A puzzle for the SRians
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next:  Making Waves
From: Daryl McCullough on 28 Jul 2010 08:23 Hayek says... > >Daryl McCullough wrote: >> Hayek says... >> >>> Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. >>> >>> Now imagine an object in it. >>> >>> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. >> >> What does "move" mean, if you don't have a notion of >> time? > >Just change in position. What does it mean to "change" a position? It means that the position is different at two different times. >> I know what *I* mean by saying "the object has moved". >> It means that the object at one time is at a different >> location than it was at an earlier time. > >That is a convenience approach for you brain. That's what a theory of physics is all about: a way of organizing information about the world that is convenient for reasoning. >You remember the object in a, and it is now in b. A memory is just a record of an earlier time. Your definitions seem completely circular. You keep using time-dependent concepts: motion, memory, change. What do any of those concepts *mean*, if you don't already have a concept of time? >There is only one object, and it is no longer in a. What does "no longer in a" mean? >Nature does not do time. It just does motion. That doesn't make any sense. Motion is a *derived* concept that depends on there being different moments of time. I don't think that you have really thought this through. Now, somebody else, Julian Barbour, has seriously considered what it means to say there is no time. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 09:01 On Jul 28, 3:56 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Jul 27, 1:35 pm, 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. > > > OK, let's parcel this out a little bit. > > > What you are doing is establishing a change from one Now state to > > another Now state. Call the latter Now'. > > > At the moment, you do not have any notion of speed. All you have is a > > DISPLACEMENT. > > The DISPLACEMENT of the first object (call it O1) is 1. The > > DISPLACEMENT of the second object (call it O2) is 2. > > > Now and Now' must be distinguishable so that you can declare a unique > > state of O1 to have a single position (at Now) as opposed to two. If > > Now and Now' are not distinguishable, then you have no unique position > > identifier for any object. > > Fine. Only the first Now ceases to exist, actually there > never was a now, it was and still is "the current > position of all the objects" . > > > > > > > The first thing to notice is that you have declared unilaterally that > > you can describe these states unilaterally and unambiguously. That NOW > > and NOW' are labels that can be applied to both O1 and O2. You haven't > > said so, but it's worth asking whether those labels are independent of > > reference frame. > > > Where time comes in, is the observation that certain repeatable > > processes can be reliably compared, and that they will always produces > > a common ratio of countable progress. For example, one process might > > be the swinging of a pendulum of a certain length. Another process > > might be the emptying of a can of water through a hole in the bottom. > > And it is noted that, initiating both processes with label Now and > > terminating at another label Now', it is observed that the can of > > water has emptied once and the pendulum has swung 187 times. If you > > repeat this, you find the same ratio. This comparison of processes is > > what we mean by, and how we declare a measurement of, time. > > Excellently said. > > But that confirms my view that time emerges from motion. No, not really. Displacement does not come from motion. Motion is a description of displacement as a function of time. So you have the cart before the horse. As I said, ALL you have is two states that are marked with unique positions and another label that discriminates the states. We called that label Now and Now' earlier, but it could just be a label like L1, L2, L3. There is no MOTION implied by that at all. Just different states with different positions of objects. In order for there to be a meaning of motion, there are a whole bunch of other considerations that need to be added FIRST: - A concept of sequence. That is, is there an order to the labels L1, L2, L3...? - A concept of spacing or interval. That is, is the interval between L1 and L2 commensurate with the interval between L2 and L3. (This is where the reference to a standard physical process as a counting reference comes in.) - A concept of continuity. That is, between any two labeled states L1 and L3, there necessarily needs to exist a state labeled L2 such that the position in L2 is between the positions in states labeled L1 and L3. Unless you have at least these, then motion doesn't have any meaning. So the labeled states do not EMERGE from motion. Motion emerges from the labeled states plus extra conditions. > And what you describe is inertia. And that is why I say > that a clock is an inertiameter. If inertia were higher > , then your pendulum would swing slower, and the water > would empty slower. On the Earth's surface inertia is > practically everywhere the same. That makes clocks > useful for comparing motion. > > > In particular, what it means is that we will make a particular choice > > of a process, say the swinging of that pendulum, and we will declare > > that a Unit Process, or if you like, a Unit of Time. Then all > > processes can be compared to this (with certain stipulations of > > locality and relative rest). > > > Speed, then, is simply marking a DISPLACEMENT between Now and Now', > > and finding the ratio of that displacement to the number of those Unit > > Processes. > > A long text for what I said in one sentence : > > >> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 09:24 On Jul 27, 9:22 pm, 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. ROTFLOL....little PD can't refute what I said so he quite. Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > 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 -
From: PD on 28 Jul 2010 09:27 On Jul 28, 8:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 9:22 pm, 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. > > ROTFLOL....little PD can't refute what I said so he quite. > > Ken Seto > Ken, I'm giving up talking with you because there is no point trying to convince a bowl of Jello of anything. Your mind is a bowl of Jello. It will not matter who says what to you -- your mind is bent, and so it is a complete waste of time talking to you. This does not mean you are right about anything. It means your mind is bent. I don't need to give you attention. I certainly am not going to rise up to your childish taunts. See ya.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 09:34
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've got it backwards .. you can have time without motion .. but not vice versa. If something doesn't move, that doesn't mean time stops there ... but if time stops, nothing can move. Really .. you need to think thru your philosophy a little better |