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: harald on 28 Jul 2010 07:49 On Jul 28, 11:48 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > 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 math is *not* a model of reality - nor does it purports to be so. > The LET of SR was made up starting from the fact that we > do not see the Preferred reference. In which case it obviously isn NOT "preferred"... > It was based on the following reasoning : Not really - but never mind! > what would > happen if some physical property of the preferred frame > hid its existence from us. That property called "velocity". Indeed, that one is hidden; it wasn't a problem for Newton. > 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. Clocks. Rods and clocks, on which we base our concepts of "length" and "time". > 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. I don't. Neither did Langevin. > 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. No, that's a misrepresentation. Anyone who understands SRT like that would better stick with reading cartoons. > 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. That is the oldest interpretation of SRT; I also see no other reasonable alternative. > 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 ? Now you effectively answer my question to you in the negative. We do not NEED other experimental proof than the confirmation that if 2+2=4, then 4-2=2. We already know from a nearly infinite amount of experiments that simple math is reliable. Harald
From: Igor on 28 Jul 2010 10:04 On Jul 28, 3:42 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > How come your food stays fresh much longer in the fridge ? > > Exactly, molecules move slower at lower temperatures... And all this time, I thought it was because bacteria grow more slowly at lower temps.
From: Igor on 28 Jul 2010 10:05 On Jul 28, 5:48 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > The math is but an imperfect model of reality. But alas, it's the only way we have to model reality. How else do you propose doing it?
From: Androcles on 28 Jul 2010 10:11 "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message news:68f18cb4-3c6e-47c1-aaa7-693684d19ee0(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On Jul 28, 5:48 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > The math is but an imperfect model of reality. But alas, it's the only way we have to model reality. How else do you propose doing it? ======================================== By adhering to the rules mathematics, which you are incapable of.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 10:14
On Jul 28, 5:42 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > 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, I don't need to. Have you defined space? > and you have not > defined what a clock is. Yes I have .. it is a device to measure time > The only thing you know is that > you read time on a clock. And that a clock is a device > you read time on. There you go .. you just defined it > And because you believe in MTD, it haas nothing to do with what I believe. It is what we observe experimentally > you assume there must be > a time dimension, and that there cannot be ftl, because > in that case it would violate causality. FTL results in causality violation. Glad you admit it [snip more stupity about fridges and lack of logic] Learn physics .. then learn logic. Then try to apply the latter to the former. So far you are failing dismally on both |