Questionist

So pure energy (photons) have their constant speed, and nothing can ever move faster than that because matter slows them down? If that's what you are saying then that makes perfect sense according to even the general laws of physics that we discussed. But my understanding is that he basically equates time with light. Well not quite but I can't explain myself any better. That if you were to in theory be able to travel faster than light you would be traveling back not only through the reflections of the past but actual past. In the experiment I linked, the atomic clocks ended up showing different measurements. Since (I think) they measure time based on resonance they must have resonated differently.

My god man, I'm not going to try anymore, I'm done lazy, thanks for being a shining beacon of objective justice. I see you have expanded this post. I would agree with everything here but I would say that your understanding ot the theory is wrong. Your understanding of Einsteins intentions are wrong. And in fact, and in admittance of my own shortcomings, realities has proven at least some aspects of the actual STR, without really explaining what causes them. Or perhaps more in my (our?) favour, Einsteins assumptions are wrong, but his measurements are rock solid. This what I understand many people sadly do with the theory.

@Strange But there is a real change, that's why Einstein has very real limits to his theory such as that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. If the speed of light was just the unit used to measure observations because it carries the information (data) to us then he would not have put that in place. That is why the atomic clocks ended up resonating at different speeds! I would love it to be simply what you suggest, but that was never in my opinion his intention. And now I am up on the other side, defending the theory I do not agree with or fully understand. Damnit. @ajb I do not understand how relative position and speed of people or particles can change actual events in reality and even if it can I can't understand why you would accept that time is a dimension with its own realities.

@ajb So all that changes is the comparatively measured duration? Would everyone agree with this point here? Again I wonder if you're sure about what you're talking about but since you are a "physics expert" I'll take your word for it, just take mine on that I have heard different opinions about this. @above You keep mixing things up. Does the theory give us the tools to make the measurements or does it also explain the measurements.

Right, I forgot to say that the train is moving close to the speed of light. Of course something will happen to the damn clocks, it has been proven that it WILL happen. It is in SUPPORT of the theory. You even said I would age differently. Age is not only a relative thing ,it is a physical thing. HOW will I age differently? You must differentiate. If you are using the theory of relativity as a model of unknown forces to calculate observable measurements at great speeds from different perspectives (such as GPS) then we are on the same book. If you're as someone else said in the other thread, using it to "explain the Universe" we are not. Although you must understand that the later was Einsteins intention, not the prior, despite some peoples objections, even in these discussions.

What all points. If time was just a vector I would be fine with that, I've said this many times over. Love for puppies can be a vector. Again you have people in this and the other thread unable to agree with each other on basics. It's a freaking religion with deviant currents.

I'm not even going to dignify the post above this one since it includes direct and personal insults. Yes, Yes of course light bends around stars. But not because something non-tangible such as space-time, bends. Because nothing can't bend. People need to understand my objections with the theory. It is not that its calculations are incorrect, it is that it is currently lacking physical explanations. It's as back when some dudes postulated that quarks existed or should exist based on their calculations. But they didn't invent them, claim their physical realities and so on. Instead through experiments some of their attributes were shown to be real and their actual structure and shape is still unknown and they obviously exist in more varieties than the two imagined.. From my understanding early string theorist were lambasted because their theory did not manage to fit everything, the theory has since been modified. But in fact string theory is an attempt to tie in all the knowns that would not fit General Relativity. This I would agree with. The problem is that people actually claim that the different observations are in fact real changes. Different words are used depending on different texts. I found this good example on the web: At .9 times the speed of light, the factor becomes 2.294157338705618. Finally, the effects of relativity become significant. What does this factor mean though? If you were in a spaceship traveling at .9 times the speed of light: 1) the ship's mass (and you) would increase by a factor of 2.294 2) the ship (and you) would contract in the direction of travel by 2.294, meaning a 300 foot ship would shrink to 130.77 feet. 3) Perhaps the most interesting change is that 1 year to you would seem to be 2.294 years for someone back on Earth. Obviously a rocket traveling close to the speed of light would from earth be measured as if taking longer than it actually does to the distance that light has to travel. Any object traveling at any speed from a point of reference at distance of that object takes longer to measure because of the reflection of that object taking time to reach the observer. But those claiming there would be an actual physical change (and there are many of them) are those who both frighten me and make me laugh. Or even claiming that the ships form would actually change. All that would change is the observation of the ships form, that would mold into itself. Nothing else, at least there is no evidence for anything else.

So what, exactly happens to my body because it moves faster? I understand that something is making the clocks move faster, I don't care about the clocks. There are several conflicting things here. From what I understand Einstein proclaimed that you do not have a faster velocity when in a train and walking inside it than the train itself. (Thus you can never attain above the speed of light by stacking stuff that moves on stuff that moves on stuff...otherwise his theory would be more full of holes than cheese in an Acme explosion). So by the same principle my molecules are not doing that neither, correct? I mean I'm not breathing, exhausting myself slower, am I? So what is causing the slower ageing Wait, let me answer this myself. Your answer will be something akin to this: Time has moved differently relative to us two (earth and space rocket). I have aged more because time around me has moved slower than time around you. So I will have spent let's say 1 hour, while you spend 1 and a half hour. But again, the actual difference of speed within my internal organs, my internal molecules remains static in their speed in space as in earth (not counting effects of limited gravity). How is it that I have aged less, your more, or what ever variation of this various people propose.

You've shown nothing. Just stated something. Let me profess belief here. I think that in 10-20 years we will come to understand (if we are open enough) that quantum mechanics (or a subset/advancement of these field) create the observable effects of curved space time, not in any way the other way around.

Partly scientists have been withdrawing in the last few decades from the most grandiose claims that still sit in the backbone of the theory of general relativity at least. If my understanding is wrong then I would be glad. So explain to me. If I were to be in a space rocket constantly traveling at high speeds, exactly what effect would t hat have on my biological age in relation to others on earth according to your understanding of said theorie(s) Our planet is exceptional, so I say the universe cares. Besides, once we get massive railguns and photon cannons we will take over that puny universe.

Based on it? If you by that mean that they use the mathematical model of special relativity to explain some things, then yes. If by that you mean that the actual realities aren't conflicting and actually flow from each other, then LOL. It conflicts greatly with general theory of relativity, especially when it comes to quantum entanglement. But look, since I can't remember or cite anything, let's just stop. Don't argue this shit with me since you'll win and I'll get bored.

I'm not constructing hardware. So I don't need to know the constantly changing and evolving knowledge about the probably contentiously morphing common law of Physics ;-) I'm not arguing relativity on the basis of it being a correct model or not. Only that every thought experiment produced from it results in absolute hilarity. Holes through already invisible (non-measurable) dimensions, time travel in general, some form of difference in aging without any reference to particle decay or biology. I mean it's ridiculous. Add to it string theory and you've got some 9 dimensions impossible to even phantom.

Bah, what interested me on this forum was Pioneer. I asked you in PM if you could help me dig out some of his posts, if you can't or won't I'll try to crawl later. It's just that when you ask for evidence "of what's ad hoc" instead of providing evidence of why it isn't then you're missing the whole point and just exhausting me. (As in actually proving a positive instead of a negative). Besides as I already explained several times, I've not studied the subject, I can't prove shit. But I haven't encountered a topict this hard to explain anywhere else and I've mentioned several reasons of why I dislike it, they are not very emotional at all, though I wish they were, for emotions are far superior to rationality. My rational reasons for disliking the theory is that they corrupt the imagine of the universe, they force fields like Quantum Physics and concepts like String Theory to invent explanations to fit it that theory and all argumentative and logical contradictions (such as why observation is required for movement) are disregarded.

i know it means exponential but I dont know what you mean by something equals exponentional of something else minus 1. I then googled about it and it meant 2.7xx something something. Never used it in my life. Anyway as I told you I hate non-linear math and I don't understand it very well. Programing is very logical and I haven't been programing anything that requires advanced math alone. If you can't handle that fact, fuck off and don't reply to my posts.

I don't like civility for it aids the sociopath and hurts human relations. But has become norm. So I tend to get banned. But no, I don't like sockpuppeting neither, that's a pitty.