Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 07:07 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0faebd8d-d6fd-4475-8996-f96717fbb594(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com... > 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. But you refuse to read mathematic > 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. I will do so, if you actually want to see the math. In which case, the Lorentz transforms give the answers. I can explain them in words, if you can't work it out > > >> >> > 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? It always ticks in a forward direction .. time doesn't go backward. So it is always advancing. What depends on velocity and position (from my frame of reference) is how far ahead or behind the reading on a moving clocks is compared to a (synchrnoised with my at-rest clock) stationary clock at the same position as the moving one.
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 07:08 On Apr 12, 6:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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. If you don't understand the *process* by which a synchronous motor clock marks time, you might want to give it a bit of study before helping your neighbour put a particle accelerator in in his basement. > > > 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 OK... Faulty conventions are natural phenomena to a psychologist. If that is where you are headed I'll take you off the SR list and add you to the kook list. ============== > > > What are these "effects" remaining after Ste > > allowed for changing path lengths. ============== > > You don't even know what we're talking about > The discipline is physics, not psychics. Off to the kook list with you! > > Can you > > offer a real experiment with neutral particles? > > Who cares, keep your nose out of it if you can't keep on topic Try to restrain your passion for new discovery. :-)) Sue...
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 07:15 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:95400b2a-0896-4610-881b-0f5c32444782(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yes .. yours. Particularly about synchrnoisation. > > >> > 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. Its not a matter of whether you agree with it or not .. it is a fact.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 07:16 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:2213c7c5-6855-426c-97d7-a61c6cfd44ee(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 6:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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. > > If you don't understand the *process* by which You are off topic again [snip more irrelevance from Sue]
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 07:30
On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:2213c7c5-6855-426c-97d7-a61c6cfd44ee(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 12, 6:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(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. > > > If you don't understand the *process* by which > > You are off topic again It is not off topic to inquire about the clock mechanism. It may be *unfair* because I already know you are using a mechanism based on a non existent particle. But it is not off topic. Sue... > > [snip more irrelevance from Sue] |