jajrussel

Okay. Didn’t mean to mislead by using the wrong word. The word I meant was speed. If they are traveling at the same speed, in respect to each other what would they be? Does the time dilation equation require a vector? This is a website I found they use the word speed in the descriptive. I am looking at the equation I don’t t see a vector indication? It is a somewhat lengthy read. http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation/#.XZbJaS8pCf0 It is the mirror effect I was wondering about. If the observer is moving at near c does it require that the observed must also be seen as moving at near c? I have seen this said before. There was a good video about it, but if I remember correctly the idea was dismissed with a shrug. My short rendition goes ( well yeh, well yeh, okay, true, but, well, not really, dismissed with a shrug). The way my mind works There is a possibility I misunderstood the video... My question would be after thinking about it... as per the equation if two people are moving at the same speed are they n effect in equal time zones?

Is this a common and accepted thought? If the observer is moving away at near c and sees the second hand as nearly stopped does it mean that it would require the clock to to be traveling at near c also? It seems important? It creates the mirror image. It also creates the same time zone for both observer and the clock tower. Well, it is the velocity that creates the time zone. Wouldn’t the math agree that if both the clock tower and the observer were seen as traveling at the same velocity then the time zone for both would have to be equal so time for the observer and time for the observed clock tower would have to be equal, or nearly equal so reality does not change for the observer nor the observed. The mirror effect places them both in equal time zones created by their equal velocities. Invariant c is the same for both areas so an observer in either location would see the other’s time as having slowed down due to the invariance of c, but the reality for neither has changed because the inverse, or mirror effect has them both sharing equal velocities? Which seems to suggest that there isn’t exactly a twin paradox.

Actually, I used to be quite proud of the fact that I could stand on the deck of the fishing boat in a storm. Learning the skill and a decent pair of deck shoes helped to cut down on the number of bruises. Now a days I would just as soon stand on the deck of a Pier and reminisce from afar.🙂

I’ll try to remember this. I didn’t know that getting more energy out than is put in was a requirement of the machine. This changes my understanding since I thought the only requirement was uninterrupted inertia. 🙏

I’m probably entirely wrong but if the diagram is the whole of the subject wouldn’t the system be static if there is no vent to allow for the change in pressure the arrows may simply indicate the direction of flow for the working system. Don’t know anything about the subject. Just puzzled and wondering? Trying to learn something.

I think that the idea of inertia is what generally gives way to the thought that Perpetual motionIs achievable. Newton’s first law? Sometimes I forget but I think it is the first law of motion? Gravity is the perpetual motion killer. Always acting as an opposing force to inertia. I just read another thread that spoke of gravity acting as a body force which I’m still coming to terms with which would mean that even if the objects inertia was directed toward the gravitational source at some point the gravity would act as an opposing force stopping the inertial motion, where I mean the object would come to rest. Defeating the concept of perpetual motion. I am not an expert and generally usually only have half a clue, but I am sure that if my explanation is wrong we will both learn something more 🙂.

Isn’t all hot air pushed up? What is buoyancy? Isn’t the mechanism the same? Maybe I’m starting to understand here. I don’t sink to the earths core because gravity is the grand master of the mechanism that supports my weight?

I don’t know what math my understanding is that mathematically relativity predicts several seemingly impossible things one such being time stopping due to acceleration which as Janus said it is impossible for a clock to travel at c? It was not my analogy my understanding is that it was Einstein’s , and yes, but from the hip because I am already at the point of confusion that observation is because of the observers point of reference so it may be observed by the observer as being in another frame of reference but it is entirely related to the observers frame of reference. some would argue quid pro quo? Einstein said he imagined the train pulling away from the clock tower at c another would suggest that would require that the clock pull away from Einstein at c. Then suggest that, that is impossible and the answer to that is also simply, yes. It is impossible. 🤔 Hmm, my understanding of quid pro quo is apparently somewhat different than CNN’s cause I kept wondering what in the hell where They talking about? Perhaps, I solicit the same response. If I do, I am sorry.

The simplest answer to the first part is just “yes,” for the second part I mean nothing as in nothing changes for the one observed to include all of the standard 4 accepted dimensions the clock towers second hand keeps ticking with regard to his observation of the second hand. the observer sees the second hand as stopped. Not so for the one being observed. Not so for the one being observed. Dimensionally everything is the same. In this analogy the second hand. how does the song go? time keeps on ticking, ticking, ticking into the future. 🤔 it’s an old song so maybe we can substitute the past, but generally the future is assumed as the direction we are moving into, and the song is much better that way. Then maybe I have the words wrong. I’ve always had that problem with songs maybe it is slipping, slipping, slipping. Don’t know if it makes a difference? 😊 I should know better than to try and come up with my own analogy. I just get confused. Einstein already supplied the analogy. It required a lot less thought. I read that the only thing required was the acceptance that c was invariant. Most lawyers trip the one being questioned up by asking the same question over and over we suspect there must be a purpose so the answer will very slightly each time to the effect it becomes confusing. What Einstein said is not confusing until you start to analyze the statement as if analysis is needed at which point every analysis must also be invariant or you end up drowning in a sea of confusion😳 there I tried my own analogy. I should be in a heap of trouble now... My assumption is that if c is invariant then ultimately unless you live in a universe of very different dimensions which I believe requires a different geometry, all 4 of the standard dimensions will be the same, the units of measure may be different but the dimensions will be as invariant as c, for the one being observed.

Sorry I was editing maybe I cleared up what I meant? Is there such a system? Beyond speculation? The singularity maybe? At its center? You can track time from there but where can you go? My assumption is that nothing changes dimensionally for the one being observed.

In my opinion time occurs in the direction of change. Only because that is the direction we track it. The direction is always dependent on the direction we track it. The direction we track change is usually with regard to gravity in some way. Which should mean something... The result is always? Related? Hmm? You can go in what ever direction you please.

So, basically time is the one dimension that all others need be based on? What happens when time stops? I don’t know the certainty but my understanding is that the math says time can stop, yet when watching a video of the said moment on a train that Einstein came to the realization of relativity it made sense that at the realization obvious for the observer that time continued on based on his personal observation that time for him at the observation seemed no different for him. I have forgotten the word for time being the same in all frames, but if it has been shown to be true that causality is the same in all frames then time never stops. I would think that reality of an observation trumps the math, so certain predictions of the math remain just that, predictions, until observed in the observed frame referenced. If time is the reference that defines all other dimensions, and time is Always measured the same Then all other dimensions should be assumed unchanging just as casually. If I’m thinking wrongly please tell me how? An attempt at clarification of my present understanding. Time dilation only occurs for the observer with regard to the observed not physically to the one being observed. the second hand in the clock is observed to stop by the observer, but in reality the second hand does not stop.

For me it is not a matter of if, but when, I will be homeless. Also a matter of poor past choices. I will put it off as long as possible but a has been pointed out they do feed you in jail. I’ve also read that they keep your retirement check from social security should you wind up in jail for any length of time, so in perspective the trade off might be preferred to dying in the street from starvation and the elements. If there is another way, afterThe fact, they don’t exactly knock your door down trying to give you the information. It has been pointed out that there are a lot of good reasons to avoid prison but I have also noticed that a lot of people seem to prefer to go back to prison at the first opportunity. The choices they make speak against any other preference they present.

A question of seemingly infinite possibility’s, yet limited to two choices? Three? Possibly a few more? Hmm, both choices are generally frowned upon yet both choices can be justified by the giver when given and cried foul by the receiver, or possibly the victim. Sometimes justice is deserved, but it is also possible that the receiver of justice is simply a victim of circumstance. A person who steals a sandwich would only be the victim by matter of opinion. A thief will always accept victim by matter of opinion, over the label thief. It acts as a self motivator to continue. You can substitute many labels for thief, the label victim by matter of opinion will always be preferred. Yet, it us true that victim’s exist. A relative who happens to be an addict, I cannot, will not justify. My mother, on the otherhand justifies his every act by his addiction. I believe he sees himself as the receiver of infinite punishment for his addiction. If he keeps spending the money given to him to pay his bills on drugs then has to steal, over and over. The continued acts of punishment is for each act of theft, not for the one act of addiction. In my opinion justice is a matter of personal, and, or public opinion, each with infinite possibilities. Each generally defined by a finite amount of time which, apparently, usually falls somewhat short of the preferred goal. I do find it somewhat ironic that justice will often demand the exact letter of the law yet the specified amount of time given in judgment is seldom ever exact. It’s usually time given plus parole and parole is often subject to opinion of someone other than a judge.

Okay I am completely out if phase in this conversation. It's not a riddle, but in my defense my contributions didn't do anything to make the conversation any more convoluted then it already was/is. It's actually seems to be starting to make some sense to me so I'm hoping Michel 123456 will continue by explaining why Q is is placed where it is and how that placement implies ancient. I'd ask him to draw me a picture, but... Well, he already did... Of course if anyone knows why Q is placed where it is, and why it implies ancient and wouldn't mind explaining it to me it would probably only make me feel more foolish, but at this point that seems to be the only direction left to me, and I'm strangly okay with it.

Okay my original observation is flawed. The position of c was indicated on the original diagram. You have folded? a rectangle along the diagonal? To show what? Okay maybe I see it? a,c is actually the T axis, and c on the original diagram merely marks the intersect on the diagonal? The reality is that a,c is equal to b,c, but I chose to think the path was a,b, so I mentally associated a, b to a, c.The question is why? Because in the original diagram the placement of c suggest an association with b. Then I suspected a trick then shooting from the hip I devised a mental illusion to explain what I thought the original diagram was suggesting. It only gets worse if I'm still wrong...

Well that was painless. I'm going to have to read everything again just to make sure I understand what you are asking. But from the hip the illustration looks like an illusion, but then you never say that a,c is equal to a,b. However the diagram seems to suggest it. As you roll it posistion b would have to drop below the plain because if it rolls true then a,c would have to be equal to a,b. What you have shown is that posistion b is transitioned out of bounds as you roll the diagram. We would never consider a,c as a legitimate path because initially posistion c is out of bounds. Thus beyond consideration.

Seriously, I'm not sure which is going to take me longer. Figuring out what the apparent riddle is here, or figuring out how to open an.avi file? Let me see first I have to get out the lap top wait for the backlog of updates to finish before I jam the works up by trying to do something else at the same time. Not to mention that I read that there is a major update that MS says is crucial for all MS system users to download and install and conventional wisdom suggests that said crucial download will not be included in the update backlog. Meaning that about the time I think everything is caught up and ready to go, I will go to SFN to play the .avi file, thenI will run into some serious wait time only to be informed when I run out of patience an begin to investigate that a critical update needs to downloaded, Do I want to do it now? To which I will click yes, only to come back an hour or more later to a new notification asking if I want to install the update now? I will sigh and shake my head then click yes, but now I'm afraid to leave, so I will sit there for what seems like forever for a little bar to fill in across the screen, and that is only if I'm lucky cause sometimes there is just a busy indicator without any sign of progress to encourage me... Really? An .avi file? I'm just joking my laptop needs to be caught up anyway. Lol, , oh God an .avi file... Truthfully I've always enjoyed your illustrations...

I like questions about time I also like Swansont's answer We can only move in the positive direction, or I only age in the positive direction, but can I say this with absolute certainty? It depends on perspective. I am not overly fond of getting old, so from that perspective I don't exactly see getting older and a positive direction, but in relation to the Original Post when considering my age the only outcome is that I start at 0 then keep adding plusses as slowly as possible until time for me becomes a matter of 0 plusses added. This is kind of how and why questions about time relate to and belong in relativity as well as in philosophy. It is a matter of perspective I like this answer. Does this answer require a vector? Aren't vectors a matter of perspective. Generally when presented time is to the right and always on the diagonal. So from that perspective time is the diagonal. A wise man kept saying this. I foolishly kept arguing that he was wrong. Not to long ago I watched a video that made me think that if I could prove that time was vectorless I could prove that travel back in time was impossible, but the complexity of the thought is just out if my reach. Perspective changed with each thought. Time is like acceleration it speeds up, it slows down, and for observational purposes it even stops. Someone once insisted that gravity was acceleration, or that one can't tell the difference under certain circumstances, so time is like gravity? I have always tried to think of gravity as a positive, but then I noticed in a video that mathematically it was represented as a negative. I still haven't quite figured out exactly why, but I did notice that if -9.86etc. was entered as a positive the answer to the equation would have been the square root of a negative which kept resulting in an error message from my calculator, so apparently the answer had to be the square root of a positive number, so now I'm wondering if in order to get there should I consider that time always moves in the negative direction. Hmm, okay! What happened? Oh, I see it's a matter of perspective. The direction one observer notes,might be seen as the exact opposite of another observers perspective. Now if I can only convince my calculator... To the OP I'M guessing that the answer will depend on your reason for asking? I haven't read the whole thread yet so maybe you have given your reason for asking? Anyway, I liked the question thank you for asking it. One other thing I remember about the video is that it gave an equation where time was on the right side of the equal sign. So I'm assuming that if I want to ever again ask what is time all I should have to do is flip the equation around where instead of equation=t, it becomes t=equation. Basically it was something like a negative times a negative equals the square root of a positive, so now I'm wondering if I can say time is like the square root of a positive, and is this proof that you can't go back in time? Sorry I drifted off topic, I'm wondering why you asked the question? I should stop drifting and read the entire thread to see if you stated why you asked the question.

Sitting QM to the side, but still within reach for a moment. Isn't an object at rest, say a rock on the ground in the state of having a force applied to it? It has potential which I increase by picking it up, so it is kind of cyclic. I'm assuming that it is it's mass that is it's true potential. By using force I gain access to some of it's potential which I can use to do work? If it is so does it mean that I can define force as a means of accessing an objects potential, as well as a means of doing work? I'm really glad that no one one the other end can hear me, cause Google/Android just interrupted my wifi connection apparently just to show me that there is another way by which I can sign in to my wifi. Actually I think their intent was to force me to go through the motions so that I would be well acquanted with them thereby learning something. I think half the neighborhood heard, I kinda hope Google heard, so that they can appreciate my appreciation. The good thing is that when I got back to the thread what I had started was restored. The thought of losing what I had started was kind of the catalyst, so now finding things restored I am somewhat ashamed.

This was the sobering question. The thing that was bothering me most. It seemed as if it were magic. Where is the KE coming from? It seemed as if it was just being grabbed out of nothing. My mind kept/keeps saying impossible! So I was trying to build a scenario of interaction where energy was exchanged, where one wasn't needed. In the meantime I've watched another video that made me reminded me, duh, I was building the scene all wrong. I'm still afraid I'll mess up the explaining... I was trying to build a scene of interaction when all I needed was momentum. I kept focusing on where does the KE come from. When I should have been focusing on acquisition. Kinda one of those duh moments of realization. The KE comes from the source object. After watching the video I keep wanting to say borrowed, but no I don't think it is borrowed so much as it is accessed through momentum. The object at rest has potential energy. Give the object momentum, and you can access some of that potential energy as KE. So even acquisition is the wrong term, unless it is meant in the sense of acquiring access. I need to go grab the video link cause it will also show to a small degree how I was trying to design the scenario of interaction, which want needed. I remember watching it before and it is likely where my thoughts got their push. The man is brilliant. I am somewhat lacking, so when I tried using the thoughts I sort of crashed them.

Thank you now I need to think...

Well, yes. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who would have been surprised. I have accepted it but still, would like to know why the difference in acceleration is so negligible? And if there is a difference isn't it better to be told that there is a difference no matter how negligible than to be taught that there is no difference that the hammer and the feather fall at exactly the same rate. That seems like sensationalism rather than science. It makes a difference because one truth leads to another. When you simply say that both accelerate at exactly the same rate then what is the point of individual curvatures? Swansont is much faster than I, I need to stop and see what he has written.

? Space seems lacking so why would anyone attribute curvature to space? What changes about gravity if you attribute the curvatures to interacting fields? Actually I have no problem with calling it curved space so long as I know that space has nothing to do with the effect other than to provide room to maneuver, and possibly the degree to which the effect attains. Otherwise it becomes a little confusing and that is only a problem to me. I read that there is a field for every particle. I think I read it on SFN I can't remember. Collectively that would be a lot of Mass/energy contributing to space. And would seem to say that if something moving through space gains energy the energy gained is not necessarily just kinetic, assuming that other fields are present energy seemingly sucked right out of space/nothing, unless fields contribute. Here I'm assuming that kinetic energy isn't just a result of acceleration.

Each cause spacial curvature to different degrees, and apparently the curvatures do not add together. The hammer and the feather follow the moons curved space at the same rate of acceleration. It seems that the only effect individual curvature has is in how much energy must be used on the hammer or feather to change it's direction?