If a train is not aging faster than the station
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Vereinheitlichungsmodell von allgemeiner Relativität und Quantenmechanik
Next: The Ether-nal Ether-eal SpaceTime
From: BURT on 11 Aug 2010 01:31 On Aug 10, 8:54 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 9:47 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 10, 7:33 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "BURT" wrote in message > > > >news:10c5468c-e7e1-4c01-9f80-57af901e7899(a)b4g2000pra.googlegroups.com.... > > > > >On Aug 10, 6:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >> "BURT" wrote in message > > > > >>news:1cab682b-e1dd-4c18-9909-e885fa5677ec(a)w15g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >The idea of the paradox > > > > >> There is no paradox > > > > >> >is that they have mutual slowdowns but one > > > >> > ages more than the other. > > > > >> That doesn't happen with a train and station scenario. > > > > >Any motion at all plugs into Gamma for time. > > > > Both train and station are moving relative to each other. And relative to > > > an observer halfway between them, they both move at the same speed but in > > > opposite directions. Its all relative. > > > > >As a thought experiment if the train could move at near light speed > > > > ... relative to the station > > > > Then the station is also moving at near light speed relative to the train. > > > > > the train would age less. > > > > Not exactly .. the train would be measured by observers at rest wrt the > > > station as aging less > > > And the station would be measured by observers at rest wrt the train as > > > aging less > > > Its mutual. Hence the term MUTUAL time dilation > > > > > So how can such an imaginary train see when > > > > passing the station the station aging less? > > > > That's what i asked you to think about .. over a dozen times .. how can an > > > observer on the train measure the ticking rate of the station clock. You > > > refused to even attempt to answer.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > If the im aginary train moves near the speed of light its clock slows > > down compared to the station. So how can it see the station age less > > as it passes(if it does?) > > It doesnt have to see it. It falls out of Special Relativity Theory it- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But even if you don't bother to look how can the station's clock go slower if it is aging faster? Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 11 Aug 2010 02:57 "Mathal" wrote in message news:9424dbce-5320-4adc-a119-279eed017661(a)g21g2000prn.googlegroups.com... On Aug 9, 5:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> You really need to think some more here .. you don't yet get SR. > > When it is said that there is no preferred frame in SR what is being >referred >to is the FACT that, with two isolated frames in motion WRT each >other, neither frame can deduce who is in motion WRT the other. Yes .. we know what relative motion is and what the principle of relativity is. >Both frames will perceive the other frame as operating at a slower > pace than their own BUT only by taking their own frame as > motionless, WRT the other frame, will the information gathered > from the other frame be in accord with what the SR calculates > and what physics stipulates is viable. No .. it doesn't matter WHAT frame you use .. what you get is in accord with what SR calculates > SR does not stipulate that in each or either of > these calculations there is any real dilation in time. Define "real dilation in time" > SR just tells > you what you will perceive and why. No .. what you would measure .. what is physically real in your frame. > That is all it does. What else do you think it needs to do? > When the actual velocity of each frame is known, There is no 'actual velocity' .. only relative >as it is in any calculation In no calculation. We only know relative velocities > using SR in the real world, SR provides real results of time > dilation. Because that's what happens in the real world. >You are mixing up 1.-the pure ivory tower gedanken of two lone > objects encountering each other in an otherwise blank universe. > and 2.-real world calculations that SR handles > perfectly. I'm not mixing up anything.. but you are certainly confused > If scientists wanted to calculate the effect of SR on "geo >stationary" satellites from the 'geo stationary' satelites frame > they could treat the earth as circling around the > 'geo stationary' satelite. No .. they can't > In the real world how does that work? You don't know where to apply SR .. or what it means. Learn some physics please >Oh wait! you're probably still in the first chapter of whatever book > taught you You probably haven't even read one > everything about SR. Why from that perspective there would be no > 'relative' velocity so no SR effect here at all. Study more physics .. you don't understand it yet
From: Mathal on 11 Aug 2010 09:33 On Aug 10, 11:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Mathal" wrote in message > > news:9424dbce-5320-4adc-a119-279eed017661(a)g21g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 9, 5:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> You really need to think some more here .. you don't yet get SR. > > > When it is said that there is no preferred frame in SR what is being > >referred >to is the FACT that, with two isolated frames in motion WRT each > >other, neither frame can deduce who is in motion WRT the other. > > Yes .. we know what relative motion is and what the principle of relativity > is. > > >Both frames will perceive the other frame as operating at a slower > > pace than their own BUT only by taking their own frame as > > motionless, WRT the other frame, will the information gathered > > from the other frame be in accord with what the SR calculates > > and what physics stipulates is viable. > > No .. it doesn't matter WHAT frame you use .. what you get is in accord with > what SR calculates In this scenario there are 4 calculations that can be made. 1. Frame 1 can treat itself at rest and Frame 2 moving. 2. Frame 1 can treat itself as moving and Frame 2 as motionless 3. Frame 2 can treat itself at rest and Frame 1 moving. 4. Frame 2 can treat itself as moving and Frame 1 as motionless Only 2 of these calculations will conform with what the frame observes in the other frame. If the objects are moving away from each other the incorrect use of SR will tell you the other frame is sending blue-shifted light. Mathal > > > SR does not stipulate that in each or either of > > these calculations there is any real dilation in time. > > Define "real dilation in time" > > > SR just tells > > you what you will perceive and why. > > No .. what you would measure .. what is physically real in your frame. > > > That is all it does. > > What else do you think it needs to do? > > > When the actual velocity of each frame is known, > > There is no 'actual velocity' .. only relative > > >as it is in any calculation > > In no calculation. We only know relative velocities > > > using SR in the real world, SR provides real results of time > > dilation. > > Because that's what happens in the real world. > > >You are mixing up 1.-the pure ivory tower gedanken of two lone > > objects encountering each other in an otherwise blank universe. > > and 2.-real world calculations that SR handles > > perfectly. > > I'm not mixing up anything.. but you are certainly confused > > > If scientists wanted to calculate the effect of SR on "geo > >stationary" satellites from the 'geo stationary' satelites frame > > they could treat the earth as circling around the > > 'geo stationary' satelite. > > No .. they can't > > > In the real world how does that work? > > You don't know where to apply SR .. or what it means. Learn some physics > please > My understanding of SR is much clearer than yours is, clearly. > >Oh wait! you're probably still in the first chapter of whatever book > > taught you > > You probably haven't even read one > > > everything about SR. Why from that perspective there would be no > > 'relative' velocity so no SR effect here at all. > > Study more physics .. you don't understand it yet
From: Inertial on 11 Aug 2010 10:08 "Mathal" wrote in message news:f60dfe9a-c079-4399-9c3f-ae055a0e0469(a)s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > >On Aug 10, 11:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Mathal" wrote in message >> >> news:9424dbce-5320-4adc-a119-279eed017661(a)g21g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 9, 5:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> You really need to think some more here .. you don't yet get SR. >> >> > When it is said that there is no preferred frame in SR what is being >> >referred >to is the FACT that, with two isolated frames in motion WRT >> >each >> >other, neither frame can deduce who is in motion WRT the other. >> >> Yes .. we know what relative motion is and what the principle of >> relativity >> is. >> >> >Both frames will perceive the other frame as operating at a slower >> > pace than their own BUT only by taking their own frame as >> > motionless, WRT the other frame, will the information gathered >> > from the other frame be in accord with what the SR calculates >> > and what physics stipulates is viable. >> >> No .. it doesn't matter WHAT frame you use .. what you get is in accord >> with >> what SR calculates > >In this scenario there are 4 calculations that can be made. At least > 1. Frame 1 can treat itself at rest and Frame 2 moving. > 2. Frame 1 can treat itself as moving and Frame 2 as > motionless > 3. Frame 2 can treat itself at rest and Frame 1 moving. That's the same as 2, and the opposite of 1 < 4. Frame 2 can treat itself as moving and Frame 1 as motionless That's the same as 1 and the opposite of 2 > Only 2 of these calculations will conform with what the frame > observes in the other frame. No .. they all will 'conform' because they are all equivalent. > If the objects are moving away from each > other the incorrect use of SR will tell you the other frame is sending > blue-shifted light. You really are confused. Perhaps you've had troubles in correctly using SR in the past. That is your problem .. not that of SR. [snip] > My understanding of SR is much clearer than yours is, clearly. Nope.. But keep trying
From: Mathal on 11 Aug 2010 10:57
On Aug 11, 7:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Mathal" wrote in message > > news:f60dfe9a-c079-4399-9c3f-ae055a0e0469(a)s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > >On Aug 10, 11:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Mathal" wrote in message > > >>news:9424dbce-5320-4adc-a119-279eed017661(a)g21g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > >> On Aug 9, 5:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> You really need to think some more here .. you don't yet get SR. > > >> > When it is said that there is no preferred frame in SR what is being > >> >referred >to is the FACT that, with two isolated frames in motion WRT > >> >each > >> >other, neither frame can deduce who is in motion WRT the other. > > >> Yes .. we know what relative motion is and what the principle of > >> relativity > >> is. > > >> >Both frames will perceive the other frame as operating at a slower > >> > pace than their own BUT only by taking their own frame as > >> > motionless, WRT the other frame, will the information gathered > >> > from the other frame be in accord with what the SR calculates > >> > and what physics stipulates is viable. > > >> No .. it doesn't matter WHAT frame you use .. what you get is in accord > >> with > >> what SR calculates > > >In this scenario there are 4 calculations that can be made. > > At least > > > 1. Frame 1 can treat itself at rest and Frame 2 moving. > > 2. Frame 1 can treat itself as moving and Frame 2 as > > motionless > > 3. Frame 2 can treat itself at rest and Frame 1 moving. > > That's the same as 2, and the opposite of 1 > > < 4. Frame 2 can treat itself as moving and Frame 1 as > motionless > > That's the same as 1 and the opposite of 2 > > > Only 2 of these calculations will conform with what the frame > > observes in the other frame. > > No .. they all will 'conform' because they are all equivalent. > > > If the objects are moving away from each > > other the incorrect use of SR will tell you the other frame is sending > > blue-shifted light. > > You really are confused. Perhaps you've had troubles in correctly using SR > in the past. That is your problem .. not that of SR. > > [snip] > > > My understanding of SR is much clearer than yours is, clearly. > > Nope.. But keep trying If the observing frame makes the calculations for time using himself as the rest frame what he measures of the other frame will conform with the SR calculations of what should be observed. If the observing frame uses the other frame as the rest frame his calculations for time will have him expecting blue shifted light. The observer always has to treat himself as motionless for his observations of the other frame to conform with what SR stipulates that he will SEE. I'm not sure whether it's English or SR or both that you are having difficulty with. Mathal |