A puzzle for the SRians
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next:  Making Waves
From: Daryl McCullough on 27 Jul 2010 09:06 Hayek says... >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. He makes no such assumption. >Light to me, is only an imperfect carrier of >information, just as sound is. > >With instantaneous communication, and a correct >definition of time, and there is no such thing anymore >as relativity of simultaneity. That's exactly right. Relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of there being an upper bound to communication speed. If there is no upper bound, then relativity is wrong. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: whoever on 27 Jul 2010 08:22 "Hayek" wrote in message news:4c4eb5c4$0$22944$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >Inertial wrote: >> "Hayek" wrote in message >>> where the clock's of both twins run slow, and they >>> are in a different timescape. Then it is even >>> impossible to talk about simultaneity. >> >> Of course it is .. it is all well defined in SR > >Davies tells a different story. Then it sounds like you misunderstood what he said then.. Einstein very clearly and unambiguously defines simultaneity. >>> I think the situations of the one twin traveling >>> and the one hovering near a black hole, are exactly >>> the same, except for the distance between them, of >>> course. >> >> Nope .. other than you end up with a difference in >> time in both cases. But not for the same reasons or >> worked out with the same math. > >So you are saying that the time difference has a >different cause, Yes. The measured mutual time dilation of SR is not the same as the non-mutual changes in time due to differences in gravitational potential of GR. Of course, GR also include the SR effects. >and that it matters by which math it is >worked out ? Yes. The ,most apppropriate math for the scenario is always best. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 27 Jul 2010 08:40 "Hayek" wrote in message news: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 > 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 .. but does that theory actually work in reality? >Then again, I do not agree with the block universe, and >accept the fact that the Now is the same everywhere in >the universe. Just the clocks, just measuring inertia, >measure higher or lower inertia, as an inertiameter >should do. Clocks don't measure inertial .. they measure (or mark) time. You can use that to calculate other things >Look at the illustations under "block time" >http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_mysterious_flow.asp > >I adhere to the "conventional view", were only the >present is real. That's your opinion. It doesn't make it fact, of course. >For me, it is odd calling this "conventional" since I >was raised with the "block universe" being omnipresent >in everything I read and saw. Since about the end of >1999, I came to reject this block universe. Up to you, but unless you have good scientific ground, its just an unsupported opinion >Is it possible to have RoS in the conventional view, >according to you ? RoS doesn't mean a block universe. Effect still follows cause. It doesn't alter the notion of every point in the universe having a present past and future --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Hayek on 27 Jul 2010 09:24 Sam Wormley wrote: > If the speed of light is to be the same for all inertial observers (as > indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment) The Michelson & Morley experiment does not indicate that. It indicates that if you compare the phase of a two way lightbeam compared to the phase of two way lightbeam orthogonally across, that this phase does not vary with the speed the whole experiment travels. 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: PD on 27 Jul 2010 09:41
On Jul 27, 6:02 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > With instantaneous communication, and a correct > definition of time, and there is no such thing anymore > as relativity of simultaneity. > I don't know why a definition of time would be more correct if you presuppose a phenomenon that is specifically and unilaterally excluded in our universe. It might be conceptually appealing to you, but it wouldn't have any bearing on time AS IT APPLIES in nature as we observe it. |