1. Gonzales, the problem you are having here is due to a lack of rigour in your answers. I do sometimes wish others would help more, though.

Originally Posted by gonzales56
It's simple to understand. Time, distance, changes with a change in speed. The faster something goes, the slower time moves, space itself shrinks.
For whom does time move slower? If you travel at half the speed of light, will you notice the second hand on your watch "moving slow"? No, you won't. Would you, using any device in your spaceship, be able to measure that time in your spaceship is "moving slow"? No, you wouldn't.

A clock measures proper time, and proper time never "moves slow" in the frame of that clock.

Originally Posted by gonzales56
The slower an object moves the faster time moves, space expands.
How do you know whether an object is moving, or whether it is at rest and you are moving instead? If you can feel no forces acting upon you, you can consider yourself to be at rest, and that anything else that is in motion relative to you is moving. If two objects are coasting, with no forces acting upon them, but there is relative motion between the objects, then each can consider themselves to be at rest and that the other is moving...

An object that is in motion, relative to yourself, will be time-dilated and length contracted along its axis of motion, relative to yourself. If two objects are coasting with relative motion between them, then each will calculate the other to be time-dilated and length contracted along its axis of motion, relative to themselves.

As only lengths along the axis of motion are involved in length contraction, this principle cannot be naively applied to the expansion of the universe.

2. Stop posting correct information acting up! :-P

3. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Still wrong.
I will, out of kindness, try to help you understand this with wonderful understanding and math provided by Strange..

Originally Posted by Strange
As measured by observers on Earth, it would take the the spaceship 2.2 years to get there. But for the people on the ship, only 1.7 months would pass.
You see, this happens because time, distance, changes with speed. Those on earth are moving slower, so time is faster, distance is greater... Meanwhile on the ship, time is slower, distance is less, space is smaller.

5. Originally Posted by gonzales56
I will, out of kindness, try to help you understand this with wonderful understanding and math provided by Strange..
Originally Posted by Strange
As measured by observers on Earth, it would take the the spaceship 2.2 years to get there. But for the people on the ship, only 1.7 months would pass.
You see, this happens because time, distance, changes with speed. Those on earth are moving slower, so time is faster,, distance is greater, while on the ship, time is slower, distance is less, space is smaller.
Yeah, you're still missing the point.
And STILL being less than precise.
From the same thread, and also by Strange:
Ignoring the complication of expansion for the moment, if there is an object at 13 billion light years and you travel at (or nearly at) the speed of light, then it will take 13 billion light years (or slightly more) to get there. That is what "light year" means.
Your errors have been pointed out by SpeedFreek.

6. Speed, the only thing one ignorantly does is use earths frame of references to calculate distance and speed of distant objects in the universe. Those calculations are only relative to our frame of reference and the universe is just not that simple.

7. I have tried to help some of you, and its clear some of you dont want it. I will not waste any more of my time trying to help some of you understand time dilation. So please, forgive me and as you were .

8. I will not waste any more of my time trying to help some of you understand time dilation.

9. You are wrong and are incapable of admitting it. Understood. Mind how you go...

10. Originally Posted by gonzales56
Speed, the only thing one ignorantly does is use earths frame of references to calculate distance and speed of distant objects in the universe. Those calculations are only relative to our frame of reference and the universe is just not that simple.
No distant objects in the universe have a speed, except relative to their own locale due to the gravitational influences local to them (which is known as "peculiar motion").

The recession speeds you hear in relation to the expansion of the universe are not real motions, and thus are not subject to things like the time-dilation and length contraction of Special Relativity. They are known as "apparent" speeds, rather than real speeds.

The expansion of the universe increases the distance between highly separated clusters of galaxies, whilst those clusters of galaxies are "at rest" in relation to the universe itself, just as we are here (if we calculate out our peculiar motion of 370 km/s relative to the CMB rest frame!). This is where the often misunderstood idea that "space expands" comes from - it is there to differentiate between the expansion of space and motion through space. Distant galaxies are not moving away from us through space, but the space between us and them is expanding.

Also, because the Earth resides within the gravitational field of our local cluster of galaxies, we have to compensate for that when talking of distances and times across the universe. Luckily for us, the cosmologists know that, and they do compensate for it.

For instance, the age of the universe is not the age as measured by a clock on the Earth. It is the age as measured by a theoretical clock that has always been at rest in relation to the expansion of the universe, where the universe expands around that clock and does not cause that clock to "move". Also, the time on that clock is calculated under the assumption that it is under no local gravitational influence.

11. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Estheria Quintessimo
If THAT is a fact,... then how can they (scientists) be sure the Universe is expanding?
Because everything that we can see is (at large enough scales) moving away from everything else. There is a natural assumption that we are not at the center of a "special bubble" that is expanding. And that, therefore, the rest of the universe is behaving similarly. We don't know if ALL of the rest of the universe is expanding in the same way. And perhaps we can never know.
Strange, I know you know a lot of stuff, but I think what I understand the Op to mean, is the amount of accumulated knowledge we have about the universe, measured on the amount we do not have. If we do not know the totality of the observed, how can we define any part of it? Even if at a point you would like to observe the universe as a constant changing body, expanding into where, or even what, we would at some point have to ask the question about who we are, don't you think? I hope you understand what I getting at.

12. Originally Posted by Stargate
If we do not know the totality of the observed, how can we define any part of it?
We can look around the universe that we can see, and notice that it seems to be made up of pretty much the same stuff, doing the same things, wherever we look. And then we make the assumption that we do not live anywhere particularly special, so anyone else who lives in the universe would have pretty much the same view of things. That is the only way we can do cosmology. Either that, or we pack up and go home, because we can never truly know what is going on outside of our observable universe.

13. SpeedFreak, time does not care what you or I know.. Its going to speed up or slow down based on the speed an object is moving regardless of if that object can find a reference point, regardless of its frame or place in space.

14. Its going to speed up or slow down based on the speed an object is moving regardless of if that object can find a reference point, regardless of its frame or place in space.
Speed up or slow down relative to what?

15. Originally Posted by gonzales56
SpeedFreak, time does not care what you or I know.. Its going to speed up or slow down based on the speed an object is moving regardless of if that object can find a reference point, regardless of its frame or place in space.
How long is a second to a starship crew travelling at 0.9C?
How far is a mile to that crew?

16. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Stargate
If we do not know the totality of the observed, how can we define any part of it?
We can look around the universe that we can see, and notice that it seems to be made up of pretty much the same stuff, doing the same things, wherever we look. And then we make the assumption that we do not live anywhere particularly special, so anyone else who lives in the universe would have pretty much the same view of things. That is the only way we can do cosmology. Either that, or we pack up and go home, because we can never truly know what is going on outside of our observable universe.
So why don't we just say so? We are always making assumptions as to what we would like it to be, but we are most times unrealistic because, excuse me, I think we have to know ourselves a bit more before we can make any significant jump. We cannot just go out and make atomic weapons of mass destruction and turn around and give it to mad men.

SPEEDFREEK, Man we are home, everything is here, we even have the eyes to see it, all we have to do is open our eyes.

17. Originally Posted by gonzales56
SpeedFreak, time does not care what you or I know.. Its going to speed up or slow down based on the speed an object is moving regardless of if that object can find a reference point, regardless of its frame or place in space.
Time does not speed up or slow down. But different paths through space-time take different amounts of proper time (which never slows down!).

Time-dilation means that less seconds have elapsed along the path taken, relative to the time taken along a different path. But time never actually slows down anywhere, due to relative motion.

If we take two events in space, say a spaceship departing and returning to Earth, then the longer the path taken between those two events, the shorter the elapsed proper time.

You might think this means that time "slows down" but time itself doesn't care what you think.

18. Originally Posted by Stargate
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Stargate
If we do not know the totality of the observed, how can we define any part of it?
We can look around the universe that we can see, and notice that it seems to be made up of pretty much the same stuff, doing the same things, wherever we look. And then we make the assumption that we do not live anywhere particularly special, so anyone else who lives in the universe would have pretty much the same view of things. That is the only way we can do cosmology. Either that, or we pack up and go home, because we can never truly know what is going on outside of our observable universe.
So why don't we just say so? We are always making assumptions as to what we would like it to be, but we are most times unrealistic because, excuse me, I think we have to know ourselves a bit more before we can make any significant jump. We cannot just go out and make atomic weapons of mass destruction and turn around and give it to mad men.

SPEEDFREEK, Man we are home, everything is here, we even have the eyes to see it, all we have to do is open our eyes.
We do say so. It is called the cosmological principle and it underpins the whole of cosmology.

Cosmological principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunno what any of this has to do with atomic weapons, though.

19. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Stargate
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by Stargate
If we do not know the totality of the observed, how can we define any part of it?
We can look around the universe that we can see, and notice that it seems to be made up of pretty much the same stuff, doing the same things, wherever we look. And then we make the assumption that we do not live anywhere particularly special, so anyone else who lives in the universe would have pretty much the same view of things. That is the only way we can do cosmology. Either that, or we pack up and go home, because we can never truly know what is going on outside of our observable universe.
So why don't we just say so? We are always making assumptions as to what we would like it to be, but we are most times unrealistic because, excuse me, I think we have to know ourselves a bit more before we can make any significant jump. We cannot just go out and make atomic weapons of mass destruction and turn around and give it to mad men.

SPEEDFREEK, Man we are home, everything is here, we even have the eyes to see it, all we have to do is open our eyes.
We do say so. It is called the cosmological principle and it underpins the whole of cosmology.

Cosmological principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunno what any of this has to do with atomic weapons, though.
The same as below, we cannot develop weapons to destroy the world and give it to men who do not know how to use them.

My point is first we have to develop the mind, and science would benefit all. We cannot develop science and force it on the mind, do you get what I mean?

20. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Dunno what any of this has to do with atomic weapons, though
Nothing, except in the mind of a woo-sodden pot head.

21. Originally Posted by Stargate
We cannot develop science and force it on the mind, do you get what I mean?
If anyone does, they deserve a Nobel.

22. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, in order to understand how the universe works. What we do with that knowledge is another story, of course.

It is our intense curiosity about the world (or the universe) around us that sets us apart and makes us the unique animal we are. It is probably the reason that homo sapiens are the "most successful" animal on the planet.

23. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by gonzales56
SpeedFreak, time does not care what you or I know.. Its going to speed up or slow down based on the speed an object is moving regardless of if that object can find a reference point, regardless of its frame or place in space.
How long is a second to a starship crew travelling at 0.9C?
How far is a mile to that crew?
30,000,000 meters per second, assuming they were following a light wave in a vacuum would be the speed differential. I don't know how that relates to a mile though. Enlighten me?

24. Originally Posted by Stargate
The same as below, we cannot develop weapons to destroy the world and give it to men who do not know how to use them.

My point is first we have to develop the mind, and science would benefit all. We cannot develop science and force it on the mind, do you get what I mean?
Stargate, if you can't post valid responses that are on topic, then rather don't post at all. The stuff you are espousing here doesn't belong. Take it elsewhere. IF you wan't to talk science philosophy, go to the philosophy section.

25. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by gonzales56
SpeedFreak, time does not care what you or I know.. Its going to speed up or slow down based on the speed an object is moving regardless of if that object can find a reference point, regardless of its frame or place in space.
How long is a second to a starship crew travelling at 0.9C?
How far is a mile to that crew?
30,000,000 meters per second, assuming they were following a light wave in a vacuum would be the speed differential. I don't know how that relates to a mile though. Enlighten me?
To a starship crew travelling at 0.9c, a second lasts a second, and mile measures a mile.

26. Originally Posted by Mayflow
30,000,000 meters per second
Ah, the "science guy".
I ask for a time and a distance and he gives... a speed.
(And a wrong one at that)

assuming they were following a light wave in a vacuum would be the speed differential.

I don't know how that relates to a mile though. Enlighten me?
A mile is a mile is mile.

27. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
30,000,000 meters per second
Ah, the "science guy".
I ask for a time and a distance and he gives... a speed.
(And a wrong one at that)

assuming they were following a light wave in a vacuum would be the speed differential.

I don't know how that relates to a mile though. Enlighten me?
A mile is a mile is mile.
You asked about a speed differential of .9 of the speed of light and the speed of light. I gave it to you. You related it to to a mile in distance, and I asked you how you think it relates, and apparently you do not think it relates, so why did you ask then?

ps the speed of light in a vacuum is figured to be 300,000,000 meters per second. .9 times that is 270,000,000 and so the differential is 30,000,000 - I may not be the most brainiacal girl in the world but I can do simple math. Now go on to how this applies to a mile, as you first asked how it did and then later said a mile is a mile is a mile.

28. Easy there, Ducky.. let me...

When he asked how long is a second to a starship crew travelling at 0.9c, he wasn't asking for a distance, he was asking for a duration of time.

I.e how long does a second last?

The answer is always a second.

29. Originally Posted by Mayflow
You asked about a speed differential of .9 of the speed of light and the speed of light.
Let me quote my ACTUAL questions:
How long is a second to a starship crew travelling at 0.9C?
How far is a mile to that crew?

I gave it to you. You related it to to a mile in distance, and I asked you how you think it relates, and apparently you do not think it relates, so why did you ask then?
If you can't read English why am I supposedly responsible for your failure?

30. The whole point of this part of the conversation is:

Time does not "slow down if you travel fast".

