Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 07:24 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:25a765b8-2e31-476f-9935-34014a09438f(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yes > 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? Yes If by 'displays' you are not including any optical/visual/etc illusions due to propagation delays etc. And if by 'slowing' you mean that observers at rest in your frame of reference would measure its ticking rate as slower.
From: Sue... on 10 Apr 2010 07:52 On Apr 10, 7:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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 :) Has he volunteered to put on a hijacker costume and try it in the sights of a real air marshal? :-)) I have doubts because he correctly described the motion of a penny dropped on the runway and a penny dropped inside the aeroplane. > > > > >> 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... > > The effects of relative motion of frames of reference on the measured > lengths and durations and only clock synchronization. Oh The false effects of adding the speeds of light-bullets? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory There are no *effects* in modern treatment. << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > 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 with. He seems to understand the problem with emitter theory because He wants to work with sound waves. That is half the battle. I think the other half may be a few "teachers" reluctant to turn loose of the Lorentz ether that supports their favourite parlour-tricks. ;-) Anyway... Ya cant extrapolate from sound to EM and ya cant extrapolate from particle accelerators to poles and barns (absent four-vector calculus). The absurdities that some seem hell bent to demonstrate are not going to motivate that sort of intense study. Ste is quite good at spotting contradictions so rigour rules in my book. Sue...
From: Ste on 10 Apr 2010 07:53 On 10 Apr, 12:24, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:25a765b8-2e31-476f-9935-34014a09438f(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > Yes > > > 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? > > Yes > > If by 'displays' you are not including any optical/visual/etc illusions due > to propagation delays etc. Yes, I had assumed we'd accounted for those already, and are disregarding those effects. > And if by 'slowing' you mean that observers at rest in your frame of > reference would measure its ticking rate as slower. Ah, I've just realised another question. I was assuming that we're talking about a fixed amount of "lag" in distant clock. Is that what you're talking about, or are you talking about an *ongoing* loss of time? In other words, the longer the distant clock is moving, the more its time lags behind that of the local clock (and, yet, all this lag is recouped when the two clocks return to relative rest).
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 08:01 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:81f44361-9ada-403e-b5be-ce3d7e1ff035(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 10, 7:10 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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 :) > > Has he volunteered to put on a hijacker costume > and try it in the sights of a real air marshal? :-)) > > I have doubts because he correctly described > the motion of a penny dropped on the runway > and a penny dropped inside the aeroplane. > >> >> >> >> >> 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. > > Oh The false effects of adding the speeds of > light-bullets? No. No light bullets invovled > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory We're not discussing that, we're discussing SR. > There are no *effects* in modern treatment. Yes .. there are. You being ignorant of them doesn't change that. > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > same in all inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html True but irrelevant to the point being discussed. >> 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 with. > > He seems to understand the problem with emitter > theory No .. he doesn't. He's not even mentioned it in my discussions with him. > because He wants to work with sound waves. > That is half the battle. I think the other half > may be a few "teachers" reluctant to turn loose > of the Lorentz ether that supports their favourite > parlour-tricks. ;-) First you incorrectly claim I'm talking emitter theory, and then incorrectly imply that I am using an ether. I'm doing neither. > Anyway... Ya cant extrapolate from sound to > EM and ya cant extrapolate from particle > accelerators to poles and barns > (absent four-vector calculus). > > The absurdities that some seem hell bent to > demonstrate are not going to motivate that > sort of intense study. Ste is quite good > at spotting contradictions so rigour rules > in my book. He's not found any yet
From: Inertial on 10 Apr 2010 08:05
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:db82a4dc-e7c6-4fea-a210-145c805688ef(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On 10 Apr, 12:24, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:25a765b8-2e31-476f-9935-34014a09438f(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Yes >> >> > 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? >> >> Yes >> >> If by 'displays' you are not including any optical/visual/etc illusions >> due >> to propagation delays etc. > > Yes, I had assumed we'd accounted for those already, and are > disregarding those effects. > > > >> And if by 'slowing' you mean that observers at rest in your frame of >> reference would measure its ticking rate as slower. > > Ah, I've just realised another question. I was assuming that we're > talking about a fixed amount of "lag" in distant clock. Is that what > you're talking about, or are you talking about an *ongoing* loss of > time? In other words, the longer the distant clock is moving, the more > its time lags behind that of the local clock (and, yet, all this lag > is recouped when the two clocks return to relative rest). The 'lag', as you call it, is distance and velocity dependent. When there is no distance between them and no difference in motion, there is no 'lag'. |