Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
viewtopic.php?p=345897#p345897
viewtopic.php?p=345949#p345949
creation wrote:First I make it clear that I dispute that time is what is measured by a clock and number 1, but, for the sake of this discussion I agree on the 9 numbered points above.
Understood.
You said, As two observers recede from each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking more slowly than their own, and, if they move towards each other at constant velocity, each sees the other's clock ticking faster than their own, correct?
Yes. It is my understanding that in experiments that are analogous to the one we're considering, this is what has been observed.
In what actual experiment could it even be physically possible for an observer to see another's clock ticking when they receding away or moving towards each other? Especially at the speeds that would be needed to see the actually discrepancies in differences of "ticking" for this alleged observation to have even occurred.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
And it is my understanding that this is what is predicted by a theory which ultimately traces logically back to everyday observations that we ourselves could observe if we wanted to.
So, if, in "everyday observations" that we ourselves could observe if we wanted to, then why do we just not do this and settle this once and for all?
How is it actually possible in "everyday observations" to observe what is alleged that happens?
Also, if this is what is predicted by a theory, or has been verified without doubt in experiments are two difference points and issues that need to be looked at separately at first, and then together. But, since the theory would have naturally come first before the actual experiments that have supposedly confirmed the theory, then I think it best we start at the beginning, and then move forward.
So, now you are saying that "what is predicted by a theory", ultimately traces logically back to everyday observations that we ourselves could observe. If this is the case, and therefore explains why the theory arose, then what exactly are those "everyday observations", and let us take a look at them and see what "we ourselves, actually, observe", which is what has supposedly allowed such a theory to arise, or come about.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
(As I've said many times: my understanding could be mistaken.) If we wanted to, we could gradually discuss the line of reasoning and the observations that led from everyday observations that we ourselves could observe to what I have said here. We could thereby [re-]assess whether that line of reasoning appears to either or both of us to be valid.
This would be great from my perspective. Start at the beginning and continually move forwards looking at this.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
If this is correct, then you also said that the faster the relative velocities, then the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped, correct?
Yes, if they're receding from each other at close to the speed of light.
If both of these are correct, then the first flaw I see, which obviously may not be with clarification, is how could a faster relative velocity towards each other each see the other's clock now tick rate tend towards stop, (meaning slower?) when at constant velocity they see each other's clock ticking faster than their own....
"(meaning slower?)" - Yes. Meaning slower.
Clarification: I didn't say it quite as you've said it above. What I said was this: In both cases they're moving at constant velocity relative to each other. When moving away from each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking slower than their own. When moving towards each other at that velocity they each see the other's clock ticking faster than their own. If that velocity is larger, then in both cases the effect is more extreme.
If that is what you did actually say, then okay. But, that is not the issue I was getting at, at all, anyway. The next immediately following sentence to this one, your wrote:
As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.
Which was, I thought obviously, the actual point I was questioning. So, leaving out this main part, and the very sentence I was putting into question, obviously takes away from what I was getting at, and that is: If, when moving towards each other at constant velocity they each see each other's clock ticking faster than their own clock, then why just because the relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, still towards each other, each other now then sees the other clock's tick rate do the exact opposite and tends towards stopped (slower), when at constant velocity each other sees the other clock's tick rate faster?
Hopefully the actual sentence in question is not left out again. Also, if my question is not completely understood, then just let me know and I will word it in another way for you.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
It's important to remember something that you pointed out a while ago (I think). I think you pointed out somewhere that what they directly
observe, is not
necessarily what we might think is "really happening". You were right to point out that critical distinction.
If you find this important to remember and to bring up, then that is perfectly fine. But finding a better time to do other than directly after you left out the most important sentence that you wrote, in regards to what I was questioning, and so the whole point of what I was questioning was completely disregarded, and then you jumped onto this supposedly important to remember point straightaway, could all to well be seen as an attempt to just detract away from what I see is far more important, that is; the actual contradiction in what I see in your writings, in regards to what is purportedly said in a theory and/or in the results of the experiments of that theory.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
But in my view, as a general rule, the first thing to do is to be clear as to what is observed in experiments, and what the theory predicts would be observed (and see if the two agree).
Yes I agree. So, just to be clear, what you have said is this what was 'observed' in experiments, or what was 'predicted' before experiments, or both?
If this is what was 'observed' in experiments, then what is the name of those experiment/s?
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
Once we're absolutely clear on that, only then do we move onto our speculations as to what is "really happening" under the hood (as it were) which might be consistent with what is observed.
I do not jump this far ahead so quickly. I just want to concentrate on the 'predictions' and make sure that I have them clearly understood and agreed with first, before moving onto anything else just yet.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
And, in so doing, we examine just what we mean when we talk about what is "really happening". We may even find ourselves questioning whether the notion of what is "really happening" makes any sense without reference to what might possibly be observed. Or we may not.
Before I get to that stage, which I see is a while off yet, I also want to get to looking at some questions I have posed and get answers about how they are answered from one's own perspective of things, which will either be in line with the predictions, and/or the results of the experiments, or they will be different than that.
And then, if the answers are in line with what is predicted or with results I want to clarify and confirm if those answers are solely because of the predictions and/or experiments, or because of some other reason.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
...So, why at a constant velocity towards each other they see the other's clock tick rate is faster than their own clock but as soon as the relative velocities towards each other is faster then the other's clock tick rate slows down, than their own?
As clarified above, that's not quite what I said. Let's make sure we've got that clarified before we move on.
To clarify this I could ask you what did you actually say, or I could just copy and past what you wrote. So, did you say;
The faster the relative velocities, the more extreme the effect. As relative velocity tends towards the speed of light, each sees the other clock's tick rate tend towards stopped.?
If you clarify this with a "Yes", then my question remains the same. (But maybe you meant something else. If this is the case, then what did you mean?)
But, if you clarify this with a "No", then what did you actually say, and mean?
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
What does "faster the relative velocities" actually refer to? Does it just mean, in lay people's terms, 'speeding up' or "going faster", relative to each other? Or, is there some whole completely different meaning that one has to be a part of some particular group to fully understand the "actual meaning of the term "relative velocity"?
No, you don't have to be part of a particular group. The word "velocity" has a standard meaning in physics that can be looked up by anyone with access to the internet or a physics textbook. It simply means "change of position with respect to time". So it has a size and a direction. It can be visualised as an arrow. Conventionally, the word "speed" is just used to refer to the direction part, not the size. So if I am travelling at 60mph north, my velocity is "60mph north" and my speed is "60mph". So the term "a high velocity" means that the size of that arrow is long compared to what it would be for "a low velocity".
The significance of the word "relative" is that we're talking about the change of position of one object,
as measured from the other object, with respect to time. Example: if I am on a train travelling at a speed of 60mph - a velocity of 60mph north - I'm implicitly talking about my velocity relative to the surface of the Earth. My velocity relative to my seat is zero. If somebody is walking down the aisle of the train from the front to the back at 4mph, then their velocity relative to me is 4mph south. Their velocity relative to the Earth is 56mph north.
So, none of this means my question needs to be changed at all.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
I find it easier to see this more clearly if I draw a diagram.
If, and when, one is putting forward an idea, then commenting by something like; "current knowledge is sufficient", " current knowledge has already been proven, verified, or confirmed", or "current knowledge should be the baseline from which to move forward on", then obviously these people are not at all trying to be clear about what the idea actually is. They are just attacking, without ever even knowing what the idea actually is.
I agree. That's one reason why I have never said those things and why I stated to Greta that I disagree with her on that point.
In my personal view, it is a good idea to try not to conflate different posters'/people's words. Nobody has any control over what other people say.
In my personal view, it is also a mistake to rely either on appeals to authority or appeals
against authority. We should not assume that just because a particular view is labelled the "status quo" it is right. But equally, we should not assume that just because a particular view is labelled the "status quo" it is wrong. Being the "status quo", or applying any other label, should be irrelevant to whether the view is deemed right or wrong. All that matters is the reproducible evidence put forward and the arguments made. Saying something like "Science says it, so, for that reason alone, it must be right" is a mistake. Equally, saying something like "Science says it, so it's part of a religious cult" is a mistake. The label we attach to the person or body of people who said something does not affect the validity or otherwise of their arguments. If somebody repeatedly fixates on such labels, without having read what the people to whom the labels have been attached actually said, then that somebody is (in my view) not making an argument. They are (to use a sporting analogy) tackling the man, not the ball.
(Note: I am not accusing you of either of the two things that I have listed above, which I believe to be mistakes. I'm just giving my view of them.)
Do the ones who make critiques of those arguments also have to be prepared to listen to critiques of their critiques?
Yes. But listening and replying takes time...
Obviously their critiques could actually be false, misleading, nonsensical, or illogical as well, correct?
...Correct. So the difficult question
for all of us then becomes this: with finite time available, and an indefinitely large number of potential critiques (and critiques of critiques, and critiques of critiques of critiques...), how do we decide which critiques to address and which to leave for another day?
I guess if we knew the answer to this, then we would have addressed and solved all these issues a long time ago.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
Could we think of some method of filtering critiques and concentrating most of our attention on those that have the most chance of advancing knowledge by having a genuine point to make, so that the task is manageable?
Could we explain what the goal is, or what the final point that we are trying to make is, first? And then others could decide if they could be bothered addressing anything knowing this?
Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2020, 6:38 am
In a world filled with people, all with different views, how do we decide who to talk to and who to respectfully decline to engage with?
I like to talk, and more importantly listen, to ALL people, because what I found is that the most unsuspecting ones can have the most insight and the greatest knowledge of all to share.
