Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: jgreen on 1 Sep 2005 01:00 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1125449429.961471.206760(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > >> On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:24 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: > >> > >> >George and others have gone through your arguments with you > >> >in detail, showing you exactly what errors you made and why > >> >those errors cause your arguments to fail. I understand > >> >your arguments, I see the errors in them, and I understand > >> >why your arguments fail. > > > > I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D for > > quite a time. > > When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed > > animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a > > vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. > > What it showed was that _if_ light moved as > described by SR then time dilation is required. > It wasn't a proof that it occurs. Surely it is in support of any diagramatical potrayal, which shows the pulse in a moving carriage travelling a larger distance, and using c=c+v, leads to time HAVING to dilate, as obviously the pulses still return to source together. When I run my watch against the diagonal, I find the line DOES travel a larger distance in the same time, showing that c'=c+v It appears that your (on computer graphic) clocks are running to show that this is not so, as in my reply to Jeff R > > > At first it seemed > > pursuasive, until I ran it against my own stopwatch. It then became > > obvious that George's clocks had PRIOR to the motion, assumed c=c+v (ie > > that dilation WOULD occur). > > That was because the diagram illustrated SR Jim. > Light DOES move at c in SR, not c+v. > > > I am still waiting for him to make the > > necessary corrections. > > Unfortunately, as Jim knows, the hard drive I had > that on died so the source code was lost. I might > redo the thing as a Java applet but there seems > little point. The diagram was correct as far as it > had gone but only showed the SR version. It should > have had the Newtonian version on the other side but > I had only just started writing that when I lost it. > > Sorry Jim, I don't know if I can work up the > enthusiasm to spend a few weeks redoing something > which you didn't understand in the first place > judging by your comments above. I didn't realise it was such a big job. Would be nice though :-) The pencil in my slot-clock doesn't alter its rate of travel from source, but leaves a longer line when the apparatus is moved horizontally IN THE SAME TIME. (direction is changed to, just as the photon's is) The pencil moves faster across the paper = pulse moves faster on the diagonal........but of course, if one were to tweak his clock before measuring........ Seeya Jim c'=c+v
From: Eric Gisse on 1 Sep 2005 01:27 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > Jeff Root wrote: > > Jim Greenfield wrote: > > > > > I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D > > > for quite a time. > > > When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed > > > animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a > > > vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. At first it > > > seemed pursuasive, until I ran it against my own stopwatch. It > > > then became obvious that George's clocks had PRIOR to the motion, > > > assumed c=c+v (ie that dilation WOULD occur). I am still waiting > > > for him to make the necessary corrections. > > > > What did you think needed correction? > > See if you can understand where this is wrong: > I claim that my car does 200mph; I adjust the speedo to read 50% fast; > I take the car for a run! Yes! It DOES do 200! > George's clock is running at a CHANGED rate, but this scenario is > supposed to show WHY that rate (time dilation) occurs. No, it isn't. The actual (proper) rate does not change, but the observed rate does. > I am not suggesting for a moment that he set out deliberately to > mislead; AE made the same mistake in his railway gendankens, but then > he had to invest a huge effort in developing a circular logic within > the math "proof", in which the rulers shrink to suit the time dilation, > and time pass depending on the length of the ruler it traverses. Before I say anything about your views on Einstein, could you fill in this table? -1 * 1 = -1 * -1 = 1 * -1 = 1 * 1 = I seem to recall you having some amusing beliefs about how neagtive numbers multiply. > > Jim G > c'=c+v
From: Jeff Root on 1 Sep 2005 01:47 Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> > I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D >> > for quite a time. >> > When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed >> > animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a >> > vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. At first it >> > seemed pursuasive, until I ran it against my own stopwatch. It >> > then became obvious that George's clocks had PRIOR to the motion, >> > assumed c=c+v (ie that dilation WOULD occur). I am still waiting >> > for him to make the necessary corrections. >> >> What did you think needed correction? > > See if you can understand where this is wrong: OK. > I claim that my car does 200mph; OK. Impressive claim. > I adjust the speedo to read 50% fast; OK. > I take the car for a run! Yes! It DOES do 200! OK. Did you mean the speed of the car was 200 mph or did you mean the car's speedometer read 200 mph? You seem to have a lot of problems with ambiguity. > George's clock is running at a CHANGED rate, but this scenario > is supposed to show WHY that rate (time dilation) occurs. That's correct. The animation was intended to show why the clock rate changes. What it actually showed was why the clock rate changes. What did you expect it to show? > I am not suggesting for a moment that he set out deliberately > to mislead; AE made the same mistake in his railway gendankens, Really? If there had been a mistake there, it would have been pointed out a century ago. Hundreds of millions of people have read about the thought experiments over the years, and thought about them long and hard, examining them for logical errors. Many of those people were a lot smarter than me. They didn't find an error. I didn't find an error when I read about them, or when I read other people's analysis of them. More likely that you made a mistake. > but then he had to invest a huge effort in developing a > circular logic within the math "proof", in which the rulers > shrink to suit the time dilation, and time pass depending > on the length of the ruler it traverses. That sounds like it might have come from a 1960's comic book version of relativity. I saw a one-page article on cosmology in a comic book in the mid-1960's. It was badly misleading. Not the best source for correct information, and a lousy source for getting a good understanding of a subject. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Jeff Root on 1 Sep 2005 02:15 Eric Gisse wrote: > The actual (proper) rate does not change, but the observed > rate does. I agree, but wanted to avoid introducing the terms "proper" and "observed", so instead stuck with Jim's ambiguous terms. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: George Dishman on 1 Sep 2005 06:11
<jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1125550848.782338.257750(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> news:1125449429.961471.206760(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > >> >> On 28 Aug 2005 20:30:24 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >George and others have gone through your arguments with you >> >> >in detail, showing you exactly what errors you made and why >> >> >those errors cause your arguments to fail. I understand >> >> >your arguments, I see the errors in them, and I understand >> >> >why your arguments fail. >> > >> > I carried on an interesting and cordial exchange with George D for >> > quite a time. >> > When arguing "time dilation", he sent me a cleverly constructed >> > animation which purports to show why and how this occurs, with a >> > vertically moving ray within a railway carriage. >> >> What it showed was that _if_ light moved as >> described by SR then time dilation is required. >> It wasn't a proof that it occurs. > > Surely it is in support of any diagramatical potrayal, which shows the > pulse > in a moving carriage travelling a larger distance, and using c=c+v, > leads to time HAVING to dilate, as obviously the pulses still return to > source together. > When I run my watch against the diagonal, I find the line DOES travel a > larger distance in the same time, showing that c'=c+v > It appears that your (on computer graphic) clocks are running to show > that this is not so, as in my reply to Jeff R OK, could you send me back a copy of what you have and I'll see if there is a problem. I thought I had finished the SR part but I know I never completed the Newtonian version. > I didn't realise it was such a big job. > Would be nice though :-) Indeed, I don't mind doing these things when I can put them on a web site and have them available to aid discussions thereafter but having done it once it is depressing to have to start from scratch. Still maybe the Java system I've found would be quicker. > The pencil in my slot-clock doesn't alter its rate of travel from > source, but leaves a longer line when the apparatus is moved > horizontally IN THE SAME TIME. (direction is changed to, just as the > photon's is) > The pencil moves faster across the paper = pulse moves faster on the > diagonal........but of course, if one were to tweak his clock before > measuring........ You can't move your pencil close to the speed of light, and the effects don't scale. George |