Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Ste on 9 Mar 2010 12:07
On 9 Mar, 14:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:26 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Mar, 22:36, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Mar, 19:12, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 8, 8:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 4 Mar, 18:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > Then what did you read into it?
>
> > > > > I didn't have to read into it. Take a look at page 64 of the 139-page
> > > > > decision:
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > 4. Whether ID is Science
>
> > > > > After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find
> > > > > that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court
> > > > > takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three
> > > > > different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a
> > > > > determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the
> > > > > centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
> > > > > supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity,
> > > > > central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism
> > > > > that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative
> > > > > attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As
> > > > > we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to
> > > > > note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
> > > > > community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it
> > > > > been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals
> > > > > that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries,
> > > > > science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain
> > > > > natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62
> > > > > (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to
> > > > > authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical
> > > > > evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a
> > > > > discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical
> > > > > authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a
> > > > > scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In
> > > > > deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the
> > > > > existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not
> > > > > consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world. (9:21
> > > > > (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be
> > > > > important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103
> > > > > (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science,
> > > > > which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the
> > > > > natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological
> > > > > naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method.
> > > > > ============================================
> > > > > You'll note the emphasis on "testability, rather than any ...
> > > > > philosophical coherence" which provides a scientific idea's worth..
> > > > > Note also (emph. mine) "This self-imposed CONVENTION of science, which
> > > > > limits inquiry to TESTABLE, natural (NOT SUPERNATURAL) explanations
> > > > > about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as
> > > > > 'methodological naturalism' and is sometimes known as the scientific
> > > > > method."
>
> > > > > Creationism (and it was also judged that Intelligent Design is thinly
> > > > > disguised creationism) is simply not science, because it fails on the
> > > > > metric of testability, which is an indispensable component of the
> > > > > scientific method which in turn is indispensable to science.
>
> > > > > It seems so plainly written to me.
>
> > > > Then you are less accustomed to reading judgments than I am. It
> > > > mentions "natural" and "naturalism" 6 times in total, and mentions the
> > > > word "testable" only twice (and without necessarily relating
> > > > "testability" to "falsificationism").
>
> > > > The same is true of the whole judgment - it repeatedly refers
> > > > contrasts the supernaturalism of creationism (or specifically ID),
> > > > with the naturalism of science. I'm not saying one judgment of the
> > > > court is the final word on the matter, but it was your reference and
> > > > certainly the main emphasis is on the supernatural versus the natural,
> > > > not specifically the untestable versus testable (or any specific brand
> > > > of testability).
>
> > > > Come on Paul, if this reference was supposed to support your
> > > > contention that falsificationism as opposed to naturalism defined
> > > > science, then it wasn't fit for purpose.
>
> > > I certainly defer to you on the legal arcanery, as you should with me
> > > in the arcanery of physics. If you say that what is written in the
> > > judgment is tempered by how many times a word is used, and that if
> > > there is one sentence in a judgment that uses a word once, it means
> > > then it is not to be taken as true as statements that use a different
> > > word more than once, I certainly will have to take your word for it.
>
> > No that's not what I said.
>
> > What I did say is that, on account of the frequency with which the
> > judge (and the witnesses) connect science with naturalism (and as I
> > say, from a cursory glance it appeared to be a connection that ran
> > through the entire judgment), it does nothing for your position that
> > falsificationism is what defines science. According to this judgment,
> > a central pillar of science is naturalism.
>
> > At the very least, we can agree that testability *and* naturalism
> > define science according to the judge. However there is no extensive
> > discussion of what "testable" means. Indeed, at times the judge and
> > the witnesses seem to treat "testable" as being almost synonymous with
> > naturalistic[1], and untestable as being a necessary entailment of the
> > supernaturalistic. Indeed the one and only occasion on which
> > "falsifiable" is mentioned (within a 140 page judgment), it is within
> > the context of saying that ID is necessarily not falsifiable *because*
> > is it not naturalistic.
>
> > It is fair to say that, on the evidence that the court considered, the
> > arguments were strongly focussed towards distinguishing the natural
> > from the supernatural, not the falsifiable from the unfalsifiable.
>
> > However, I'm not saying this judgment is the final word on the matter.
> > What I am saying is that it lent your position no support as against
> > mine.
>
> > [1] Other sources have pointed out that virtually any statement about
> > the natural world is testable (at least notionally, if not practically
> > so). Also bear in mind that the court is not concerned with whether
> > science rests on belief. Only in whether ID is compatible with
> > science, which it clearly isn't.
>
> I see no point in belaboring this. You have interpreted the judgment
> to emphasize naturalism as being the defining feature of science, to
> the point where you even interpret testability to mean naturalism.

I've simply pointed out what the judgment says, without at all
suggesting that the judgment is somehow definitive in respect of the
dispute between us.



> You've had a number of scientists here vociferously emphasizing to you
> what testability means and how central that is to science, which you
> have dismissed. If you've made up your mind to the point where you
> find direct counterstatements to be not compelling, then I'll let you
> sit with your fixed opinion.

What I haven't found compelling is the argument that falsificationism
is the hallmark of science as against non-science or religion. What is
quite clear from the judgment is that it was that court's view that it
is naturalism that is the hallmark of science. Indeed to quote the
judge: "This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an
essential attribute to
science by definition and by convention."
From: Ste on 9 Mar 2010 12:14
On 9 Mar, 14:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:49 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Mar, 22:55, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 5:32 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What confuses me is that, if the clocks run slow by 2% for all the
> > > > time that they are moving, how does one reconcile this with the fact
> > > > that, if one uses the frame of one of the moving clocks, say clock B,
> > > > then it seems to be to be your argument that there is no slowdown at
> > > > all for B, and it is the other clocks, A and C, that slow down (i.e..
> > > > *disregarding* both acceleration and propagation delays).
>
> > > Be careful. The acceleration profiles are common between B and C, but
> > > they are not common to A. So while there is no difference between B
> > > and C due to the acceleration, you CANNOT say that the acceleration
> > > has no effect whatsoever. In fact, it is the indisputable fact that B
> > > and C accelerate and A does NOT accelerate that makes the situation
> > > nonsymmetric for A. This is what makes the worldline for A straight,
> > > and the worldline for B and C kinked.
>
> > Yes, but we're supposed to have isolated the effect of acceleration,
> > and disregarded it.
>
> No, we did not. We said that it cannot account for the DIFFERENCE
> between B and C, but this does not discount or remove acceleration
> from further consideration, particularly with regard to how clock A's
> rate is seen by B.
>
>
>
>
>
> > And in any event, the more important question is
> > the discrepancy between B and C.
>
> > > Two places where I will try to intercept misconceptions.
> > > 1. The first temptation is to say, well, if the kink is what's
> > > responsible for the time dilation, then all the dilating must happen
> > > during the acceleration. That is not the case. Note the time dilation
> > > is different for B and C, even though they have the same kink (the
> > > same acceleration profile). The fact that there IS a kink is what
> > > makes the elapsed time less on B and C than it is on A (where there is
> > > no kink), but how much less depends on the steepness and length of the
> > > straight parts of the worldline on either side of the kink.
>
> > As I say, I've stipulated that we are measuring on the outbound
> > journey, before any of the clocks have turned back. So we've had one
> > episode of acceleration and now B and C are travelling at the same
> > speed away from the origin point, but in opposite directions. What
> > amount of time dilation does C suffer relative to B? Nil? 2%? 4%?
>
> It's not that simple, and to get a number, you need to use the math.
> Sorry, but that's the facts. The 2% is the Lorentz dilation factor,
> and that is given by a function 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and you can see
> that doubling the speed will not double the Lorentz dilation factor.
> Furthermore, the speed of C relative to B is not twice the velocity of
> B with respect to A, because the relation for combining velocities is
> (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c^2).
>
> To find out what the Lorentz dilation factor is for C relative to B,
> then you simply need to put in the numbers and crank.

So anyway, the point is that C will be time dilated relative to B (and
the same for B relative to C). Yes?

Right, so if both are dilated relative to the other, then exactly how
do they equalise with each other again when they return to their
original location at A? By definition, all dilation effects measured
between B and C on the outbound trip, must be totally reversed on the
inbound trip (although we accept both will be dilated relative to A).
Yes?
From: PD on 9 Mar 2010 12:20
On Mar 9, 11:07 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 Mar, 14:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 7:26 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Mar, 22:36, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 8 Mar, 19:12, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 8, 8:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 18:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > > Then what did you read into it?
>
> > > > > > I didn't have to read into it. Take a look at page 64 of the 139-page
> > > > > > decision:
> > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > 4. Whether ID is Science
>
> > > > > > After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find
> > > > > > that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court
> > > > > > takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three
> > > > > > different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a
> > > > > > determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the
> > > > > > centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
> > > > > > supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity,
> > > > > > central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism
> > > > > > that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative
> > > > > > attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As
> > > > > > we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to
> > > > > > note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
> > > > > > community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it
> > > > > > been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals
> > > > > > that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries,
> > > > > > science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain
> > > > > > natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62
> > > > > > (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to
> > > > > > authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical
> > > > > > evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a
> > > > > > discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical
> > > > > > authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a
> > > > > > scientific idea’s worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In
> > > > > > deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the
> > > > > > existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not
> > > > > > consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world.. (9:21
> > > > > > (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be
> > > > > > important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103
> > > > > > (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science,
> > > > > > which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the
> > > > > > natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological
> > > > > > naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method.
> > > > > > ============================================
> > > > > > You'll note the emphasis on "testability, rather than any ...
> > > > > > philosophical coherence" which provides a scientific idea's worth.
> > > > > > Note also (emph. mine) "This self-imposed CONVENTION of science, which
> > > > > > limits inquiry to TESTABLE, natural (NOT SUPERNATURAL) explanations
> > > > > > about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as
> > > > > > 'methodological naturalism' and is sometimes known as the scientific
> > > > > > method."
>
> > > > > > Creationism (and it was also judged that Intelligent Design is thinly
> > > > > > disguised creationism) is simply not science, because it fails on the
> > > > > > metric of testability, which is an indispensable component of the
> > > > > > scientific method which in turn is indispensable to science.
>
> > > > > > It seems so plainly written to me.
>
> > > > > Then you are less accustomed to reading judgments than I am. It
> > > > > mentions "natural" and "naturalism" 6 times in total, and mentions the
> > > > > word "testable" only twice (and without necessarily relating
> > > > > "testability" to "falsificationism").
>
> > > > > The same is true of the whole judgment - it repeatedly refers
> > > > > contrasts the supernaturalism of creationism (or specifically ID),
> > > > > with the naturalism of science. I'm not saying one judgment of the
> > > > > court is the final word on the matter, but it was your reference and
> > > > > certainly the main emphasis is on the supernatural versus the natural,
> > > > > not specifically the untestable versus testable (or any specific brand
> > > > > of testability).
>
> > > > > Come on Paul, if this reference was supposed to support your
> > > > > contention that falsificationism as opposed to naturalism defined
> > > > > science, then it wasn't fit for purpose.
>
> > > > I certainly defer to you on the legal arcanery, as you should with me
> > > > in the arcanery of physics. If you say that what is written in the
> > > > judgment is tempered by how many times a word is used, and that if
> > > > there is one sentence in a judgment that uses a word once, it means
> > > > then it is not to be taken as true as statements that use a different
> > > > word more than once, I certainly will have to take your word for it..
>
> > > No that's not what I said.
>
> > > What I did say is that, on account of the frequency with which the
> > > judge (and the witnesses) connect science with naturalism (and as I
> > > say, from a cursory glance it appeared to be a connection that ran
> > > through the entire judgment), it does nothing for your position that
> > > falsificationism is what defines science. According to this judgment,
> > > a central pillar of science is naturalism.
>
> > > At the very least, we can agree that testability *and* naturalism
> > > define science according to the judge. However there is no extensive
> > > discussion of what "testable" means. Indeed, at times the judge and
> > > the witnesses seem to treat "testable" as being almost synonymous with
> > > naturalistic[1], and untestable as being a necessary entailment of the
> > > supernaturalistic. Indeed the one and only occasion on which
> > > "falsifiable" is mentioned (within a 140 page judgment), it is within
> > > the context of saying that ID is necessarily not falsifiable *because*
> > > is it not naturalistic.
>
> > > It is fair to say that, on the evidence that the court considered, the
> > > arguments were strongly focussed towards distinguishing the natural
> > > from the supernatural, not the falsifiable from the unfalsifiable.
>
> > > However, I'm not saying this judgment is the final word on the matter..
> > > What I am saying is that it lent your position no support as against
> > > mine.
>
> > > [1] Other sources have pointed out that virtually any statement about
> > > the natural world is testable (at least notionally, if not practically
> > > so). Also bear in mind that the court is not concerned with whether
> > > science rests on belief. Only in whether ID is compatible with
> > > science, which it clearly isn't.
>
> > I see no point in belaboring this. You have interpreted the judgment
> > to emphasize naturalism as being the defining feature of science, to
> > the point where you even interpret testability to mean naturalism.
>
> I've simply pointed out what the judgment says, without at all
> suggesting that the judgment is somehow definitive in respect of the
> dispute between us.
>
> > You've had a number of scientists here vociferously emphasizing to you
> > what testability means and how central that is to science, which you
> > have dismissed. If you've made up your mind to the point where you
> > find direct counterstatements to be not compelling, then I'll let you
> > sit with your fixed opinion.
>
> What I haven't found compelling is the argument that falsificationism
> is the hallmark of science as against non-science or religion. What is
> quite clear from the judgment is that it was that court's view that it
> is naturalism that is the hallmark of science. Indeed to quote the
> judge: "This rigorous attachment to “natural” explanations is an
> essential attribute to
> science by definition and by convention."

Where "natural" is distinguished from "supernatural", this being said
at least ... oh, never mind, I lost count.

You've had numerous people from the scientific field flatly averring
that falsification and experimental test IS the hallmark of science,
and yet you find it less than compelling. This perhaps goes back to
the issue that you believe what you want to believe, and you choose
your experts according to whether they hold the same belief. And this
IS a hallmark of religious thinking.

PD
From: PD on 9 Mar 2010 12:39
On Mar 9, 11:14 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 Mar, 14:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 7:49 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Mar, 22:55, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 5:32 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What confuses me is that, if the clocks run slow by 2% for all the
> > > > > time that they are moving, how does one reconcile this with the fact
> > > > > that, if one uses the frame of one of the moving clocks, say clock B,
> > > > > then it seems to be to be your argument that there is no slowdown at
> > > > > all for B, and it is the other clocks, A and C, that slow down (i..e.
> > > > > *disregarding* both acceleration and propagation delays).
>
> > > > Be careful. The acceleration profiles are common between B and C, but
> > > > they are not common to A. So while there is no difference between B
> > > > and C due to the acceleration, you CANNOT say that the acceleration
> > > > has no effect whatsoever. In fact, it is the indisputable fact that B
> > > > and C accelerate and A does NOT accelerate that makes the situation
> > > > nonsymmetric for A. This is what makes the worldline for A straight,
> > > > and the worldline for B and C kinked.
>
> > > Yes, but we're supposed to have isolated the effect of acceleration,
> > > and disregarded it.
>
> > No, we did not. We said that it cannot account for the DIFFERENCE
> > between B and C, but this does not discount or remove acceleration
> > from further consideration, particularly with regard to how clock A's
> > rate is seen by B.
>
> > > And in any event, the more important question is
> > > the discrepancy between B and C.
>
> > > > Two places where I will try to intercept misconceptions.
> > > > 1. The first temptation is to say, well, if the kink is what's
> > > > responsible for the time dilation, then all the dilating must happen
> > > > during the acceleration. That is not the case. Note the time dilation
> > > > is different for B and C, even though they have the same kink (the
> > > > same acceleration profile). The fact that there IS a kink is what
> > > > makes the elapsed time less on B and C than it is on A (where there is
> > > > no kink), but how much less depends on the steepness and length of the
> > > > straight parts of the worldline on either side of the kink.
>
> > > As I say, I've stipulated that we are measuring on the outbound
> > > journey, before any of the clocks have turned back. So we've had one
> > > episode of acceleration and now B and C are travelling at the same
> > > speed away from the origin point, but in opposite directions. What
> > > amount of time dilation does C suffer relative to B? Nil? 2%? 4%?
>
> > It's not that simple, and to get a number, you need to use the math.
> > Sorry, but that's the facts. The 2% is the Lorentz dilation factor,
> > and that is given by a function 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and you can see
> > that doubling the speed will not double the Lorentz dilation factor.
> > Furthermore, the speed of C relative to B is not twice the velocity of
> > B with respect to A, because the relation for combining velocities is
> > (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c^2).
>
> > To find out what the Lorentz dilation factor is for C relative to B,
> > then you simply need to put in the numbers and crank.
>
> So anyway, the point is that C will be time dilated relative to B (and
> the same for B relative to C). Yes?

Yes.

>
> Right, so if both are dilated relative to the other, then exactly how
> do they equalise with each other again when they return to their
> original location at A?

Well, first of all, they don't, in the scenario you suggested, as I've
noted.

> By definition, all dilation effects measured
> between B and C on the outbound trip, must be totally reversed on the
> inbound trip (although we accept both will be dilated relative to A).
> Yes?

Yes. I'll take the symmetric case here, where they both travel outward
and back the same distance.

The details here are interesting, and again, it depends a little on
what's actually being measured. This is also covered and explained
nicely in the link that I gave you, so I do recommend you read that.
You have to first keep in mind that the B and C clocks are not in the
same place, so it takes some care to explain what you mean when you
say that B sees that clock C is running slow. How exactly is the
information exchanged and the propagation time corrected for? See the
links. In a nutshell, and under one such scenario, what B sees is the
following:
1. On the outward trip, C's clock is running slow, so that it is
behind B's clock by the time the outward journey ends.
2. On the turnaround, C's clock leaps forward so that it is *ahead* of
B's clock by the time the turnaround is complete.
3. On the inbound trip, C's clock is running slow, so that it ends up
showing the same time as B's clock by the time the inward journey
ends.

It's important for you to understand that the leap-ahead of C's clock
is not due to any physical process affecting clock C, because it is
the turnaround of *B* that is change that invokes it. Again,
understanding why this happens is in the details of how the
communication of the reading of the clock is performed (and
propagation accounted for). I'll not go into more detail here, as I've
already provided a link to a more thorough discussion.

PD

From: Sue... on 9 Mar 2010 13:24
On Mar 9, 12:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 11:14 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 Mar, 14:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 9, 7:49 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Mar, 22:55, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 6, 5:32 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What confuses me is that, if the clocks run slow by 2% for all the
> > > > > > time that they are moving, how does one reconcile this with the fact
> > > > > > that, if one uses the frame of one of the moving clocks, say clock B,
> > > > > > then it seems to be to be your argument that there is no slowdown at
> > > > > > all for B, and it is the other clocks, A and C, that slow down (i.e.
> > > > > > *disregarding* both acceleration and propagation delays).
>
> > > > > Be careful. The acceleration profiles are common between B and C, but
> > > > > they are not common to A. So while there is no difference between B
> > > > > and C due to the acceleration, you CANNOT say that the acceleration
> > > > > has no effect whatsoever. In fact, it is the indisputable fact that B
> > > > > and C accelerate and A does NOT accelerate that makes the situation
> > > > > nonsymmetric for A. This is what makes the worldline for A straight,
> > > > > and the worldline for B and C kinked.
>
> > > > Yes, but we're supposed to have isolated the effect of acceleration,
> > > > and disregarded it.
>
> > > No, we did not. We said that it cannot account for the DIFFERENCE
> > > between B and C, but this does not discount or remove acceleration
> > > from further consideration, particularly with regard to how clock A's
> > > rate is seen by B.
>
> > > > And in any event, the more important question is
> > > > the discrepancy between B and C.
>
> > > > > Two places where I will try to intercept misconceptions.
> > > > > 1. The first temptation is to say, well, if the kink is what's
> > > > > responsible for the time dilation, then all the dilating must happen
> > > > > during the acceleration. That is not the case. Note the time dilation
> > > > > is different for B and C, even though they have the same kink (the
> > > > > same acceleration profile). The fact that there IS a kink is what
> > > > > makes the elapsed time less on B and C than it is on A (where there is
> > > > > no kink), but how much less depends on the steepness and length of the
> > > > > straight parts of the worldline on either side of the kink.
>
> > > > As I say, I've stipulated that we are measuring on the outbound
> > > > journey, before any of the clocks have turned back. So we've had one
> > > > episode of acceleration and now B and C are travelling at the same
> > > > speed away from the origin point, but in opposite directions. What
> > > > amount of time dilation does C suffer relative to B? Nil? 2%? 4%?
>
> > > It's not that simple, and to get a number, you need to use the math.
> > > Sorry, but that's the facts. The 2% is the Lorentz dilation factor,
> > > and that is given by a function 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and you can see
> > > that doubling the speed will not double the Lorentz dilation factor.
> > > Furthermore, the speed of C relative to B is not twice the velocity of
> > > B with respect to A, because the relation for combining velocities is
> > > (v1+v2)/(1+v1*v2/c^2).
>
> > > To find out what the Lorentz dilation factor is for C relative to B,
> > > then you simply need to put in the numbers and crank.
>
> > So anyway, the point is that C will be time dilated relative to B (and
> > the same for B relative to C). Yes?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> > Right, so if both are dilated relative to the other, then exactly how
> > do they equalise with each other again when they return to their
> > original location at A?
>
> Well, first of all, they don't, in the scenario you suggested, as I've
> noted.
>
> > By definition, all dilation effects measured
> > between B and C on the outbound trip, must be totally reversed on the
> > inbound trip (although we accept both will be dilated relative to A).
> > Yes?
>
> Yes. I'll take the symmetric case here, where they both travel outward
> and back the same distance.
>
> The details here are interesting, and again, it depends a little on
> what's actually being measured. This is also covered and explained
> nicely in the link that I gave you, so I do recommend you read that.
> You have to first keep in mind that the B and C clocks are not in the
> same place, so it takes some care to explain what you mean when you
> say that B sees that clock C is running slow. How exactly is the
> information exchanged and the propagation time corrected for? See the
> links. In a nutshell, and under one such scenario, what B sees is the
> following:
> 1. On the outward trip, C's clock is running slow, so that it is
> behind B's clock by the time the outward journey ends.
> 2. On the turnaround, C's clock leaps forward so that it is *ahead* of
> B's clock by the time the turnaround is complete.
> 3. On the inbound trip, C's clock is running slow, so that it ends up
> showing the same time as B's clock by the time the inward journey
> ends.
>

==================

> It's important for you to understand that the leap-ahead of C's clock
> is not due to any physical process affecting clock C, because it is
> the turnaround of *B* that is change that invokes it. Again,
> understanding why this happens is in the details of how the
> communication of the reading of the clock is performed (and
> propagation accounted for). I'll not go into more detail here, as I've
> already provided a link to a more thorough discussion.

Indeed... one must allow for to loss to predatory organisms that
might
inhabit the communication path.


<< University of Hohenheim researchers are hoping to receive help
from nature in their fight against ticks. Worms, fungi and wasps
that feed on ticks will now be used to reduce the number of these
dangerous disease carriers.>>
http://www.bio-pro.de/magazin/wissenschaft/archiv_2007/index.html?lang=en&artikelid=/artikel/02099/index.html

Sue...


>
> PD

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights