The absolute frame.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 11 Aug 2010 13:58 On Aug 11, 10:07 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Inertial, when did you start to believe in finite light? What was the > single, overwhelming piece of evidence that converted you? Radar. Radar works on the principle that the speed of the signal is finite. That's how it does the ranging in the first place. It measures the time delay of the echo. It's no different than measuring how far across a canyon is by yelling and counting seconds until you hear the echo, except that for sound, the speed is much slower. PD
From: Hayek on 11 Aug 2010 15:11 eric gisse wrote: > Hayek wrote: > >> There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor hides this. > > Math hides nothing. If you can't find it, it doesn't exist. You are a fool. x-x=0. What is the value of x ? You have done to much contour integration. You are the living proof that math abilities have nothing to do with intelligence. Uwe Hayek. > > [snip rest, unread] -- 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: Hayek on 11 Aug 2010 16:37 harald wrote: > On Aug 10, 8:34 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > wrote: >> There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor >> hides this. >> >> There are three possibilities : >> >> 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute >> frame. >> >> 2.a moves and b moves faster first then returns >> slower wrt the absolute frame to a >> >> 3.a moves and b moves slower first then returns >> faster wrt absolute frame. > > You forgot to introduce the context about what your > a. and b. refer to... I think that is very hard to find...Ann and Betty, the traveling twins. They are often used in discussions of relativity. > >> first case : b's clock will move slower than a's on >> the outward voyage and slower than a's on the way >> back. > > My first guess: perhaps you have Langevin's "twin" > scenario in mind. If so, then obviously the random > chances of 1. are about zero. > >> second case : b's clock will move muuuuch slower >> that a's on the outward voyage and faster than a's >> on the way back, in total, because the gamma factor >> has a quadradic term we will end up just as slow as >> in the first case and third case. >> >> Third case : b's clock will move faster that a's on >> the outward voyage and muuuuch slower than a's on >> the way back, and again, in total, because the >> gamma factor has a quadradic term we will end up >> just as slow as in the first case and in the second >> case. >> >> So no matter what case you choose : because there >> is acceleration on the return point, the speed wrt >> to absolute frame changes, and because of the >> quadratic gamma factor, two way voyages always make >> the returning twin age more, if not on the outward >> track, then it is on the inbound track, or on both >> tracks. The instantaneous clock rate is decided by >> the speed wrt to the absolute frame, > > Yes that has been explained in a number of papers, > even the first one on that topic. Which is ? > >> the average mass distribution of the universe. > > That is your hypothesis; if we postulate that matter > started out "in rest", then conservation of momentum > tells us that your hypothesis should be correct. That mass is not in rest, but the average is. >> SR-ians can make funny claims, > > What are "SR-ians"? Do you mean people who used to be > described as "geometers" in journals such as Nature? Fanatics of Special Relativity, who claim that only the first case is true. > >> and so can I, because there is no way of verifying >> this, without Faster Than Light transmission, which >> SR-ians exclude from their theory, mainly because >> this would destroy SR, and secondly because they do >> not know what proper time exactly is. They think it >> is "speed of passage through time", while it >> actually is slowing the motion of objects and >> clocks by increasing inertia. A clock is an >> inertiameter, or an inertial field strength meter. > > What is "inertial field strength"?? That what causes inertia. Just like gravitational field strength causes gravitation. Eotvos experiments show us that inertia and gravitation are equivalent. The two are caused by "gravitating" mass. See it as mass (like a planet, sun, galaxy etc) causing inertia, if this inertia is stronger on the one side of an object then there will be a net force acting in that direction, it is the inequality of inertia that causes gravitation. Objects want to go to places where inertia is higher. > >> If inertia becomes stronger, the escapement of your >> clock is harder to move back and forth, hence the >> clock slows. > > "harder to move" isn't the best choice of words... That is why I say "harder to move back and forth", which implies acceleration. > >> Because this applies to any object moving in this >> higher inertia, > > "in" inertia?? Just like you say "in gravitational field" or in "electric field" or "magnetic field". > >> we think this is "time" we are measuring, while in >> fact it does not much more than your freezer, >> alowing the motion of the molecules. > > Good try, but probably too inaccurate to convince > anyone. Not really. It already convinced one of the best. And how many models do you know that explain what time is, what a clock is, and which explain uncertainty ? 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: harald on 11 Aug 2010 17:01 On Aug 11, 10:37 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > harald wrote: > > On Aug 10, 8:34 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > > wrote: > >> There is an absolute frame, but the gamma factor > >> hides this. > > >> There are three possibilities : > > >> 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute > >> frame. > > >> 2.a moves and b moves faster first then returns > >> slower wrt the absolute frame to a > > >> 3.a moves and b moves slower first then returns > >> faster wrt absolute frame. > > > You forgot to introduce the context about what your > > a. and b. refer to... > > I think that is very hard to find...Ann and Betty, the > traveling twins. They are often used in discussions of > relativity. > > > > > > >> first case : b's clock will move slower than a's on > >> the outward voyage and slower than a's on the way > >> back. > > > My first guess: perhaps you have Langevin's "twin" > > scenario in mind. If so, then obviously the random > > chances of 1. are about zero. > > >> second case : b's clock will move muuuuch slower > >> that a's on the outward voyage and faster than a's > >> on the way back, in total, because the gamma factor > >> has a quadradic term we will end up just as slow as > >> in the first case and third case. > > >> Third case : b's clock will move faster that a's on > >> the outward voyage and muuuuch slower than a's on > >> the way back, and again, in total, because the > >> gamma factor has a quadradic term we will end up > >> just as slow as in the first case and in the second > >> case. > > >> So no matter what case you choose : because there > >> is acceleration on the return point, the speed wrt > >> to absolute frame changes, and because of the > >> quadratic gamma factor, two way voyages always make > >> the returning twin age more, if not on the outward > >> track, then it is on the inbound track, or on both > >> tracks. The instantaneous clock rate is decided by > >> the speed wrt to the absolute frame, > > > Yes that has been explained in a number of papers, > > even the first one on that topic. > > Which is ? http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Langevin1911 > >> the average mass distribution of the universe. > > > That is your hypothesis; if we postulate that matter > > started out "in rest", then conservation of momentum > > tells us that your hypothesis should be correct. > > That mass is not in rest, but the average is. > > >> SR-ians can make funny claims, > > > What are "SR-ians"? Do you mean people who used to be > > described as "geometers" in journals such as Nature? > > Fanatics of Special Relativity, who claim that only the > first case is true. Hmm, fanatics of SRT do NOT generally accept the first "case". "Geometers" reject all three points of view, and reinterpret SRT as a theory about projections of Spacetime rotations - to be perfectly clear, you could call such people Minkowskians. > >> and so can I, because there is no way of verifying > >> this, without Faster Than Light transmission, which > >> SR-ians exclude from their theory, mainly because > >> this would destroy SR, and secondly because they do > >> not know what proper time exactly is. They think it > >> is "speed of passage through time", while it > >> actually is slowing the motion of objects and > >> clocks by increasing inertia. A clock is an > >> inertiameter, or an inertial field strength meter. > > > What is "inertial field strength"?? > > That what causes inertia. Just like gravitational field > strength causes gravitation. Eotvos experiments show us > that inertia and gravitation are equivalent. The two are > caused by "gravitating" mass. > > See it as mass (like a planet, sun, galaxy etc) causing > inertia, if this inertia is stronger on the one side of > an object then there will be a net force acting in that > direction, it is the inequality of inertia that causes > gravitation. > > Objects want to go to places where inertia is higher. IMHO your physical model is wrong - but I'm too busy and too lazy to look into that now. > >> If inertia becomes stronger, the escapement of your > >> clock is harder to move back and forth, hence the > >> clock slows. > > > "harder to move" isn't the best choice of words... > > That is why I say "harder to move back and forth", > which implies acceleration. > > >> Because this applies to any object moving in this > >> higher inertia, > > > "in" inertia?? > > Just like you say "in gravitational field" or in > "electric field" or "magnetic field". > > >> we think this is "time" we are measuring, while in > >> fact it does not much more than your freezer, > >> alowing the motion of the molecules. > > > Good try, but probably too inaccurate to convince > > anyone. > > Not really. It already convinced one of the best. > > And how many models do you know that explain what time > is, what a clock is, and which explain uncertainty ? I know one that explains the first two; I must have overlooked your explanation attempt of "uncertainty". Harald
From: Inertial on 11 Aug 2010 19:22
"Hayek" wrote in message news:4c6309f4$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >harald wrote: >> On Aug 10, 8:34 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> >> wrote: >>> 1.a does not move, only b moves wrt the absolute >>> frame. [snip] >>> SR-ians can make funny claims, >> >> What are "SR-ians"? Do you mean people who used to be >> described as "geometers" in journals such as Nature? > >Fanatics of Special Relativity, who claim that only the >first case is true. No one who understand makes any such claim, as in SR there is NO absolute frame. You clearly no little about SR and what it says |