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
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
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.
Ok I will try to ask this differently one last time: An outside observer, who sees that the object's mass increases (it does), will he/she see an increase in weight as well? (i.e gravity stuff)

Simple yes/no answer would suffice.

revolution wrote:
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.
I don't think you got it what I meant.

If acceleration changes the perception or "flow" of time (whatever) and is the ONLY thing that can keep relativity consistent, then if Bx accelerates and applies all these effects once he does, and then discards them by modifying his clock regardless of its previous value (i.e synchronizes with B as they pass by each other), then the acceleration effects have been rendered completely null.

What will happen is that without acceleration, Bx has seen A approaching him, thus seeing A's clock going slower. A has also seen Bx approaching him, seeing the clock going slower. Since Bx has not suffered any other acceleration, once he synchronized it with B -- at that point there's absolutely no more acceleration effects involved. Any such effects (i.e INFORMATION) was discarded.

Clearly there's a contradiction, they can't both see each others' clock going slow when they pass by. Again there's no acceleration in between anymore.

Mind you btw we're talking about special relativity here. General relativity is much more complex and in fact, disagrees with the whole acceleration thing, since objects also accelerate under gravity, making it totally inconsistent (it would be like twice the slow rate as usual which is not the case).

revolution wrote:
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.
...because that's what relativity is supposed to mean?

There is no "truly" or "absolutely" moving object in relativity because that would imply a universal frame of reference, which would invalidate relativity.

You simply can't say object A is moving or in speed compared to object B. Such statement makes no sense in relativity. You'll have to add "from B's perspective", but likewise from A's perspective B is moving away.

The effect is simultaneously. Can't you see why it is inconsistent, if you do not use 'acceleration' excuses? Both will see the other's clock going slower. It's not like A sees B's going faster while B sees A's going slower, which would make it perfectly ok.

revolution wrote:
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).
I know that, the reason I asked revolution, is because the formula involves either mass or energy.

If photons don't have mass, they must have energy (obviously) for them to have momentum. But energy is mass, and mass is energy. Why make differences?

revolution wrote:
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.
Actually many have done and shown inconsistencies in the equations, but obviously like any organization or community, the scientific community will try to hold onto its beliefs as long as it can (or like Max Planck said, until a new generation familiar with the new theories and NOT familiar with let's say, relativity, will arise). This is despite the fact that they still cannot answer few paradoxes AND the Quantum Mechanics vs Relativity debate.

That said I actually kind believe in relativity. Even though I am a bit pissed at it because no one -- and by this I mean science services -- can give me simple yes/no answers to simple questions. It's either out of their domain, or they avoid the question.

I'm starting to think it's not one theory, but 5 different ones as sequentially published by Einstein, and they use whatever fits for the current question, even though they are incompatible.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 21 May 2009, 18:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
Ok I will try to ask this differently one last time: An outside observer, who sees that the object's mass increases (it does), will he/she see an increase in weight as well? (i.e gravity stuff)

Simple yes/no answer would suffice.
It is not answerable as yes/no because there a wrong assumption in the question. An outside observer cannot measure weight. It is a local (within the reference frame) measurement only.
Borsuc wrote:
I don't think you got it what I meant.

If acceleration changes the perception or "flow" of time (whatever) and is the ONLY thing that can keep relativity consistent, then if Bx accelerates and applies all these effects once he does, and then discards them by modifying his clock regardless of its previous value (i.e synchronizes with B as they pass by each other), then the acceleration effects have been rendered completely null.
How does modifying the clock help? You recalibrate your clock to match an outside relativistic source but all you see is that your clock now runs either slow or fast than the time calculation would suggest it should run at. I still don't see how you can't nullify relativistic effects simply by recalibrating your clock's ability to measure time.
Borsuc wrote:
revolution wrote:
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.
...because that's what relativity is supposed to mean?
No, the original claim is wrong under Einstein's equations. So the claimant has misunderstood something and makes statements based upon a faulty assumption.
Borsuc wrote:
I know that, the reason I asked revolution, is because the formula involves either mass or energy.

If photons don't have mass, they must have energy (obviously) for them to have momentum. But energy is mass, and mass is energy. Why make differences?
I don't know the reason why. I imagine that experiements have shown it to be true?
Borsuc wrote:
Actually many have done and shown inconsistencies in the equations, but obviously like any organization or community, the scientific community will try to hold onto its beliefs as long as it can (or like Max Planck said, until a new generation familiar with the new theories and NOT familiar with let's say, relativity, will arise). This is despite the fact that they still cannot answer few paradoxes AND the Quantum Mechanics vs Relativity debate.
This may be true, but I also think that a lot of it is just common misunderstanding. This subject matter is very much non-intuitive and it is easy to get it wrong.
Borsuc wrote:
That said I actually kind believe in relativity. Even though I am a bit pissed at it because no one -- and by this I mean science services -- can give me simple yes/no answers to simple questions. It's either out of their domain, or they avoid the question.
Clearly the "science services" are not a good source of information. Just forget about them and do your own research.
Borsuc wrote:
I'm starting to think it's not one theory, but 5 different ones as sequentially published by Einstein, and they use whatever fits for the current question, even though they are incompatible.
Maybe true also, but how to show that this is so?
Post 21 May 2009, 19:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
It is not answerable as yes/no because there a wrong assumption in the question. An outside observer cannot measure weight. It is a local (within the reference frame) measurement only.
A "weighting machine" (dunno how it's called in english) has an external frame of reference.

Imagine the ground being made up of a huge array of sensors that measure force applied to them. Accelerate a car on this to 0.9 of c. When it is in constant motion, you'll need ultra-precise sensors because the car is moving extremely fast and thus they have to measure the full force in a given time instant at that tiny pico-fraction of a second or whatever.

But then again this is easier on thought experiments. So what will it report? Greater weight (force) or the same?

Basically what I ask is this: does a moving object (relatively) only have more resistance to acceleration (mass) but NOT greater force when acted by gravity? (weight, also caused by mass in classical mechanics)

revolution wrote:
How does modifying the clock help? You recalibrate your clock to match an outside relativistic source but all you see is that your clock now runs either slow or fast than the time calculation would suggest it should run at. I still don't see how you can't nullify relativistic effects simply by recalibrating your clock's ability to measure time.
I'm not nullifying the special relativity effects. I'm nullifying the ACCELERATION effects.

What is it so hard?
I know the clock will run slower as seen from A, what I want is to nullify the ACCELERATION phase -- what you mention, going slower, is simply constant velocity relative to A. This is not what I'm nullifying.

Here's why I want this: If we do not take acceleration into effect, then this is what happens:

B approaches A, from A's perspective, B's clock runs slower.
From B's perspective, A is approaching him. A's clock runs slower.

--> inconsistency. People give accelerations as excuse, I just want to show you that in this scenario it'll be an inconsistency!

Remember there is no acceleration here because it got nullified (you could just as well say that B's clock was "born" with that velocity Wink).

revolution wrote:
No, the original claim is wrong under Einstein's equations. So the claimant has misunderstood something and makes statements based upon a faulty assumption.
Actually one of the sources I linked did say that SR is inconsistent. And made no flaws in calculations. He did, however, point out that accelerations are under GR's effect which is extremely complicated, so it's why it cancels out.

However from his computations, the Twin paradox doesn't exist and everything behaves normally. Mind you B will see A's clock going slower and A will see B's clock going slower, but once B accelerates back this will get cancelled, at least according to his calculations.

But here we go again back to my acceleration problem Laughing

revolution wrote:
I don't know the reason why. I imagine that experiements have shown it to be true?
I know, there's no doubt that photons have mass and momentum. What I wonder is, do they have rest mass?
I think unless they wouldn't have energy at rest, they must have rest mass.

revolution wrote:
This may be true, but I also think that a lot of it is just common misunderstanding. This subject matter is very much non-intuitive and it is easy to get it wrong.
I'm all for weird/non-intuitive stuff, but Quantum mechanics at least is consistent.

Relativity is "symmetric" that's what makes it inconsistent. I.e if you see my clock going slower, I will also see your clock going slower, NOT FASTER.

revolution wrote:
Clearly the "science services" are not a good source of information. Just forget about them and do your own research.
I did, couldn't find simple answers. I am not a person who likes to ask things before googling but if I don't find things I do ask, with failure it seems.

revolution wrote:
Maybe true also, but how to show that this is so?
I dunno it's just what I suspect since they (those science staff) have given me answers that contradicted other answers (from different person of course). heh

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 21 May 2009, 23:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I don't think you can say anything was "born with that velocity". It must have accelerated at some time in the past. How could two particles travel at different speeds if both of them had never accelerated? The acceleration is always there at some point in the past history of the particle.
Post 22 May 2009, 00:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc wrote:
A "weighting machine" (dunno how it's called in english) has an external frame of reference.
Erm, I don't see how. I always thought that weight (the type measured by a scale) is local.
Borsuc wrote:
Imagine the ground being made up of a huge array of sensors that measure force applied to them. Accelerate a car on this to 0.9 of c. When it is in constant motion, you'll need ultra-precise sensors because the car is moving extremely fast and thus they have to measure the full force in a given time instant at that tiny pico-fraction of a second or whatever.

But then again this is easier on thought experiments. So what will it report? Greater weight (force) or the same?

Basically what I ask is this: does a moving object (relatively) only have more resistance to acceleration (mass) but NOT greater force when acted by gravity? (weight, also caused by mass in classical mechanics)
So actually it seems you want to measure the force applied on to the ground by a high speed moving vehicle? The answer now needs more parameters. Is the vehicle on the Earth? I ask because travelling at such high speed will put you well above escape velocity and the ground sensors will not measure your car because you are flying away (or in freefall). If you want to travel around the surface of a neutron star that is close to becoming a black hole then your speed will put you almost in orbit and the outward inertial forces would reduce the forces applied to the ground sensors. But that is all too complicated to measure changes in mass (and I am guessing here that you are really trying to measure changes in mass?) because there are too many other effects that have to be considered.

Maybe I can suggest a better measuring model. Put yourself in a closed box with a scale and measure your weight at rest (this is your mass). Now, rather than accelerating to gain energy (and thus mass), instead, heat yourself up and measure your weight. The answer here is you will weigh more. You will generate a stronger local gravity field and have more attraction to any other massive objects near you. So, if the sealed box is on the Earth's surface then the force applied to the scales will increase because you and the Earth now have a stronger mutual attractive force.
Post 22 May 2009, 04:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
I don't think you can say anything was "born with that velocity". It must have accelerated at some time in the past. How could two particles travel at different speeds if both of them had never accelerated? The acceleration is always there at some point in the past history of the particle.
Yes it is but the acceleration effects are IGNORED. That's why Bx SYNCHRONIZES his clock AFTER acceleration from an EXTERNAL source (i.e B) which wasn't affected by his acceleration, at the time they pass.

I don't know how easier I can make it. Pseudo-code would help?

Code:
accelerate(buffer);  // buffer holds the whatever acceleration effects
fillbufferwithBdata();    
is it just me? don't you see the previous function is ignored because it gets "overwritten"?

revolution wrote:
Erm, I don't see how. I always thought that weight (the type measured by a scale) is local.
Weight is just a force an object is exerting because of gravitational field. This force exists if something is moving and can be measured from outside obviously. Otherwise we couldn't measure the weight of planets or stars but we can!

revolution wrote:
Maybe I can suggest a better measuring model. Put yourself in a closed box with a scale and measure your weight at rest (this is your mass). Now, rather than accelerating to gain energy (and thus mass), instead, heat yourself up and measure your weight. The answer here is you will weigh more. You will generate a stronger local gravity field and have more attraction to any other massive objects near you. So, if the sealed box is on the Earth's surface then the force applied to the scales will increase because you and the Earth now have a stronger mutual attractive force.
That is really interesting example revolution but I already know that. (in my opinion, it's just "positive energy" that attracts itself, and mass is energy Smile.... negative energy is invisible, like "dark matter").

However with this in mind, does a moving object (at high speeds) is attracted to such positive energy with the same force or lower because it is moving? Tricky question, I realize what you said that it is impossible to verify or very very hard Sad

So since this isn't definite, I'll at least ask you what do you think? (i.e your opinion)

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 23 May 2009, 22:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
You can't simply ignore the acceleration just because you want to. It already happened, it is part of the particles history you can't make it go away by just re-synchronising your clock (with what source?), that just doesn't make sense. Besides the experiments prove that it does not happen that way. So far the theory matches the experimental results, so regardless of how much your desire is to ignore acceleration, your experiment will fail.

We don't measure the weight of planets, we measure their mass. It you are in the space station orbiting the Earth you are in a gravitational field (the Earth's field) but you are also weightless (because you are in freefall) and you still have mass. It looks to me like you are mixing up to terms weight and mass and getting them confused. Weight is more than just the force in a gravitation field, it is also the acceleration acting on the body. You would be lighter at the equator than you are at the pole even though the gravitational attraction is the same. The outward inertial force makes you feel lighter.
Post 24 May 2009, 01:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
You can't simply ignore the acceleration just because you want to. It already happened, it is part of the particles history you can't make it go away by just re-synchronising your clock (with what source?), that just doesn't make sense.
The bold thing... I thought we went through that numerous times. With B's clock who just bypassed you. This same B was the one who would have accelerated and turn backwards, but in this case, at the moment he does so, a ship going in the opposite direction already synchronizes with it (distance between them is minimal).

And yes you CAN ignore acceleration because we are ONLY interested in THE CLOCK, not in the ship. Of course he would have aged etc, but who cares? Only the clock matters since it's the only piece we'll analyze when he goes back.

revolution wrote:
Besides the experiments prove that it does not happen that way. So far the theory matches the experimental results, so regardless of how much your desire is to ignore acceleration, your experiment will fail.
I think we're talking in 2 different kinds of things here.
As far as I know, there has been no experiment on the Twin Paradox, and even less a "distant twin" coming from the opposite direction when one of them launches, to ignore acceleration. Do you even know the experiments then?

revolution wrote:
We don't measure the weight of planets, we measure their mass.
???
You must have a novel technique to measure mass of an object. So if you see a stationary object you can measure its mass? Tell me how Wink

You can only measure its weight, and then DEDUCE the mass. Because you can only measure "effects", and in this case, force is an effect. If mass had no relationship to weight we wouldn't be able to measure mass at all, at least from a distance!

revolution wrote:
It you are in the space station orbiting the Earth you are in a gravitational field (the Earth's field) but you are also weightless (because you are in freefall) and you still have mass. It looks to me like you are mixing up to terms weight and mass and getting them confused. Weight is more than just the force in a gravitation field, it is also the acceleration acting on the body. You would be lighter at the equator than you are at the pole even though the gravitational attraction is the same. The outward inertial force makes you feel lighter.
"acceleration" comes from force.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 24 May 2009, 19:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
It is easy to measure the weight of a planet because it is always zero since it is always in freefall. Easy, I have now measured the weight of all the planets in the universe.
Post 25 May 2009, 01:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
???
Of course weight is not a property of an object but of let's say, two objects. It's like measuring electric force between electrons, only that this applies between matter/positive energy.

The fact that they are in free fall doesn't mean they aren't affected by a gravity field, which is what we can observe, and how we draw conclusions to their mass.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 25 May 2009, 01:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17473
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
But you can't measure the mass of a planet by observing it's orbit alone. The weight will be zero and, unlike what you said above, that does not help us to deduce the mass. The weight is meaningless. If the planet has a moon then we can measure the planet's mass easily. If the planet's moon is very large (in relation to the planet) then we can also measure the mass of the moon. But for normal moons, being much smaller than the planet, we have a lot of trouble to measure their mass. And BTW, all of the weights of the planets and moons etc. is always zero.
Post 25 May 2009, 01:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
That depends on the definition of weight, I guess. I'm trying to use the attraction force, rather than normal (surface vector) force.

And of course you can't deduce it immediately, you'll need something like a medium for friction to be able to deduce it.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 25 May 2009, 03:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 30 May 2009, 16:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rxantos



Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 41
rxantos
I do have a question.

Are time and space infinetely linear or are time and space rings. making the universe a 4 dimentional sphere. If that is the case then, if you go forward enough in time, you end up at the begining, and if you go forward enough in space you end up where you started. If that where the case in a way everything is eternal as it will repeat itself.
Post 18 Jun 2009, 20:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Time is the measure of change in SPACE. It could be said that it is the 4th SPATIAL dimension. There is no "time" dimension.

As for a spherical Universe, well unless you can go to the end of the Universe and arrive at Earth back, we'll never know Laughing
Post 18 Jun 2009, 21:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 9002
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i thought of something maybe new today....

if the "METHOD" to record time eg... ur clock becomes slow when moving in fast motion, does it mean time becomes slow?

since time is invented "format" to calculate the distant between changes.
so, we invent clock which is the "tools" to calculate time.

but slowness in clock (eg... lack of battery) doesn't mean time is slow.

so, if let say, when clock moving in FAST motion and record time slower, it just mean, the clock record time slower, nothing more nothing less..

time doesn't exists....
Post 22 Feb 2011, 13:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
Time is the next human's brain evil invention after money.
Time is the base for money existance..
Post 22 Feb 2011, 14:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
typedef



Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2913
Location: 0x77760000
typedef
Well, I am a christian and I believe in GOD.

Time existed before we humans were here, and it will still be there even when you die.

But what is really "TIME" ?

Time is just simply the MOMENT you started existing and the MOMENT you are in right now. It is just a line of events in your life.

In computer science that would be an address, in Data Segment or Code Segment.

Example. Birth day : 12-2-1978
Address : CS : 0x0040356C

Now that will show you that time is just a book mark or reference to a MOMENT in your life.

Hope that clears it up. And I don't want to start a religious argument here.
Post 22 Feb 2011, 16:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
typedef wrote:
Time existed before we humans were here, and it will still be there even when you die.


time <> evolution
Post 22 Feb 2011, 17:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
typedef



Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 2913
Location: 0x77760000
typedef
asmhack wrote:
time <> evolution


Hahaha you reminded me of my fav debate of all time....

Evolution vs Creation

I love this.....

[PETER] : Hey, Man evolved from APE, which evolved from FISH, which evolved from <fill in here>, which was a result of the BIG BANG.

[JOEY]: Oh really ?

How did the BING BANG occur, as there has to be a BANGER to make it BANG. You know, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

And why is it that every fossil found that resembles man, is always found in an already grown up form ? Hmmmm ?
--------------------
Oh, man you gotta love debates..lol
Post 22 Feb 2011, 18:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.