Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 06:08 On Apr 12, 3:54 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > What are these "effects" remaining after Ste > allowed for changing path lengths. Can you > offer a real experiment with neutral particles? > > Sue... > > __________________________________ > > I assume that by "neutral" particles you mean "uncharged" particles. > > And I further assume that you decided to place this arbitrary constraint on > the sorts of particles that you would accept because you hoped that it would > exclude the *huge* amount of evidence deriving from particle acclerators, > which due to their design only accelerate charged particles. > > Unfortunately, even placing this arbitrary and irrelevant constraint doesn't > help. Particle accelerators (and for that matter naturally occuring cosmic > rays) produce a wealth of uncharged and unstable particles as collision > debris. These travel further then their half-life at rest would suggest, > because of time dilation (in our frame) and length contraction (in their > frame). Observed every day in particle acclerators and cosmic ray > observatories around the world. The constraint is not arbitrary. To qualify as inertial-motion a particle cannot be subject to a force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force << Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological foundation of those formulas must be sought in the context of the general theory.>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm Sue... > > HTH
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 06:22 On 12 Apr, 09:23, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:62792735-a8f8-4444-beb9-08a9f2076d72(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 05:09, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> > to clarify is that, even if > > >> > there is only a negligible distance between them, if there is a > > >> > relativistic difference in velocity, then there will still be a fixed > > >> > amount of time lag? > > > >> Of course, they will be moving, so they won't stay negligibly distant. > > > > Agreed, but the point is that even when they *are* negligibly distant, > > > there will still be this fixed amount of lag based on relative > > > velocity, yes? In other words, velocity relative to the coordinate > > > system is the sole variable? > > > Not the sole variable. You need boy distance and velocity. If either or > > both are small, the effect is small. > > This is where I've become confused again. I'm trying to establish the > amount of retardation (or advance) in the distant (i.e. moving) clock > as against the local clock. We've accounted for propagation delays, > and we're disregarding them completely. > > Now, to what degree is the distant clock appearing retarded (or > advanced), and how (i.e. to what degree) is that retardation or > advance related to: > a) distance; and > b) velocity? > > __________________________________________ > If you are excluding propogation delays, why the word "appearing", which > implies what you see after propgation delays? I was attributing no specialised meaning to the word "appearing". > Assuming this was some kind of typo, the relative rate of clocks ticking is > given by the Lorentz formula. This contains a variable for the relative > speed ("v"), but *not* the relative distance apart, which quite literally > doesn't enter the equation. Then you'll understand my confusion, because Inertial said relative distance *did* enter into the equation. > > > And it's not relative distance (in the same way it is for propagation > > > delays), > > > Stop talking about propagation delays .. they are irrelevant here. > > I was using it to demarcate the variable involved (in this case, > relative distance, and in the case below with Doppler, change of > relative distance). > > __________________________________ > All you have done is muddy the waters. The difference in rate at which > clocks tick has *nothing* to do with their separation, only their relative > velocity. What you will actually see does depend upon the separation, as > what you actually see includes a propogation delay, which is a function of > their separation. > > Got it yet? So if we disregard the propagation delay (and as far as I'm concerned, I thought we had already agreed to do so many posts ago), there is then a fixed (i.e. depending only on the one variable in question) retardation (or advancement?) of the distant clock that is dependent on relative velocity?
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 06:24 On 12 Apr, 09:26, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > It does tell you something about physicists though. The philosophy of > > science (including the physical sciences) has nothing at all to do > > with physics. > > Of course, as you know nothing at all about physics, and I daresay don't > know a single physicist, your opinions on the subject are worthless. > > Instead of hanging around physics newsgroups telling physicists that they > don't know what they are doing, why don't you take this opportunity to learn > something about physics and physicists? Again with the rhetoric. What on Earth am I doing here besides "learning about physics", in particular relativity? While we're at it though, I don't expect to be lectured about the scientific method from someone like yourself who had never even heard the name "Lakatos".
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 06:43 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:fa4dab9f-c41d-4c72-abf4-82f764e88070(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 1:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:284229f6-bfb1-4024-9748-7c3643101c0c(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 12:06 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >>news:ff93144e-6b08-4259-826e-adfed177a30d(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Apr 11, 8:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:1d716e5d-6fb0-4a04-9aea-fe249242e945(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 10, 6:20 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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 >> >> >> >> > In view of Noether's work with GR and the >> >> >> > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time >> >> >> > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane >> >> >> > might fly relative to another aeroplane on >> >> >> > some course that would weaken an air marshal's >> >> >> > bullet. That would violate PoR. >> >> >> >> Why do you think I would be suggesting any such thing? >> >> >> > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path >> >> > that is changing length under the term "illusion" >> >> >> It is >> >> >> > but you say there is some other effect that >> >> > causes a clock to slow. >> >> >> To be measured as slow .. yes >> >> >> > Just to be clear to >> >> > what you are referring we need to be more >> >> > specific about the *process* that marks time. >> >> >> Doesn't matter >> >> >> > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both >> >> > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors >> >> > connected with long wires to that dynamo. >> >> >> > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a >> >> > revolution of both clocks motors. >> >> >> > What part of the voyage and by what *process* >> >> > do the clocks get out of sync? >> >> >> They are never IN sync in the frames in which they are out of sync. >> >> So >> >> its >> >> not a matter of an process changing the sync when it was never there >> >> to >> >> start with. >> >> > Are they always in sync when comoving, >> >> If you mean before they changed motion, then we can assume so for as long >> as >> we need to consider. >> >> > regardless >> > of there history? >> >> Unless they were not always accurate clocks, or at some time in the past >> their settings were changed. As this is a Gedanken, we can imagine them >> as >> existing and ticking for as long as we want. > > I am as baffled as Ste. Not surprising > We have a constant length > path to the master clock (dynamo) that never looses > a tick. What master clock.. That is not in the scenario being discussed. We have two clocks in sync a fixed distance apart .. then they move toward each other, and finnally meet each other and remain in sync. > We have a variable length path that causes "illusions". No. Try reading the scenario being discussed > We have a convention based on the assumption > that light moves like a bullet. (simultaneity c+v) Nope > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_synchronisation > (Light has no mass to move that way, De Sitter) > > The only "effect" I can see is a synchronising > convention that does not work when something > moves. Which is why you do it in the rest frame of the clocks > Faulty conventions are not natural phenomena. Nope > What are these "effects" remaining after Ste > allowed for changing path lengths. You don't even know what we're talking about > Can you > offer a real experiment with neutral particles? Who cares, keep your nose out of it if you can't keep on topic
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 06:46
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4bc2d886$0$5421$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:62792735-a8f8-4444-beb9-08a9f2076d72(a)b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 05:09, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > to clarify is that, even if >> >> > there is only a negligible distance between them, if there is a >> >> > relativistic difference in velocity, then there will still be a >> >> > fixed >> >> > amount of time lag? >> >> >> Of course, they will be moving, so they won't stay negligibly distant. >> >> > Agreed, but the point is that even when they *are* negligibly distant, >> > there will still be this fixed amount of lag based on relative >> > velocity, yes? In other words, velocity relative to the coordinate >> > system is the sole variable? >> >> Not the sole variable. You need boy distance and velocity. If either or >> both are small, the effect is small. > > This is where I've become confused again. I'm trying to establish the > amount of retardation (or advance) in the distant (i.e. moving) clock > as against the local clock. We've accounted for propagation delays, > and we're disregarding them completely. > > Now, to what degree is the distant clock appearing retarded (or > advanced), and how (i.e. to what degree) is that retardation or > advance related to: > a) distance; and > b) velocity? > > __________________________________________ > If you are excluding propogation delays, why the word "appearing", which > implies what you see after propgation delays? > > Assuming this was some kind of typo, the relative rate of clocks ticking > is given by the Lorentz formula. This contains a variable for the relative > speed ("v"), but *not* the relative distance apart, which quite literally > doesn't enter the equation. Yes .. ticking rate is not position dependent .. sync of clock reading is. however >> > And it's not relative distance (in the same way it is for propagation >> > delays), >> >> Stop talking about propagation delays .. they are irrelevant here. > > I was using it to demarcate the variable involved (in this case, > relative distance, and in the case below with Doppler, change of > relative distance). > > __________________________________ > All you have done is muddy the waters. The difference in rate at which > clocks tick has *nothing* to do with their separation, only their relative > velocity. What you will actually see does depend upon the separation, as > what you actually see includes a propogation delay, which is a function of > their separation. > > Got it yet? > > |