Prev: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts
Next: Minkowski Metric.
From: PD on 28 May 2010 09:36
On May 27, 6:07 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 5:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/27/10 9:52 AM, GogoJF wrote:
>
> > > Which is faster Planck time or c?
>
> >    Why are you trying compare a time interval with speed?
>
> You are one who believes in mixing your lengths and your times
> inextricably- with relativity- your explanation of length contraction
> and time dilation is essentially comparisons of speeds and time
> intervals, are they not?

Well, not really.
There's a rather famous parable about this, talking about surveyors
who measure all N-S distances in meters and all E-W distances in feet
as had been done from time immemorial. And there is much fuss among
them about why anyone would ever mixing E-W distances with N-S
distances, when it's obvious they are different. And yet there is a
quantity that appears to be valuable, which is "distance as the crow
flies", and to do that you have to mix N-S and E-W distances, and the
formula for calculating DATCF always involves that conversion factor
from meters to feet or vice versa. There is much teeth gnashing about
the physical significance of that conversion factor and why it should
have the value it does.
Then one day, there is another surveyor that shows up, and he has the
same rules about N-S and E-W distances, but he uses the North Star as
the bearing for north, while the others he meets have been using
magnetic compasses as the bearing for north. So, between two points,
the new surveyor gets all the N-S and E-W distances differently than
what the other surveyors do, but oddly enough, the DATCF appears to be
the same result.
Think about this for a couple days. There is much to be learned from
this parable.

PD
From: BURT on 28 May 2010 14:53
On May 27, 4:14 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 27, 5:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/27/10 9:52 AM, GogoJF wrote:
>
> > > Which is faster Planck time or c?
>
> >    Why are you trying compare a time interval with speed?
>
> You're the relativist.  I'm just trying to understand why relativists
> do this.

If time slows down it must slow down from a fastest point. In this
sense there is a fastest clock. This is time for light. It comes from
gravity and is faster than matters clock. Light's clock is ahead of
matter's because it is faster.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: SR is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - Tom Roberts
Next: Minkowski Metric.