Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 06:47 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:383eec51-82b0-49b1-9dfb-93717d6eff77(a)u34g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > 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. Not for ticking rates >> > > 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? And distance. The ticking rate difference is NOT position specific.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 06:50 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:53548983-cfd7-41ef-bf1e-d8b4c885e7d3(a)h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 05:12, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> > Indeed, for me, I also take the view that it will often be futile to >> >> > attack ideology using mere logic. Most people hold an ideology >> >> > because >> >> > in some way or another because it has a concrete function for them, >> >> >> ...such as temporally ordered causality between strictly material >> >> agents... >> >> > Yes. I said at the outset of my previous post that there is an >> > ideological (although in this context, for clarity, I prefer to say an >> > "axiomatic"-) component to my beliefs - which defines the sort of >> > explanations I'm willing to accept, what sort of evidence I'm willing >> > to accept, etc. >> >> Then that is your problem. It doesn't mean the physics is wrong .. just >> you >> are unwilling to accept that it is right. > > I didn't say physics was wrong. Yes .. you have > I was alluding more to Paul's notions > about premonition and cause, or about the universe not being governed > by cause and effect, which I think is nonsense (and so would many > physicists). Yet in the QM world, effect can precede cause. Lets not got there yet :):)
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 07:03 On 12 Apr, 11:45, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > 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? > > See the lorentz transforms I was hoping you'd spell it out Inertial. You'd think with the hundreds of thousands of words we've already put down on this issue, you wouldn't be averse to a little clarity at this stage of the game. > >> > And they both argue that it is the *other* who is lagging? > > >> It is the *other* clock in your example is ahead .. not lagging > > > At what point? > > When they start moving toward each other OK. Does the distant clock always advance, even if they are moving *away* from each other?
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 07:06 On 12 Apr, 11:48, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > But even if I > > have preconceptions, these endless ad hominem snipes do *not* prove > > that you *don't* have preconceptions. > > I didn't say i didn't .. but mine are based on studying the physics .. any > preconceptions I had before studying and learning that were not justified > are gone. I think I was talking more about the scientific method or the philosophy of science, rather than just the plain physics. > >> > unquestioningly in the course of their study of the physical sciences, > >> > and seem to think that because they have a grounding in maths or the > >> > physical sciences (if indeed the two are not synonymous these days), > >> > that puts them head and shoulders above guys like me who have spent > >> > countless years and countless thousands of hours on the various social > >> > science subjects. > > >> Social 'science' doesn't tell you anything about physics. > > > It does tell you something about physicists though. The philosophy of > > science (including the physical sciences) has nothing at all to do > > with physics. > > Glad you understand.. so no need to mention it. Generally I don't. It is normally Paul Draper who provokes the discussion again. I'm happy to keep the issue on the subject of relativity itself.
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 07:07
On 12 Apr, 11:50, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> Then that is your problem. It doesn't mean the physics is wrong .. just > >> you > >> are unwilling to accept that it is right. > > > I didn't say physics was wrong. > > Yes .. you have What I've suggested is that some interpretations may be faulty. > > I was alluding more to Paul's notions > > about premonition and cause, or about the universe not being governed > > by cause and effect, which I think is nonsense (and so would many > > physicists). > > Yet in the QM world, effect can precede cause. Lets not got there yet :):) Yes, we'll leave that for now, because I strongly disagree with the idea. |