If a train is not aging faster than the station
in [Physics]
|
From: Inertial on 8 Aug 2010 21:32 "BURT" wrote in message news:15bba330-b5d2-4bcc-a065-7df15d32967a(a)m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > >On Aug 8, 4:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "BURT" wrote in message >> >> news:0fc5877a-a9ee-4852-bc7d-57ecab6f9909(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >If there is mutual dilation. If they always see the other running >> >slower then when does one age faster than the other? If it is mutual >> >and you never can see the other but going slower then how is it going >> >to happen? >> >> SR does not claim the train ages faster than the station .. or vice >> versa. . >> they both age the same. > >Are you arguing that the train can't move fast enough to reveal >Relativity? No > It is low inverse Gamma. >That does not matter. This is always a Gedanken. >If Gamma dilation is mutual be it small then >how can one age more? It doesn't. Both age at the same rate. What SR says is that differences in clock sync mean that when two separated observers at rest in one frame measure the elapsed time for a single clock while it is moving between them, they get a smaller elapsed time than their own synchronised clocks show. So between them, they calculate that the moving clock as ticking *slower*. Equivalently, an observer with the moving clock would look at the two observers' clocks and conclude that either the ticking rates of those clocks is *faster* or that the clocks were not in sync. You can't absolutely compare aging rates for a pair of relatively moving objects unless you look at how much elapsed time there is between both objects being at one event (A) and both being at another event (B) (that are time-like separated). As there is only *one* inertial rest frame for which an object can move from A to B, its not possible to compare such aging rates for two *different* inertial frames. Or to put it another way .. if you have two object at rest in two different inertial frames (eg train and platform), then there are *not* two different time-like separated events, A and B, that both objects can *both* exist at, so you cannot directly compare their aging rates in any absolute sense. Any other comparison would requires finding two separated simultaneous events, and simultaneity for separated events is relative.
From: BURT on 8 Aug 2010 21:46 On Aug 8, 6:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" wrote in message > > news:15bba330-b5d2-4bcc-a065-7df15d32967a(a)m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > >On Aug 8, 4:50 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "BURT" wrote in message > > >>news:0fc5877a-a9ee-4852-bc7d-57ecab6f9909(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > > >> >If there is mutual dilation. If they always see the other running > >> >slower then when does one age faster than the other? If it is mutual > >> >and you never can see the other but going slower then how is it going > >> >to happen? > > >> SR does not claim the train ages faster than the station .. or vice > >> versa. . > >> they both age the same. > > >Are you arguing that the train can't move fast enough to reveal > >Relativity? > > No > > > It is low inverse Gamma. > >That does not matter. This is always a Gedanken. > >If Gamma dilation is mutual be it small then > >how can one age more? > > It doesn't. > > Both age at the same rate. > > What SR says is that differences in clock sync mean that when two separated > observers at rest in one frame measure the elapsed time for a single clock > while it is moving between them, they get a smaller elapsed time than their > own synchronised clocks show. So between them, they calculate that the > moving clock as ticking *slower*. Equivalently, an observer with the moving > clock would look at the two observers' clocks and conclude that either the > ticking rates of those clocks is *faster* or that the clocks were not in > sync. > > You can't absolutely compare aging rates for a pair of relatively moving > objects unless you look at how much elapsed time there is between both > objects being at one event (A) and both being at another event (B) (that are > time-like separated). As there is only *one* inertial rest frame for which > an object can move from A to B, its not possible to compare such aging rates > for two *different* inertial frames. Or to put it another way .. if you > have two object at rest in two different inertial frames (eg train and > platform), then there are *not* two different time-like separated events, A > and B, that both objects can *both* exist at, so you cannot directly compare > their aging rates in any absolute sense. > > Any other comparison would requires finding two separated simultaneous > events, and simultaneity for separated events is relative.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - SR says one is slower. How can it say that if it is mutual? If they age at the same rate how does motion of SR slow down ones clock and not the other? when in the end if they look at each other that is not the case. Only one slows down so it can't be mutual. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 8 Aug 2010 21:53 "BURT" wrote in message news:5e9a8fda-b6fb-4261-a6e9-3a5cc47dbd7c(a)v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > SR says one is slower. No .. it doesn't > How can it say that if it is mutual? Question is meaningless, because it doesn't say that. > If they age at the same rate They do > how does motion of SR slow down ones > clock and not the other? It doesn't > when in the end if they look at each other > that is not the case. How do they "look at each other" when they are so far apart? How do they compare their clocks? How do they know they are both comparing their clocks at the same time? >Only one slows down so it can't be mutual. Wrong. All you are doing is lying about what SR says and instead making up your own nonsense, and then showing your nonsense is wrong,.
From: BURT on 8 Aug 2010 21:58 On Aug 8, 6:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" wrote in message > > news:5e9a8fda-b6fb-4261-a6e9-3a5cc47dbd7c(a)v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > SR says one is slower. > > No .. it doesn't > > > How can it say that if it is mutual? > > Question is meaningless, because it doesn't say that. > > > If they age at the same rate > > They do > > > how does motion of SR slow down ones > > clock and not the other? > > It doesn't It is called the transevrse doppler effect in Special Relativity. Did you forget that? Einstein said clearly that the one in motion ages less. Einstein saw that time could slow and extended that to gravity. Mitch Raemsch > > > when in the end if they look at each other > > that is not the case. > > How do they "look at each other" when they are so far apart? How do they > compare their clocks? How do they know they are both comparing their clocks > at the same time? > > >Only one slows down so it can't be mutual. > > Wrong. > > All you are doing is lying about what SR says and instead making up your own > nonsense, and then showing your nonsense is wrong,.
From: Inertial on 8 Aug 2010 22:10
"BURT" wrote in message news:604e85ee-bf6c-4635-a21a-133e5c18df13(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > >On Aug 8, 6:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "BURT" wrote in message >> >> news:5e9a8fda-b6fb-4261-a6e9-3a5cc47dbd7c(a)v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> >> > SR says one is slower. >> >> No .. it doesn't >> >> > How can it say that if it is mutual? >> >> Question is meaningless, because it doesn't say that. >> >> > If they age at the same rate >> >> They do >> >> > how does motion of SR slow down ones >> > clock and not the other? >> >> It doesn't > >It is called the transevrse doppler effect in Special Relativity. BAHAHA .. you have no idea what you're talking about > Did you forget that? Of course I didn't forget it .. it simply isn't relevant here. >Einstein said clearly that the one in motion ages less. Nope. You are perhaps thinking of the 'twins paradox' (one remains at rest, the other accelerates) .. not mutual time dilation for inertial frames (train and station). I am more inclined to believe that you are not thinking at all. > Einstein saw that time could slow and extended that to gravity. That's GR .. totally different notion. In GR time at different gravitational potentials DOES go slower (or faster) for different observer, and those observers agree that that is the case. We are not talking about different gravitational potentials for the train and station All you are doing is lying about what SR says and instead making up your own nonsense, and then showing your nonsense is wrong,. |