CFran wrote:
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.

You've seen several posts that indicate this isn't right. The error is
in imposing a "faster than" implicit comparator. There is no "faster
than" comparison between two reference frames. There is only a "faster
than" comparison between two objects as seen in a *single* reference
frame. However, the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. Thus if A
is "faster than" B in one reference frame, this will not be generally
true in another reference frame. Thus, "faster than" is not an absolute
statement.


But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
doubt it is), then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
faster compared to what?

Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole lots of
probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be one
that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it will
be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I guess).

And again, one finds that this is not an absolute statement. That is,
given any collection of probes, there will *not* be concensus among
them which one's clock is running the fastest. One can find a reference
frame where *any* one of the probe clocks is discovered to be running
the fastest.

It is very tempting at this point to say, "That can't be. There can
only be *one* clock that is *really* running the fastest." But this is
counter to experiment, and so one then has to go back and understand
what it means *exactly* to measure the duration between two events. And
after doing that, one discovers that the duration between two events is
not an intrinsic property between those two events.


Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster than c,
ok, but, compared to what referential? I mean, if you throw a whole lot
of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between all
these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared to
what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that can get
near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in the
opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be you,
or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.

No. And once again, one discovers something non-intuitive. Velocities,
even in the same direction, do not add in a simple sum. They simply do
not. (This is an artifact of spacetime being hyperbolic rather than
Euclidean, but I'll bet that doesn't help much.) Thus, if you are
sitting next to probe C (which happens to appear stationary to you by
the choice of reference frame) and you see probe A going one way at
..75c and probe B going in exactly the opposite direction at .75c, it is
simply not true that probe A will see probe B receding at 1.5c.


And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.

You don't need relativity to answer your questions.
All you need are Maxwell, Galileo, and Lorentz.

Prior to relativity, Maxwell's equations gave us a very
simple (but not the simplest) absolute reference frame,
namely, light in space. Indeed, his equations even gave
us this frame's absolute speed through space, c.

(The very simplest absolute frame would be of course
some entity whose known speed through space is zero,
but we know of no such entity so far.)

Prior to relativity, Galileo's equation w = c - v showed
that we can find our own absolute through-space speed v
by simply measuring a departing light ray's speed w.

Surprisingly, despite relativity, no one has ever proved
Galileo's simple equation to be wrong, nor has anyone
ever proved the correctness of Einstein's w = c.

There is, to be sure, a catch, namely, Galileo's result
can be found only by using absolutely synchronous clocks.
(Einstein's clock are absolutely asynchronous because he
does not have absolute simultaneity - so he cannot synch
two separated clocks absolutely simultaneously.)

However, luckily, no one has ever proved that clocks
cannot be absolutely synchronized, so Galileo and his
simple-but-valuable equation are still in the running.

That is, we have - on paper at least - our absolute
reference frame, so your "compared to what referential"
query has been answered.

Now we turn to Lorentz to answer your clock slowing
queries.

Even an ardent relativist such as John A. Wheeler (who
once worked with Einstein, and who coauthored the famous
book _Spacetime Physics_) had to admit that Lorentz's
theory is acceptable today. (See page 80 of the first
printing of his book.)

What is Lorentz's theory?

Basically, it's simply that rods physically contract and
clocks physically slow as they move through space.

Notice that the experimentally-proved invariance and
isotropy of light's round-trip speed cannot be shown
on paper without using physical rod length contraction
and physical clock slowing.

To put it numerically, if a clock moves at 60% of light's
speed through space, then the clock is slowed by 20%.
(So it would read only 8 years while a clock that is at
rest in space would read 10 years.)

How does this show up experimentally without involving
relativity?

Here is how:

Use Triplets instead of Twins.

By using Triplets to replace the Twins in the infamous
Twin Paradox, we eliminate all accelerations, thereby
eliminating relativity's only "explanation" for the age
difference at the end.

(Relativity tries-but-fails to explain the age difference
by invoking acceleration - that is, by saying that only one
Twin accelerates or changes frames.)

Cfran wrote:
And please explain things simply, you all know how hard
it can be to understand/admitt all those weird relativity
things, thanks

What's also weird is that you can spell weird, but not admit!
;-)

--
2nd Postulate Dude

CFran wrote:
TomGee wrote:
CFran wrote:
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Faster to what? Faster compared to the speed of other objects in the
universe. All objects in the universe are in motion and so there is no
one object we can say is stationary wrt the universe.

All particles of water are in motion in a cloud, but to the extent that the
boundaries of the cloud are definable in some way, it's possible to discern the
relative speed of any object to the cloud itself.

Yeah, that makes more sence I think.


It does? How so? It has nothing to do wrt the universe, which is what
I was referring to. What you think makes more sense does not
contradict what I've said because it is not the same situation. It is
only possible to discern the relative speed of an object wrt another
object. We cannot discern the speed of an object wrt the universe but
only wrt to another object. Even those objects that are stationary wrt
each other are moving wrt the universe, although they are moving at the
same speed and in the same direction. Both statements should make the
same amount of sense to you if you understood them equally well.

Maybe I didn't understand you're statement very well, it sounded like
you were saying that nothing can be stationary wrt the universe.

By now you are perhaps coming to confront the bewildering morass of
truth and fiction, well-intentioned supposition and knowledge, that
appears in a newsgroup. I will not attempt to sort out for you which is
food and which is waste. I only hope that this exercise will strengthen
your powers of discernment.

PD

aka Kurt Kingston (kk)
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Brian D. Jones
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
aka James S. White (?)
wrote in message oups.com...

You don't need relativity to answer your questions.
All you need are Maxwell, Galileo, and Lorentz.

[snip]

(Relativity tries-but-fails to explain the age difference
by invoking acceleration - that is, by saying that only one
Twin accelerates or changes frames.)

Cadwgan Gedrych aka Kurt Kingston aka 2ndPostulateDude aka
SRdude aka Brian D. Jones aka Edward Travis aka Ron Aikas aka
Roy Royce aka John Reid aka Martin Miller aka James S. White (?)
never even tried to understand the explanations that were ever given
during the last decade :-)

Dirk Vdm

"PD" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| CFran wrote:
| If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
|
| You've seen several posts that indicate this isn't right.

[snip 63 lines of babbling, spewing, frothing at the mouth crap]
Hey hopeless ineducable psychotic depubescent idiot Phuckwit Duck,
get an education!
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles.

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org kirjoitti viestissä
...

"CFran" wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| Henry Haapalainen wrote:
| "more stupid than Sue"? Androcles wrote that. Let's make a vote about
it. I
| think that somebody is stupid, but is it Sue or Androcles? I give my
vote to
| Androcles, so Androcles is leading a stupidity contest by one to zero.
|
| Two by zero now. Androcles, you need to stop insulting people.

Two of you have just insulted me. Pot, kettle, black.
Do you want discuss physics or people?
If physics, discuss physics.
If people, **** off to alt.gossip.people, you pair of stooopid morons,
you are in the wrong newsgroup.
Androcles.

Hold your horses, Androcles, and relax. Have you ever heard about a thing
called humour?

Henry Haapalainen

Henry Haapalainen

"Henry Haapalainen" wrote in message ...
|
| "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org kirjoitti viestissä
| ...
|
| "CFran" wrote in message
| ps.com...
||
|| Henry Haapalainen wrote:
|| "more stupid than Sue"? Androcles wrote that. Let's make a vote about
| it. I
|| think that somebody is stupid, but is it Sue or Androcles? I give my
| vote to
|| Androcles, so Androcles is leading a stupidity contest by one to zero.
||
|| Two by zero now. Androcles, you need to stop insulting people.
|
| Two of you have just insulted me. Pot, kettle, black.
| Do you want discuss physics or people?
| If physics, discuss physics.
| If people, **** off to alt.gossip.people, you pair of stooopid morons,
| you are in the wrong newsgroup.
| Androcles.
|
| Hold your horses, Androcles, and relax. Have you ever heard about a thing
| called humour?

Of course. Uncle Al was thought to be the funniest man alive by some, you
should google some of his posts. Much funnier than you, he had no compunction about calling me a ****-faced baboon. Isn't that nice and funny? Or how about Tom Roberts? He's observed the accretion disk near a black hole. That's how he knows relativity is valid. Isn't that even funnier?
I'm surrounded by humorous people, Harry, so lighten up, relax, join the crowd, have a good laugh, you ****-faced baboon.
Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | Sue... wrote:
| | CFran wrote:
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| | |
| | | Androcles wrote:
| | | "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | | | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
| | |
| | | You got it wrong.
| |
| | [snip rest]
| |
| | You've still got it wrong. You've been talking to idiots Sue the medium and her ectoplasm,
| | she holds a seance daily with her charges but she's good for a laugh, Dinky Van der mumble the peeing puppy and Hayek. I don't know much about Hayek except he thinks clocks run infinitely fast in an empty universe, as if anyone cared, and wants to "send pobes of in 6 directions."
| | Pobes of what?
| | They can't help you understand anything, they don't know anything.
| | I can't help you either, you don't listen. You WANT to believe in time dilation, so go ahead and do so.
| | Androcles.
| |
| | You ain't gotta insult them
|
| I discuss (and teach) physics and mathematics here. They do not. Sue never has anything to say herself, she merely quotes web pages, usually irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
| Dinky Van der mumble has no intention of discussing anything and repeats text books which anyone can read, his main objective is to be disruptive, Hayek wants to discuss an empty Universe.
|
| And you just show pictures of Einstein and you're laughing because he
| ain't looking at the camera.

I do that as well. Do you have any physics to discuss?

At least as much as you, cuz all I hear you doing out here is putting
down others claim about the very starting topic

TomGee wrote:
CFran, nothing we can observe has ever been found to be stationary wrt
the universe. In fact, physicists love to argue that there is no
center to the universe, as the BB "happened" everywhere at once
creating a universe where everything visible in it is in motion and so
we cannot locate any stationary object in space from which to measure
how fast we are moving in the universe.

The BBT claims that space came out of the BB and so that too is
expanding still. I tried to explain that there are two qualifying
phrases that must be included when talking about stationary objects.
It is important to know that in reality nothing can be said to be
stationary in the universe. Only when compared to another object can
we say something is stationary. So when we say that something is
stationary, we intuitively know that we mean it is stationary wrt
another object because nothing can ever be stationary wrt the universe.
I hope that helps.

OK, yeah that help, but it seems that some other people out here don't
think the same. But since we are not definitly sure of how things
really are, I'm glad to hear all the possible theories, that's actually
what I came here for.

AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...
CFran, nothing we can observe has ever been found to be stationary wrt
the universe.

That's because we cannot observe the boundaries of the universe. But does that
mean that the universe in infinately large?



In fact, physicists love to argue that there is no
center to the universe, as the BB "happened" everywhere at once
creating a universe where everything visible in it is in motion and so
we cannot locate any stationary object in space from which to measure
how fast we are moving in the universe.

The BBT claims that space came out of the BB and so that too is
expanding still.

Space is the absence of matter and energy. Naturally, the absence of something
is infinite. However, if you're claiming that space itself is expanding, this
means that it has a boundary, and that means that the geometrical ,center of
that boundary would be calculable if the boundary could be observed.

Well, yeah, i mean, since the universe has expanded in any direction
from a small point and at about the same max. speed (am I right?) it
must have kind of boundaries and be kinda like a ball, and thus have a
center... well that's how I see it, althought I never read anywhere
about a located center of the universe, maybe it's because we obviously
can't know due to the slowlyness of light.

Which makes me wonder, all those deep field galaxies we observe, we can
observe them in any direction, I mean, there's not a lone area of the
sky where only there can be found those early galaxies, right? In case
we can observe some of those all around us, how is it possible?