Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: Hayek on 19 Jul 2010 10:21 Daryl McCullough wrote: > Hayek says... > >> How about : the frame where a clock runs fastest. > > What does that mean? If two clocks are at rest > relative to one another, then you can compare their > rates directly. Which, if they are good clocks, should be the same. > If they are in motion relative to one another, you > can only compare their rates relative to a standard > for simultaneity. Correct. I did not say that we can measure this directly with current knowledge or technology, the question is rather if such a frame exists. Remember it is the task of science to make testable predictions. I am searching for a mechanical explanation for relativity, and one can explain it mechanistically, but then you need a preferred frame. In the end, the frame vanishes from sight, because of the gamma factor eliminating the difference between absolute and relative on two way trips or measurements. My statement, that a clock is an inertiameter, can only be true if you have a situation were inertia is lowest, thus having a preferred frame. According to Mach's principle, inertia is caused by the surrounding mass, so this frame is the distribution of mass around the test point. If one is not at rest wrt this rest-frame, inertia increases even more. At c, inertia becomes infinite. All this is due to the inertial field, created by all the masses in the universe. If a clock gets slowed some parts of a billion by the Earth's mass, wich mass slows the clock for the other billion parts ? In stead of clock slowing, I should say inertia increasing. Uwe Hayek. > > Let me explain what I mean: You have two clocks, C1 > and D1, that are in relative motion. When the two > clocks pass each other, you set them both to the same > time, say 12:00. Let e1 be the event at which C1 > shows time 1:00. Let e2 be the event at which D1 > shows time 1:00. To know whether C1 is running faster > than D1, or vice-verse, you need to know the absolute > answer to the question: Did e1 occur before or after > e2? > > So you to be able to say which clock is running > fastest, you need to have an absolute standard for > the relative ordering of events. The only ways to > figure out relative ordering of events are (1) If it > is possible to send a signal from one event to the > other, then the first event occurred before the > second, and (2) relative to a coordinate system, > which assigns times to every event, you can say which > events occur before which other events. > > Approach (1) is not available to us, in general, if > there is a maximum speed (the speed of light). If two > events are far enough apart, but close enough > together in time, then it is impossible to send a > signal from one to the other. > > Approach (2) requires a coordinate system. So to > carry out your recipe for determining a preferred > frame, you must already have a preferred coordinate > system. But it's circular to use a preferred > coordinate system to establish a preferred frame. > > -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY > -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 11:06 On Jul 20, 12:21 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Daryl McCullough wrote: > > Hayek says... > > >> How about : the frame where a clock runs fastest. > > > What does that mean? If two clocks are at rest > > relative to one another, then you can compare their > > rates directly. > > Which, if they are good clocks, should be the same. Yeup > > If they are in motion relative to one another, you > > can only compare their rates relative to a standard > > for simultaneity. > > Correct. I did not say that we can measure this directly > with current knowledge or technology, Its not a matter of knowledge or technology. > the question is > rather if such a frame exists. Such a frame as what? A frame where clocks run fastest? There is no such frame in SR, as all clocks run at their correct rates. All clocks will be measured as ticking slower than their actual intrinsic rate by a moving observer. > Remember it is the task > of science to make testable predictions. It does. > I am searching for a mechanical explanation for > relativity, mechanical in what sense? Are you after a picture in your head for how there can be mutual time dilation. That's easy > and one can explain it mechanistically, but > then you need a preferred frame. No preferred frame needed > In the end, the frame > vanishes from sight, because of the gamma factor > eliminating the difference between absolute and relative > on two way trips or measurements. > > My statement, that a clock is an inertiameter, A what? > can only > be true if you have a situation were inertia is lowest, > thus having a preferred frame. There is no preferred frame .. its all relative. > According to Mach's > principle, inertia is caused by the surrounding mass, Bahaha > so > this frame is the distribution of mass around the test > point. If one is not at rest wrt this rest-frame, > inertia increases even more. At c, inertia becomes > infinite. All this is due to the inertial field, created > by all the masses in the universe. BAHAHA > If a clock gets slowed some parts of a billion by the > Earth's mass, Ahh .. now you're talking GR. In GR there is a set of frames where clocks tick faster (or slower) than others. It depends on gravitational potential > wich mass slows the clock for the other > billion parts ? In stead of clock slowing, I should say > inertia increasing. Why say that?
From: harald on 19 Jul 2010 11:21 On Jul 19, 3:49 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 9:33 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: > > > kenseto says... > > > I'm going to try again to explain what's going on with > > mutual time dilation. > > > Let's assume that there is a frame C such that: > > > There are two clocks, C1 and C2 at rest in this > > frame. They are lined up left-to-right, with C1 to the left of C2. > > Initially, clocks C1 and C2 are set to the same time, > > 12:00. > > > There are two more clocks, D1 and D2 which are lined > > up left-to-right, and are moving to the right. They > > are traveling at the same rate of speed such that it takes > > 20 minutes to travel between clocks C1 and C2. > > > Initially, D1 is set to 12:00 and initially D2 is set > > to 11:45 (why this discrepancy? I can explain later, but > > for now, let's just assume that whoever was setting the clocks > > set them that way, for whatever perverse reason). > > Then D1 and D2 are not synchronize. Also if D1 is set to 12:00 then D2 > must also set to 12:00 initially. > Ken, SRT is *based* on what you call a "faulty and artificial clock setting" in just the way that Daryl explains. Here we choose the convention that THEY are moving and use a standard reference system that moves with them. Consequently, according to us, THEIR clocks are NOT synchronized. Now read on and try to follow Daryl's explanation, if you ever want to understand the "A" of the "ABC" of relativity! And by the way, it IS possible to set things up in the way Daryl stated. And by mathematical necessity it is, as you put it, "also applicable to all scenarios", as Daryl showed (you only have to unplug your ears). Harald > > Clocks D1 and D2 run at 1/2 the rate of C1 and C2. > > Initially, D1 is lined up with C1, while D2 is halfway > > between C1 and C2. > > In your initial example you said that the distance between D1 and D2 > is the same as the distance between C1 and C2. > > > This is all just assumptions. Surely it is *possible* > > to arrange things so that all of the above is true. > > You can set clocks to whatever times you like. You > > can adjust the rates on clocks. It is certainly possible > > for the above description to be true. Right? If you > > think otherwise, then let's stop here and discuss it > > further. Of *course* it is possible to set things up > > this way. > > This is artificial....also if it is applicable in one secenario it > should also applicable to all scenarios. > > > > Now, at 12:00, we have the following situation: > > 1. D1 is lined up with C1. They both show time 12:00. > > 2. D2 is halfway between C1 and C2. It shows time 11:45. > > No D2 must read the same as D1 because they are sunchronized. > > > 3. C2 shows time 12:00 > > > At 12:10, we have the situation: > > 1. C1 shows time 12:10 > > 2. D1 is halfway between C1 and C2. It shows time 12:05. > > 3. D2 is lined up with C2. D2 shows time 11:50, while > > C2 shows time 12:10. > > What D2 show is irrelevant....since you specified that it has a > different starting time than D1. > > > At 12:20, we have the situation: > > 1. C1 shows time 12:20. > > 2. D1 is lined up with C2. D1 shows time 12:10, while > > C2 shows time 12:20 > > 3. D2 is past C2, a distance equal to 1/2 the distance > > between C1 and C2. It shows time 11:55. > > Again what D2 show is irrelevant because you specified that it has a > different starting time than D1. > > > > > Surely you agree that it is *possible* to set things > > up so that all the above are true? Right? > > No I don't agree. [..]
From: Hayek on 19 Jul 2010 11:42 artful wrote: > On Jul 20, 12:21 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>> Hayek says... >>>> How about : the frame where a clock runs fastest. >>> What does that mean? If two clocks are at rest >>> relative to one another, then you can compare their >>> rates directly. >> Which, if they are good clocks, should be the same. > > Yeup > >>> If they are in motion relative to one another, you >>> can only compare their rates relative to a standard >>> for simultaneity. >> Correct. I did not say that we can measure this directly >> with current knowledge or technology, > > Its not a matter of knowledge or technology. > >> the question is >> rather if such a frame exists. > > Such a frame as what? A frame where clocks run fastest? There is no > such frame in SR, as all clocks run at their correct rates. All > clocks will be measured as ticking slower than their actual intrinsic > rate by a moving observer. > >> Remember it is the task >> of science to make testable predictions. > > It does. > >> I am searching for a mechanical explanation for >> relativity, > > mechanical in what sense? Are you after a picture in your head for > how there can be mutual time dilation. That's easy > >> and one can explain it mechanistically, but >> then you need a preferred frame. > > No preferred frame needed > >> In the end, the frame >> vanishes from sight, because of the gamma factor >> eliminating the difference between absolute and relative >> on two way trips or measurements. >> >> My statement, that a clock is an inertiameter, > > A what? You know what inertia is. Suppose it has external causes. Inertia is created by mass. If this inertial field has a gradient, then we call it gravitation. Suppose you had to measure this inertia... you would move a mass back and forth, and measure the time it takes. This is exactly what a clock does, only to measure this time, we need a clock, so we never can measure its absolute value, two clocks close to each other measure the same inertial field. Have you never wondered what a clock actually measures ? > >> can only >> be true if you have a situation were inertia is lowest, >> thus having a preferred frame. > > There is no preferred frame .. its all relative. > >> According to Mach's >> principle, inertia is caused by the surrounding mass, > > Bahaha > >> so >> this frame is the distribution of mass around the test >> point. If one is not at rest wrt this rest-frame, >> inertia increases even more. At c, inertia becomes >> infinite. All this is due to the inertial field, created >> by all the masses in the universe. > > BAHAHA Even the phone book says so : http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html The Phone Book, is a nick name for Gravitation from Misner Thorn Wheeler. >> If a clock gets slowed some parts of a billion by the >> Earth's mass, > > Ahh .. now you're talking GR. In GR there is a set of frames where > clocks tick faster (or slower) than others. It depends on > gravitational potential > >> wich mass slows the clock for the other >> billion parts ? In stead of clock slowing, I should say >> inertia increasing. > > Why say that? The equivalence principle, which is measured up to 10^-13 precision, allows to be interpreted as such. Wherever you have gravitation, you have inertia, and they always match. Combine GR and the fact that a clock measures inertia, and you have mass generating inertia, if this inertial field has a gradient, we call it gravitation. I think I can even show that it is exactly this inertial gradient, that gives rise to the force of gravity in a fundamental particle. Take a proton, in a gravitational field, this means that the bottom of the proton is in slightly more inertia than the top. The wriggling of the quarks and gluons inside, in this inertial asymmetry could well produce a net force, resulting in gravitation. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Daryl McCullough on 19 Jul 2010 11:42
kenseto says... > >On Jul 18, 9:33=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> Let's assume that there is a frame C such that: >> >> There are two clocks, C1 and C2 at rest in this >> frame. They are lined up left-to-right, with C1 to the left of C2. >> Initially, clocks C1 and C2 are set to the same time, >> 12:00. >> >> There are two more clocks, D1 and D2 which are lined >> up left-to-right, and are moving to the right. They >> are traveling at the same rate of speed such that it takes >> 20 minutes to travel between clocks C1 and C2. >> >> Initially, D1 is set to 12:00 and initially D2 is set >> to 11:45 (why this discrepancy? I can explain later, but >> for now, let's just assume that whoever was setting the clocks >> set them that way, for whatever perverse reason). > >Then D1 and D2 are not synchronize. Right. In frame C, clocks D1 and D2 are not synchronized. >Also if D1 is set to 12:00 then D2 must also set to 12:00 initially. They are two different clocks. I can set them to different times if I like. >> Clocks D1 and D2 run at 1/2 the rate of C1 and C2. >> Initially, D1 is lined up with C1, while D2 is halfway >> between C1 and C2. > >In your initial example you said that the distance between D1 and D2 >is the same as the distance between C1 and C2. I'm definitely *not* saying that. I'm saying that, as measured in frame C, the distance between D1 and D2 is 1/2 the distance between C1 and C2. >> This is all just assumptions. Surely it is *possible* >> to arrange things so that all of the above is true. >> You can set clocks to whatever times you like. You >> can adjust the rates on clocks. It is certainly possible >> for the above description to be true. Right? If you >> think otherwise, then let's stop here and discuss it >> further. Of *course* it is possible to set things up >> this way. > >This is artificial....also if it is applicable in one secenario it >should also applicable to all scenarios. Yes, I've described it as an artificially contrived initial condition in order to explain that mutual time dilation is not logically inconsistent. >> Now, at 12:00, we have the following situation: >> 1. D1 is lined up with C1. They both show time 12:00. >> 2. D2 is halfway between C1 and C2. It shows time 11:45. > >No D2 must read the same as D1 because they are synchronized. I specifically said they were *not* synchronized (as measured in frame C). Clock D2 is 15 minutes behind clock D1. >> 3. C2 shows time 12:00 >> >> At 12:10, we have the situation: >> 1. C1 shows time 12:10 >> 2. D1 is halfway between C1 and C2. It shows time 12:05. >> 3. D2 is lined up with C2. D2 shows time 11:50, while >> C2 shows time 12:10. > >What D2 show is irrelevant....since you specified that it has a >different starting time than D1. It's not irrelevant to the conclusion, that the combination of time dilation together with relativity of simultaneity is consistent. You have to have both. >> At 12:20, we have the situation: >> 1. C1 shows time 12:20. >> 2. D1 is lined up with C2. D1 shows time 12:10, while >> C2 shows time 12:20 >> 3. D2 is past C2, a distance equal to 1/2 the distance >> between C1 and C2. It shows time 11:55. > >Again what D2 show is irrelevant because you specified that it has a >different starting time than D1. >> >> Surely you agree that it is *possible* to set things >> up so that all the above are true? Right? > >No I don't agree. You don't agree that it is possible to have two clocks, and to set one of them 15 minutes ahead of the other???? You think that it is not possible??? That's very weird, Ken. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |