Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 06:20 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:66fad22e-0a13-4979-b17f-2f405eb13607(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Apr, 08:59, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:8431a5cd-222a-4118-9d15-7bcdf6450410(a)c36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:38, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > The point is simply to talk in qualitative >> >> > terms about what happens to "simultaneity" between the points at the >> >> > start and at the end at which we agree that the clocks are >> >> > synchronised. >> >> >> It changes >> >> > Will you quantify this change? >> >> I thought you just wanted to talk in qualitative terms. > > I did, but not at such a ridiculously broad level. > > > >> You also say you >> don't want to see math, so I'm not sure what you are expecting here > > Just for you to say, for example, "when the local clock accelerates, > the distant clock falls out of simultaneity and leaps ahead... etc." > or something of that kind. I already said all that >> >> A frame moving relative to a clock will measure the clock as ticking >> >> slower. >> >> Less elapsed time will show between an pair of events for the >> >> relatively >> >> moving clock than an at-rest clock. That is independent of the >> >> direction >> >> of >> >> the relative motion. >> >> >> I had though we agreed to ignore illusions due to propagation delays. >> >> > Indeed, but when you started talking of the clocks "speeding up", that >> > caused me confusion. >> >> Why? Just do not worry about optical illusions and concentrate on what >> is >> actually going on. > > But you said the speeding up bit *is* a result of an optical illusion. No .. I didn't. If you are talking about what is actually seen, then optical illusion makes a difference. But there is NO optical illusion in the SR effects on measured clock rates and lengths etc > You see how hard it is to get a straight but comprehensive answer > here? You get them .. you just don't accept or understand them >> > would leave a small remainder of slowing, >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You are talking about additonal >> optical illusions. > > No, Yes .. you were. > I was talking about the slowing predicted by SR, which is not > accounted for by the effects that we've both already agreed are > "illusions". And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not illusion. The same that i already described in detail before >> > based on >> > the relative speed between the clocks? (and not based on the direction >> > of relative movement?) >> >> Yes. I've already said that. > > So what is the extent of the slowing, and on what variables does it > depend? (We can speak in quantitative terms on this point.) It depends on the speed. The greater the speed, the larger the effect (see the gamma factor). That affects the measured clock ticking rate and the measure length of a moving object. There is also the effect on simultaneity. Its all given by the Lorentz transforms.
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 06:22 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:6415b4c3-f1d4-4a20-87bf-54c2a2b4f31b(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Apr, 09:01, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a5efd3b8-2a31-4935-828b-234bb8569461(a)w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:44, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> > wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:da85279f-24ef-481b-93d0-287ce74db45d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 04:49, "Peter Webb" >> >> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> I have some sympathy for your problem. I have no sympathy for the >> >> >> fact >> >> >> that >> >> >> instead of trying to understand how the Universe actually works, >> >> >> your >> >> >> position is that SR is wrong and/or Inertial, PD and I am wrong >> >> >> because >> >> >> we >> >> >> agree with SR and SR is wrong. >> >> >> > I do wish you'd stop framing the issue as "you're either with us or >> >> > against us". There is obviously some validity to SR - and I've said >> >> > it >> >> > a million times. For us to argue about what explanation underlies >> >> > SR, >> >> > or how to interpret it, is not to say SR is "wrong". >> >> >> But you do say SR is wrong, all the time, because you argue with its >> >> predictions. >> >> >> Lets see, for the record, whether you believe SR is wrong. >> >> >> Here are two specific predictions of SR. Tell me if you think they are >> >> correct: >> >> >> 1. Two twins - one travels to a start 1 light year away at 0.9c, turns >> >> around and returns at 0.9c. The travelling twin ages less than the >> >> stay >> >> at >> >> home because of relativistic time dilation. True of False? >> >> > True, because there is a "real" slowdown of the astronaut twin. >> >> If by 'slow down' you mean 'aged less' as per the question asked. >> >> Why do you have to continually introduce other terms like '"real" >> slowdown'? > > In order to distinguish from the speeding and slowing that are the > result of "optical illusions", Which YOU brought into the discussion on the pair of clocks example. Why even mention them if you don't want to be confused by them? Next thing you'll be asking about the rate at which an observer hears the clock ticking. It would help if you focused on the actual SR effects before getting into the 'visual' illusions / artefacts. (note that they apply to EMR in general and any signal sent at the speed of light). > or to distinguish from a slowdown of > the observer (as opposed to the object being measured).
From: Sue... on 10 Apr 2010 06:47 On Apr 10, 6:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6415b4c3-f1d4-4a20-87bf-54c2a2b4f31b(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 10 Apr, 09:01, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:a5efd3b8-2a31-4935-828b-234bb8569461(a)w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 10 Apr, 07:44, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> > wrote: > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:da85279f-24ef-481b-93d0-287ce74db45d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 10 Apr, 04:49, "Peter Webb" > >> >> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> I have some sympathy for your problem. I have no sympathy for the > >> >> >> fact > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> instead of trying to understand how the Universe actually works, > >> >> >> your > >> >> >> position is that SR is wrong and/or Inertial, PD and I am wrong > >> >> >> because > >> >> >> we > >> >> >> agree with SR and SR is wrong. > > >> >> > I do wish you'd stop framing the issue as "you're either with us or > >> >> > against us". There is obviously some validity to SR - and I've said > >> >> > it > >> >> > a million times. For us to argue about what explanation underlies > >> >> > SR, > >> >> > or how to interpret it, is not to say SR is "wrong". > > >> >> But you do say SR is wrong, all the time, because you argue with its > >> >> predictions. > > >> >> Lets see, for the record, whether you believe SR is wrong. > > >> >> Here are two specific predictions of SR. Tell me if you think they are > >> >> correct: > > >> >> 1. Two twins - one travels to a start 1 light year away at 0.9c, turns > >> >> around and returns at 0.9c. The travelling twin ages less than the > >> >> stay > >> >> at > >> >> home because of relativistic time dilation. True of False? > > >> > True, because there is a "real" slowdown of the astronaut twin. > > >> If by 'slow down' you mean 'aged less' as per the question asked. > > >> Why do you have to continually introduce other terms like '"real" > >> slowdown'? > > > In order to distinguish from the speeding and slowing that are the > > result of "optical illusions", > > Which YOU brought into the discussion on the pair of clocks example. Why > even mention them if you don't want to be confused by them? Next thing > you'll be asking about the rate at which an observer hears the clock > ticking. There are *formally* real and imaginary components which the theory manages nicely. But if they are managed wrong, a hijacker can pick his inertial frame such that bullets don't work aginst him. The extra rigour was demonstrated relevant by Noether and Hilbert. > > It would help if you focused on the actual SR effects before getting into > the 'visual' illusions / artefacts. (note that they apply to EMR in general > and any signal sent at the speed of light). What *effects* are you referring to? << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Sue... > > > or to distinguish from a slowdown of > > the observer (as opposed to the object being measured). > >
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 07:10 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:ed7380f7-2880-4eef-baff-a5b781717b67(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 10, 6:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6415b4c3-f1d4-4a20-87bf-54c2a2b4f31b(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 09:01, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:a5efd3b8-2a31-4935-828b-234bb8569461(a)w17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 07:44, "Peter Webb" >> >> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:da85279f-24ef-481b-93d0-287ce74db45d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 10 Apr, 04:49, "Peter Webb" >> >> >> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I have some sympathy for your problem. I have no sympathy for >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> fact >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> instead of trying to understand how the Universe actually works, >> >> >> >> your >> >> >> >> position is that SR is wrong and/or Inertial, PD and I am wrong >> >> >> >> because >> >> >> >> we >> >> >> >> agree with SR and SR is wrong. >> >> >> >> > I do wish you'd stop framing the issue as "you're either with us >> >> >> > or >> >> >> > against us". There is obviously some validity to SR - and I've >> >> >> > said >> >> >> > it >> >> >> > a million times. For us to argue about what explanation underlies >> >> >> > SR, >> >> >> > or how to interpret it, is not to say SR is "wrong". >> >> >> >> But you do say SR is wrong, all the time, because you argue with >> >> >> its >> >> >> predictions. >> >> >> >> Lets see, for the record, whether you believe SR is wrong. >> >> >> >> Here are two specific predictions of SR. Tell me if you think they >> >> >> are >> >> >> correct: >> >> >> >> 1. Two twins - one travels to a start 1 light year away at 0.9c, >> >> >> turns >> >> >> around and returns at 0.9c. The travelling twin ages less than the >> >> >> stay >> >> >> at >> >> >> home because of relativistic time dilation. True of False? >> >> >> > True, because there is a "real" slowdown of the astronaut twin. >> >> >> If by 'slow down' you mean 'aged less' as per the question asked. >> >> >> Why do you have to continually introduce other terms like '"real" >> >> slowdown'? >> >> > In order to distinguish from the speeding and slowing that are the >> > result of "optical illusions", >> >> Which YOU brought into the discussion on the pair of clocks example. Why >> even mention them if you don't want to be confused by them? Next thing >> you'll be asking about the rate at which an observer hears the clock >> ticking. > > There are *formally* real and imaginary components > which the theory manages nicely. Now you're using the mathematical notions of 'real' and 'imaginary'. We've bene having enough trouble with STE using the term' real' for other things already .. you'll just confuse him more > But if they > are managed wrong, a hijacker can pick his > inertial frame such that bullets don't work > aginst him. The extra rigour was demonstrated > relevant by Noether and Hilbert. He can pick being at rest in a frame in which he is moving away from the gun at the same speed that the bullet leaves the gun :) >> It would help if you focused on the actual SR effects before getting into >> the 'visual' illusions / artefacts. (note that they apply to EMR in >> general >> and any signal sent at the speed of light). > > What *effects* are you referring to? > > << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as > the three space co-ordinates. >> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > Sue... The effects of relative motion of frames of reference on the measured lengths and durations and only clock synchronization. BTW: You links will do even less good than usual, as STE refuses to consider anything mathematical. Minkowski geometry will be WAY beyond what he can cope witrh.
From: Ste on 10 Apr 2010 07:11
On 10 Apr, 11:20, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > based on > >> > the relative speed between the clocks? (and not based on the direction > >> > of relative movement?) > > >> Yes. I've already said that. > > > So what is the extent of the slowing, and on what variables does it > > depend? (We can speak in quantitative terms on this point.) > > It depends on the speed. The greater the speed, the larger the effect (see > the gamma factor). That affects the measured clock ticking rate and the > measure length of a moving object. There is also the effect on > simultaneity. > > Its all given by the Lorentz transforms. Indeed. So there is always a slowing, related to speed, no matter what relative direction the object may be travelling in. In other words, if an object is approaching you at .9c, it displays a slowing that is the same as if it were receding at .9c? |