Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity [Relativity]

Prev: Flaw in Stowe/LeSage Heating
Next: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?

From: cadwgan_gedrych on 16 Mar 2005 13:51

At
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/messages/29259fd8837f4457,5e0f92097960cbe2?thread_id=
8749025eae57c9a5&mode=thread&noheader=1

Dirk Van de moortel (correctly, for once,) noted (on Mar 16 2005),

> The captain of the ship will say exactly the same thing
> about our clocks.

In other words, time dilation in special relativity is
--------------->>>>RECIPROCAL<<<<----------------.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
This proves that relativity's time dilation cannot pertain
to physical clock rhythms (or to any other processes involving
physical time or physical aging) because it is impossible for
two clocks to both physically run slower than each other (or
for two twins to both be younger than each other).
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
It also proves that special relativity cannot handle the
Twin Paradox because even the NO-accelerations case has
real or physical age differences, and yet, as we saw above,
special relativity does not pertain to such differences.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
(And of course, the same applies to real or physical rod lengths
and physical or masses.)

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Therefore, special relativity is irrelevant in the cases of
physical clock rhythms, physical rod lengths, and physical
masses.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Regarding relativity's RECIPROCAL "time dilation" or "clock
slowing," or "twin aging," Dirk went on to state that

> No one can give you the answer why this happens.

What Dirk really meant was that "No relativist _wants_ to
tell why this happens because to do so would involve the
disastrous (for SR) admission that Einstein's clocks are
incorrectly synchronized."

This asynchronousness is easily proved, as follows:
Given two events, we know that they must physically occur
either absolutely simultaneously or not, but Einstein's
clocks in various frames will say that two given events
occurred BOTH simultaneously and nonsimultaneously, which,
as we just noted, is simply physically impossible, and, a
picture of this situation quickly shows that Einstein's
clocks cannot be correctly synchronized in any frame but
one:

left clock right clock
[3]-------Frame A-------[3]
E1 E2
[3]-------Frame B-------[4]
left clock right clock

If events E1 and E2 happened to occur absolutely simultaneously,
then only one Einsteinian frame's clocks will say this, but all
other such frames' clocks will say that the events occurred
nonsimultaneously; so, as the picture shows, these other frames'
clocks will be absolutely asynchronous.

Having found the immediate answer to the question which Dirk
claimed that no one could answer, we can easily go even further,
and answer the question Why are Einstein's clocks asynchronous?

It's because Einstein ignores the differences in frame velocities
when he uses light signals to "synchronize" his clocks. For
example, whereas Frame A may move toward a given light signal,
Frame B may move away from said signal, so the clocks in these
two frames cannot possibly be set the same way using said signal
as long as one uses Einstein's definition of "synchronization,"
which forces all clocks to read the same time x/c for any one-way
signal traveling the frame distance x to the clock.

This is much easier seen pictorially, as follows:

Let both frames' origin clocks start on zero when a light signal
is emitted at them.

left clock right clock (not started)
[0]-------Frame A-------[-]
~~> signal
[0]-------Frame B-------[-]
left clock right clock (not started)

left clock right clock (started now)
[x/c]-------Frame A------[x/c] forced to read Einstein's time x/c
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
------[x/c]-------Frame B-------[-]
left clock right clock (still not started)

Just to help Einstein, we will assume that both left clocks
now* also read x/c, so that Frame A's clocks are truly or
absolutely synchronized; however, as anyone can easily see,
_after_ Einstein forces B's right clock to read x/c when it
is finally started by the signal, B's left clock _will not_
then read x/c, so B's clocks will be absolutely asynchronous,
as will the clocks of all other Einsteinian frames.
(*The word "now" is validly used here because I am not saying
that I _know_ that the clocks read x/c. They _must_ read
something, and x/c is a _possible_ reading.)

Here is how the asynchronicity of Einstein's silly clocks
causes relativity's silly RECIPROCAL "clock slowing":

a passing clock
[0]-->
[0]-------Frame A-------[2]

a passing clock
------------------------[1]-->
[1]-------Frame A-------[3]

Lo and behold! Frame A's observers see the passing clock
"running slow"; it "fell behind by two time units." Of
course, the observers in the passing clock frames will
RECIPROCALLY find that any Frame A clock "runs slow."
What could be stupider and of less importance to physics?

Finally, for those who do not know, we will now answer the
question What is the NO-accelerations Twin Paradox case?

Actually, it is the Triplet Paradox case because we need
three people in order to eliminate acceleration. And it
is better to use clocks because they are more closely
related to time than people.

Here is the Three-clock Case:

-------------------------[0]
--------------------<--Clock A
-------------------------[0]-->
-----------------------Clock B---------------<--Clock C

-----------------[3]
------------<--Clock A
---------------------------------[3]
------------------------------Clock B
------------------------------Clock C
---------------------------------[3]

----[8]
--Clock A
------------------------------------------------[8]
--Clock C-------------------------------------Clock B
----[6]

Since there are no accelerations, nothing in either
special relativity or general relativity can physically
explain the actual age difference at the end.

Oh, there are sure to be some relativists who jump up
and scream "Frame jumping!," but then they must tell us
why merely being in different frames causes us to age
differently, and they cannot explain this using SR.

But the explanation is simple; people in different frames
age differently because such people move at different speeds
through space, and motion through space is the cause of
physical time dilation; however, special relativity denies
all meaning to the notion of motion through space.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
In conclusion, we see that SR commits three sins, namely,
it talks about only trivial things such as its silly
reciprocal "clock slowing," and yet, one the other hand,
it fails to explicitly address that which is meaningful,
such as real clock slowing and real aging, and, finally,
its clocks which are incorrectly related, so all of its
2-clock results are incorrect, including its very basis,
the "invariance" of light's one-way speed between two
same-frame clocks.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

From: PD on 16 Mar 2005 15:24

cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> At
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/messages/29259fd8837f4457,5e0f92097960cbe2?thread_id=
> 8749025eae57c9a5&mode=thread&noheader=1
>
> Dirk Van de moortel (correctly, for once,) noted (on Mar 16 2005),
>
> > The captain of the ship will say exactly the same thing
> > about our clocks.
>
> In other words, time dilation in special relativity is
> --------------->>>>RECIPROCAL<<<<----------------.
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> This proves that relativity's time dilation cannot pertain
> to physical clock rhythms (or to any other processes involving
> physical time or physical aging) because it is impossible for
> two clocks to both physically run slower than each other

Sure it is.

> (or
> for two twins to both be younger than each other).

That's not the same thing.
Prejudicial mental block at work.

Note that "younger than" is a comparison made locally and locally only.
"Slower than" is a not necessarily a comparison made locally.

> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> It also proves that special relativity cannot handle the
> Twin Paradox because even the NO-accelerations case

What NO-Accelerations Twin Paradox? Reference please.

> has
> real or physical age differences, and yet, as we saw above,
> special relativity does not pertain to such differences.
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> (And of course, the same applies to real or physical rod lengths
> and physical or masses.)

There is no such thing as a "physical rod length". Rod length is
strictly the result of an observer-dependent procedure.

>
> ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> Therefore, special relativity is irrelevant in the cases of
> physical clock rhythms, physical rod lengths, and physical
> masses.

"Physical clock rhythms", "physical rod lengths", and "physical masses"
are poorly defined terms.

Let's start with length. Define the length of a rod, or at least how
you would find it.

> ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> Regarding relativity's RECIPROCAL "time dilation" or "clock
> slowing," or "twin aging," Dirk went on to state that
>
> > No one can give you the answer why this happens.
>
> What Dirk really meant was that "No relativist _wants_ to
> tell why this happens because to do so would involve the
> disastrous (for SR) admission that Einstein's clocks are
> incorrectly synchronized."

I'll let Dirk tell you what he meant. I would have given a very similar
answer, and I can assure you that what you guessed would not have been
at all close to what I really meant.

>
> This asynchronousness is easily proved, as follows:
> Given two events, we know that they must physically occur
> either absolutely simultaneously or not,

And how do you know that? This is not only not obvious, but also
incorrect.
Define simultaneity and how you would determine whether two things are
simultaneous.

> but Einstein's
> clocks in various frames will say that two given events
> occurred BOTH simultaneously and nonsimultaneously, which,
> as we just noted, is simply physically impossible, and, a
> picture of this situation quickly shows that Einstein's
> clocks cannot be correctly synchronized in any frame but
> one:
>
> left clock right clock
> [3]-------Frame A-------[3]
> E1 E2
> [3]-------Frame B-------[4]
> left clock right clock
>
> If events E1 and E2 happened to occur absolutely simultaneously,

That's a big IF. No two events EVER happen *absolutely* simultaneously.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not implying this is a matter of
imprecision. Events can be simultaneous, but that simultaneity is not
absolute, true, physical, or inherent.

> then only one Einsteinian frame's clocks will say this, but all
> other such frames' clocks will say that the events occurred
> nonsimultaneously; so, as the picture shows, these other frames'
> clocks will be absolutely asynchronous.
>
> Having found the immediate answer to the question which Dirk
> claimed that no one could answer, we can easily go even further,
> and answer the question Why are Einstein's clocks asynchronous?
>
> It's because Einstein ignores the differences in frame velocities
> when he uses light signals to "synchronize" his clocks. For
> example, whereas Frame A may move toward a given light signal,
> Frame B may move away from said signal, so the clocks in these
> two frames cannot possibly be set the same way using said signal
> as long as one uses Einstein's definition of "synchronization,"

You haven't learned how Einstein insists synchronization be done.
Synchronizing clocks involves clocks, sources and receivers that are
all stationary, not moving, in that frame.

> which forces all clocks to read the same time x/c for any one-way
> signal traveling the frame distance x to the clock.
>

[snip]

> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> In conclusion, we see that SR commits three sins, namely,
> it talks about only trivial things such as its silly
> reciprocal "clock slowing," and yet, one the other hand,
> it fails to explicitly address that which is meaningful,
> such as real clock slowing and real aging, and, finally,
> its clocks which are incorrectly related, so all of its
> 2-clock results are incorrect, including its very basis,
> the "invariance" of light's one-way speed between two
> same-frame clocks.
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Summarizing your faulty assumptions:
1. That duration is a physical, absolute, inherent property.
2. That length is a physical, absolute, inherent property.
3. That simultaneity is a physical, absolute, inherent property.

SR is indeed inconsistent with those faulty assumptions, and anyone who
hangs on to them will find SR impossible to comprehend. However,
abandoning the faulty assumptions will allow you to develop a working
theory that explains a whole lot of things that are seen in the world,
that you would not be able to explain using the faulty assumptions.

PD

From: Dirk Van de moortel on 16 Mar 2005 15:38

From: jahn on 16 Mar 2005 15:38

<cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1110999070.611006.230190(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> At
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/messages/29259fd8837f4457,5e0f92097960cbe2?thread_id=
> 8749025eae57c9a5&mode=thread&noheader=1
>
> Dirk Van de moortel (correctly, for once,) noted (on Mar 16 2005),
>
> > The captain of the ship will say exactly the same thing
> > about our clocks.
>
> In other words, time dilation in special relativity is
> --------------->>>>RECIPROCAL<<<<----------------.
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> This proves that relativity's time dilation cannot pertain
> to physical clock rhythms (or to any other processes involving
> physical time or physical aging) because it is impossible for
> two clocks to both physically run slower than each other (or
> for two twins to both be younger than each other).
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> It also proves that special relativity cannot handle the
> Twin Paradox because even the NO-accelerations case has
> real or physical age differences, and yet, as we saw above,
> special relativity does not pertain to such differences.
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> (And of course, the same applies to real or physical rod lengths
> and physical or masses.)
>
> ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> Therefore, special relativity is irrelevant in the cases of
> physical clock rhythms, physical rod lengths, and physical
> masses.
> ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> Regarding relativity's RECIPROCAL "time dilation" or "clock
> slowing," or "twin aging," Dirk went on to state that
>
> > No one can give you the answer why this happens.
>
> What Dirk really meant was that "No relativist _wants_ to
> tell why this happens because to do so would involve the
> disastrous (for SR) admission that Einstein's clocks are
> incorrectly synchronized."
>
> This asynchronousness is easily proved, as follows:
> Given two events, we know that they must physically occur
> either absolutely simultaneously or not, but Einstein's
> clocks in various frames will say that two given events
> occurred BOTH simultaneously and nonsimultaneously, which,
> as we just noted, is simply physically impossible, and, a
> picture of this situation quickly shows that Einstein's
> clocks cannot be correctly synchronized in any frame but
> one:
>
> left clock right clock
> [3]-------Frame A-------[3]
> E1 E2
> [3]-------Frame B-------[4]
> left clock right clock
>
> If events E1 and E2 happened to occur absolutely simultaneously,
> then only one Einsteinian frame's clocks will say this, but all
> other such frames' clocks will say that the events occurred
> nonsimultaneously; so, as the picture shows, these other frames'
> clocks will be absolutely asynchronous.
>
> Having found the immediate answer to the question which Dirk
> claimed that no one could answer, we can easily go even further,
> and answer the question Why are Einstein's clocks asynchronous?
>
> It's because Einstein ignores the differences in frame velocities
> when he uses light signals to "synchronize" his clocks. For
> example, whereas Frame A may move toward a given light signal,
> Frame B may move away from said signal, so the clocks in these
> two frames cannot possibly be set the same way using said signal
> as long as one uses Einstein's definition of "synchronization,"
> which forces all clocks to read the same time x/c for any one-way
> signal traveling the frame distance x to the clock.
>
> This is much easier seen pictorially, as follows:
>
> Let both frames' origin clocks start on zero when a light signal
> is emitted at them.
>
> left clock right clock (not started)
> [0]-------Frame A-------[-]
> ~~> signal
> [0]-------Frame B-------[-]
> left clock right clock (not started)
>
>
> left clock right clock (started now)
> [x/c]-------Frame A------[x/c] forced to read Einstein's time x/c
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
> ------[x/c]-------Frame B-------[-]
> left clock right clock (still not started)
>
> Just to help Einstein, we will assume that both left clocks
> now* also read x/c, so that Frame A's clocks are truly or
> absolutely synchronized; however, as anyone can easily see,
> _after_ Einstein forces B's right clock to read x/c when it
> is finally started by the signal, B's left clock _will not_
> then read x/c, so B's clocks will be absolutely asynchronous,
> as will the clocks of all other Einsteinian frames.
> (*The word "now" is validly used here because I am not saying
> that I _know_ that the clocks read x/c. They _must_ read
> something, and x/c is a _possible_ reading.)
>
> Here is how the asynchronicity of Einstein's silly clocks
> causes relativity's silly RECIPROCAL "clock slowing":
>
> a passing clock
> [0]-->
> [0]-------Frame A-------[2]
>
> a passing clock
> ------------------------[1]-->
> [1]-------Frame A-------[3]
>
> Lo and behold! Frame A's observers see the passing clock
> "running slow"; it "fell behind by two time units." Of
> course, the observers in the passing clock frames will
> RECIPROCALLY find that any Frame A clock "runs slow."
> What could be stupider and of less importance to physics?
>
> Finally, for those who do not know, we will now answer the
> question What is the NO-accelerations Twin Paradox case?
>
> Actually, it is the Triplet Paradox case because we need
> three people in order to eliminate acceleration. And it
> is better to use clocks because they are more closely
> related to time than people.
>
> Here is the Three-clock Case:
>
> -------------------------[0]
> --------------------<--Clock A
> -------------------------[0]-->
> -----------------------Clock B---------------<--Clock C
>
> -----------------[3]
> ------------<--Clock A
> ---------------------------------[3]
> ------------------------------Clock B
> ------------------------------Clock C
> ---------------------------------[3]
>
> ----[8]
> --Clock A
> ------------------------------------------------[8]
> --Clock C-------------------------------------Clock B
> ----[6]
>
> Since there are no accelerations, nothing in either
> special relativity or general relativity can physically
> explain the actual age difference at the end.
>
> Oh, there are sure to be some relativists who jump up
> and scream "Frame jumping!," but then they must tell us
> why merely being in different frames causes us to age
> differently, and they cannot explain this using SR.
>
> But the explanation is simple; people in different frames
> age differently because such people move at different speeds
> through space, and motion through space is the cause of
> physical time dilation; however, special relativity denies
> all meaning to the notion of motion through space.
>
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
> In conclusion, we see that SR commits three sins, namely,
> it talks about only trivial things such as its silly
> reciprocal "clock slowing," and yet, one the other hand,
> it fails to explicitly address that which is meaningful,
> such as real clock slowing and real aging, and, finally,
> its clocks which are incorrectly related, so all of its
> 2-clock results are incorrect, including its very basis,
> the "invariance" of light's one-way speed between two
> same-frame clocks.
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>

Hmm...
I tho't SR was about resolving Maxwell's constancy
of light speed with the principle of relativity.

Einstein used an imaginary axis on the path. Weber
used an imaginary axis in his field equations. Both
are substantially in agreement about PoR and SoL.

What is trivia...IMHO is the insistance that an
imaginary axis must show real effect or the theory
is wrong.

This is equivalent to saying AC electric theory is
wrong unless you can run a few extra light bulbs
from the apparent power in a motor or transformer..

When Einstein says a clock *goes* because of
the way a path makes it *appear*, he commits
his theory to an artificial notion of time apart from
our normal experience. For better or worse.

But that does not itself
cripple the resolution of his two postulates.

Sue...

From: Rudy Drabek on 16 Mar 2005 16:10

cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com schrieb:
> At
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/messages/29259fd8837f4457,5e0f92097960cbe2?thread_id=
> 8749025eae57c9a5&mode=thread&noheader=1
>
> Dirk Van de moortel (correctly, for once,) noted (on Mar 16 2005),
>
>
>>The captain of the ship will say exactly the same thing
>>about our clocks.
>
>
> In other words, time dilation in special relativity is
> --------------->>>>RECIPROCAL<<<<----------------.
>

snip

Let me try an answer as an interested laymen for some years now.

The answers lie in the basics for SR and are clearly described in the
Einstein 1905 papers.

1. The relativity postulate ---> reciprocy/symmetry!
2. C is constant for all inertial frames in unaccelerated motion.

For 2. I have read/taken, as a good interpretation, as follows:
Two ships on a sea with constant speed.
On each ship one let fall a stone into the water.
Each ship remains in the center of the concentric waves appearing.
That is completely different to our daily life experience.
If you can't accept this then SR is also not acceptable for you.
FINAL statement, acc. to the state of the art!

All formulas for the Lorentz transformation instead of the Galilean
transformation are based on these 2 postulates.

From this you came to the paradoxon, that it's not possible that both
clocks are delayed and the reciprocy of the situation.
This paradoxon , now 100 years old, is indeed no paradoxon.

SR can't say anything about the clockrate of e.g. at the 2 ships
mentioned just before under the conditions 1 and 2.

If you study the triplet paradoxon you can see, if the ships have
different speeds rel. to the origin of the trip, the ship clocks are
gathering different proper times.

But SR does not give you any result, if the origin is not taken into
account.

Remark:THIS STILL WORRIES ME, because if there would be an origin for
the universe, all would be easier.

The essence is, that the ships had to enter into the condition of rel.
speed between them. This violates postulate 2, because an acceleration
was needed. Professionals say the situation is not symmetrical.

If you take the origin into account, the formulas of SR are applicable
and giving you the correct results.

I tryed to hold the answer as short as possible.
Pls correct me for failures.
Rudy

| Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: Flaw in Stowe/LeSage Heating
Next: Speed of Light: A universal Constant?