Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 18 Jul 2010 07:53 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. If they are in motion relative to one another, you can only compare their rates relative to a standard for simultaneity. 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
From: JT on 18 Jul 2010 08:11 On 18 Juli, 13:53, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (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. If they are in motion relative > to one another, you can only compare their rates relative to a standard > for simultaneity. > > 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 Your frames is total hogwash as Androcles would put it, there is only one universe with events. These events are totally independent of any observer you are building fake castles around Einsteins/YOUR dreamed up frames, there is no limiting frame around any object. Objects have properties but they do not change neither time or dimensions. And most important they do not change either causuality or events, your faulthy frame teaching do that and that is why Sam and PD can not even produce a ballistic trajectory to intersect a relative moving particle. The frame concept is not even wrong it is just a limitation of the universal reality. It have no universal validity, uses time units and meter units without any reference time it is basicly bullshit. JT
From: Daryl McCullough on 18 Jul 2010 09:10 JT says... >Your frames is total hogwash as Androcles would put it, there is only >one universe with events. These events are totally independent of any >observer I think you are confused. Do you know what a frame is? There is one universe, but there are many different coordinate systems that can be used to describe that universe. Whether two events are simultaneous or not is relative to a coordinate system. Whether one event occurs before or after another is relative to a coordinate system. If you assume that ordering of events is independent of observers, then that means *either* that you are assuming an unobservable absolute time (a preferred coordinate system), or you are assuming the existence of signals of unbounded speed. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: JT on 18 Jul 2010 09:45 On 18 Juli, 15:10, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > JT says... > > >Your frames is total hogwash as Androcles would put it, there is only > >one universe with events. These events are totally independent of any > >observer > > I think you are confused. Do you know what a frame is? > > There is one universe, but there are many different coordinate > systems that can be used to describe that universe. Whether two > events are simultaneous or not is relative to a coordinate system. > Whether one event occurs before or after another is relative to a > coordinate system. > > If you assume that ordering of events is independent of observers, > then that means *either* that you are assuming an unobservable absolute > time (a preferred coordinate system), or you are assuming the existence > of signals of unbounded speed. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY No that is simpy not correct, you can pick any cordinate, all cordinate system it will still describe the same universe same event period it is just a matter of picking point of origin. Only the fools who once dealt with relative mass would assume that it somehow change the properties of an event by watching it from another point of view. The event have the period it has, and the transmission delay it has.... you can from your dreamed up interital frame watch a nearby star go supernova at the same time as a faraway supernova. ***It do not mean they did go supernova at the same time*** Only the foolish observers of SR would draw such conclusion, and that is pretty much why Sam and PD can not plot a trajectory to inersect a moving particle in space they have no clue about the metric to use. Events do not care about observers, time do not care about observers the spatial extension of the universe do not care about observers. Only SRIANS care about observers. JT
From: kenseto on 18 Jul 2010 10:32
On Jul 18, 7:53 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (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. If they are in motion relative > to one another, you can only compare their rates relative to a standard > for simultaneity. First of all no clock is the universe is at rest in the preferred frame. Therefore no clock can claim that it's the fastest clock. An SR observer does make this claim and that's why SR is valid in cases where the observer's clock is truly running faster than the observed clock. When you compare two clocks in relative motion the following possibilities exist: 1. A is running faster than B then B is running slower than A. 3. B is running faster than A then A is running slower than B. At no time the bogus concept of mutual time dilation that: from A's point of view B is running slow and from B's point of view A is running slow. > > 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. Sigh....no object in the universe is in a state of absolute rest or in a preferred frame. So I don't understand why you need to establish which coordinate is preferred. The main problem of SR is that every SR observer claims that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. That means that every SR observer is claiming that he is a preferred observer. Such claim is valid if the observed clock is really running slower than the SR observer's clock. However there is a possibility that an observed clock is running at a faster rate than the SR observer's clcok....SR falied to include this possibility and that's why SR is incomplete and that's why SR has a limited domain of applicability. Ken Seto > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY |