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.

after googling a bit, never encountered exp but encountered lim. Anyway, since I barely touch functions nowdays try to explain it to me and other people like me when we ask questions in other ways.

No, it doesn't make sense to me that you will not be able to travel faster than what anyone can observe. But that's for the other topic. Why the heck are you using words like asymptotic. Who except for a physicist would know what that means. I mean I've heard of it within some general discussions about computers to but geez. You want a civil discussion while you sound as a besserweisser? I've clearly stated I'm not a student of physics and I don't like and so I don't understand non-linear math (unless I really try, and then just the basics). Anyway say that it doesn't matter because infinity is so large and its mass is so small (0?) I still don't understand how something with no mass can fit the classical physics model concerning kinetic energy.

Sorry it seems that the profile was not Protist but Pioneer. The title was Protist. Ah, he was banned, I guess I will follow shortly! I'll try to use unorthodox means of finding his posts then, unless most of them are deleted. Maybe the waybackmachine will help.

No. Well kind-off. I dont think that there is any difference when it comes to the theory of the unvierse quest. Do you mean that you wouldn't want me say claiming to that time moves differently at different speeds without there being a constant like light? Speak in laymans terms.

Yes, but you want it so much that just like Einstein, you go mad in your search for this homogeneity, as if it were a holy grail. The bloody guy locked himself up in his house for months to get stuff done. And he was gonna get it done, one way or an other. Obviously I have very strong feelings about this because I feel like my favorite subject and fascinating new concepts have to conform to this ever more complicated fabrication. I even feel that it has contributed to the unimaginative, flat pictures of our universe and of our solar system simply to provide a simple surface for the illustration of the curving of spacetime (and gravity) which may have influenced kids away from the great final frontier of astronomy.

I can't show it bloody hell. I'm a computer student who dabbles in social sciences and art. I don't get it. But it is fascinating to me that nobody can explain it to me properly as one can with anything else that affects the real world, even when there is complex math behind it. Read Pioneers post to better understand my Point. I just stumbled on his post during one of my many late night google searches on the subject. I've even tried to read more advanced books about the subject but I end up asking myself simply how someone can dedicate themselves to the promotion of what I see to be a Cosmic lie. The best I've done is try to explain how the GPS system could simply be influenced by a force described as being affected by space-time but in fact must be an unknown. But I can't bother doing that again, I can't even remember what I said in that discussion, it took a lot of effort and I lost the debate ostensibly. You also gave Pioneer a very crappy answer to his post. Compared to the length you go to try and explain the basics to OP. It seems as if you are lacking something in that field too. But it doesn't matter, I've talked to very qualified people and they couldn't explain it to me. It's just that at least when it comes to English I've never been able to describe my point as well ad Pioneer did. Oh let me retract that. The posters name is "Protist"...the replies title is for some reason Pioneer. Retracted again, bloody hell, so my title is Lepton, his is Protist, his name is Pioneer....This forum is confusing! I'll pm the mod with some technical questions. I don't care and I don't see why you care or anyone else. I mean obviously you have a theory that you follow which is based on this ad-hoc stuff but for the rest of us I mean. Obviously I would contend that due to the perspective, one of us is WRONG. Simply wrong, effing wrong. And it's not that persons fault. As you said yourself, the two things didn't happen in two separate "boxes" of time in the same universe, one of us is simply wrong and has experienced it as such because the light took a lil bit longer to travel to her or him instead of to me from one direction and a little bit faster from an other. I mean, I really don't get you people. Sorry if I sound insulting now but this issue has bugged me since I was 13 years old. (25 now). Look, are you actually for example claiming that because I spot the formation of a Star millions of lightyears from here, that me and someone chilling in an UFO at the stars birth are both correct in claiming that the stars actual birth happened at two different times? Or of course, not two actual different times because time = light (which is EVEN MORE MESSED UP, light is simply a particle...) but you know what i mean. I mean do you know, that some people actually stipulated (i don't know if this is still taken as science) that if you could somehow bend light around a big star, and then cross through the star that you would timetravel? It's similar to the concept of wormholes but more in laymans terms. So even though it is in theory (lol!) impossible to travel faster than time...obs I mean light, if you actually did travel faster than what is in fact a simple reflection you would be traveling before that item ACTUALLY could give off that reflection. How don't people see the crazy in this? ...Im gonna log now before I start my tirade for real. Just glad I saw that post, wish I could somehow contact the poster.

Aye, I know that. But common zzzz =D Solved it by doing it on an other browser as mentioned above. Still having problem accessing the following profile though: "Protist"

But photons don't have mass?

I don't object to abstractions! I object the transformation of abstractions into realities. Of models of unknowns into ad hoc knowns. I am quite annoyed at people like you, which is why I feel very alone and frustrated about this issue. I claimed the opposite of what you are asking me in the post. It is an excellent tool and abstraction. But it is not a dimension which we can move back and forward. It exists merely to as a fabrication of our thoughts. Length is obviously a dimension. I don't get the math because ever since I was young I refused to work with abstract math because non-linearity doesn't interest me (despite being best of my class in math). But I leave that up to others who like to work with it. As long as you don't start claiming that imaginary numbers are real! Which I feel that the proponents ot this theory are doing. (That being a comparison, not a description!) The reason why I would swallow my pride and my disinterest for this case is simply to get rid of the demons that plague me. I bloody googly and read about this Every month and I still don't get it.

I'm terrible at math equations but can you explain something to me about the above mentioned ones. Are we talking about needing progressively more energy per unit of velocity to, even in a vacuum, up to the point where travelling close to the speed of light would become nearly impossible? Is this really true? When we fly rockets outside of the gravitational pull of Earth and the with minimal matter interference, do we actually need progressively more energy to propel something faster and faster? How then would concepts like Sun Sails work? Would their acceleration be progressively slowed? From what I hear that is not the case... *If you want change the word progressive to exponential!