FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Romano Amodeo lessons on youtube
Next: strip-geometry-building as reversal of Calculus #4.28 & #243 Correcting Math & Atom Totality
From: dlzc on 27 Jul 2010 14:39 Dear Hayek: On Jul 27, 9:58 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > dlzc wrote: > > On Jul 27, 9:32 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? > > >> Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ? > > >> The players : > >> Ann - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025 > >> Betty's time is 2023. > > >> Betty - the traveling twin - clock points at 2023 > >> Ann's time is 2021 > > >> Enter mutual time dilation and ftl : > >> Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003. > >> Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in > >> 2001. Causality destroyed. > > >> This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is > >> still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001. > > >> There is another, much more simple explanation : they > >> are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's > >> time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have > >> just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia), > >> just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system. > > >> In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that > >> her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann > >> speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only > >> the phone bills are too high. > > >> What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time > >> dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and > >> causality breaches ? > > >> Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time > >> dilation) does. > > >> MTD = Science Fiction. > > >> Uwe Hayek. > > > Your gibberish generator is still full on. > > FTL cannot be verified. > > Then neither can MTD. > > > Therefore your "causality problem", isn't a problem. > > I say the problem arises from MTD, not from FTL, if ever > possible. You say that the problem arises from the one postulate of special relativity, and not your fantasy? You mean to say "instantaneous transmission" not any old "FTL". If these two persons have relative motion, at two different times, there'd be two different time offsets. Just because you won't spend the effort to learn *anything*, doesn't mean that anyone cares. You've been ignorant of this topic for years now, and have spent *no apparent* effort to fix your obvious problems. Despite this, you seem to feel qualified to make statements based on your ignorance. Here are some appropriate links for you: http://www.randomimage.us/32122.html http://www.randomimage.us/34293.html http://www.randomimage.us/32709.html http://www.randomimage.us/18022.html http://www.randomimage.us/35015.html (I am guilty as charged for that one.) http://www.randomimage.us/23901.html http://www.randomimage.us/4198.html http://www.randomimage.us/33177.html http://www.randomimage.us/32897.html David A. Smith
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 15:09 On Jul 27, 11:32 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? > > Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ? > > The players : > Ann - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025 > Betty's time is 2023. > > Betty - the traveling twin - clock points at 2023 > Ann's time is 2021 This is NOT what mutual time dilation says. > > Enter mutual time dilation and ftl : > Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003. > Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in > 2001. Causality destroyed. > > This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is > still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001. > > There is another, much more simple explanation : they > are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's > time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have > just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia), > just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system. > > In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that > her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann > speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only > the phone bills are too high. > > What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time > dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and > causality breaches ? > > Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time > dilation) does. > > MTD = Science Fiction. > > 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: Jacko on 27 Jul 2010 16:00 On 27 July, 18:00, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:32:44 +0200, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > wrote: > > > > > > > > >FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? > > >Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ? > > >The players : > >Ann - the stay at home twin - clock points at 2025 > >Betty's time is 2023. > > >Betty - the traveling twin - clock points at 2023 > >Ann's time is 2021 > > >Enter mutual time dilation and ftl : > >Ann sends ftl message to Betty, message arrives in 2003. > >Betty retransmits message to Ann, message arrives in > >2001. Causality destroyed. > > >This is under the assumption that for Ann, Betty is > >still in 2003 and that for Betty, Ann is still in 2001. > > >There is another, much more simple explanation : they > >are still both in the same now, let us take the Earth's > >time as a reference, 2005, but Betty's molecules have > >just moved slower (imnsho because of higher inertia), > >just as she would have as being in some cryogenic system. > > >In this context : Ann ftl-calls Betty and realizes that > >her speech is gamma times slower, Betty notices that Ann > >speech is gamma times faster. Ftl works just fine, only > >the phone bills are too high. > > >What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time > >dilation, the latter giving rise to time travel and > >causality breaches ? > > >Ftl does not breach causality, MTD (mutual time > >dilation) does. > > That is a good reason to look for a preferred frame. Eg. > > Quantum preferred frame: Does it really exist? > EPL (Europhysics Letters) Volume 88, Number 1http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/88/1/10005;jsessionid=52ED179FF30... > > Abstract: The idea of the preferred frame as a remedy for difficulties > of the relativistic quantum mechanics in description of the non-local > quantum phenomena was undertaken by physicists such as J. S. Bell and > D. Bohm. The possibility of the existence of a preferred frame was > also seriously treated by P. A. M. Dirac. In this paper, we propose an > Einstein-Podolsky-Rosentype experiment for testing the possible > existence of quantum preferred frame. Our analysis suggests that to > verify whether a preferred frame of reference in the quantum world > exists, it is enough to perform an EPR-type experiment with a pair of > observers staying in the same inertial frame and with use of the > massive EPR pair of spinone-half or spin-one particles. So did one exist? Probably not ;-) I don't need to 'payout' to know that. FTL does not violate causality, just sense, 'the pond just looks shallow'. In that sense it's not FTL but the invariant c is not constant, but effectively faster. http://sites.google.com/site/jackokring
From: eric gisse on 27 Jul 2010 17:38 Hayek wrote: [...] Why do you persist in discussing a subject you clearly don't grasp?
From: eric gisse on 27 Jul 2010 17:39
Surfer wrote: [...] > > That is a good reason to look for a preferred frame. Eg. Relativistic QM is - amazingly - Lorentz invariant. Look up the term. [...] |