Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 10:52 On Apr 12, 10:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:10 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Apr, 13:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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. > > > That reasoning does not *necessarily* stand up. The propagation delay > > may be different for a moving object than for a stationary object. > > You'll have to explain why you think so. A propagation delay is given > very simply by t=d/v. The distance d is something that is the same > whether the source is stationary or moving at the moment of emission, > and the speed of propagation of signal v is something that is > determined in separate measurements. In the case of light, we know > from direct measurement that v is independent of source speed and is > always c (in a vacuum) and c/n (in dielectric environments), and so > the propagation delay is known to be independent of the speed of the > source. That is NOT the propagation of the relativity of simultaneity-exercise. <<There is only one demand to be made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A > M as for the path B > M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html We are now on PD's second defence about the crack in the ming vass. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > > > Although obviously I'll bear in mind your comments. > > > > 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. > > > Indeed. Well, I'll run with it for now. > >
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 10:53 On 12 Apr, 15:05, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 3:15 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. 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). > > I didn't say the universe is not governed by cause and effect at all. > What I've said is that *temporally ordered* cause and effect is not > necessarily the rule -- and this is a concept that seems to elude you, > since you believe that the *meaning* of cause and effect implies > temporal ordering, which is simply not the case scientifically. What Indeed. Even the logic of backwards causation is lunacy, and I can't believe for a second that there is actually any experimental evidence for it. > I've also said is that strict determinism, in the sense that > completely identical prepared states will always evolve identically, > is not a fast rule of nature though there are plenty of approximate > examples of that. But again, this is mere opinion, and certainly not a unanimous one amongst the physics community (now or in the past).
From: Peter Webb on 12 Apr 2010 11:03 >> >> Is it poor comprehension on your part, or are you deliberately trying to >> not >> understand? >> >> So many things get explained to you so many times, yet you never seem to >> understand them. > > Has it ever occurred to you, even for a moment, that it may have > something to do with how it is being explained? At the beginning, yes I thought that may have something to do with it. But by now, several people have explained the key concepts in several different ways, using generally quite clear and precise language, and still you don't get it. Of course, what you should do is download a copy of Einstein's popular account of Relativity from Gutenberg press for free, read it, and ask questions. But you would rather waste your time not learning anything here instead of actually trying to learn.
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 11:04 On 12 Apr, 15:12, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 2:58 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > and have swallowed various preconceptions > > > > As you have done regarding physics > > > I would argue that I haven't swallowed preconceptions. > > On the contrary, you have freely admitting holding to certain axioms > that you are not willing to reconsider, such as strictly > deterministic, time-ordered causality. To you, it is inconceivable > that a self-respecting scientist would hold it suspect. I think it is inconceivable that the science mainstream would take it seriously without overcoming the serious logical and philosophical issues with the concept. And indeed, I can tolerate a plurality of opinion, but it's certainly not something I can imagine taking seriously.
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 11:14
On 12 Apr, 15:30, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:10 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> 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. > > > That reasoning does not *necessarily* stand up. The propagation delay > > may be different for a moving object than for a stationary object. > > You'll have to explain why you think so. Well it was only an off-the-cuff thought, not a specific rebuttal. > A propagation delay is given > very simply by t=d/v. The distance d is something that is the same > whether the source is stationary or moving at the moment of emission, Not if the emission is non-instantaneous. If you have a period of emission, then clearly the start of the emission and end of emission is 'd' when you have a stationary object, but in the case of a moving object, if the start of emission is at 'd', then the end isn't at 'd' (and the converse also). > and the speed of propagation of signal v is something that is > determined in separate measurements. But the speed of signal propagation may itself be dependent on the relative velocity (through some unknown dynamic in the electromagnetic interaction). Prima facie, it may be difficult to extricate that variable from other confounding variables. > In the case of light, we know > from direct measurement that v is independent of source speed and is > always c (in a vacuum) and c/n (in dielectric environments), and so > the propagation delay is known to be independent of the speed of the > source. But is it independent of the speed of the receiver? |