Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 08:18 On 12 Apr, 12:07, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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 I don't refuse to, but bear in mind my current level of competence. Also, bear in mind that this particular, narrow question *is* one that lends itself to a mathematical quantification, since I am asking the question "what", not "why". > > 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 Ok. > >> >> > 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. Yes, but obviously I mean the relative simultaneity of the "ticks" of the clock. In other words, does the local clock read, say, 00:20 before or after the distant clock (in other words, is the distant clock ahead or advanced, or is it behind or retarded). > 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. Yes, but we don't need to talk about the "same position as the moving one", because we're disregarding propagation delays altogether - so the separation distance shouldn't have any influence on the result.
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 08:25 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4164eef8-bc24-4e52-9071-ae455ad3f77f(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On 12 Apr, 12:07, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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 > > I don't refuse to, but bear in mind my current level of competence. > Also, bear in mind that this particular, narrow question *is* one that > lends itself to a mathematical quantification, since I am asking the > question "what", not "why". > > > >> > 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 > > Ok. > > > >> >> >> > 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. > > Yes, but obviously I mean the relative simultaneity of the "ticks" of > the clock. In other words, does the local clock read, say, 00:20 > before or after the distant clock (in other words, is the distant > clock ahead or advanced, or is it behind or retarded). > > > >> 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. > > Yes, but we don't need to talk about the "same position as the moving > one", because we're disregarding propagation delays altogether - so > the separation distance shouldn't have any influence on the result. Just making it clear. And that is HOW we can get rid of propagation delays. We don't need to use just what information comes via EM to a single observer location. We consider things happening simultaneously anywhere throughout the frame (ie as though the information was sent instantaneously). That is WHY you supposedly different definition of simultaneity is just the same as what SR uses anyway .. and ends up being frame dependent.
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 08:41 On Apr 12, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:6305349b-3cdb-49b7-b4dd-a5e6e48a46f4(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > [...] > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. > > Yes it is .. in a gedanken like this e assume clock mechanism keep correct > time .. we don't need to know how the clock is made. We may as well assume the pizza slice is photo sensitive and the slice offered on e-bay with the image of the Virgin Mary is the real thing. I have offered three valid mechanism none of which confirm any effects other than consistency with the principle of relativity. You are insisting on a faith-based clock for effects that seem dubious and apparently unconfirmed for uncharged particles that would avoid the Lorentz force. > > > It may be *unfair* because > > I already know you are using a mechanism > > based on a non existent particle. Sue... > > Wrong > > > But it > > is not off topic. > > Yes .. it is off topic. ....
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 08:53 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:08e3de29-d204-468e-831e-45ff14abe0d4(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:6305349b-3cdb-49b7-b4dd-a5e6e48a46f4(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> > [...] > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> Yes it is .. in a gedanken like this e assume clock mechanism keep >> correct >> time .. we don't need to know how the clock is made. > > We may as well assume the pizza slice is photo > sensitive and the slice offered on e-bay with > the image of the Virgin Mary is the real thing. Nonsense .. as usual from Sue > I have offered three valid mechanism Which don't make any difference > none of > which confirm any effects other than > consistency with the principle of relativity. Which is just what I am claiming .. the effects are consistent with the PoR. They are SR predictions. Your clock mechanisms, the details of which are irrelevant anyway, don't change that. > You are insisting on a faith-based clock > for effects Nope. You lying doesn't make you appear more intelligent. > that seem dubious and apparently > unconfirmed for uncharged particles that > would avoid the Lorentz force. You're off topic again
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 09:01
On Apr 12, 8:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:08e3de29-d204-468e-831e-45ff14abe0d4(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 12, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >>news:6305349b-3cdb-49b7-b4dd-a5e6e48a46f4(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > [...] > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. > > >> Yes it is .. in a gedanken like this e assume clock mechanism keep > >> correct > >> time .. we don't need to know how the clock is made. > > > We may as well assume the pizza slice is photo > > sensitive and the slice offered on e-bay with > > the image of the Virgin Mary is the real thing. > > Nonsense .. as usual from Sue > > > I have offered three valid mechanism > > Which don't make any difference > > > none of > > which confirm any effects other than > > consistency with the principle of relativity. > > Which is just what I am claiming .. the effects are consistent with the PoR. > They are SR predictions. Your clock mechanisms, the details of which are > irrelevant anyway, don't change that. OK... If they irrelevant then choose one at random. A) Gun and metre stick B) Synchronous motors with shared dynamo. Sue... > > > You are insisting on a faith-based clock > > for effects > > Nope. You lying doesn't make you appear more intelligent. > > > that seem dubious and apparently > > unconfirmed for uncharged particles that > > would avoid the Lorentz force. > > You're off topic again |