A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 13 Mar 2010 18:59 On 12 Mar, 18:16, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 12:00 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Theparadox, which is what is perceived (normally) by freshmen when > > > first introduced to this statement, is embodied in their immediate > > > classroom question: "But in the frame of the traveling twin, it is the > > > earth twin that is moving away and returning. Since this is symmetric > > > to the case of the traveling twin moving away and returning, then > > > shouldn't the traveling twin expect the earth twin to be younger when > > > they meet again?" Now perhaps theparadoxis more apparent to you. > > > > However, the puzzle is specifically designed to emphasize the danger > > > of oversimplifying. In fact, the twotwinsare NOT symmetric, because > > > one unambiguously experiences acceleration and the other unambiguously > > > experiences no acceleration. This then leads to a discussion of what > > > produces the asymmetry in the time. > > > I know Paul. I know. > > You can imagine my surprise, since what you said explicitly above was > that theparadoxwas that thetwinsaged differently. They do, although for some reason I anticipate further conflict on this point. > > > Perhaps if you had started out by asking, "Since I don't see any > > > obviousparadoxhere at all, perhaps someone could illuminate me as to > > > why this is called the twinparadox?" Then at least you would have > > > been on square one. > > > Really I just wanted to avoid going off on a long tangent about the > >twinsparadox. As I said, the scenario that were were addressing is > > different from thetwinsparadox, in that we have three clocks, and > > the two clocks with which we are now concerned (B and C) both return > > to the origin point *synchronised* (albeit both lagging behind A), > > whereas thetwins' ages are not synchronised on the return of the > > astronaut twin. > > Well, yes, it is a different result from the application of the same > principle. > > If I calculate the angle that I can tip a TV tray before the coffee > cup on it starts to slide, I find that I'm using the same principle > (equilibrium of forces) that I would use to determine the tension in > picture-hanger wire when mounting a photo on the wall. > > Different situation. Very same principle. > > Fine example of losing the forest for the trees. As you've done here. Of course we are talking about the "same principle", because we are of course still talking about SR. The point is that I want to confine the discussion to a specific scenario, and while the principles involved may be the same, the scenario is not.
From: Ste on 13 Mar 2010 19:01 On 13 Mar, 00:23, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 6:35 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7 Mar, 02:51, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:651a713d-7ae4-4048-bafb-f1b3219ee4fc(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On 6 Mar, 12:47, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > This should make perfect sense to you. If a clock is running 2% > > > >> > slower, then it is running 2% slower regardless of distance. But if, > > > >> > as a result of running 2% slower, it falls behind 6 minutes after > > > >> > running a certain amount of time, then it will fall behind 12 minutes > > > >> > after running for twice as long. > > > > >> Agreed. > > > > >> The question now is, if we agree that both clocks suffer time dilation > > > >> in this way, then when they return to the start point, how do they > > > >> each reconcile the fact that (after accounting for the effects of > > > >> acceleration) it ought to be the other clock which is slow, when in > > > >> fact one clock (the one that went furthest from the start point) will > > > >> be slower than the other? And a third clock, left at the start point, > > > >> will be running ahead of both? > > > > >> _________________________ > > > >> They know that the operations were not symmetric. Only one clock remained > > > >> in > > > >> the same inertial reference frame throughout. The other two clocks spent > > > >> different amounts of time in at least 3 different inertial reference > > > >> frames. > > > >> Everybody can see this is true, and so nobody expects that the clocks > > > >> will > > > >> remain synchronised. > > > > > Yes, but the important question here is whether they agree *after* the > > > > effects of acceleration are taken into account. I mean, if we said > > > > that each travelling clock slows by 2% when moving away from the start > > > > point at a certain speed, then by rights both travelling clocks should > > > > slow equally. Yes? > > > > As I understand your thought experiment, no. > > > > In SR, time dilation is a function of relative speed and the time for which > > > they are moving at the speed. It is not a function of accleration. > > > > A doesn't move. B moves at speed v for time t, and its clock will read x > > > behind A. C moves at speed v for time 2t, and its clock will read 2x behind > > > A. > > > The question is this. We'll deal with only the outbound trip (in other > > words, the clocks are on the move, but time 't' has not yet elapsed, > > so there has been no further acceleration). I agree with your answer > > above, as it concerns A's frame. > > > The question is, from the frame of B, what will the slowdown be on > > clock C, *after* having accounted for the increased distances between > > them (i.e. having accounted for the increased propagation delays). It > > seems to me that the natural answer is to say "4%".- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space. Time > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space. As far as I know, there is never an "acceleration of time" under any circumstances.
