Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 19 Jul 2010 11:47 On Jul 19, 12:41 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 19 Juli, 00:56, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > "JT" wrote in message > > >news:8184e5eb-4594-494f-a73b-e9ab4388cc78(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > > > >Temporalorder of spatial separated events is absolute > > > Because you say so. Any proof other than you deciding how nature MUST work? > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- > > Yes the law of casuality. > > JT The temporal order of *certain* spatially separated events is "absolute" in the sense that everyone agrees. Simply put, if you *see* a distant supernova before your own sun explodes, *everyone* will agree that that the other star exploded first. Opinions become "relative" when your sun explodes *before* you see the other star explode, because then you must make assumptions about the one-way speed of light, which - strictly speaking - cannot really be measured as it is declared to be c by definition ("synchronization convention"). Thus in such cases we cannot determine which event really occurred before the other. Note that according to quantum mechanics, if reality exists and causality must be obeyed then there must still *be* a real order of certain events; but we still cannot *determine* the order if those events happen quickly after each other (or practically simultaneously) at a great distance from each other. Harald
From: kenseto on 19 Jul 2010 13:12 On Jul 19, 10:21 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. > > > 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. You don't need a preferred frame to explain the relativity....all you need is that the observer acknowledges that he is not in the preferred frame and thus his clock can run fast or slow compare to an observed clock as follows: observed clock running slow: Delta(T'_B)=Delta(T_A)/gamma Observed clock running fast: Delta(T'_B)=gamma*Delta(T_A) IRT includes this when comparing the rate of a clock moving wrt an observer. IRT is described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 19 Jul 2010 13:27 On Jul 19, 11:06 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> 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. A clock at rest in the preferred frame would be the fastest running clock in the universe. As an attempt to duplicate this exclusive property of the preferred frame an SR observer claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow....this means that every SR observer's clock is claimed to be the fastest running clock in the universe. Such claim is bogus. >All > clocks will be measured as ticking slower than their actual intrinsic > rate by a moving observer. It is not possible to measure the rate of a moving clock. Every SR observer predicts that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. This SR prediction is correct only if the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion. This is the reason why SR is used successfully in accelerator design application....why? Because accelerated particles are indeed at a higher state of absolute than the lab 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: Hayek on 19 Jul 2010 15:04 kenseto wrote: > On Jul 19, 11:06 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> 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. > > A clock at rest in the preferred frame would be the fastest running > clock in the universe. I do not agree : if there is a less dense mass distribution somewhere in the Universe, then a clock there would run still faster. 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: kenseto on 19 Jul 2010 20:09
On Jul 19, 3:04 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Jul 19, 11:06 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> 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. > > > A clock at rest in the preferred frame would be the fastest running > > clock in the universe. > > I do not agree : if there is a less dense mass > distribution somewhere in the Universe, then a clock > there would run still faster. THE FASTEST RUNNING CLOCK IS A CLOCK IN A STATE OF ABSOLUTE REST IN THE AETHER. KEN SETO > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |