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: Hayek on 28 Jul 2010 03:42 whoever wrote: >> "Hayek" wrote in message [..] >> There is another, much more simple explanation : they are still both >> in the same now > > Except we KNOW from experiment that there is no such thing as the same > 'now'. Time is NOT the same everywhere. this is experimentally proven Only, you have not defined time, and you have not defined what a clock is. The only thing you know is that you read time on a clock. And that a clock is a device you read time on. And because you believe in MTD, you assume there must be a time dimension, and that there cannot be ftl, because in that case it would violate causality. Is the time in your kitchen the same as in your fridge ? How come your food stays fresh much longer in the fridge ? Exactly, molecules move slower at lower temperatures... What if "time" dilation was based on the same principle, molecules moving slower ? > > So everything yhou say from here on is just fantasy in some imaginary > world other than our own. > > [snip fanasty] >> What is the greater science fiction, ftl or mutual time dilation, > > FTL. it is not observerd to happen Aspect's experiments could be interpreted as such. > .. that makes it fiction MTD is neither proved. Actually, there is less evidence for MTD than for ftl. It is exactly the statement that "nothing can go faster than light" that protects MTD from being tested. > Whereas mutual time dilation does .. which makes it fact Where has it been proven ? Observing, does not prove it, it might be apparent. > >> the latter giving rise to time travel > > No , it doesn't Let me correct this : giving rise to a time dimension, with a theoretical possibility of time travel. The past still exists, as Einstein mentioned in a condoleance letter to the family of his friend and collegue Besso. > >> and causality breaches ? > > No .. FTL does that. You just showed that. Only if there is MTD and a time dimension. > >> Ftl does not breach causality, > > Yes .. it does > >> MTD (mutual time dilation) does. > > No .. it doesn't > > You really are poor at physcis. You are poor at reasoning. That is much worse. 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: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 03:50 Hayek wrote: [...] > What if "time" dilation was based on the same principle, > molecules moving slower ? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10626367 [...]
From: harald on 28 Jul 2010 04:33 On Jul 27, 6:32 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? > > Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ? If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you understand the math? Harald [..]
From: Hayek on 28 Jul 2010 05:22 artful wrote: > On Jul 28, 2:32 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? > > Your argument seems to be > > We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality > well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc) Some of it predicts reality well. And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve its scope. Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR, I answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong about SR > > Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of > causality (so isn't right) I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR, some of these flaws can only be tested by ftl. > You then take the illogical step of concluding this means the SR is > wrong, and even more ridiculous that FTL is right. I did not say that all of SR was wrong, but that the untested and unverified assumption of SR could be proved wrong, IF we had ftl. > > You need to reexamine your (lack of) logic. Cure Yourself. You amalgamate SR, say that ALL of it must be true, because some of it was verified. That is lack of logic. 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 28 Jul 2010 05:48
harald wrote: > On Jul 27, 6:32 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? >> >> Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ? > > If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the > appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has > been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and > recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you > understand the math? The math is but an imperfect model of reality. The LET of SR was made up starting from the fact that we do not see the Preferred reference. It was based on the following reasoning : what would happen if some physical property of the preferred frame hid its existence from us. In order for us not to be able to measure the PF, after some calculations, we arrived that rods should shrink and time should slow. If you know something about math, you realize that the gamma factor would hide a PF. Which is perfectly ok, because that is what we looked for in the first place, and the result was the gamma factor. Wrongly assuming there is no PF, we continue to state that all motion is relative. Thus A can say B moves and vice versa. So now can have 10 spaceships moving away from Earth at gamma [1..10], and the Earth's clocks will tick also at ten gammas at the same time, and be flattened in ten different directions. I see only one way out of this, and that is that the mutual effects are only apparent for the moving observer wrt the PF. A time dimension could help a little bit, and still it would be only apparent, because if the twins are joined, the effects are over. What experimental proof do we have of MTD anyway ? 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. |