Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 20 Jul 2010 09:45 On Jul 19, 11:42 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > 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. The reason why I disagree with you are as follows: 1. You tried to prove mutual time dilation mathematiclly. 2. You start of by assuming mutual time dilation as follows: C1 uses the LT equation to predict that D1 runs slow, and D1 uses the same LT equation to predict C1 run slow. 3. In real life if C1 is truly running faster than D1 then D1 must use the inverse LT to predict the rate of C1. 4. In IRT each observer has two sets of transform equations: one to predict the observed clock is running slow and the other to predict the observed clock is running fast. In any situation the IRT observer will do calculations using both equations and the result that agrees with observation is the correct solution. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto 3. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: JT on 20 Jul 2010 09:55 On 20 Juli, 15:12, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jul 20, 2:16 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 19 Juli, 17:47, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > No temporal order is absolute in the macro cosmos realm, it is very > > easy to prove in a simulation. > > > JT > > Let's see, first you assert: > > "Temporal order of spatial separated events is absolute" > > And I gave a detailed comment on that. Now you reply: > > "No temporal order is absolute in the macro cosmos realm, it is very > easy to prove in a simulation." > > Whatever that sentence was supposed to mean (if anything), it appears > that you are trolling - so I won't fall for that again. > > Goodbye, > Harald > > Harald- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - No you are a clown not even a troll, temporal order follows from the causuality that govern macrocosmos. Clownacts and juggling with clocks have no influence whatsoever on ***cosmos***. Temporal order follow from the fact that cosmos is causuality driven on the macrolevel. That you can juggle clocks within different timeline ***observing*** events does not mean that ***the events*** do not follow a temporal timeline outside YOUR/SR observer fixated scope. It is just a bad theory, promoted by clowns, jugglers and morons, so i do not fit the criteria for a beleiver. The idiots can not even make simulations within SR, that is how broken the theory is. It is so foreign for reality that a ***working*** simulation of events not even possible to do. CLOWNACT FROM START TO END JT
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Jul 2010 10:50 On 7/20/10 8:55 AM, JT wrote: > It is just a bad theory, promoted by clowns, jugglers and morons, so i > do not fit the criteria for a beleiver. > The idiots can not even make simulations within SR, that is how broken > the theory is. Betcha can't name any applications of special relativity!
From: kenseto on 20 Jul 2010 10:57 On Jul 20, 9:33 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/20/10 8:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 20, 8:25 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/20/10 6:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>> On Jul 19, 8:48 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/19/10 7:09 PM, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>> THE FASTEST RUNNING CLOCK IS A CLOCK IN A STATE OF ABSOLUTE REST IN > >>>>> THE AETHER. > > >>>>> KEN SETO > > >>>> Not so. Some clock run fast if the gravitation well of the clock is > >>>> less than the observer. > > >>> Hey idiot gravitational potential effect is due to different states of > >>> absolute motion at different gravitational potentials. > > >> There is no motion between the clocks, Seto, in the PoundRebka > >> experiment. Their states of motion are identical, not different. > > > Different gravitational potential means different states of absolute > > motion. That's why Pound and Rebka found frequency shift in the > > vertical direction. > > You obviously don't understand the word "motion", Ken. Wormy you obviously don't understand the term "absolute motion". > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > >>> Ken Seto > > >>>> PoundRebka experiment > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment > > >>>> ...a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run > >>>> at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is > >>>> considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision > >>>> tests of general relativity.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 10:58
On Jul 20, 7:07 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 19 Juli, 15:16, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/19/10 5:41 AM, JT wrote: > > > > Yes the law of casuality. > > > > JT > > > Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality > > > According to Sowa (2000),[5] up until the twentieth century, three > > assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the > > definition of causality: > > > 1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of > > an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A > > of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, > > phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect. > > > 2."Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least > > simultaneous with, the effect. > > > 3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial > > contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." > > (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000) > > > However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics > > have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements > > of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at > > the level of human experience." > > Sam causality have always ruled macrocosmos there is no process in > macrocosmos that is not governed by causuality. That turns out not to be the case. > Quantum mechanic is > only applicable on lightquanta in microcosmos and is only a > ***theory*** of undecidability not of nonecasuality. > > And there is a very good reason for why event in microcosmos may turn > out to be undeciable in macrocosmos. > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |