Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
creation wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 10:28 am
What happens if I "launch" a photon out into space in the exact same direction of the journey?
Not much different, but it is easier to understand it this way.
What is "this way", which 'it' is easier to understand?
The direction I suggested, or, the
horizontal direction you said?
Also, what is 'it' exactly, which is supposedly easier to understand?
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
Except for the rumbling of the rocket, and when I look out the window.
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant in this context.
What do you now mean by; "Perhaps,..."
You were the one that said and wrote:
Nothing tells you that you move,
So, are you now agreeing that actually 'something', which is really at least two things, actually does tell me that I move?
If you do, and you still say that: "but that is irrelevant in this context", then is the sending of the photon horizontally, not in the direction of my journey, also irrelevant, or is this still relevant?
If the direction of the photon is irrelevant and the ability to know that I a moving or not is also irrelevant, then WHY state these things?
If the direction of the photon, relative to the angle of the trip, is relevant, then WHY?
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
How is the photon traveling in my reference frame, when I am travelling at 80% the speed of the photon, and we are also going in different directions?
And, what has launching the photon on the ground have some bearing on it would travel in the same way? The same way to what exactly?
Where was the photon launched if it is not on the ground the first time?
The photon is launched on the ground level when the rocket is already moving, and it is launched in the reference frame of the moving rocket, ie. inside the moving rocket.
So, if the photon was launched on the ground level anyway, when the rocket is already moving, then it was again irrelevant to say; " 'if' you had launched the photon on the ground ", correct? If yes, then okay. But, if no, then WHY was this relevant?
Also, would the photon be in a different reference frame as soon as it leaves the rocket, or it is outside of the rocket? If no, then why not? But, if yes, then okay.
As I asked before, If I am traveling at only 80% of a photon, and/or I am traveling at a completely different direction as that photon, then HOW exactly is the photon traveling in my reference frame?
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
Also, when you say " 'from' the photon to travel ..." do you mean " 'for' the photon to travel ..."?
Yes, you can take that as a sort of "finnism", an error due to my native language.
Okay, no worries (or all good).
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
a) What is the time my trip takes?
3 years according to your clock, 5 years according to your twin brother's clock.
BUT, and from my frame of reference (or from my perspective), my clock is showing 5 years. Remember I am the one in the rocket.
My clock shows 5 years, because the trip actually took 5 years to take.
If an object is traveling at 80% of the speed of light, then it obviously takes 5 years to travel a distance of 4 light years. This is from the reference frame of an observer in that object, and, from the reference frame of everything else as well.
Also, why do you say that the photon has only traveled 3 light years in the same time?
If, we are comparing how far I have traveled in the same time that it has taken the photon to travel 3 years? Then my answer is 4 light years, and I am the one taking the trip remember?
Besides all of this, how can a physical object travel faster than a photon of light?
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
b) How is that time my trip takes, in accordance to my clocks in the rocket?
3 years.
c) And how much older am I when I arrive on the planet?
3 years.
Are you saying I travel 3 years when I arrive at the planet and I am 3 years older? Or, what?
Exactly.
So, HOW exactly is it even possible that I can, in a physical rocket, travel 4 light years, in the same period that a photon has only traveled 3 light years, especially considering that the photon is traveling at 20% faster than I, and the rocket, am, and we left the exact same position at the exact same moment?
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
Why 'MUST' my brother take into account that the rocket has arrived at the planet?
If I was my brother on earth and I measure the trip then the rocket would be 80% of 3 light years away with 2 more years to travel. But I am not on the earth because you said I am in the rocket, and from my calculations I am 80% of 3 light years away from earth, with 2 more years to go to my destination. If and when I put myself in my brother's perspective (or reference frame, or reference point) on earth also, I still observe that the rocket is 80% of 3 light years away from earth, with 2 more years to destination.
When I reach destination, and if I and my brother have powerful enough telescopes, then I and my brother could also verify how long the trip actually took.
That is when I land and look back at earth it would look like I only just left a few seconds ago, and to my brother he would have to wait another 5 more years (or 10 years from when I left) to see me land on the planet. But as I say, I do observe and see things differently than most people do.
What I really cannot understand here is HOW could I, in the rocket, have traveled further than light could have in the exact same time? But this will all depend on how long you say my trip took.
When this is explained to me logically and reasonably, then I will start seeing and understanding, hopefully, what it is that you and others observe and see here.
Unfortunately I am not very good at explaining things clearly so that everybody understands.
But I am not wanting you, nor am I even expecting you, to explain anything clearly to anyone else but me only, and especially not to everybody.
I am just asking questions, from my perspective only. I only want open and honest answers. Nothing else. So, all you have to do is just answer my simple clarifying truly open questions, openly and honestly, and not worry at all about anything. nor anyone else. Do not assume what I nor anyone else understands or does not understand. I just want to gain a much better perspective of what you understand and are saying here.
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
On the other hand, these things are somewhat counterintuitive and you are not the only one who finds it difficult to get a clear insight into them.
Firstly, I have admitted that these things are counter intuitive. But I have also explained that it is not because that they are counter intuitive that they are in contention with what my views are. (Although this will come into play later on). I find these things in contention with my views because of what I have observed, seen, AND understood.
By the way, just maybe I have a far clearer insight into these, and other, things than anyone here just wants to even consider and wonder, let alone to even look at, and then know, for sure. (But this is a whole other issue, for a later date).
But if one was not to assume nor presume anything at all here, then this whole process could be sped up considerably.
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
I am not sure if this forum is the right place to learn the basics of SR or GR.
This is a typical response from anyone I have spoken to in regards to this topic when my questions start revealing inconsistencies and contradictions in sr and/or gr.
Just maybe my questions, when looked at deeply and fully, reveal that I do have 'an' understanding of the basics of these, still, just "theories" after all?
In fact 'my' understanding of these things may be far more than most people can even imagine, YET?
Just maybe not being able to answer my questions, by some people, also reveals that they do not have as much of 'an' understanding as they once presumed they had.
Just re-repeating what one has heard, or has read, does not mean that that one really has a "basic" understanding at all of that thing.
If one has not actually put some deep thought into what they have been told, or read, and just accept it on "face value", and also just believe it to be true, because they think or believe that they have "some" understanding of it, and/or because they have "faith" in the people who have told them, then these people really have a lot to learn regarding just how the Mind and the brain actually work.
These people do not give themselves enough credit for the actual ability that they each personally have for being able to recognize, see, and understand the actual real truth of things.
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
If the only "logically possible conclusion", to you, is if he trip has taken a much 'longer' time measured with a clock in the reference from of the earth, in this case 5 years, then is the '5 years' the longer time, or the measured with a clock in earth's frame of reference time?
If the 5 years is the longer time, then what is the earth's measured time? Or, if the earth's measured time is the 5 years, then what is the longer time?
I am not sure what you mean. The trip takes 5 years measured in the reference frame of the Earth and 3 years measured in the reference frame of the rocket.
Is this an actual irrefutable FACT, to you, or just what you have been told is the truth of what would happen?
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
What does my clock read?
3 years.
But how many of these so and so many seconds are there in one of those 'years' that you are referring to here?
3,154e+7. I just looked it up.
You wrote:
"Note that 'year' here is not defined by the Earth revolving around the Sun, but as so and so many seconds."
But then you write 3,154+7 seconds is the number of seconds, which is exactly the SAME amount that a 'year' has, which you said to note was here not defined by the earth revolving around the sun.
The time that it takes for the earth to revolve around the sun is said to be 3.154+7 seconds, which is a 'year', which are the exact same things.
So, I am not sure why you wrote telling me to note that that 'year' is not defined by the earth revolving around the sun, but as so and so many seconds, when the 'two' things are the exact same thing, just known two different ways. That is a 'year' or 3,154+7 (so and so many) seconds
Tamminen wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 12:23 pm
But if I was to provide a examples or a thought experiment not to much different to the above, then would anyone like to question, (and/or challenge), me on what I write, like I have just here?
It remains to be seen.
I KNOW "it remains to be seen". I am just wondering (out aloud) if I was to provide one, if anyone is interested in questioning (and preferably challenging) me on it?
This, obviously, "remains to be seen". But, for now;
IF you could travel at the speed of light in a machine from the exact moment you left earth to when you arrived on a planet 4 light years away, and you and the people on earth both have telescopes which could see a person and a clock on a planet 4 light years away, then, firstly, how long would it say on your clock, to you, that the trip took you?