Re: Can time dilation be computed with just the Lorentz transformation and no other assumptions?
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Shubee wrote:
> > What assumptions, if any, must be added to the Lorentz transformation
> > in order to compute time dilation for a clock-carrying traveler?
>
> This depends upon what assumptions accompany the Lorentz transform. If
> one merely assumes the usual schoolbook equations, then one must add a
> large number of assumptions/definitions relating to what the symbols
> mean and how they are applied.
>
> Once one has sufficient structure to establish that the LT relates
> Minkowski coordinates between two inertial frames, and how the symbols
> in the LT map to properties of those frames, then the only assumptions
> required are related to the specific physical situation you have in
> mind, and to what you mean by "time dilation for a clock-carrying traveler".
>
> The usual meaning of "time dilation" is the difference in
> measured rates among clocks at rest in different inertial
> frames. But your "carried by a traveler" suggests you
> probably have something else in mind, such as a twin
> scenario. Note that the twin scenario does NOT display
> "time dilation", it displays a difference in elapsed
> proper times for clocks that travel on different paths.
> This is analogous to the distinction between the slope of
> a line and its path length -- quite different concepts.
>
> But still for a twin scenario, to compute the difference in elapsed
> proper times with the above structure it only requires assumptions
> related to the specific physical situation you have in mind.
Bravo Honest Roberts! If you continue to develop this verbiage, soon
Einstein zombie world will start singing "Divine Roberts":
No-one’s as dee-vine as Thomas Roberts
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!...etc:
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3
However, Honest Roberts, there is a grand secret betwen hypnotists in
Einstein criminal cult: in 1918 Divine Albert wrote a paper about the
twin paradox which was so silly that Einsteinians, both silly and
clever, are forbidden to refer to it. Yet analyses of Divine Albert's
1918 very silly paper do exist:
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
"On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
Unnikrishnan
I think Honest Roberts it is time for you to demonstrate the power of
your verbiage: you just analyse Divine Albert's 1918 very silly paper,
prove it is in fact very clever and then the world, both relativists
and anti-relativists, immediately starts singing "Divine Roberts". I
will be singing too Honest Roberts:
Pentcho Valev (after Honest Roberts has proved that Divine Albert's
1918 very silly paper is very clever): "No-one’s as dee-vine as Thomas
Roberts not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!..."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
kduc
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
>
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
--
kd
--- -. dotat
<pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf
>"On Einstein’s resolution of the twin clock paradox" by C. S.
>Unnikrishnan
>
From there:
Planck’s assertion2 that there is no physical method
of measurement of the velocity of motion through space
is made void by the various markers available in cosmology,
especially the dipole anisotropy of the CMBR.
end cit.
When did Planck live?
When was CMBR measured?
How good are those measurements?
How do we calibrate our speedometers then?
Interstellar matter does have -what- influence or none?
Where are the "various markers available"?
What are our coordinates in the Universe?
Where is the Universe Point Zero ?
Where can I buy a "Universe Positioning System"?
Please Pentcho, ask Unnikrishnan.
w.
Pentcho Valev
I don't care about Unnikrishnan. Unnikrishnan is innocent. He did not
destroy rationality in science. Einstein did (rather, finished what
Clausius had already started):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7023/full/433218a.html
John Barrow in the journal Nature: "Einstein restored faith in the
unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done
something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody
could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for
a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the
mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly
impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they
cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to
observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that
appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal
of the mysterious."
http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulletin/vol15/15-5/15_5_p2p3%7F.pdf
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Ian Parker
to meet it? Or perhaps you, like others of your ilk are going to slur.
Perhaps they are no double stars. Perhaps astronomers just see double.
- Ian Parker