Speed is relative.

Someone who measures you to have a high speed relative to themselves will calculate that your clock will show less elapsed time during a journey than the time they measure you to actually take to make that journey. They might think of this as your time "slowing down" relative to themselves, but they must understand that time does not slow down from your point of view. What changes from your point of view is the distance to your destination - the universe is length contracted along your axis of motion, so the journey takes the correct amount of time from your point of view.

Time-dilation and length contraction never happen in your own frame of reference, they only occur in your frame of reference when calculated from a different frame of reference. That different frame of reference will calculate your spacecraft to be contracted in length, but to you your spacecraft will be the same length as it ever was and it is the length of universe that has contracted along your direction of travel (whilst the other dimensions, width and height, are unaffected).

Length contraction doesn't mean metres get smaller, it means there are less metres. If a distant observer who sees you moving at speed measures your ship to be length contracted, this means they measure your ship has less metres in length, not the same amount of smaller metres. The same goes for time!

31. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Mayflow
You asked about a speed differential of .9 of the speed of light and the speed of light.
Let me quote my ACTUAL questions:
How long is a second to a starship crew travelling at 0.9C?
How far is a mile to that crew?

I gave it to you. You related it to to a mile in distance, and I asked you how you think it relates, and apparently you do not think it relates, so why did you ask then?
If you can't read English why am I supposedly responsible for your failure?
I just asked if you think my speed relative to another speed relates to distance. You decide to think I cannot understand English from that? Also, other people can see what I post, so simply only quoting only parts of my posts is kind of stupid.

32. Originally Posted by Mayflow
You decide to think I cannot understand English from that?
You see?
You're having difficulties again.
I decided that you cannot understand English because, for the second time: I didn't ask about "speed differential".
I asked two questions: "how long is a second?" and "how far is a mile?".
You chose, for some reason, to answer a question that wasn't asked.

As for this:
I just asked if you think my speed relative to another speed relates to distance
Relative speed doesn't relate to distance. (At least in the case of man-made vehicles and every day experience etc. - it does with regard to distant objects like galaxies).

I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.

34. [original post deleted as things have moved on]

35. Originally Posted by Mayflow
With regard to what?

I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
You mean that we haven't spent time answering questions that weren't asked?

36. Originally Posted by Stargate
Strange, I know you know a lot of stuff, but I think what I understand the Op to mean, is the amount of accumulated knowledge we have about the universe, measured on the amount we do not have. If we do not know the totality of the observed, how can we define any part of it?
I don't think that has anything to do with what the OP was asking. But maybe I am wrong.

However, you are making a completely illogical argument. You appear to be saying that because we don't know everything therefore we don't know anything.

That is just silly. It doesn't matter how much we don't know: we still know the stuff we know.

And the thing about science is that we generally know how well we know what we know. We know how accurate our knowledge is. We usually know what it is that we don't know.

Even if at a point you would like to observe the universe as a constant changing body, expanding into where, or even what, we would at some point have to ask the question about who we are, don't you think?
What does "who we are" have to do with objective measurements of the expanding universe? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

I hope you understand what I getting at.
To be as polite as possible: no.

37. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
You say spectacularly wrong things, get properly called on it, and your response is always the same, useless refrain: "You're a bunch of mean bastards."

The far more useful response would be to avoid saying spectacularly wrong things, of course, but that may be impossible. The next best thing would be to accept the corrections offered. When you defend your errors, you simply look actively stupid. You are not going to get gentle treatment in response. You say you don't like the way you are treated. I suggest that the solution to the problem lies within you, not in the larger community.

38. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
You say spectacularly wrong things, get properly called on it, and your response is always the same, useless refrain: "You're a bunch of mean bastards."

The far more useful response would be to avoid saying spectacularly wrong things, of course, but that may be impossible. The next best thing would be to accept the corrections offered. When you defend your errors, you simply look actively stupid. You are not going to get gentle treatment in response. You say you don't like the way you are treated. I suggest that the solution to the problem lies within you, not in the larger community.
That was really stupid.d

39. Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
you are willfully ignorant. you do not learn from the members or on your own. you also cannot take critiicism well. maybe a science forum is not a good place for you. the scientific world is very harsh place. much harsher than the 'mean' comments you are receiving here on a public forum. there is zero tolerance of unfounded speculation and ignorance out there.

40. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
you are willfully ignorant. you do not learn from the members or on your own. you also cannot take critiicism well. maybe a science forum is not a good place for you. the scientific world is very harsh place. much harsher than the 'mean' comments you are receiving here on a public forum. there is zero tolerance of unfounded speculation and ignorance out there.
here is a good book to read that will show you how harsh the scientific world really is:

"Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality" by Manjit Kumar

this book shows the arguments between the two groups in the first third of the 1900s.

41. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
You say spectacularly wrong things, get properly called on it, and your response is always the same, useless refrain: "You're a bunch of mean bastards."

The far more useful response would be to avoid saying spectacularly wrong things, of course, but that may be impossible. The next best thing would be to accept the corrections offered. When you defend your errors, you simply look actively stupid. You are not going to get gentle treatment in response. You say you don't like the way you are treated. I suggest that the solution to the problem lies within you, not in the larger community.
That was really stupid.d
Sadly, your response was every bit as immature and petty as expected. I doubt you'll last much longer here, at this rate. You are not cut out for science, where there are things that are just plain wrong, no matter how much you wish for pink unicorns to be real.

42. Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
you are willfully ignorant. you do not learn from the members or on your own. you also cannot take critiicism well. maybe a science forum is not a good place for you. the scientific world is very harsh place. much harsher than the 'mean' comments you are receiving here on a public forum. there is zero tolerance of unfounded speculation and ignorance out there.
Ok, checks notes, this guy is even meaner than some others. Whoah!!

43. I was going to put this in the Jokes 1 thread, but I feel it's entirely apposite here.

1 Despite the fact that it's not actually funny - I've attended far too many meetings (as the expert) that have gone exactly like this. I suspect I'm not the only one here with that experience.

44. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
You say spectacularly wrong things, get properly called on it, and your response is always the same, useless refrain: "You're a bunch of mean bastards."

The far more useful response would be to avoid saying spectacularly wrong things, of course, but that may be impossible. The next best thing would be to accept the corrections offered. When you defend your errors, you simply look actively stupid. You are not going to get gentle treatment in response. You say you don't like the way you are treated. I suggest that the solution to the problem lies within you, not in the larger community.
That was really stupid.d
Sadly, your response was every bit as immature and petty as expected. I doubt you'll last much longer here, at this rate. You are not cut out for science, where there are things that are just plain wrong, no matter how much you wish for pink unicorns to be real.
More real than guys like you like you I hope!

45. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
you are willfully ignorant. you do not learn from the members or on your own. you also cannot take critiicism well. maybe a science forum is not a good place for you. the scientific world is very harsh place. much harsher than the 'mean' comments you are receiving here on a public forum. there is zero tolerance of unfounded speculation and ignorance out there.
Ok, checks notes, this guy is even meaner than some others. Whoah!!
Whoah!! indeed. Which is the larger transgression: Being willfully ignorant, or pointing that out?

46. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
I was going to put this in the Jokes 1 thread, but I feel it's entirely apposite here.

1 Despite the fact that it's not actually funny - I've attended far too many meetings (as the expert) that have gone exactly like this. I suspect I'm not the only one here with that experience.
that is funny. yes. i have been to meetings that were like that in tone.

47. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Mayflow
Originally Posted by Chucknorium
Originally Posted by Mayflow
I see you and several others here posting crappy stuff and stupid and mean, and not having a damn thing to say.
you are willfully ignorant. you do not learn from the members or on your own. you also cannot take critiicism well. maybe a science forum is not a good place for you. the scientific world is very harsh place. much harsher than the 'mean' comments you are receiving here on a public forum. there is zero tolerance of unfounded speculation and ignorance out there.
Ok, checks notes, this guy is even meaner than some others. Whoah!!
Whoah!! indeed. Which is the larger transgression: Being willfully ignorant, or pointing that out?
Note to self. Guy is even dumber than expected.

48. An unusual female troll.

49. Originally Posted by Mayflow
Note to self. Guy is even dumber than expected.
you are an obvious troll. you have no purpose. you are not even a crank. a crank at least has some foolish nonscience or pseudoscience thing to say, no matter how dumb.

Originally Posted by AlexG
An unusual female troll.
yes. but not interesting.

50. Originally Posted by AlexG
An unusual female troll.
Not JUST a troll, but a crank and a liar too.

51. Originally Posted by AlexG
An unusual female troll.
What do you think she is trolling for?

52. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by AlexG
An unusual female troll.
Not JUST a troll, but a crank and a liar too.
Yeah yeah yeah, we know enough about you. Mind if we move on now?

53. Mayflow.

You seem to be caught in a trap of your own devising.

A couple of days off will give you a chance to rethink your approach.

Page 2 of 2 First 12
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement