A puzzle for the SRians
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
Next: A new suggestion, about the new big linear accelerator that is now being designed!!
From: Hayek on 29 Jul 2010 15:03 artful wrote: > On Jul 28, 7:02 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> artful wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 4:35 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >>>> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>>> Hayek says... >>>>>> In the latest Now, every object has a velocity, >>>>>> setting direction and speed. >>>>> What does "velocity" mean, if not the derivative of >>>>> position with respect to time? >>>> It is like deprogramming a hare khrishna or something. :-) >>>> Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. >>>> Now imagine an object in it. >>>> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. >>>> When a second object covers twice the ground as the >>>> first then say it has speed 2. >>>> The position of the objects is called the Now. >>>> There is no past, no future, just the two objects and >>>> their changing positions. >>>> No need to define time or have a time dimension. >>> How can an object move (or any change occur) if there is no time? >>> ANSWER: It can't. >> Everything moves around you, > > That's no answer .. if there is no time, then nothing can move .. its > frozen. You can freeze something without stopping time, in fact it does not matter if time runs or stops, since it does not exist, it emerges from motion. Does your freezer need a time stopper ? I think of relativistic "time" dilation as inertial increase, which also stops the motion. > You've got it backwards .. you can have time without motion .. but not > vice versa. Then show me how do you have time without motion.. And what does it look like ? Does time "push" the objects ? Why can some objects then decide to stop moving ? > If something doesn't move, that doesn't mean time stops You mean that your time does not stop, because you keep moving. But suppose every molecule in your body stopped moving, then your time would have stopped completely. > there ... but if time stops, nothing can move. Everything moves or stops, and does not care about time. > Really .. you need to think thru your philosophy a little better I have, you are not trying hard enough to break through your time brainwashing. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Hayek on 29 Jul 2010 15:12 artful wrote: > On Jul 28, 7:11 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> artful wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 12:04 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >>>> whoever wrote: >>>>> "Hayek" wrote in messagenews:4c4ebce5$0$22935$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>>> Inertial wrote: >>>>>>> Anyway .. none of that has much to do with the answer >>>>>>> to Ken's re-statement of the same old train gedanken >>>>>>> that has been dealt with by SR for almost a century. >>>>>> I find a lot of flaws in these "gedanken". For instance, >>>>>> Einstein assumes that the event only takes place if you >>>>>> see the lightflash of the event in your frame of reference. >>>>> Wrong >>>>>> Light to me, is only an imperfect carrier of >>>>>> information, just as sound is. >>>>> Yes it is. Among other things >>>>>> With instantaneous communication, >>>>> No need. And by SR not possible >>>>>> and a correct >>>>>> definition of time, >>>>> We have one >>>> Ok, time is what you read on a clock. >>> I didn't say that >>>> Then, what is a clock ? >>> A device for measuring time >>>>>> and there is no such thing anymore >>>>>> as relativity of simultaneity. >>>>> So if you make up a different theory, then you don't get it >>>> It is not about "getting" it, it is abput expaining "it". >>> Its neither that I was saying .. I was saying that if you make up a >>> different theory, then you don't end up getting relativity of >>> simultaneity. But that doesn't mean that such theory is valid .. it >>> would have to predict the time dilation that we DO observe >>> experimentally for a start. >> I get time dilation, > > How .. how does motion change the rate of time? Suppose there is a way to stop the motion of every molecule and atom in your body, and to restart the motion exactly as it was, hunderd years later. Your time would have completely stopped, and you would be 100 years in the future. I claim relativity does no more than that, by means of increasing inertia. >> but this is due to restrained >> motion by higher inertia. Time emerges from motion, then >> slower time emerges from slower motion. Relativity is ok. > > But its the other way around .. the more the motion, the slower the > time. If your metabolism would be higher due to adrenaline, sure, but then your time would run faster, and make other seem to run slower. But higher metabolism means just faster motion of your biochemistry, motion again, nothing to do with time, unless your body has a built in time machine, I just stick to faster metabolism due to adrenaline for instance... > > Your whole notion is backwards and contrary to what we observe. Your observation is tainted by the fact that your biochemistry is participating in all this motion. > It's > not physics Oh yes, but you are not even trying to understand. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: artful on 29 Jul 2010 21:56 On Jul 30, 5:03 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > artful wrote: > > On Jul 28, 7:02 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> artful wrote: > >>> On Jul 28, 4:35 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >>>> Daryl McCullough wrote: > >>>>> Hayek says... > >>>>>> In the latest Now, every object has a velocity, > >>>>>> setting direction and speed. > >>>>> What does "velocity" mean, if not the derivative of > >>>>> position with respect to time? > >>>> It is like deprogramming a hare khrishna or something. :-) > >>>> Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. > >>>> Now imagine an object in it. > >>>> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. > >>>> When a second object covers twice the ground as the > >>>> first then say it has speed 2. > >>>> The position of the objects is called the Now. > >>>> There is no past, no future, just the two objects and > >>>> their changing positions. > >>>> No need to define time or have a time dimension. > >>> How can an object move (or any change occur) if there is no time? > >>> ANSWER: It can't. > >> Everything moves around you, > > > That's no answer .. if there is no time, then nothing can move .. its > > frozen. > > You can freeze something without stopping time, Irrelevant > in fact > it does not matter if time runs or stops, since it does > not exist, it emerges from motion. Does your freezer > need a time stopper ? Irrelevant > I think of relativistic "time" dilation as inertial > increase, which also stops the motion. Nonsense. > > You've got it backwards .. you can have time without motion .. but not > > vice versa. > > Then show me how do you have time without motion.. Easy. Stop something from moving .. a second later start it again. Time still passed when it didn't move. Then show me how you have motion without time. > And what does it look like ? Does time "push" the > objects ? Why can some objects then decide to stop moving ? Irrelevant > > If something doesn't move, that doesn't mean time stops > > You mean that your time does not stop, because you keep > moving. But suppose every molecule in your body stopped > moving, then your time would have stopped completely. My subjective impression of it would. > > there ... but if time stops, nothing can move. > > Everything moves or stops, and does not care about time. Time does not care whether or not things move. But it ALLOWS them to move. > > Really .. you need to think thru your philosophy a little better > > I have, you are not trying hard enough to break through > your time brainwashing. No .. you haven't thought it thru. And all this philosophy is IRRELEVANT when it comes to the physics. What we call time is there .. we can measure it.
From: artful on 29 Jul 2010 22:04 On Jul 30, 5:12 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > artful wrote: > > On Jul 28, 7:11 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> artful wrote: > >>> On Jul 28, 12:04 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >>>> whoever wrote: > >>>>> "Hayek" wrote in messagenews:4c4ebce5$0$22935$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > >>>>>> Inertial wrote: > >>>>>>> Anyway .. none of that has much to do with the answer > >>>>>>> to Ken's re-statement of the same old train gedanken > >>>>>>> that has been dealt with by SR for almost a century. > >>>>>> I find a lot of flaws in these "gedanken". For instance, > >>>>>> Einstein assumes that the event only takes place if you > >>>>>> see the lightflash of the event in your frame of reference. > >>>>> Wrong > >>>>>> Light to me, is only an imperfect carrier of > >>>>>> information, just as sound is. > >>>>> Yes it is. Among other things > >>>>>> With instantaneous communication, > >>>>> No need. And by SR not possible > >>>>>> and a correct > >>>>>> definition of time, > >>>>> We have one > >>>> Ok, time is what you read on a clock. > >>> I didn't say that > >>>> Then, what is a clock ? > >>> A device for measuring time > >>>>>> and there is no such thing anymore > >>>>>> as relativity of simultaneity. > >>>>> So if you make up a different theory, then you don't get it > >>>> It is not about "getting" it, it is abput expaining "it". > >>> Its neither that I was saying .. I was saying that if you make up a > >>> different theory, then you don't end up getting relativity of > >>> simultaneity. But that doesn't mean that such theory is valid .. it > >>> would have to predict the time dilation that we DO observe > >>> experimentally for a start. > >> I get time dilation, > > > How .. how does motion change the rate of time? > > Suppose there is a way to stop the motion of every > molecule and atom in your body, and to restart the > motion exactly as it was, hunderd years later. Your time > would have completely stopped, and you would be 100 > years in the future. That is just the subjective impression of time. We are talking about what is objectively measured. > I claim relativity does no more > than that, by means of increasing inertia. You claim is not supported by any physics arguments or logic at all. Object with larger mass do not experience a different rate of time. Also the mutual time dilation of relativity is irrespective of masses and inertial. > >> but this is due to restrained > >> motion by higher inertia. Time emerges from motion, then > >> slower time emerges from slower motion. Relativity is ok. > > > But its the other way around .. the more the motion, the slower the > > time. > > If your metabolism would be higher due to adrenaline, > sure, but then your time would run faster, and make > other seem to run slower. SEEM to be. just subjective. We are NOT talking about phyisiology or subjectivitty. > But higher metabolism means > just faster motion of your biochemistry, motion again, > nothing to do with time, unless your body has a built in > time machine, I just stick to faster metabolism due to > adrenaline for instance... All irrelevant to physics. > > Your whole notion is backwards and contrary to what we observe. > > Your observation is tainted by the fact that your > biochemistry is participating in all this motion. Not a valid response to my criticism. You notion is backwards .. time allows for motion .. you cannot have motion without time. You CAN have time without motion. If someone is at rest, time does not stop for them. Also note that we do the observations using objective experimental equipment. > > It's > > not physics > > Oh yes, but you are not even trying to understand. Wrong. I'm taking you seriously, but your philosophy is largely irrelevant to the physics, and where it is relevant, it is wrong.
From: blackhead on 30 Jul 2010 11:13
On 28 July, 02:22, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 5:26 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 27, 1:45 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 27, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 27, 8:50 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:12 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: > > > > > > > > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes > > > > > > > > hits the ends of the train and the light fronts arrive at M' non- > > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > Question for the SRians: does this mean that according to the SR > > > > > > > > concept of relativity of simultaneity M will see the light fronts > > > > > > > > arrive at him simultaneously? > > > > > > > > Not necessarily. It depends on the speed of the train. > > > > > > > > But for a given pair of lightning strikes, there will be at least ONE > > > > > > > reference frame with an observer M" for whom the light fronts arrive > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > But there are infinite nmuber pairs of light fronts that arrive at M > > > > > > and M' non-simultaneously. > > > > > > Not for a given pair of lightning strikes there aren't. > > > > > I didn't specifiy any given pair of strikes. > > > > You did say there was ONE pair of strikes on the train and the light > > > from those strikes arrived at M' non-simultaneously. You asked if this > > > necessarily meant that the light from the strikes would arrive at M > > > simultaneously. I said, not necessarily. > > > Right any two strikes arrive at M' non-simultaneously will also arrive > > at M non-simultaneously. This means that there are infinite number > > pairs of strikes that will arrive at M and M' non-simultaneously. > > There are two specific strikes that will arrive at M' > > simultaneously....these two strikes were genrated simultaneously at > > the ends of the train to begin with. These same two strikes will also > > arrive at M simultaneously. Why? Because the speed of light is > > independent of the motion of the ends of the train. > > > >It depends on which pair of > > > strikes. Out of ALL the pairs of strikes possible, there is ONE pair > > > for which the signals would arrive at M' non-simultaneously and at M > > > simultaneously. > > > No...all pairs of strikes that arrive at M' non-simultaneously will > > also arrive at M non-simultaneously. There is one pair of strikes that > > will arrive at M' simultaneously and that pair of strikes will also > > arrive at M simultaneously. > > > >But for the others, they would arrive at M' non- > > > simultaneously (separated by some time T') and arrive at M non- > > > simultaneously (but separated by some other time T). > > > > > > > That means that M and M' agree with each > > > > > > other on all non-simutlaneity events. > > > > > > What? No. You mean that for some pairs of strikes M and M' will both > > > > > say the strikes are nonsimultaneous? Yes, that's true, but the two > > > > > observers will say there is a different amount of time between them. > > > > > But nevertheless they both agree that if M' sees two strikes to be non- > > > > simultaneous then M will also see the same two strikes to be no > > > > simultaneous. > > > > Not necessarily. See the above. In one case out of all the ones > > > possible, the light will arrive at M simultaneously. For the others, > > > not. > > > Yes necessarily. No pair of strikes can occur non-simutlaneously at M' > > and occur simutaneously at M. > > > > > I agree that M' and M will say there is a different > > > > amount of time between them. > > > > > > So the "agreement" is pretty shallow. > > > > > No not shallow at all. It illustrates that M and M' agree on non- > > > > simultaneity of same two events...this follows that M and M' will also > > > > agree on simultaneity of the same two event and thus refute the SR > > > > claim of relativity of simultaneity. > > > > No, it certainly does not follow. Don't be a complete idiot. > > > You are the idiot. There exists an infinite number of pair of strikes > > arrive at M' non-simultaneously and these infinite pairs of strikes > > will also arrive at M non-simultaneously. There is one pair of strikes > > that arrive at M' simultaneously. This same pair of strikes will also > > arrive at M simultaneously. Why? Because the speed of light is > > independent of the motion of the ends of the train. > > > Ken Seto > > > > If they > > > agree that two strikes are non-simultaneous but disagree on the time > > > separation between those non-simultaneous strikes, it doesn't AT ALL > > > follow that they will agree that another pair of strikes are > > > simultaneous. There is no logic that would produce that statement at > > > all. > > > > Your brain is out of whack. > > > > > Also they will agree that > > > > simultaneity occur at different time in the train than on the track.. > > > > > > > That seem to violate the basic > > > > > > tenet of relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > I don't know what you think the basic tenet of relativity of > > > > > simultaneity is. > > > > > Did you think that the basic tenet of relativity of simultaneity is > > > > > that if one observer says two events are non-simultaneous, then > > > > > another observer will say they are simultaneous? > > > > > Yes RoS says that if M' sees two events to be non-simultaneous then M > > > > should sees the same two events to be simultaneous....that's what RoS > > > > claim. > > > > No, it does NOT say that. > > > > Stop making stuff up. > > > What have you READ about what the relativity of simultaneity says? > > > Cite what you've read, so that you can prove you've not just made this > > > statement up. > > > > > >If that's what you > > > > > thought it said, you're wrong. It doesn't say that at all. > > > > > Yes it does. > > > > You are never going to understand relativity, Seto. Never. > > > > You cannot think straight. > > Hopeless. Ken, you're never going to get this. Your mind is bent. > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Your assertion that there is one pair of light fronts that will arrive > > > > > > at M" simutltaneously is irrelevant....why? because M" is not at the > > > > > > middle of the train. > > > > > > Yes, it is. > > > > > > > It is true that there is one pair of light fronts out of the infinite > > > > > > pairs of light fronts that will arrive at M' simultaneously but that > > > > > > pair of light fronts will also arrive at M simultaneously....why? > > > > > > Because the speed of light is independent of the motion of the ends of > > > > > > the train. > > > > > > A fourth grader can understand that and yet you call yourself a > > > > > > physics professor. <shrug> > > > > > > > Ken Seto. > > > > > > > > It will also be possible to find a pair of lightning strikes such that > > > > > > > they arrive at M' non-simultaneously and at M simultaneously. Just > > > > > > > maybe not the pair you're talking about. > > > > > > > > > Since there are an infinite number of pairs of strikes that can cause > > > > > > > > the light fronts to arrive at M' non-simultaneously, does that means > > > > > > > > that there are infinite pairs of strikes that M will see their light > > > > > > > > fronts to arrive at him simultaneously????? > > > > > > > > No. Just one pair. > > > > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > > > Ineducable idiot. > > > > > > > > Shamelessly self-immolating, ineducable idiot. > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > In case you thought you had some brilliant insight here, Ken, no. You > > > > > > > are asking a 6th grade question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This newsgroup would be dead if people like Ken didn't start a thread now and again and people like you didn't reply. It's good for the newcomers especially to see if they can come up with an argument that demonstrates whether they really inderstand what they think understand. I hope you don't end up like some knowledgeable people here that spend their time name calling rather than calmly creating a logical argument that everyone can learn from. |