If a train is not aging faster than the station
in [Physics]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Aug 2010 22:33 "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.
From: BURT on 10 Aug 2010 22:47 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?) Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 10 Aug 2010 23:54 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
From: Mathal on 11 Aug 2010 00:15 On Aug 9, 5:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Mathal" wrote in message > > news:f134b6a8-4250-4c61-97e6-f369cf4a51ff(a)s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 8, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Mathal" wrote in message > > >news:a75e62b4-3301-404f-b390-15921e6934f9(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > > > > In BURT's first post in this thread he stated that the train was > > > moving and the station is relatively stationary. > > > In the stations frame ... yes > > > > Both Ken and BURT are > > > probably addressing the idea that either frame can be considered the > > > rest frame and the motion ascribed to the other frame. > > > Which other frame? The train frame? In that frame the train is > > stationary > > and the station rushing toward it. > > > > When the train > > > is interpreted as motionless and the station moving- an illusion > > > That's not an illusion > > > > one > > > sometimes gets of another train by the window when you start moving- > > > anyway the station should have a slower time rate in this 'case'. > > > Nope .. the cases are identical and symmetrical. However. whichever is > > stationary in a given frame will measure whichever is moving as ticking at > > a > > slower rate. Both train and station see the other as moving. Both will > > measure a slower rate for the others clock. (though BURT has failed the > > challenge of describing how they would determine that) > > > > This > > > is really just an example of GIGO. > > > GIGO from BURT and Key .. yes > > > >SR will happily churn out 'yes > > > you're right the moving station is in a slower time frame than the > > > "stationary" train' because SR is mindless > > > It is a theory.. it doesn't have a mind. > > > >-give it a garbage > > > hypothesis of events and it will give you a garbage interpretation of > > > the events. > > > There was no garbage hypothesis there > > > > Given two objects passing in space, nothing can be said about their > > > velocities unless there is some shared history > > > Each can say something about the others velocity relative to them > > > > . If they stop and > > > compare histories they can determine if one or the other was moving > > > faster > > > They would find both were moving at the same (but opposite) speed > > > > or if they were travelling at the same velocity -i.e. no time > > > dilation. > > > No .. you get time dilation dependent on speed. > > > > Ken thinks SR can be and needs to be fixed. > > > I dont. > > > Neither do I, as it isn't broken. Your understanding of it (and physics) > > seems to be. > >Put synchronized clocks on the train and the station. > > Fine. And you'll get mutual time dilation. > > In particular (from station point of view .. train view you simply reverse > the labels) .... > > If you have observers at either end of the station with synchronised clocks > both looking at a single clock on the train, who each take a reading from > the train clock as it passes them, will calculate that the train clock is > running slow > > Conversely, a single observer on the station looking at two clocks on the > train (one at front and one at back of train) who takes a reading of each > clock as it passes him, will calculate that the train clocks are running > fast > > >If you want to > >treat the station as moving and the train as stationary the clocks > >will show you that you're mistaken. > > Wrong. You can't tell which is moving at all. Clearly you don't understand > SR and the physics involved. > > > Given -a history of two ships. They start stationary and move away > >from each other at the same velocity and return similarly. > > Then there will be no difference in ages .. its the same profile > > > If they > >measure their velocity WRT each other they can determine the > >"apparent" contraction in the other frame which will differ from the > >"apparent" contraction from the initial rest frame. > > What contraction . length contraction? Or do you mean time dilation (which > is what we're talking about? > > > When they come to > >a stop and compare their synchronized clocks, > > Is this when they turn around to return .. or when they have returned to > meet? > > >the clocks of the moving > >ships (relative to the "stationary' initial frame) will show less time > >than the stationary clock but the two moving ships will be identical > >because they were in the same time frame- their clocks moved at the > >same rate throughout their journey. > > I know .. this is not related to the train and station scenario at all > though > > > If you're having difficulty with > > this > > I don't have any difficulty at all .. you seem confused though > > > consider the two ships moving in the same direction. Then you > > will plainly see that the moving ships clocks will display identical > > time throughout their journey. > > Yeah yeah .. all well knows .. and not relevant > > [snip more waffle] > > 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. 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. SR does not stipulate that in each or either of these calculations there is any real dilation in time. SR just tells you what you will perceive and why. That is all it does. When the actual velocity of each frame is known, as it is in any calculation using SR in the real world, SR provides real results of time dilation. 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. If scientists wanted to calculate the effect of SR on "geo stationary" satelites from the 'geo stationary' satelites frame they could treat the earth as circling around the 'geo stationary' satelite. In the real world how does that work? Oh wait! you're probably still in the first chapter of whatever book taught you everything about SR. Why from that perspective there would be no 'relative' velocity so no SR effect here at all. Mathal
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Aug 2010 00:20
Mathal Multiple frame are not requited... an observer frame can be defined. All observed objects or events in relative motion to the observer will exhibit phenomena such as Doppler shift, time dilation, etc. |