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:02 On Mar 13, 5:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 10:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 12, 11:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 12, 8:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 12, 5:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 6:35 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 7 Mar, 02:51, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > >news:651a713d-7ae4-4048-bafb-f1b3219ee4fc(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Mar, 12:47, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > This should make perfect sense to you. If a clock is running 2% > > > > > > > > > >> > slower, then it is running 2% slower regardless of distance. But if, > > > > > > > > > >> > as a result of running 2% slower, it falls behind 6 minutes after > > > > > > > > > >> > running a certain amount of time, then it will fall behind 12 minutes > > > > > > > > > >> > after running for twice as long. > > > > > > > > > > >> Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > >> The question now is, if we agree that both clocks suffer time dilation > > > > > > > > > >> in this way, then when they return to the start point, how do they > > > > > > > > > >> each reconcile the fact that (after accounting for the effects of > > > > > > > > > >> acceleration) it ought to be the other clock which is slow, when in > > > > > > > > > >> fact one clock (the one that went furthest from the start point) will > > > > > > > > > >> be slower than the other? And a third clock, left at the start point, > > > > > > > > > >> will be running ahead of both? > > > > > > > > > > >> _________________________ > > > > > > > > > >> They know that the operations were not symmetric. Only one clock remained > > > > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > > > > >> the same inertial reference frame throughout. The other two clocks spent > > > > > > > > > >> different amounts of time in at least 3 different inertial reference > > > > > > > > > >> frames. > > > > > > > > > >> Everybody can see this is true, and so nobody expects that the clocks > > > > > > > > > >> will > > > > > > > > > >> remain synchronised. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the important question here is whether they agree *after* the > > > > > > > > > > effects of acceleration are taken into account. I mean, if we said > > > > > > > > > > that each travelling clock slows by 2% when moving away from the start > > > > > > > > > > point at a certain speed, then by rights both travelling clocks should > > > > > > > > > > slow equally. Yes? > > > > > > > > > > As I understand your thought experiment, no. > > > > > > > > > > In SR, time dilation is a function of relative speed and the time for which > > > > > > > > > they are moving at the speed. It is not a function of accleration. > > > > > > > > > > A doesn't move. B moves at speed v for time t, and its clock will read x > > > > > > > > > behind A. C moves at speed v for time 2t, and its clock will read 2x behind > > > > > > > > > A. > > > > > > > > > The question is this. We'll deal with only the outbound trip (in other > > > > > > > > words, the clocks are on the move, but time 't' has not yet elapsed, > > > > > > > > so there has been no further acceleration). I agree with your answer > > > > > > > > above, as it concerns A's frame. > > > > > > > > > The question is, from the frame of B, what will the slowdown be on > > > > > > > > clock C, *after* having accounted for the increased distances between > > > > > > > > them (i.e. having accounted for the increased propagation delays). It > > > > > > > > seems to me that the natural answer is to say "4%".- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space.. Time > > > > > > > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space. > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > Due to the change in the pressure associated with the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > In my model Aether flows over flowing energy and field without any > > > > > pressure. And time flows nowhere else that is empty but only over > > > > > particle and field. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > In AD, the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive > > > > objects is gravity. The faster a clock moves with respect to the > > > > aether the greater the pressure associated with the aether on the > > > > clock the slower the clock ticks. > > > > > An atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the aether pressure it exists in.. > > > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to > > > > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the > > > > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a > > > > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite > > > > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure > > > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure > > > > on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth > > > > "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The > > > > aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite > > > > moves in the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether > > > > displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites tick > > > > approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground." > > > > (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).-Hidequotedtext - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > MPC is your aether pressure accross the extension of particle's and > > > light's fields equal in strength of gravity? Do they experience "even > > > gravity" over their whole forms while falling in a "spread out" > > > different tidal gravity strengths? > > > We need to distinguish between momentum, and acceleration and gravity. > > A body moving with constant momentum with respect to the aether has > > the aether pressure applied equally to each and every nuclei which is > > the matter which is the body. > > > When a body is accelerating or the body is under the influence of > > gravity the pressure associated with the aether is not applied equally > > to each and every part of the nuclei which is the matter which is the > > body. > > > > This must necessarily be true otherwise how would things know which > > > speed to fall at as the whole forms they are? If they are in more than > > > one strength of gravity afterall? There is only one strength that > > > counts for matter and light and is the strength of gravity at their > > > centers. > > > The reason all objects fall at 32ft/sec^2 in a vacuum near the surface > > of the Earth is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by > > the Earth is greater 'on top' of each and every nuclei which is the > > matter which is the body pushing the body towards the Earth. As the > > body is being pushed by the aether pressure towards the Earth more > > aether is continually 'on top' of the body pushing the body towards > > the Earth and so on. This is why objects accelerate as the 'fall' > > towards the Earth. > > > > What about the aether gives the pressure? Can you define the different > > > strengths of gravity with one aether pressure spreading out into the > > > distance from mather? How does aether speed up without its time nature > > > going faster instead of slower? > > > The aether is not at rest when displaced. We know this because light > > reaches us from where Jupiter was in its orbit (i.e. Jupiter does not > > leave a void in its wake). Aether pressure abides by the inverse > > square law. > > > I stay away from describing the aether as 'speeding up'. I prefer to > > discuss the state of the aether as its state of displacement and its > > state of at rest with respect to the matter which displaces the > > aether. > > If you must use the state of rest of aether and then you use state > of aether in motion then for both of those to be true the aether > necessarily must speed up. > Matter moves relative to the aether. The aether does not necessarily speed up in and of itself. > I challenge your assumption that the Aether is everything. This is not > true. Energy and space also play a role in physics. Aether is only > part of whole formsaof matter and light in physics. > Aether is not everything. Aether and matter are different states of mather. > Togetherness is Unification not the sameness of everything. > AD is the most correct unified theory to date. > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch; The beginning of center based physics in gravity theory- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Ste on 13 Mar 2010 19:04 On 14 Mar, 00:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 13 Mar, 00:23, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space. Time > > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space. > > As far as I know, there is never an "acceleration of time" under any > circumstances. Just to qualify this dangerous statement immediately, I mean there is never an "acceleration of time" as a direct result of a change of velocity.
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:11
On Mar 13, 7:04 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 14 Mar, 00:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 13 Mar, 00:23, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space. Time > > > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space. > > > As far as I know, there is never an "acceleration of time" under any > > circumstances. > > Just to qualify this dangerous statement immediately, I mean there is > never an "acceleration of time" as a direct result of a change of > velocity. Time is a concept. Time does not accelerate or change with velocity or exist at all beyond our conceptualization of it. And just to be clear, all physical life has the concept of time or there would be no physical life. And by physical life I mean anything that is born and dies. The rate at which a clock ticks is dependent upon the aether pressure in which it exists. |