his clock to B's clock when they pass by each other.

This is to avoid the acceleration at the 'U' turn. In other words, Bx comes from FURTHER left at exactly that time -- and he synchronizes his clock to effectively print that information on him. So acceleration is eliminated from the equation (and explanation).

Bx will arrive at A then, with B's synchronized clock at the moment they met (when B would, in the previous example, make the turn), but Bx came from 5000 light years on the left so his acceleration is negligible totally (assuming he goes with c/2 speed). Not to mention that whatever effects the acceleration has on Bx is nullified since all information is discarded when he synchronizes his clock with B.

See what I mean?
Hehe, simple, Bx has accelerated, it doesn't matter that it was 10000 years ago, the acceleration still had to be made at some point in the past.
Borsuc wrote:
I mean what happens if you have a really large pole, move at high speed, and someone closes doors? What happens if you brake? Will the pole expand and break apart?

From your frame of reference, the doors can't even close right? I mean they will be blocked by the pole. But from the outsider's frame of reference, they get closed?

What the hell?
Hehe, this is a great paradox, I am glad you decided to look it up. These types of things are what makes relativity quite difficult to understand. It creates situations that seem impossible because of our natural desire to understand things based upon our experiences on planet earth at low speeds. Once you get to relativistic speeds things tend to go somewhat weird.
19 May 2009, 03:18
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
Twin Paradox is WRONG
Site is down.
Borsuc wrote:
EDIT: Also check this out (this is really short!)
Seems to be yet another person that uses a misunderstanding of Einstein's theory to prove itself wrong.

Here is a simple procedure to "prove" any theory wrong:
1. read the original theory
2. misunderstand it in a subtle way (even better if it is done deliberately)
3. show an example where your corrupted version of the theory is wrong
4. claim that you are the theory god and have proven the original theory wrong
19 May 2009, 03:26
Borsuc

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
No, the weight is not affected by speed. Only acceleration, gravity field and the measuring device. You can be travelling at 0.999999c and be completely weightless, or travelling at 0.000c and weight 1000 tons, or vice versa. There is no relativistic consideration to include in the computation.
The reason I asked is because mass, in relativity, increases with speed. So weight doesn't increase, right?

just wanted to verify one last time.

revolution wrote:
Hehe, simple, Bx has accelerated, it doesn't matter that it was 10000 years ago, the acceleration still had to be made at some point in the past.
But weren't his effects nullified and discarded? The acceleration effects I mean, since he synchronized his clock after acceleration -- meaning any effect acceleration had on his clock is discarded.

revolution wrote:
Hehe, this is a great paradox, I am glad you decided to look it up. These types of things are what makes relativity quite difficult to understand. It creates situations that seem impossible because of our natural desire to understand things based upon our experiences on planet earth at low speeds. Once you get to relativistic speeds things tend to go somewhat weird.
But contrary to the others, this one can't be explained at all.

I've seen explanations with "the person with the pole would not see the two doors close simultaneously so he/she has time to escape" but none takes into account what happens if the person is CONTAINED within instead of escaping.

Would the pole suddenly enlarge itself and break?

To make matter simple: for now I'm only asking what would the standing guy see, not the one with the pole. That will be left for later.

revolution wrote:
Borsuc wrote:
Twin Paradox is WRONG
Site is down.
Seems up now (or here), but it's really slow.

Here's a quote of the summary (no details, but you wouldn't bother ot read them would you?):

Quote:
* The entire principle on which Relativity is based is that two observers in different circumstances in the Universe MUST see a Universe which makes logical sense to each of them AND that they must also agree on basic things when they would ever meet again after being out of contact.
* The central assumption of the very popular Twins Paradox entirely violates BOTH of these requirements!
* The people who dreamed up the Twins Paradox had made a drastic error in ONLY considering everything from the perspective of the Earth.
* The claim that a space ship moving away from the Earth at extremely high CONSTANT velocity would show an Earth observer that the spaceship occupant was apparently moving in slow motion IS correct. However, Relativity insists that if the CONSTANT VELOCITY spaceship occupant was also looking back at Earth, he would have no way of knowing whether HE was STATIONARY and that the EARTH was moving at high speed. And so HIS view of the Earth would NECESSARILY ALSO show that everything on Earth was apparently moving in slow motion!
* The popular Twins Paradox contradicts this and REQUIRES that when the traveller looked back at Earth, he would see everything on Earth going FASTER, exactly the opposite of what he must actually see!
* BOTH of them necessarily HAVE TO see the SAME effect (of Time Dilation), where the other one was apparently moving in slow motion, because neither can possibly know who is actually moving (at constant speed)!
* This might seem impossible, as much of Relativity does, but it is not. This will be clarified below. The effects of BOTH observers are actually counteracted during the ACCELERATION and DECELERATION phases of such a trip, when a different set of conditions apply, what is called General Relativity rather than the Special Relativity of constant velocity travel.
* This actually points our a SECOND major error of assumption that was involved in the speculating on a Twins Paradox! That assumption was that time dilation occurs in BOTH Special Relativity AND General Relativity. The GR equations are immensely complex, and no one has yet fully solved them! But it was ASSUMED that time dilation occurs under those conditions, where the reality is exactly the opposite!
* This error is extremely obvious, and if Einstein had still been alive when the Twins Paradox was suggested, he would certainly have quickly provided the correct explanation. In any case, no matter who would make such a trip, when they would meet again, they would be EXACTLY the same age! While they were separated, yes, some very strange things would occur regarding time! At various times during a complete trip, EACH of them would believe they are older than and younger than their twin brother! But Einstein was right after all!
* The basic logic of the reasoning below is very basic and simple, but the complexity of nearly any Relativistic subject can make full understanding somewhat more difficult. This presentation was composed with the intention of providing as much clarity as is possible.
* A set of simple equations are provided which can predict the accurate experiences and viewings of either or both of the two brothers, and for any maximum velocity trip, of any length, and of any power rocket engine. Just those three variables establish all the accelerations, velocities and locations at any instant during a trip.
* Frighteningly, there is such universal acceptance of this very wrong concept of the Twins Paradox that many fields of modern Astrophysics are entirely dependent on it being valid, and so those fields are in grave doubt regarding any credibility!

revolution wrote:
Seems to be yet another person that uses a misunderstanding of Einstein's theory to prove itself wrong.
I don't know where you drew such conclusion from since he didn't give much details on it! (or do you assume that as the default for anyone who says relativity is wrong, until they bring details/arguments? ).

I don't know who Dr Peter Hayes is, but I did google for mathematical flaws in Einstein's relativity. Lorentz transformations, for example, lead to invalid results but I forgot how and frankly I'm not that proficient in those equations.

I also think that with the relativity equations, one would get mass=0 for photons, which is not the case (photons have momentum, even if their rest mass is 0). It also doesn't make sense that "rest mass is 0" but "they have relativistic mass" (i.e moving), because anything multiplied by 0 yields 0.

The only thing I'm so confused about all of this is not that there are plenty of stuff out there saying relativity is wrong and getting me lost in the equations. It's because when I ask people (science services, free though I don't pay anything) they never give me straight answers and never answer my questions directly, either that or "point me" to somewhere else (e.g this question is out of our domain, please see xyz; and when I see that, they either give me answers as if they want to avoid the question, or point me somewhere else, for goodness' sake man!).

Also I once got two contradictory answers, makes me wonder if people even know what the theory is supposed to answer. The second guy (when I told him that some other guy told me something else) said some excuse like "he must have been talking about a different relativity theory" or something like Einstein's 1905 paper, compared to 1907 Einstein's revised theory or some year like that (forgot exactly).

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
20 May 2009, 00:38
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
1) Weight is simply not involved in any relativity equations. Weight changes independently from relativity simply because it is measured differently. The measurement of weight is taken within the frame of reference so there are no other frames to view it from.

2) You can't nullify relativistic effects. No matter how many times you try to synchronise your clocks (with what?) they will still run at different speeds relative to each other.

3) Anyone that claims that clocks run slower for both traveller and stationary observer and then say this violates relativity simply doesn't understand relativity.

4) Photons have non-zero momentum and zero mass. The equation for momentum is not the simple p=mv you learned in school, you are forgetting Einstein's addition to the field. Google for the momentum equation when dealing with fast moving objects (i.e. including relativistic considerations).

5) Lots of people say relativity is wrong. So what, lots of people say programming in assembly is wrong. But people just saying things doesn't make it true. Clear proof of some fault will show if something is wrong. So far no one (anywhere) has credibly shown that relativity is wrong. Lots of people "say" they have proof but so far no one has demonstrated it. I am not saying relativity is right or wrong, just simply that, so far, all your arguments can be adequately explained within the relativity framework.

Last edited by revolution on 20 May 2009, 04:31; edited 1 time in total
20 May 2009, 01:31
YONG

Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
revolution wrote:
4) Protons have non-zero momentum and zero mass.
Did you mean "Photons"?
20 May 2009, 04:07
m

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 304
Location: in
m
Is it experimentally proven fact that with increase in speed the time slows down?
So if we reach speed of the light time will just stop?
Why only speed of the light why not some other speed may be less or more than the speed of the light?

Sorry, but this thread created so many doubts, relativity was always confusing to me; besides, i do not have strong Physics background.
20 May 2009, 04:09
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
YONG wrote:
Did you mean "Photons"?
Hehe, yes, thanks.
20 May 2009, 04:31
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
m wrote:
Is it experimentally proven fact that with increase in speed the time slows down?
Sure, many such experiments have been done.
m wrote:
So if we reach speed of the light time will just stop?
Only to a distant observer. Locally you would not notice, except maybe for the length contraction.
m wrote:
Why only speed of the light why not some other speed may be less or more than the speed of the light?
Don't know. I guess because light is pure energy (no mass) so it achieves the maximum speed possible. Perhaps faster speeds would require negative mass or negative energy?
m wrote:
Sorry, but this thread created so many doubts, relativity was always confusing to me; besides, i do not have strong Physics background.
Why sorry? It is certainly not intuitive, that is for sure. But when the experiments start to show it is correct then one has only the option to take it seriously.
20 May 2009, 04:36
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8870
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
... another 10 years, i guess people will start believing, time doesn't exists after all

if speed could modifies atom properties, it doesn't means time... we can't see time, or touch it, we could only measure it.

if atom properties changed due to speed, so thats it, "atom properties changed due to speed"
the measurement of time became fast/slow because we use the atom to measure time. time in reality, doesn't exists.

maybe we can revisit this thread some more years in future to see hows the conclusion.

if speed could affects static objects, it doesn't necessary means it could affects living object. although the minimal building block in them are atom.

idk wats the difference between atom clock and normal clock, perhaps if using normal clock, nothing will happens, who knows right.
20 May 2009, 11:58
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17253
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
sleepsleep: The notion of a clock is independent of the exact form of the clock. Whether it is the feeling a human has of time passing, or a hyper accurate atomic clock, the result is the same.

You seem to place "living" matter on a different existence scale than "normal" matter. A carbon atom in a human body is just another carbon atom like all the rest. There is nothing special about it. Nothing special happens to it once it enters a "living" person. The chemical reactions etc. are just the same.
20 May 2009, 12:26
m

Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 304
Location: in
m
Thanks revolutions.
sleepsleep, let's hope this thread stays 350 years (because, that's how long i wanna live), so that we can say what happens actually
21 May 2009, 04:30
 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