A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 4 Mar 2010 13:21 On Mar 4, 12:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Mar, 18:04, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 1:00 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > If it's a constant velocity in one frame, it's a constant velocity in > > every frame, even though that constant velocity is zero in one > > particular frame. Constant velocity implies that no force is being > > applied, since F = dP/dt. > > But as I say, acceleration is absolute, not relative, whereas a > measure of velocity could be interpreted to be relative. > > > Traveling on inertia kind of invokes the mideivil idea that something > > is required to keep the object moving, as if the object contains some > > kind of inertia that if taken away would cause it to stop. > > I was treating inertia simply as "the tendency of matter to maintain > its absolute velocity through space". Where did you get that definition? It is terrible. There is no absolute velocity through space.
From: mpalenik on 4 Mar 2010 13:21 On Mar 4, 1:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Mar, 18:04, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 1:00 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > If it's a constant velocity in one frame, it's a constant velocity in > > every frame, even though that constant velocity is zero in one > > particular frame. Constant velocity implies that no force is being > > applied, since F = dP/dt. > > But as I say, acceleration is absolute, not relative, whereas a > measure of velocity could be interpreted to be relative. Constant velocity always implies zero acceleration. No matter what that velocity is, no matter what frame you look at it from, constant velocity implies zero acceleration. And actually, acceleration is also relative under SR (but not under Newton), although in a different way from velocity. > > > Traveling on inertia kind of invokes the mideivil idea that something > > is required to keep the object moving, as if the object contains some > > kind of inertia that if taken away would cause it to stop. > > I was treating inertia simply as "the tendency of matter to maintain > its absolute velocity through space". Which is kind of a mideivil idea. Now days we know that objects don't need a tendency to keep moving. There simply is no absolute motion and thus, no reason that an object should ever change its velocity unless a force is acting on it.
From: PD on 4 Mar 2010 13:27 On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism from > > > > > science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump through, it > > > > > will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is what > > > > > *fundamentally* sets it apart from science. > > > > > And also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion. Thanks. > > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science, > > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion. > > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other. > > > > and > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually claims > > > to be scientific in some essential respects. > > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim. > > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining > essence of science is naturalism. Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all.
From: BURT on 4 Mar 2010 13:34 On Mar 4, 10:14 am, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 1:10 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 1:03 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 4 mar, 18:49, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 4, 12:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 4, 11:17 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:49, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:32, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 11:28 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:20, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 10:31 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 13:40, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 3:12 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Mar, 20:01, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 12:52 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. In SR, clocks *appear* to run slower as you are increasing your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distance from the clock. The effect is entirely apparent in SR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You must just go through the entire thread and not pay any attention > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to what anybody says. Ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) What you've stated above is not an effect of SR. It is an effect > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of propagation delay, which was used to calculate c from the motion of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the moons of jupiter hundreds of years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If you were to move TOWARD the clock, it would appear to run > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > faster. But SR says nothing about whether you are moving toward or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away from an object. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <suspicious eyebrow raised> Ok. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) The amount that the clock would appear to slow down is DIFFERENT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from the amount that SR predicts the clock *actually* slows down > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? I'm growing increasingly suspicious. In what way does SR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > predict the "actual" slowdown, as opposed to the "apparent" slowdown? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And for example, if we racked up the value of 'c' to near infinity, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would SR still predict an "actual" slowdown, even though the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > propagation delays would approach zero? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With what you have described, I checked just to be sure, even though I > > > > > > > > > > > > > was already pretty sure what the answer would be, the time you read > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving away the clock would be: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t2 = t - (x+vt)/c = t(1-v/c) - x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and when you move toward the clock > > > > > > > > > > > > > > t2 = t + (x+vt)/c = t(1+v/c) + x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so moving away from the clock: > > > > > > > > > > > > > dt2/dt = 1-v/c > > > > > > > > > > > > > and toward > > > > > > > > > > > > > dt2/dt = 1-v/c > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Special relativity predicts that the moving clock will always slow > > > > > > > > > > > > > down as > > > > > > > > > > > > > dt2/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you *measure* is a combination of the actual slow down predicted > > > > > > > > > > > > > by SR (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and whatever changes occur due to propagation > > > > > > > > > > > > > delays (which depend on the direction of motion). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. So let us suppose that we take two clocks. Separate them by a > > > > > > > > > > > > certain distance, synchronise them when they are both stationary, and > > > > > > > > > > > > then accelerate them both towards each other (and just before they > > > > > > > > > > > > collide, we bring them stationary again). Are you seriously saying > > > > > > > > > > > > that both clocks report that the other clock has slowed down, even > > > > > > > > > > > > though they have both undergone symmetrical processes? Because there > > > > > > > > > > > > is obviously a contradiction there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is correct. Both will report a slow down.. And in fact, > > > > > > > > > > > which ever one breaks the inertial frame to match speed with the other > > > > > > > > > > > is the one that will be "wrong". This is still within the realm of > > > > > > > > > > > SR, not GR. > > > > > > > > > > > What if they both "break the inertial frame"? > > > > > > > > > > Then whichever frame they both accelerate into will be the one that > > > > > > > > > has measured the "correct" time dilation. > > > > > > > > > So in other words, the clocks will register the same time, but will > > > > > > > > have slowed in some "absolute sense"? > > > > > > > > Yes--assuming they both accelerated by the same amount (that is to > > > > > > > say, assuming they both broke the inertial frame in a symmetric way). > > > > > > > Otherwise, they will register different times. > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > So let's explore an extension of this scenario. Let's say you have two > > > > > > clocks, and you accelerate both of them up to a common speed, and > > > > > > after they have travelled a certain distance, you turn them around and > > > > > > return them to the starting point. The only difference is that one > > > > > > clock goes a certain distance, and the other clock goes twice that > > > > > > distance, but they *both* have the same acceleration profile - the > > > > > > only difference is that one clock spends more time travelling on > > > > > > inertia. > > > > > > > Obviously, one clock will return to the starting point earlier than > > > > > > the other. But when both have returned, are their times still in > > > > > > agreement with each other, or have they changed? > > > > > > Agreement. Both of them will agree, but will be showing a time earlier > > > > > than a third clock that was left behind at the starting point. > > > > > Wait, maybe I'm confused by Ste's setup. Didn't he say that one > > > > travels twice as far as the other? But then he also says that you > > > > turn them both around and return them to the start after traveling a > > > > certain distance. Have they moved different distances in his scenario > > > > or not?- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > lol you framejumping grasshoppers have just have no idea what is > > > ***REALLY*** going on have you. Don't forget u can always use the > > > fudgefactor. > > > > JT > > > You figured me out! Damn it. I guess the days of the lie are over.. > > Pretty soon the physicists absolute control over government, politics, > > and economics will come to an end. Damn you for uncovering our > > secret. Damn you all to hell!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Photon has set speed period TreBert- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Then it has a set kinetic energy. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 4 Mar 2010 17:19
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4563bc22-e173-4134-b524-40987e9b062c(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On 4 Mar, 16:48, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 10:19 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4 Mar, 12:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > Not really, because if the total acceleration is small, then so is > > > > the > > > > speed. > > > > That is a nonsense argument. Acceleration can be small and speeds very > > > large. > > > When I went to school, you could not have a large change of speed with > > only a small amount of total acceleration. > > The problem is your use of the term "total acceleration". If by total > acceleration, you mean integral(a dt), then yes, you are correct. > However, there is already a word for integral(a dt) -- it's called > "the change in velocity". The term "total acceleration" isn't > actually defined. Acceleration is defined, velocity is defined, > deltav is defined. But "total acceleration is not". Essentially, I'm defining "total acceleration" as something akin to total force, so that even though the force may be small, if it continues for a long time then the total force will be the same as if a large force was applied for a short period of time. In this way, if the application of force is what is causing either part or the whole of the time dilation effect, then it is the final speed that counts, not how quickly the object reached that speed. ________________________ By definition, if only the final speed counts, and not how quickly you got there, then the acceleration doesn't matter (as the acceleration is "how quickly you got there"). So you are saying completely disregard acceleration or anything else except its final speed, which means a purely SR interpretation. Which is exactly what you got. I answer to another stupid comment you made, you can have low acceleration but achieve high speeds by simply accelerating for longer. An acceleration of 0.01g will get you to 0.5c if you wait long enough. |