What causes the time to slow down
Soliton
know how it is really happend? What physical process is responsible for
slowing the clocks?
Is there any explanations from superstring theory?
--
Soliton
www.hotlinks.net.au/soliton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Lutus
news:90199g$gbe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Speeding causes the time to slow down, and we know formulae. But do we
> know how it is really happend? What physical process is responsible for
> slowing the clocks?
Do you know there's a FAQ, and that this is answered there?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>Speeding causes the time to slow down, and we know formulae. But do we
>know how it is really happend? What physical process is responsible for
>slowing the clocks?
>
>Is there any explanations from superstring theory?
Speeding will cause a clock to accumulate less clock seconds compared
to a clock that is more at rest relative to it. This we call time
slows down. Actually time does not slow down at all---time is absolute
and the rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames of
reference. You ask: What about the less clock seconds accumulated by a
speeding clock? The answer to this question is that a speeding clock
second will have a higher absolute time content than a clock secoond
that is more at rest. In other words, a clock second will have a
different amount of absolute time content in different states of
motion. The higher is the state of motion of the clock the higher is
the absolute time content of its clock second.
BTW that's why the speed of light is measure to be constant using a
clock second. The reason? The speed of light is not a universal
constant but rather it is a constant math ratio of light path length
and absolute time content for a clock second.
Please visit my website for a full description of this new concept for
time. Click on to the section entitled "Doppler Relativity Theory"
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
Ken seto
Ken Seto
xxein
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> wrote:
> "Soliton" <Sergei....@compaq.com> wrote in message
> news:90199g$gbe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
we
> > know how it is really happend? What physical process is responsible
for
> > slowing the clocks?
>
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/relativity.html
>
> --
>
> Paul Lutus
> www.arachnoid.com
>
>
relativity denying reality. Why cannot relativity be curious (at
least) as to what reality is? I object strenuously to the dictatorial
attitude and content of relativity theory as presented in this ng by
the half-thinkers like you.
There can be (and are) certain theories that extend beyond the limited
scope of "the relativity theory" and can be proven in their own context
to be better than your relativity. But that is like climbing your
contextual mountain on your terms when it is just a molehill in other's.
I really, really hate to make comparisons between religion and a
sience, but the comparison is the same. They all require a belief as
to how it comes about. A story told. A story has context, but it is a
description of reality? Is the comparison reality based? Is
the "context of your story" the only one? If not, what of others?
I'll give you that other theories fail the logic of Einsteinian
relativity and measurement, but if they happen to supercede that, and
you fail to recognize that --- you are stuck in a belief system that is
preferred despite higher logic.
More accurately, you have no vision beyond your belief. I refer you to
my first sentence in this reply.
But don't take me wrong. I am only stating that there must be a better
explanation than "the relativity". Ask Hawking if you like (and dare
to throw any authority around as if it were unquestioned).
Hawking waits and doubts while MTW declares. Who do you trust?
So many arguements, so little thought.
Paul Lutus
news:901s5b$26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Since relativity makes no claim to reality, ...
With this lie as the first line, why should we read your post?
> There can be (and are) certain theories that extend beyond the limited
> scope of "the relativity theory" and can be proven in their own context
> to be better than your relativity.
False. Prove it using scientific evidence.
> I really, really hate to make comparisons between religion and a
> sience, but the comparison is the same.
Chances are, if you knew how to spell "science," you would also know no such
comparison is possible.
> So many arguements, so little thought.
No, you are giving yourself far too much credit. All argument, no thought.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>Speeding causes the time to slow down, and we know formulae. But do we
>know how it is really happend? What physical process is responsible for
>slowing the clocks?
>
Mathias Daniel Neelen
present them as if they were. DRT has nothing to do with reality.
Mathias Neelen
Ken H. Seto
<nee...@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote:
>Since your fucked up ideas are far from mainstream, maybe you shouldn't
>present them as if they were. DRT has nothing to do with reality.
>
>Mathias Neelen
How the fuck do you know dick-head?. You are so fucking stupid you
can't think for yourself --- all you know is to regurgitate what the
mainstream says. For example you don't even know that the relativity
of simultaneity does not follow from the Lorentz Transforms. The
relativity of simultaneity is used to explain the results of the
Lorentz Transforms
.
Go fuck yourself moron. You make me puke.
Soliton
causes the time to slow down.
Having some thermodynamic background and 2 PhDs, I understand there
must be some sort of resistance on flow of time (like for electric flow
in some sense).
I believe in power of thermodynamics and think it can be applied for
relativistic time as well. But thermodynamics operates with energy,
extensors, intensials, flows, state, resistance... And the problem is
to link these concepts with relativistic time and dilatation.
For example, is it possible to say that rel.time is an intensial of
some kind of field, has energy, flow and can be accellerated?
Any thoughts?
--
Soliton
www.hotlinks.net.au/soliton
JEFFREY N LEE
>
> Speeding causes the time to slow down, and we know formulae. But do we
> know how it is really happend? What physical process is responsible for slowing the clocks?
>
> Is there any explanations from superstring theory?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Soliton,
YES, we do know why time dilation happers and why it occurs at the rate
at which it does. The real "PHYSICAL" reason time slow down (dilates)
for a moving objevt is that as an object increases its velocity with
respect to a "still" position, it is CATCHING UP WITH the
OMNIDIRECTIONAL MOTION OF TIME WITH SPACE,i.e. the speed of light and
the "SPEED OF TIME" are ONE AND THE SAME THING. This is obviously NOT
Relativity, but a completely new explanation of time dilation called:
"REALITY PHYSICS" that explains, not only why time dilation occurs, but
why it occurs at the rate at which it does - where a linear incremental
increase in velocity mathematically corresponds to a nonlinear amount of
time dilation - because the object in motion is "catching up to" an
OMNIDIRCETIONAL displacement of time with space with a redius increasing
at "c". This is all explained at website:
All comments and opinions appreciated. Thanks.
Jeff Lee CENTERE for REALITY PHYSICS
Paul Colby
"Soliton" <Sergei....@compaq.com>
wrote in message news:9044h1$r2m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Fellows, could you please stop swearing and help me to understand
> What causes the time to slow down.
>
Sure, the kind of same "thing" that causes a ruler initially aligned along
the x-axis to become shorter in x and acquire a y-component when
rotated about the z-axis. For time and space changing the observer's
frame of reference from being stationary with respect to a clock to one
that is moving "causes" the time components to mix (rotate into) space.
The primary difference between the Lorentz transformation and a regular
rotation is that t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2 is preserved rather than x^2+y^2+z^2 for
rotations. This is a property of space-time, or things in space-time, or
whatever just as much as rotations "cause" a foreshortening in x as above.
So why do rotations of objects behave the way they do? Well, I don't
know. I only know they are observed to. Lorentz transformations are
no different in this regard, just less familiar.
Regards
Paul Colby
Wayne Throop
: Fellows, could you please stop swearing and help me to understand What
: causes the time to slow down.
: must be some sort of resistance on flow of time (like for electric flow
: in some sense).
Well, just that way of asking the question is sort of a problem.
That is, thinking of it as "time slowing down" makes it more
difficult to see what's going on. Or at least; it makes it more
difficult to see what's going on in relativistic models, which
I assume is the context of your question.
In a nutshell, in SR, time dilation is an effect of perspective, so that
a reasonably good way to put it is that, what makes time slow down with
increased velocity is the same thing that makes objects shrink with
increased distance away from you.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
"He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
xxein
bicyclopedia-read the facs mind. I have straid from realy by a duing a
typo. So now you reelize that I was born on the turnip truk. How can
I thank you for stratining me out? All this time I was thinking
Beelzibub 689,10034 and how I thaut explaned everything. What a dope I
was.
Pleez send me 230056 copys of the facs so I can rereed them and be
worthy of your grase. Purhaps then I can be a sientst like you and
tell the othur idiuts thet they are rong.. Pleeze don't see the ecstry
periud because I am tring very hard not to be stupid.
Wud you like to be my sience buddy? I alredy know your number. It is
18005551212. Ups was that a secrate? Sorry I wont say it again. If
anybody else reeds this I will say thet thet is not true.
I think that I will do a web page called "stupeds are not like us". I
want you to say everything that i forget to say. You know like sience
and grirls and stuff like thet. We should meet at brecks durg store at
about elevin tomoro. if you are from far away it is 2 blocks from the
theater. If you are from the other way it is about a mile past where
the church yust to be. If you are a litle late I will not make jokes
about howb you forgot to wind your wach (ha ha).
If you see me pretent you don't know me unyil i get pencil and paper to
rite on. maybe a pen because this is impotent. We have to make it
more impretnt than a pencle. Dont get anything over a coke. Maybe
after the money comes in we can get a milkshake. It may be a long week.
What bus will you be coming on? If I see it I can make it stop at the
store. maybe if you have paper and a pen already we can speed things
up. You dont have to bring lunch cause I run fast. I hope you to ha ha.
It wil be fun to talk about how to split the mony for sience and us.
How will they know how much we have? We are the bosses. If any body
catces us we give them the facs and they dont know no better cause it
is true and there is no law aganst it. If we give the stupeds want to
here they dont know.
Pleeze send 230057 facs cause there is this gril i want to meet. I
want to give her one chanc to be real or else I get rid of her.
I was thinking maybe other contys but i am smarter than you think.
They dont understand inglish that we rite. Maybe we cud teech them
with translaters or something like that but they dont have any money so
forgrt it.
I was going to tell you what gravity was but mom said for me to say
goodby now. Bring an ecstra copy of the facs so that Ican give it to
thes girl. May be we can make her a pardner. see you tomoro buddy.
Kevin Aylward
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:9755...@sheol.org...
> : Soliton <Sergei....@compaq.com>
> : Fellows, could you please stop swearing and help me to understand What
> : causes the time to slow down.
> : Having some thermodynamic background and 2 PhDs, I understand there
> : must be some sort of resistance on flow of time (like for electric flow
> : in some sense).
>
> Well, just that way of asking the question is sort of a problem.
> That is, thinking of it as "time slowing down" makes it more
> difficult to see what's going on. Or at least; it makes it more
> difficult to see what's going on in relativistic models, which
> I assume is the context of your question.
>
> In a nutshell, in SR, time dilation is an effect of perspective, so that
> a reasonably good way to put it is that, what makes time slow down with
> increased velocity is the same thing that makes objects shrink with
> increased distance away from you.
>
>
In what way can time dilation be "just perspective" when if you take a clock
on a trip and back again to its original starting point, it is forever
changed. It does not read the same as an identical clock not moved. This is
a physical reality.
This seems to me that a common view in S.R., is that the Lorentz
transformations are nothing more then than a mathematical co-ordinate
transformation. This can not be in conformance with what is normally
understood by such mathematical transformations. I can use any coordinate
system I like to view a car fender, e.g. oblate spheroids, exponentionals
etc, but it will not have any physical effect on the car fender.
It seems to me that the Lorentz transformations must be considered much
deeper, and as what describes the simplest _physical_ metric of "flat"
space-time i.e. g=(1,1,1-1), and not just a mathematical transformation.
That is we could coordinate transform the Lorentz metric itself in various
ways, but it would never alter the underlying physics of the "flat"
space-time that is inherently implied by the basic Lorentz transformations,
i.e. the "Lorentz metric"
So, flat space, i.e. one with no apparent mass, simply does have character,
i.e. a metric, and this is apparent from the physical fact that clocks
taking a round trip will be different then if they did not take any trips.
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!", a currently free
GUI xspice, unlimited component, mixed-mode Windows simulator with Schematic
Capture, waveform display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Opinions of my employer are not necessarily indicative of my own
Oscillators don't, amplifiers do"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/emc2.html
Vern
> So, flat space, i.e. one with no apparent mass, simply does have character,
> i.e. a metric, and this is apparent from the physical fact that clocks
> taking a round trip will be different then if they did not take any trips.
Forgive me for being ignorant of this, but is there a rule of thumb for
the nature of slowing clocks. In other words, if I take three identical
clocks and leave one on my dresser and take one of the others on a trip
with me around the world traveling east and my brother takes the other one
on a trip around the world traveling west; when we meet back in my room
after our trips and compare the time on the clocks, would my brother's
clock read earlier than the one on the dresser and mine read later than
both, or vice versa, or would all three clocks still have the same time?
Thanks,
Vern
Chris Hillman
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Soliton wrote:
> Speeding causes the time to slow down,
No, no, no! This is NOT what str says! Not even close!
See any of the tutorial sites listed on my relativity pages, and then
obtain and study Spacetime Physics by Taylor & Wheeler, 2nd Edition
(available in paperback).
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/
Wayne Throop
: In what way can time dilation be "just perspective" when if you take a clock
: on a trip and back again to its original starting point, it is forever
: changed. It does not read the same as an identical clock not moved. This is
: a physical reality.
In the same way that perspective can be "just perspective". In perspective,
one odometer-mile along a straight path is foreshortened wrt one along a
straight path with a different orientation. Yet, if you take one odometer
along a straight path, and another along a crooked path between two
given points, they will be "forever changed" (that is, they will end up
with different readings, just like the change in the clocks is exactly
and precisly a difference in reading and nothing else).
: This seems to me that a common view in S.R., is that the Lorentz
: transformations are nothing more then than a mathematical co-ordinate
: transformation.
Largely because that's exactly what they are.
They are exactly and precisely isomorphic to the mathematical
coordinate change that corresponds to a rotation.
: This can not be in conformance with what is normally understood by
: such mathematical transformations. I can use any coordinate system I
: like to view a car fender, e.g. oblate spheroids, exponentionals etc,
: but it will not have any physical effect on the car fender.
Just like which coordinate system you use (and hence the time dilation)
has no physical effect on a clock. Time dilation alone does not result
in side-by-side clocks with differing readings, any more than perspective
along results in side-by-side odometers with different readings. And this
is just exactly and precisely IN conformance with "what is normally
understood by such mathematical transformations".
: It seems to me that the Lorentz transformations must be considered
: much deeper, and as what describes the simplest _physical_ metric of
: "flat" space-time i.e. g=(1,1,1-1), and not just a mathematical
: transformation.
So, should the rotation transform be considered "much deeper", too?
If not, why not?
Lorentz transform:
x' = x*cosh(r)-t*sinh(r) = (x-v*t)/sqrt(1-v^2)
t' = t*cosh(r)-x*sinh(r) = (t-v*x)/sqrt(1-v^2)
Rotatation transform:
x' = (x-m*y)/sqrt(1+m^2) = x*cos(a)-y*sin(a)
y' = (y+m*x)/sqrt(1+m^2) = y*cos(a)+x*sin(a)
Why is one any more or less physical than the other?
And note, they both imply that straight/inertial paths
will yield different results than crooked/accelerated paths.
: So, flat space, i.e. one with no apparent mass, simply does have
: character, i.e. a metric, and this is apparent from the physical fact
: that clocks taking a round trip will be different then if they did not
: take any trips.
WhatEVER. But this "character" is completely unrelated to the question
of whether time dilation is "just perspective", or whether the lorentz
transform is "just a coordinate change". Which is obvious, since
"clocks taking a round trip" is isomorphic with "odometer taking a
crooked path", and "clocks [that] did not" is isomorphic with "odometer
taking a straight path". Yet nobody is going around claiming that the
rotation transform above, which can be used to calculate the odometer
readings in the same way as the boost can be used to calculate the clock
readings, is anyhing but a coordinate change.
Mathias Daniel Neelen
follow from SR. Or perhaps you can't read?
Mathias Neelen
Wayne Throop
: Forgive me for being ignorant of this, but is there a rule of thumb
: for the nature of slowing clocks.
Yes. The inertial clock shows the maximum time between two events.
: In other words, if I take three identical clocks and leave one on my
: dresser and take one of the others on a trip with me around the world
: traveling east and my brother takes the other one on a trip around the
: world traveling west; when we meet back in my room after our trips and
: compare the time on the clocks, would my brother's clock read earlier
: than the one on the dresser and mine read later than both, or vice
: versa, or would all three clocks still have the same time?
Neglecting gravitational effects (ie, move the clocks along a path with
constant height), and presuming the two moved clocks have the same speed
wrt the earth's surface, the clock moved eastwards would show the least
elapsed time, the clock moved westwards would show the most,a nd the
clock left in the room would show an elapsed time between the two.
Because the westward-moving clock is most nearly inertial, and the
eastward-moving clock is least nearly inertial.
This experiment was actually done, and indeed that's what it showed.
Hafele&Keating, Around-the-World Atomic Clocks
Science, 1972 v177, p166-170
Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains
During October 1971, four cesium beam atomic clocks were flows on
regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice,
once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of
relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of
each trip, the theory predicts that the flying clocks, compared
with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval observatory, should have
lost 40+-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip, and should have
gained 275+-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip. The observed
time differences are presented in the report that follows this one.
Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains
Four cesium beam clocks flows around the world on commercial jet
flights during October 1971, once eastward and once westward,
recorded directionally dependent time differences which are in good
agreement with predictions of conventional relativity th eory.
Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory,
the flying clocks lost 59+-10 nanoseconds during the eatward trip
and gained 273+-7 nanoseconds during the westward trip, where the
errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results
provide an unambiguous emperical resolution of the famous clock
"paradox" with macroscopic clocks.
Michael Kasey
Debating this sentence is humorous at best, and at the very worst it's a
pointless act of futility. Why bother to post at all when your claims are
obviously flawed to begin with?
To make matters worse, when someone challenges you to prove your statement
by referencing experimental or mathematical results you construe a page and
a half of rambling outrage not quite fit for a street corner lunatic.
Your posts, and the posts of others like you who feel that with absolutely
no prior knowledge it is within your grasp to wax philosophic on all matters
of physics are a waste of everyone's time, and quite frankly a waste of your
own time... Posts like these will always be challenged by people who have
actually taken the time to learn the subjects you fabricate theories on, why
would you expect anything less?
Maybe it's before your time but try posting to one of the Kibo newsgroups,
nonsensical rambling is always entertained there...
---
Michael Kasey
Kevin Aylward
> : "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
> : In what way can time dilation be "just perspective" when if you take a
clock
> : on a trip and back again to its original starting point, it is forever
> : changed. It does not read the same as an identical clock not moved. This
is
> : a physical reality.
>
> In the same way that perspective can be "just perspective". In
perspective,
> one odometer-mile along a straight path is foreshortened wrt one along a
> straight path with a different orientation. Yet, if you take one odometer
> along a straight path, and another along a crooked path between two
> given points, they will be "forever changed" (that is, they will end up
> with different readings, just like the change in the clocks is exactly
> and precisly a difference in reading and nothing else).
I am quite happy with the fact that the clock is not physical changed, only
that it has a different reading. I don't agree with the perspective augment,
I address that below.
I would like to look at this in some more detail, but its a bit much for an
EE during work days/evenings, maybe a bit later.
> : So, flat space, i.e. one with no apparent mass, simply does have
> : character, i.e. a metric, and this is apparent from the physical fact
> : that clocks taking a round trip will be different then if they did not
> : take any trips.
>
> WhatEVER. But this "character" is completely unrelated to the question
> of whether time dilation is "just perspective", or whether the lorentz
> transform is "just a coordinate change". Which is obvious, since
> "clocks taking a round trip" is isomorphic with "odometer taking a
> crooked path", and "clocks [that] did not" is isomorphic with "odometer
> taking a straight path". Yet nobody is going around claiming that the
> rotation transform above, which can be used to calculate the odometer
> readings in the same way as the boost can be used to calculate the clock
> readings, is anyhing but a coordinate change.
>
I still do not agree that it is _only_ a coordinate change. Possible my view
of co-ordinates is more limited then yours. For the odometer case you can
see both the crooked and the straight path and they _both_ _physically_
_exist_, to which one can make comparisons and actually travel along both
paths. The coordinates only describe what is physically _already_ there, and
this will still be the case whatever the coordinate system you wish to view
the paths in. I could use any to describe both paths, and always get the
correct answer for _both_ paths. A "perspective view" is _inherently_
related to an illusion of some sort, you can not take both paths of an
illusion, its a bit like chasing a rainbow. For your analogy to work, so
that the clock case can be an equivalent description, it would seem that
_both_ time paths must exist _physically_ and not just as a simple
perspective illusion. I am quite comfortable with that idea in fact. Prior
to S.R. the idea that the universe could allow differing time paths was not
an option. Now, it would seem that the character of the universe is such
that multiple values of space and time can exist "simultaneously" so to
speak;-).
At the movement, I take the view that t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) inherently means
that a moving object of length x, really does occupies a continuum of time
values between its two ends. It sure makes it easer to explain the rod
dropping through the hole, since its arse is in the future wrt its nose.
In fact I agree, for once ,with Chris Hillman, in that somewhere in the
posts, he put forward the view that past present and future were some sort
of an illusion not yet completelyunderstood. (well I think that is what he
said anyway)
So it goes, "Time keeps on slipping...slipping...slipping..., into the
future..." - Steve Miller Band.
J.L.Gaasenbeek
"If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about
the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle:
don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds."
Albert Einstein
The World As I See It.
Enjoy, Len.
Wayne Throop
: I still do not agree that it is _only_ a coordinate change.
You've got coordinates x,y in hand. You are given the these facts:
x' = (x-v*t)/sqrt(1-v^2)
t' = (t-v*x)/sqrt(1-v^2)
That's a coordinate transform from x,y to x',y'. No more, no less.
Facts are facts. It just doesn't matter if you "agree" that that is
"_only_ a coordinate change". That's what it is, and anything else is
your imagination, and has nothing to do with SR.
: For the odometer case you can see both the crooked and the straight
: path and they _both_ _physically_ _exist_, to which one can make
: comparisons and actually travel along both paths.
And for the clock case, the inertial and non-inertial histories _both_
_physically_ _exist_, and one can actually make comparisons between
these two histories. Whether you have problems with visualizing it or
difficulties with the kind of abstract throught which makes the
isomorphism to the odometer case so very obvious simply doesn't matter.
The isomorphism remains, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
: A "perspective view" is _inherently_ related to an illusion of some
: sort, you can not take both paths of an illusion, its a bit like
: chasing a rainbow.
Again, the claim that "perspective" is "inherently related to an illusion"
is an oversimplificiation with which you are confusing yourself.
The ladder fits through the door, or it doesn't, based only on "perspective".
There's no "illusion" about it; it really either fits, or it doesn't.
: For your analogy to work, so that the clock case can be an equivalent
: description, it would seem that _both_ time paths must exist
: _physically_ and not just as a simple perspective illusion.
Of course. Now you seem to be confusing the elapsed times on the "time
paths" (by which I presume you mean the two world-lines, ie, timelike
lines) with time *dilation* which is a rate comparison between specific
events ON those world-lines. Which is just the same thing as the
difference between the length of a pair of lines, vs the partial
derivative dx/dx' at a specific point along these lines. Time dilation
IS that partial derivative, it isn't the ratio of total elapsed times.
If you don't keep these things clear, you merely confuse yourself.
: At the movement, I take the view that t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) inherently
: means that a moving object of length x, really does occupies a
: continuum of time values between its two ends.
A view that seems to be pretty much meaningless nonsense.
What in the world does it mean to "occupy" a "time value"?
Yeesh, and you claim *I*'m just throwing words around.
Kevin Aylward
news:9756...@sheol.org...
> : "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
>
> You've got coordinates x,y in hand. You are given the these facts:
>
> x' = (x-v*t)/sqrt(1-v^2)
> t' = (t-v*x)/sqrt(1-v^2)
>
> That's a coordinate transform from x,y to x',y'. No more, no less.
It may be or it may not be, depending on how the equations were arrived at.
These are symbols that may or not refer to something. It may be "just a
coordinate system" or it mat in fact be a physical description i.e. set of
equations of what something actually does. These concepts are distinct, and
you seem unable to appreciate that there can be indeed a difference.
At the start of G.R. many people had problems in distinguishing between the
physical reality and the co-ordinate system that was representing that
reality. The well known examples is of course not realizing that some
singularities were not physical there, they were only artifacts of the
coordinate system. It seems quite clear now that people now do the reverse,
i.e. they do not realize that what they imagine is a only a mathematical
co-ordinate system, but are in fact a set of formulas that describe a real
physical properties.
If I write an equation like F=bx to describe some physical property F for
the object at position x, I can do a simple change of variables, i.e _a_
_coordinate_ _transformation_ by _definition_ of say, let x = sin(wt^3),
where w ant t are new coordinate variables. I can now make t move how I
like, but it can not move x physically. To find x I always need to use the
inverse transform, and this obviously gets me back to where I stared from.
So, I can view a stationary object, for example, in any accelerating, or
whatever coordinate system, and nothing I do can possible change what the
object at x does or move it, physically. However, if something is actually
moving with this mathematically constructed coordinate system, then of
course this might indeed have some relevance.
> Facts are facts. It just doesn't matter if you "agree" that that is
> "_only_ a coordinate change". That's what it is, and anything else is
> your imagination, and has nothing to do with SR.
I believe it is in your imagination. Coordinate transformations, by
definition, are simple mathematical changes of variable, they can not result
in any physical changes, i.e. the readings of clocks. As I explained above.
You are confusing formulars that describe things with transformations that
look simular in form.
> : For the odometer case you can see both the crooked and the straight
> : path and they _both_ _physically_ _exist_, to which one can make
> : comparisons and actually travel along both paths.
>
> And for the clock case, the inertial and non-inertial histories _both_
> _physically_ _exist_, and one can actually make comparisons between
> these two histories. Whether you have problems with visualizing it or
> difficulties with the kind of abstract throught which makes the
> isomorphism to the odometer case so very obvious simply doesn't matter.
> The isomorphism remains, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
I have no problem whatsoever in visualizing and completely accepting that
that the clock travels through a different time path. That is exactly in
with my latter claim of where an object exists in time. It is not, however a
"mere" mathematical coordinate change, it is a physical property of the
universe, independent of _any_ coordinate system. Once again you seem unable
to coordinate transformations from actual equations that describe what
things do, that superficially, look like coordinate transformations because
they have a similar mathematical form. The fact that the Lorentz transform
was _originally_ arrived at by considering coordinate transformations is a
complete red herring, it is not what they are. They actually describe the
flat time metric of the universe, and cannot be transformed away. Your
existing interpretation of the Lorentz transform is incorrect, though
common.
> : A "perspective view" is _inherently_ related to an illusion of some
> : sort, you can not take both paths of an illusion, its a bit like
> : chasing a rainbow.
>
> Again, the claim that "perspective" is "inherently related to an illusion"
> is an oversimplificiation with which you are confusing yourself.
> The ladder fits through the door, or it doesn't, based only on
"perspective".
> There's no "illusion" about it; it really either fits, or it doesn't.
>
> : For your analogy to work, so that the clock case can be an equivalent
> : description, it would seem that _both_ time paths must exist
> : _physically_ and not just as a simple perspective illusion.
>
> Of course. Now you seem to be confusing the elapsed times on the "time
> paths" (by which I presume you mean the two world-lines, ie, timelike
> lines) with time *dilation* which is a rate comparison between specific
> events ON those world-lines. Which is just the same thing as the
> difference between the length of a pair of lines, vs the partial
> derivative dx/dx' at a specific point along these lines. Time dilation
> IS that partial derivative, it isn't the ratio of total elapsed times.
>
It is true that I may be confusing some S.R. distinction between the word
"dilation" and the time difference measured when the clock is returned to
its starting point. If so I am really addresing the this latter point.
> If you don't keep these things clear, you merely confuse yourself.
>
> : At the movement, I take the view that t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) inherently
> : means that a moving object of length x, really does occupies a
> : continuum of time values between its two ends.
>
> A view that seems to be pretty much meaningless nonsense.
> What in the world does it mean to "occupy" a "time value"?
> Yeesh, and you claim *I*'m just throwing words around.
>
>
This means that one end of the rod exists at a time point t, the next point
dx along it exists at t+dt, the next 2dx, existing at t+2dt etc. The fact
that you cannot conceptualize that an object may be able to exist over a
continuous range of time values, as well as space values is your problem,
and due to your preconceived ideas of what reality is. This is what a direct
physical interpretation of the Lorentz equations means, unfortunately you
appear confused with all these "events" that you seem to think are required
in order for the object to exist. You seem quite unable to note that mere
"events" at the rod positions are telling you physically where the actual
rod bits and pieces are in time.
This sort of view has in fact, essentially been examined by very notable
people, e.g. Fynman. He has considered analyzing electron motion from the
view that signals arrive both from the past _and_ the future as a physical
reality, and gets correct results. So that it is quite conceivable for atoms
to be connected electromagnetically to other atoms that are in the future
wrt it.
So it goes, "Time keeps on slipping...slipping...slipping..., into
thefuture..." - Steve Miller Band.
Wayne Throop
: "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
: It may be or it may not be, depending on how the equations were
: arrived at.
They were arrived at by searching for a coordinate transform
that preserves lightspeed. They are always used in SR as a
coordinate transform. They are a coordinate transform.
No more, no less.
: These are symbols that may or not refer to something. It may be "just
: a coordinate system" or it mat in fact be a physical description i.e.
: set of equations of what something actually does.
They cannot possibly be a "description of what something actually does"
(except very indirectly, via the assertion that laws of physics are
invariant under the transform), because we KNOW what x and y and x'
and y' refer to. They are coordinates. So those equations are
a coordinate transform. No more, no less.
You can kick and squirm all you want. But facts are facts,
and those equations were derived as, used as, and are well known to be,
a coordinate transform. No more, no less.
: I believe it is in your imagination.
Again, it doesnt' matter what you "believe".
The situation is well-documented. Einstein's derivation
of those equations is very clear, and the referents of all
the terms is unambiguous, as is Lorentz similar treatment.
: Coordinate transformations, by definition, are simple mathematical
: changes of variable, they can not result
: in any physical changes, i.e. the readings of clocks.
Correct. And irrelevant. As I've been pointing out to you all along,
and you are simply ignoring. Try unplugging your ears, and stop
shouting "la, la, la, I can't HEAR you" long enough to let some
information through your defenses, and you might learn something.
: I have no problem whatsoever in visualizing and completely accepting
: that that the clock travels through a different time path. That is
: exactly in with my latter claim of where an object exists in time. It
: is not, however a "mere" mathematical coordinate change, it is a
: physical property of the universe, independent of _any_ coordinate
: system.
Exactly. Just what I've been saying. And you haven't been paying attention.
You are calling this "time dilation". It is not.
: Once again you seem unable to coordinate transformations from actual
: equations that describe what things do,
I'm perfectly capable of reading the derivations of the equations,
and the definitions of x, y, x' and y', and seeing that those equations
are coordinate transforms, and do not describe "what things do" at all.
(Or rather, they do so only indirectly.)
: This means that one end of the rod exists at a time point t, the next
: point dx along it exists at t+dt, the next 2dx, existing at t+2dt etc.
Which, of course, is complete nonsense.
All points of the rod exist at all times.
The only thing t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) describes is which
events are considered simultaneous. No more, no less.
: This sort of view has in fact, essentially been examined by very
: notable people, e.g. Fynman. He has considered analyzing electron
: motion from the view that signals arrive both from the past _and_ the
: future as a physical reality, and gets correct results. So that it is
: quite conceivable for atoms to be connected electromagnetically to
: other atoms that are in the future wrt it.
I've never seen Feynman be quite so sloppy with his terminology.
J.W.Shepherd
Surely they fade in and out of existance on a scale of the plank time, due to the
uncertainty principle, hence do not exist at ALL times.
Kevin Aylward
> :: That's a coordinate transform from x,y to x',y'. No more, no less
>
> : "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
> : It may be or it may not be, depending on how the equations were
> : arrived at.
>
> They were arrived at by searching for a coordinate transform
> that preserves lightspeed. They are always used in SR as a
> coordinate transform. They are a coordinate transform.
> No more, no less.
>
I believe that they represent something much more then that and only appear
to be a coordinate transform because that is the way they were originally
derived.
But, onward where a treat is in store, indeed.
> : These are symbols that may or not refer to something. It may be "just
> : a coordinate system" or it mat in fact be a physical description i.e.
> : set of equations of what something actually does.
>
> They cannot possibly be a "description of what something actually does"
> (except very indirectly, via the assertion that laws of physics are
> invariant under the transform), because we KNOW what x and y and x'
> and y' refer to.
I was actually considering what equations of that structure signify in
general, and that, in general, equations with distance and time in them may
or may not be an actual "co-ordinate transformation", they may be simple a
set of equations that describe physical properties in the variable t and z,
y, z.
I address the "but without the lorentz transform is essentially the only
mechanism that "explains" why time slows down, hence must describe in some
manner what an object does", below.
So, onward where a treat is in store, indeed.
>ey are coordinates. So those equations are
> a coordinate transform. No more, no less.
> You can kick and squirm all you want. But facts are facts,
> and those equations were derived as, used as, and are well known to be,
> a coordinate transform. No more, no less.
>
> : I believe it is in your imagination.
>
> Again, it doesnt' matter what you "believe".
> The situation is well-documented. Einstein's derivation
> of those equations is very clear, and the referents of all
> the terms is unambiguous, as is Lorentz similar treatment.
>
Yes it is quite true that those the Lorenz transform have been presented by
every Tom, Dick and Harry with a Phd in physics, for 100 years, as a simple
coordinate transform. Apparently no one has every questioned whether that is
the "right" interpretation of them. As I said before, it was well after some
G.R. solutions were found, that very educated people realized that the were
confusing coordinate systems with the actual physics of the situation. i.e.
the singularities. I am claiming that this has not changed and that the
reverse has occurred.
I ask you, have you ever even considered the possibility that they may not
be transforms in the traditional sense and that they might better be
considered as a system of equations explaining how the world physically is,
i.e. they form basic physical metric of space, which of course they do.
But, onward where a treat is in store, indeed.
> : Coordinate transformations, by definition, are simple mathematical
> : changes of variable, they can not result
> : in any physical changes, i.e. the readings of clocks.
>
> Correct. And irrelevant. As I've been pointing out to you all along,
> and you are simply ignoring. Try unplugging your ears, and stop
> shouting "la, la, la, I can't HEAR you" long enough to let some
> information through your defenses, and you might learn something.
How so?. If you agree that coordinate transformations can _not_ result in
any physical changes then how do you explain the fact that the Lorentz is
the original method to actually predict that clocks will read slow, where as
the Galilean transform does not. That is they contain by themselves, the
_actual_ information that clocks slow down, i.e. new information. A "mere"
coordinate transformations, by definition, does not contain such
information, they are only a change of variables to existing information.
But, onward where a treat is in store, indeed.
> : I have no problem whatsoever in visualizing and completely accepting
> : that that the clock travels through a different time path. That is
> : exactly in with my latter claim of where an object exists in time. It
> : is not, however a "mere" mathematical coordinate change, it is a
> : physical property of the universe, independent of _any_ coordinate
> : system.
>
> Exactly. Just what I've been saying. And you haven't been paying
attention.
> You are calling this "time dilation". It is not.
I did note that I may be misinterpretation the term "time dilation", with
the physical fact that clocks read different on a round trip. I must admit I
use these terms interchangeable, which is actually sort of relevant my
arguments on misinterpretation of what the Lorentz transform actually means.
So, onward again sir, where a treat is in store, indeed.
> : This means that one end of the rod exists at a time point t, the next
> : point dx along it exists at t+dt, the next 2dx, existing at t+2dt etc.
>
> Which, of course, is complete nonsense.
> All points of the rod exist at all times.
> The only thing t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) describes is which
> events are considered simultaneous. No more, no less.
>
Well, obviously, it is rather difficult to explain in words, a 4 dimensional
existence, so no surprise here at the confusion. Of course all points of the
rod exist at all times, with or without S.R., the distinction was they were
sort of not the same point, but points from different times, I'll leave this
here for now cos I know what I mean anyway;-)
> : This sort of view has in fact, essentially been examined by very
> : notable people, e.g. Fynman. He has considered analyzing electron
> : motion from the view that signals arrive both from the past _and_ the
> : future as a physical reality, and gets correct results. So that it is
> : quite conceivable for atoms to be connected electromagnetically to
> : other atoms that are in the future wrt it.
>
> I've never seen Feynman be quite so sloppy with his terminology.
>
>
Order changed, best bit till last and that.
> : Once again you seem unable to coordinate transformations from actual
> : equations that describe what things do,
>
> I'm perfectly capable of reading the derivations of the equations,
> and the definitions of x, y, x' and y', and seeing that those equations
> are coordinate transforms, and do not describe "what things do" at all.
> (Or rather, they do so only indirectly.)
Ahmmm, only indirectly?. The fact that x, y, and z are used hides what is
actually happening. Its a bit like deriving Maxwell's equations with the
concept of an ether, once done, they exist on there own despite the fact
that in all likelihood, there is not an ether. My view is that we have all
been take for a long ride in the forest.
At last, he says, now my argument.
Consider a mass. It sets up space-time around it. From the mass-energy
tensor and the other Rieaman goody goody stuff, one solves _equations_ that
are written in some particular coordinate system in order to derive the
metric. It is the metric and/equations that explain how a slowly round trip
transported clock will undergo a permanent clock change due to the
gravitational field. It simple does not matter what coordinate transform we
use, we can use any, the equations and metric are what are predicts that the
clock time will change from its reference.
There analogy, I think, is now obvious.
We take a clock through a trip in different inertial frames, one solves the
Lorentz _equations_, written in some particular coordinate system, in order
to derive the metric. It is the metric and/equations that explain how the
clock will undergo a permanent clock change due to its inertial motion. It
simple does not matter what coordinate transform we use, we can use any, its
only the equations and metric what predicts that the clock time will change
from its reference.
So, I thus claim the Lorentz transforms aren't. There are in fact the
equations that generate the metric of flat space time. It has to be that
way, as I said above, a coordinate transformations, by definition, does not
contain such information to change clocks. The information can only be in
the equations and/or the metric, not the coordinate system.
So it goes, "Time keeps on slipping...slipping...slipping..., into the
future..." - Steve Miller Band.
Onward to finish my Guinness on a Friday night.
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!", a currently free
GUI xspice, unlimited component, mixed-mode Windows simulator with Schematic
Capture, waveform display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Opinions of my employer are not necessarily indicative of my own
Oscillators don't, amplifiers do"
Kevin Aylward
news:sj_V5.269021> Consider a mass. It sets up space-time around it. From
I suppose I should add the obvious.
When one forms a transform from one coordinate system to another, one only
needs to know the partial derivatives of the coordinate systems wrt each
other (or there about anyway). The physical objects don't come into play at
all, hence there is _no_ way for the transform itself to account for any
physical processes. So the equation t'=gamma(t'-vx/c^2) cannot possible be
part of the transformation between _coordinate_ _systems_, because this
equation is _the_ one that contains the information about the real physical
process, i.e. clocks do in fact come back slow, which it cannot do as
coordinate transforms only contain information about one coordinate system
in relation to another, not physical process.
Wayne Throop
: If you agree that coordinate transformations can _not_ result in any
: physical changes then how do you explain the fact that the Lorentz is
: the original method to actually predict that clocks will read slow,
: where as the Galilean transform does not.
If you actually think "use X to predict Y" implies "X causes Y",
then you are more clueless than even I heretofore imagined.
: Consider a mass. It sets up space-time around it. From the
: mass-energy tensor and the other Rieaman goody goody stuff, one solves
: _equations_ that are written in some particular coordinate system in
: order to derive the metric. It is the metric and/equations that
: explain how a slowly round trip transported clock will undergo a
: permanent clock change due to the gravitational field. It simple does
: not matter what coordinate transform we use, we can use any, the
: equations and metric are what are predicts that the clock time will
: change from its reference.
:
: There analogy, I think, is now obvious.
Not at all. You've just mumbled a bit about "metric" and "tensors",
but haven't actually connected it to the topic at hand at all.
If you *had* connected your ramble to the topic at hand, you'd perhaps
appreciate that the lorentz transforms and the minkowski metric are not quite
the same thing, even though they are closely related. In much the same
way that time dilation and elapsed times on a pair of clocks between two
common events are not quite the same thing, despite the close relationship.
: So, I thus claim the Lorentz transforms aren't.
You are, of course, free to delude yourself as much as you want.
Wayne Throop
: the equation t'=gamma(t'-vx/c^2) cannot possible be part of the
: transformation between _coordinate_ _systems_, because this equation
: is _the_ one that contains the information about the real physical
: process, i.e. clocks do in fact come back slow,
I assume that t'=gamma(t-vx/c^2) is meant.
Even so, the assertion is wrong. There is no information about clocks
contained in that expression. It simply gives the coordinate t' as a
function of the coordinates t and x. No more, no less.
Now, there are physical assertions about clocks in SR, but they
are after-the-fact of the transforms. As is fairly clear if you simply
read Einstein's 1905 paper, where he derives the transforms, and the
assumption that inertial clocks keep inertial coordinate time is
a *separate* assumption.
Kevin Aylward
> : If you agree that coordinate transformations can _not_ result in any
> : physical changes then how do you explain the fact that the Lorentz is
> : the original method to actually predict that clocks will read slow,
> : where as the Galilean transform does not.
>
> then you are more clueless than even I heretofore imagined.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. How can an equation cause
anything?. I certainly did not suggest that.
> : Consider a mass. It sets up space-time around it. From the
> : mass-energy tensor and the other Rieaman goody goody stuff, one solves
> : _equations_ that are written in some particular coordinate system in
> : order to derive the metric. It is the metric and/equations that
> : explain how a slowly round trip transported clock will undergo a
> : permanent clock change due to the gravitational field. It simple does
> : not matter what coordinate transform we use, we can use any, the
> : equations and metric are what are predicts that the clock time will
> : change from its reference.
> :
> : There analogy, I think, is now obvious.
>
> Not at all. You've just mumbled a bit about "metric" and "tensors",
> but haven't actually connected it to the topic at hand at all.
Or you simply did not understand.
> If you *had* connected your ramble to the topic at hand, you'd perhaps
> appreciate that the lorentz transforms and the minkowski metric are not
quite
> the same thing, even though they are closely related. In much the same
> way that time dilation and elapsed times on a pair of clocks between two
> common events are not quite the same thing, despite the close
relationship.
>
> : So, I thus claim the Lorentz transforms aren't.
>
> You are, of course, free to delude yourself as much as you want.
>
And indeed, so are you.
As I said, coordinate transforms simply relate one of set of variables to
another set. They form identities and do have not any inbuilt physics in
them. They are purely mathematical that put _no_ constraints on the physics
at all, e.g. they do _not_ contain any such physical constraints such as c
being constant. All they do is silently transform equations in different
coordinate systems.
On the other hand the Lorentz "transform" is indeed different from the above
transforms. It is a "transform" that has _inbuilt_ into its very structure,
the concept of constant c by construction, that is, it is _not_ a general
transform between coordinate systems. This is unlike the general, purely
mathematical transforms of tensors noted above. This Lorentz "transform"
says something about the physics itself, It has new information in it,
therefore it cannot be a transform in the usual sense that is attributed to
coordinate transforms, in my view.
Kevin Aylward
> : the equation t'=gamma(t'-vx/c^2) cannot possible be part of the
> : transformation between _coordinate_ _systems_, because this equation
> : is _the_ one that contains the information about the real physical
> : process, i.e. clocks do in fact come back slow,
>
>
> Even so, the assertion is wrong. There is no information about clocks
> contained in that expression. It simply gives the coordinate t' as a
> function of the coordinates t and x. No more, no less.
>
> Now, there are physical assertions about clocks in SR, but they
> are after-the-fact of the transforms. As is fairly clear if you simply
> read Einstein's 1905 paper, where he derives the transforms, and the
> assumption that inertial clocks keep inertial coordinate time is
> a *separate* assumption.
>
>
This is a new one to me, or else I have forgotten, for no information about
clocks. I do not have the original paper to hand, do I shall have to look it
up.
So, are you saying that one does _not_ use the Lorentz transforms in any
way, shape or form in deriving the result that clocks slow down?. That is,
are you claiming that there is a completely independent method of deriving
that result other then using the Lorentz transforms as an inherent base?
Stephen Speicher
What exactly are you implying here about the Hafele & Keating
experiment? Please set it out.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
You can always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Throop
::: physical changes then how do you explain the fact that the Lorentz
::: is the original method to actually predict that clocks will read
::: slow, where as the Galilean transform does not.
:: If you actually think "use X to predict Y" implies "X causes Y", then
:: you are more clueless than even I heretofore imagined.
: "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
: I have no idea what you are talking about here. How can an equation
: cause anything?. I certainly did not suggest that.
You suggested the equation represents something more than a coordinate
transform, since the equation can be used to predict the clock reading.
:: You've just mumbled a bit about "metric" and "tensors", but haven't
:: actually connected it to the topic at hand at all.
: Or you simply did not understand.
Blaming the audience doesn't actually manage to connect your ramble
to the topic at hand.
: As I said, coordinate transforms simply relate one of set of variables
: to another set.
Right. And that's all the lorentz transform does.
The variables in the equations are coordiantes.
That's how they were derived, that's how they are used.
: This Lorentz "transform" says something about the physics itself, It
: has new information in it, therefore it cannot be a transform in the
: usual sense that is attributed to coordinate transforms, in my view.
The transform says nothing about the physics. The statement that "the
laws of nature are invariant with respect to lorentz transform" is what
says something about the physics.
The whole content of the special theory of relativity is included in
the postulate: the laws of Nature are invariant with respect to the
Lorentz transformations.
--- Einstein, Relativity, appenndix 5.
Kevin Aylward
> ::: physical changes then how do you explain the fact that the Lorentz
> ::: is the original method to actually predict that clocks will read
> ::: slow, where as the Galilean transform does not.
> :: If you actually think "use X to predict Y" implies "X causes Y", then
> :: you are more clueless than even I heretofore imagined.
>
> : "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
> : I have no idea what you are talking about here. How can an equation
> : cause anything?. I certainly did not suggest that.
>
> You suggested the equation represents something more than a coordinate
> transform, since the equation can be used to predict the clock reading.
>
I still don't see how that would imply the suggestion that the equation
causes anything. Equations only describe what happens, not why or how., but
anyway.
> : As I said, coordinate transforms simply relate one of set of variables
> : to another set.
>
> Right. And that's all the lorentz transform does.
> The variables in the equations are coordiantes.
> That's how they were derived, that's how they are used.
>
But, it used a physical _restriction_ in order to determine what the
transform form was. If, for example, I have an oblate spheroid coordinate
system and I want to find the transform equations to say, hyperbolic
coordinates, I simply compute the relevant partial derivatives without any
reference to the real world at all. The Lorentz transform therefore does
contain additional information that a conventional mathematical transform
would not contain. Hence my claim that is not "just" a coordinate transform.
> : This Lorentz "transform" says something about the physics itself, It
> : has new information in it, therefore it cannot be a transform in the
> : usual sense that is attributed to coordinate transforms, in my view.
>
> The transform says nothing about the physics. The statement that "the
> laws of nature are invariant with respect to lorentz transform" is what
> says something about the physics.
Probably a bit too subtle for me I think.
>
> The whole content of the special theory of relativity is included in
> the postulate: the laws of Nature are invariant with respect to the
> Lorentz transformations.
> --- Einstein, Relativity, appenndix 5.
>
So I take it from this, as my last question was sniped, that the Lorentz
transformations are indeed the method that one has to use to predict that
clocks will return from a trip reading less.
Paul Stowe
"Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com> wrote:
But I thought subtlety WAS one of your strong suits :) :) :)
>>
>> The whole content of the special theory of relativity is included in
>> the postulate: the laws of Nature are invariant with respect to the
>> Lorentz transformations.
>> --- Einstein, Relativity, appenndix 5.
>>
>
>So I take it from this, as my last question was sniped, that the Lorentz
>transformations are indeed the method that one has to use to predict that
>clocks will return from a trip reading less.
Kevin, all of this discussion brings to mind Dr. Pter Beckmann's book
"Einstein Plus Two". It's very good, and a well thought out treatises
which seems to be in line with your thinking. It is well worth tracking
down and getting a copy if you haven't read it.
Paul Stowe
Kevin Aylward
news:90cbc3$hp3$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
{snip}
> >
> >So I take it from this, as my last question was sniped, that the Lorentz
> >transformations are indeed the method that one has to use to predict that
> >clocks will return from a trip reading less.
>
> Kevin, all of this discussion brings to mind Dr. Pter Beckmann's book
> "Einstein Plus Two". It's very good, and a well thought out treatises
> which seems to be in line with your thinking. It is well worth tracking
> down and getting a copy if you haven't read it.
>
> Paul Stowe
Hi Paul,
Its great being an engineer, you can speculate any sort of possible nonsense
on physics as you wish and not worry about losing your day job. The
"proffesionals" have to watch themselvs for fear of being labeled a crank.
If you pop up to the bit on my G.R. analogy with the Lorentz stuff, I'm
wondering if you could keep the Gallerian transform but have a psedo
mass/gravity to generate and create the correct S.R. metric instead. I think
it was Luc who posted something to this effect, somewhere. Its interesting
that the time delay due the acceleration (gravitational) via G.R. in the
twins paradox is the same as that due to a pure S.R. calculation. If there
is no ether, why is light speed not infinite? Maybe Mach's principle not
only accounts for accelerating frames, maybe it also accounts for S.R. i.e.
inertial frames as well. i.e. why clocks slow in S.R may be due to the
"relativistic" mass increase motion through/due to the universe background
field. Yeah, I know its all been said before, but I'm but I'm happy that in
S.R. there is _no_ explanation at all, where as in G.R., it's the mass, even
if we don't know the details how.
Wayne Throop
:: coordinate transform, since the equation can be used to predict the
:: clock reading.
: "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
: I still don't see how that would imply the suggestion that the
: equation causes anything. Equations only describe what happens, not
: why or how., but anyway.
OK. Pretend you don't understand. The fact remains, your
contention that "the lorentz [transform is used[ to actually predict
what the clocks will read" implies that the equation must represent
something more than a coordinate transform is unjustified and illogical.
: But, it used a physical _restriction_ in order to determine what the
: transform form was.
Which doesn't make it anything more than a coordinate transform.
: So I take it from this, as my last question was sniped, that the
: Lorentz transformations are indeed the method that one has to use to
: predict that clocks will return from a trip reading less.
A method. Not "the" method. And this is no different than the case for
predicting distance from the rotation transform, and it's very clear
that the rotation transform is just that: a coordinate transform.
Wayne Throop
: Kevin, all of this discussion brings to mind Dr. Pter Beckmann's book
: "Einstein Plus Two". It's very good, and a well thought out treatises
: which seems to be in line with your thinking. It is well worth
: tracking down and getting a copy if you haven't read it.
Beckmann was trying to promote an entrained ether theory.
Kevin is claiming (near as I can tell) that the x and y in
the lorentz transforms are not coordinates. The two don't
seem even remotely similer.
Kevin Aylward
> : Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Kevin, all of this discussion brings to mind Dr. Pter Beckmann's book
> : "Einstein Plus Two". It's very good, and a well thought out treatises
> : which seems to be in line with your thinking. It is well worth
> : tracking down and getting a copy if you haven't read it.
>
> Kevin is claiming (near as I can tell) that the x and y in
> the lorentz transforms are not coordinates. The two don't
> seem even remotely similer.
>
> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> "He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
Well, I was not actually saying there were not coordinates, only that there
was a bit more to it then that.
And quite correct, I don't believe in the ether in any conventional sense. I
do have suspicions that the clock slowdown in S.R. is linked to gravity/mass
in some way, so I do consider gravity as an "ether" in an extended sense.
Paul Stowe
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>: Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com>
>: Kevin, all of this discussion brings to mind Dr. Pter Beckmann's book
>: "Einstein Plus Two". It's very good, and a well thought out treatises
>: which seems to be in line with your thinking. It is well worth
>: tracking down and getting a copy if you haven't read it.
>
>Beckmann was trying to promote an entrained ether theory.
>Kevin is claiming (near as I can tell) that the x and y in
>the lorentz transforms are not coordinates. The two don't
>seem even remotely similer.
Huh? Have you read through Beckmann's book???
Paul Stowe
greyw...@my-deja.com
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com>
book
> : "Einstein Plus Two". It's very good, and a well thought out
treatises
> : which seems to be in line with your thinking. It is well worth
> : tracking down and getting a copy if you haven't read it.
>
> Kevin is claiming (near as I can tell) that the x and y in
> the lorentz transforms are not coordinates. The two don't
> seem even remotely similer.
Actually, Wayne, Beckmann's theory was not based on entrained aether.
Entrained aether was one of four theories that Beckmann evaluated
against the experimental "proofs" of SR (all of which met the
experiments).
Beckmann's theory has effects tied to the local gravitational field,
instead of the observer. Other than that, it's the same as relativity.
(Same in function, different in philosophy.)
--
greywolf42
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Wayne Throop
::: book "Einstein Plus Two". It's very good, and a well thought out
::: treatises which seems to be in line with your thinking. It is well
::: worth tracking down and getting a copy if you haven't read it.
:: Beckmann was trying to promote an entrained ether theory. Kevin is
:: claiming (near as I can tell) that the x and y in the lorentz
:: transforms are not coordinates. The two don't seem [similar].
: Paul Stowe <pst...@ix.netcom.com>
: Huh? Have you read through Beckmann's book???
Scanned it some time ago, as well as read the posts he made
online a few years ago, pushing the same idea. His notion that light
travels at c relative to the "dominant gravitational field" boils down
to a kind of entrained ether theory. He had some novel rationales for
why aberration results don't show entrainment. But basically, his
ideas were for an ether theory NOT of the equivalence class Tom Roberts
has been talking about, but which "lives inside the error bars" of
then-existing experiments.
I'll admit to having gone fuzzy on some of the details since then, but
even so, it doesn't seem similar to Kevin's ideas about the transform,
which seem to me to be a simple confusion and/or conflation of the
coordinate transform with closely related (but still quite distinct)
geometric concepts, such as the metric, and/or tensors and the such.
Do you have something more specific from the book in mind,
rather than it's general gist? Or do you think I'm mis-remembering
the general gist?
Wayne Throop
: I don't believe in the ether in any conventional sense. [...]
: I do consider gravity as an "ether" in an extended sense.
That *does* sound more like Beckmann.
: I do have suspicions that the clock slowdown in S.R. is linked to
: gravity/mass in some way,
That's pretty silly, since "in SR", it's quite clear that gravity/mass
has no effect on clock slowdown whatsoever. So, *if* you think that
gravity/mass governs clock slowdown, you are rather directly disagreeing
with SR. This is perfectly clear, since proper time in SR, being the
integral of sqrt(dt^2-dx^2) for some given trajectory, has no terms
relating to either mass or gravity whatsoever.
Note: yes, gravitational time dilation is a disagreement with SR; SR
is known to be incorrect in that sense. But GR and SR agree in the
low-mass (or "weak field") limit, and in that limit, mass and
gravity-in-the-traditional-sense have no effect on proper time in
either SR or GR.
eins...@my-deja.com
relation to another person... when one speeds, there are many more "new
incoming events"
In article <90199g$gbe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Soliton <Sergei....@compaq.com> wrote:
> Speeding causes the time to slow down, and we know formulae. But do we
> know how it is really happend? What physical process is responsible
for
> slowing the clocks?
>
> Is there any explanations from superstring theory?
>
> --
> Soliton
> www.hotlinks.net.au/soliton
Soliton
100...@goedel2.math.washington.edu>,
Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Soliton wrote:
>
> > Speeding causes the time to slow down,
>
OK. Let me reformulate. After a clock has traveled for some time, it
shows less time as a twin in rest. What caused the slowing of moving
clock? Looks like accelleration, or rather force causing it. From my
point of view when you supply impulse to the body it changes not only
speed, by time run rate as well. Agree?
--
Soliton
www.hotlinks.net.au/soliton/science/
Soliton
answer (I mean theory prediction) on question I initiated. What causes
the time to slow down?
What I want to know is what causes the twin clocks to show different
time when a one has traveled. Please don't write Lorentz
transformation, rather speaking by thermodynamic categories such as
energy, intensial, flow, dissipation... From thermodynamic point of
view looks like there is a dissipation effect like in everything in the
nature. Which force causes this dissipation?
Wayne Throop
: Actually, Wayne, Beckmann's theory was not based on entrained aether.
: against the experimental "proofs" of SR (all of which met the
: experiments).
To say "the" is misleading. "Some" would be more apt.
: Beckmann's theory has effects tied to the local gravitational field,
: instead of the observer. Other than that, it's the same as
: relativity. (Same in function, different in philosophy.)
That doesn't really fit the facts of the matter. The "tie to the
local gravitational field" is what rendered it, in essense, an entrained
ether theory, with some slight modifications on deflections at boundaries
between which field was "dominant" to escape some aspects of abberation
existing in other entrainment-based theories.
It was clearly not "same as relativity" wrt the "local gravitational field",
since Bekcmann clearly thought that the asymmetry of transit times
would be aparent in interferometer-based experiments, which rendered his
notion not locally lorentz invariant.
I could be wrong, but that seemed quite clear; he thought his theory
was (unlike LET and other ether theories with local clock slowing and
longitudinal contraction) *locally* distinguishable from SR, given
accurate enough measurements.
Chris Hillman
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Soliton wrote:
> In spite of so many messages in this group, I still don't have an
> answer (I mean theory prediction) on question I initiated. What causes
> the time to slow down?
What is your problem, Soliton? I have already told you that in str, time
-doesn't- "slow down"!!! How hard is that to understand?
Do you need everything spelled out in foot high letters? Fine:
#######
# # # # ######
# # ## ## #
# # # ## # #####
# # # # #
# # # # #
# # # # ######
##### #### ###### ####
# # # # # #
# # # # ##### ####
# # # # # #
# # # # # # #
##### #### ###### ####
# # #### #####
## # # # #
# # # # # #
# # # # # #
# ## # # #
# # #### #
#### # #### # #
# # # # # #
#### # # # # #
# # # # # ## #
# # # # # ## ##
#### ###### #### # #
###
##### #### # # # # ###
# # # # # # ## # ###
# # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # ## # # # #
# # # # ## ## # ## ###
##### #### # # # # ###
Got it now?
Garbage in, garbage out, soliton.
Noone can give a correct answer to a question which doesn't even make
sense within the context of str, the theory you want to understand.
Does that make sense to you now?
> What I want to know is what causes the twin clocks to show different
> time when a one has traveled.
Great! And I have already told you what you need to do:
#####
# # ##### # # ##### # #
# # # # # # # #
##### # # # # # #
# # # # # # #
# # # # # # # #
##### # #### ##### #
#######
# ## # # # #### #####
# # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # #
# ###### # # # # #####
# # # # # # # # #
# # # # ###### #### # #
## # # #####
# # ## # # #
# # # # # # #
###### # # # # #
# # # ## # #
# # # # #####
# #
# # # # # ###### ###### # ###### #####
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # ###### ##### ##### # ##### # #
# # # # # # # # # #####
# # # # # # # # # # #
## ## # # ###### ###### ###### ###### # #
OK? Great. Have fun with it, and HAND.
Chris Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/
Chris Hillman
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Soliton wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.0011300846350.182478-
> 100...@goedel2.math.washington.edu>,
> Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Soliton wrote:
> >
> > > Speeding causes the time to slow down,
> >
> > No, no, no! This is NOT what str says! Not even close!
>
> OK. Let me reformulate. After a clock has traveled for some time, it
> shows less time as a twin in rest.
Not neccessarily. Use your head, soliton. What have you really claimed
here?
> What caused the slowing of moving clock? Looks like accelleration, or
> rather force causing it. From my point of view when you supply impulse
> to the body it changes not only speed, by time run rate as well.
> Agree?
You really need to study Taylor & Wheeler before asking further
questions. Your questions about the twin paradox are answered in there,
and if impulsive forces worry you, fine try this -after- you have studied
Taylor & Wheeler:
http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/PUB/twin
HTH, HAND.
Kevin Aylward
From: "Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org>
To: "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
Cc: <thr...@sheol.org>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: What causes the time to slow down
> : Ahmmmm, of course in S.R. no gravity appears in it, by assumption no
less!.
>
> Then why did you say gravity and mass played a role "in SR"?
>
> : S.R. does not explain "why" anything happens,
> : there is no cause only results.
>
> A common misunderstanding.
>
In what way would that be?.
To the best of my knowledge, the whole content of S.R. is based on the two
axioms. period. For example, if one heads faster and faster into the sun,
irrespective of whether light is particles or waves, one apparently keeps
measuring the speed of light to be the same. The reason that this is at odds
with conventional experience, as far as I can see in S.R., is not explained.
I do not see any logical possibility that this can be explained in S.R. as
it is one of its axioms. You can not explain axioms, by definition.
So, as I said above, either C is contant, is a new Godel statement, or it is
not.
If it is a new Godel statement, then S.R. can only explain results in terms
of that axiom, but no further by inherent definition of the Godel statement.
> : The idea is that is there some _new_ physics going on. There is the
> : background field of the universe.
>
> The idea is that one need not assume galilean invariance to fundamental
> geometry. This has nothing to do with mass or gravity, not even when
> you extend the concept to GR.
Ahmmm again. I am well aware one does not have to assume Galilean invariance
invariance, but that is not the point at all. Every one keeps wanting to
point out all the obvious stuff, said so many times before, you know,
commonsene is not always correct etc...etc..., , why should you suppose this
and that etc... etc..., I have indeed heard all these arguments for over 20
years at least, and it does not really change anything.
As above on Godal statments, the universe appears non Galilean either
because it _is_ non Galilean as an axiom, or because it is not. One would
like to know which is correct.
Why is C not infinite?.
> : You have lost me here, I was under the impression that G.R. had
> : clocks reading slow after a round trip as well.
>
> Nor did I say anything that could rationally be interpred otherwise.
>
Could you expand on "what mass and gravity-in-the-traditional-sense have no
effect on proper time in neither SR or GR." means then, as this certainly
implies to me that you are saying G.R. does _not_ have clocks slowing down.
Once again, this far, far to subtle for me.
Wayne Throop
: After a clock has traveled for some time, it shows less time as a twin
: in rest. What caused the slowing of moving clock? Looks like
: accelleration, or rather force causing it. From my point of view when
: you supply impulse to the body it changes not only speed, by time run
: rate as well. Agree?
Of course not. Certainly, that's not the model SR has.
: In spite of so many messages in this group, I still don't have an
: answer (I mean theory prediction) on question I initiated. What
: causes the time to slow down?
Nothing. The time *doesn't* slow down; that's the whole point of
the theory of relativity; that physical processes and natural laws are
the *same* in every reference frame.
Look. Let's say you are carrying a mop. If you hold that mop across
your chest, so that it extends right and left, and you try to walk
through a door, it won't fit. But if you *rotate* that mop so that
it points *towards* the door instead of across it, it *will* fit
through. But nobody says that space shrinks to make the mop fit.
The point is, time dilation in SR is the same sort of effect
as the rotation of the mop. It's different in other theories,
but that's how it is in SR.
: What I want to know is what causes the twin clocks to show different
: time when a one has traveled.
The same thing that causes odometers to show different readings
when they take different paths between two points. So tell me;
what do *you* think causes odometers to show different readings
when they take different paths, but between the same points?
Wayne Throop
:: A common misunderstanding.
: "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com>
: In what way would that be?.
In that it is both a common criticism, and the criticism is misplaced.
In SR, each tick of the clock is caused by the preceeding clock state,
just as in newtonian mechanics. All that differs is the symmetry group
of the underlying geometry. So SR is no more and no less "explanatory"
than any account using forces, energy, momenum, particles, and so on.
: Why is C not infinite?.
For the same reason there is no prefered direction in space
in newtonian mechanics.
: Could you expand on "what mass and gravity-in-the-traditional-sense
: have no effect on proper time in neither SR or GR." means then, as
: this certainly implies to me that you are saying G.R. does _not_ have
: clocks slowing down. Once again, this far, far to subtle for me.
Perhaps this is because you didn't read what I wrote. Which was actually
But GR and SR agree in the low-mass (or "weak field") limit, and in
that limit, mass and gravity-in-the-traditional-sense have no effect
on proper time in either SR or GR.
Further, even considering gravitational time dilations and/or red/blue
shifts, GR doesn't have "clocks slowing down". Clocks continue to tick
off one second on their readouts per second of proper time. GR, like SR,
hasn't got global simultaneity, so a ratio of total elapsed times between
two events is not a ratio of clock rates.
Soliton
100...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>,
Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
> > In spite of so many messages in this group, I still don't have an
> > answer (I mean theory prediction) on question I initiated. What
causes
> > the time to slow down?
> sense within the context of str, the theory you want to understand.
I am not talking about STR in particular.
> > What I want to know is what causes the twin clocks to show different
> > time when a one has traveled.
Please read the question below and answer, if you can. If you wish to
reply, could you operate with thermodynamic categories such as
intensial, dissipation, energy...
Chris Hillman
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, "He-Who-Just-Can't-Get-It", aka "Soliton", wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.0012041623000.414769-
> 100...@goedel3.math.washington.edu>,
> Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > Noone can give a correct answer to a question which doesn't even make
> > sense within the context of str, the theory you want to understand.
>
> I am not talking about STR in particular.
You are asking about "What causes time to slow down" (despite repeated
corrections: time does not ``slow down'' in relativity theory; indeed,
this statement doesn't even make sense!), and you are asking this question
in a newsgroup called "sci.physics.relativity", but now you say that you
are -not- talking about "str in particular"?
Then what the heck "theory" -are- you talking about?!
> Please read the question below and answer, if you can. If you wish to
> reply, could you operate with thermodynamic categories such as
> intensial, dissipation, energy...
(rolls virtual eyes)
I have a -very- strong suspicion that you don't have clue what any of
these words mean, or else that you are simply trolling.
Talking through your hat is already ill-mannered, soliton; trolling is
worse. Expect no mercy from those who actually know some physics.
Chris "Calling Uncle Al!" Hillman
Home Page: http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/
larry richardson
> In spite of so many messages in this group, I still don't have an
> answer (I mean theory prediction) on question I initiated. What causes
> the time to slow down?
>
> What I want to know is what causes the twin clocks to show different
> time when a one has traveled. Please don't write Lorentz
> transformation, rather speaking by thermodynamic categories such as
> energy, intensial, flow, dissipation... From thermodynamic point of
> view looks like there is a dissipation effect like in everything in the
> nature. Which force causes this dissipation?
I presume you're looking for an intuitively-based explanation rather than
an abstract, mathematical one. The one most often chosen to represent the
Lorentz Transformation doesn't involve the mechanism driving clocks, rather
it involves the mechanism driving the observation of and interaction with
events being originated at clocks. A clock observed while at rest
originates events that are separated only in time for the observer, while a
clock in motion orginates events that to the observer are separated not
only by the time the clock registers, but also by the motion-distance
accumulated during the observation or interaction time. The observer
therefore measures and experiences not merely the time separation
registered on the clock, but the entire spacetime separation, and the
quantitative relationship is T^2 = T'^2 + X^2, which is an equivalent form
of the Lorentz Transformations. This interpretation specifies that the
spacetime separation of any two given events is different for observers in
different states of motion, and therefore the time they experience differs
between their respective apprehensions of those events.
However, the nature of any reality or mechanism underlying the events we
measure is purely speculation. All we get is the data from the
measurements we take, and all explanatory mechanisms that can be invoked
that are consistent with that dataset are possibilities that can't be
excluded. All possible underlying mechanisms capable of producing events
that are relatable by the Lorentz Transformation are equally viable. We
frequently try to invent an explanation that's as close as possible to our
everyday intuitions so as to make it more easily understandable, but that's
just a human convention that nature isn't obligated to emulate. The
question you seem to be asking isn't currently a scientific one, and it
won't ever be unless new observation mechanisms are discovered that enable
us to comprehensively distinguish among competing possible explanations.
LR
Soliton
larry richardson <lar...@onramp.net> wrote:
> Soliton wrote:
>
> > In spite of so many messages in this group, I still don't have an
> > answer (I mean theory prediction) on question I initiated. What
causes
> > the time to slow down?
> >
> > What I want to know is what causes the twin clocks to show different
> > time when a one has traveled. Please don't write Lorentz
> > transformation, rather speaking by thermodynamic categories such as
> > energy, intensial, flow, dissipation... From thermodynamic point of
> > view looks like there is a dissipation effect like in everything in
the
> > nature. Which force causes this dissipation?
>
> I presume you're looking for an intuitively-based explanation rather
than
> an abstract, mathematical one.
I am looking for thermodynamic explanation.
Larry, I don't agree I am asking non-scientific question. Just very
scientific - why two twin clocks shows different time after one has
travelled. But I am trying to find thermodynamic answers treating clock
as a thermodynamic system which has extensivity (impulse, mass) and
intensivity (velocity, time run rate) factors. See previous messages
(61-63) about how these factors are related.
Unfortunately almost all people answering my questions in this
newsgroup begin to explain Lorent'z transformations which I respect,
but at the moment I don't need. If you know a bit general
thermodynamics and relativity, please join discussion (see some
previous messages and threads "Heating and time run rate", "Mass and
time relationship").
Tom Roberts
> In spite of so many messages in this group, I still don't have an
> answer (I mean theory prediction) on question I initiated. What causes
> the time to slow down?
[I have NOT scanned the other responses in this thread; I will
look at responses to this message, only.]
In the context of SR and GR, the "cause" of "time slowing down" is
simply geometrical perspective.
By "cause" I mean the naive notions of causality often expressed
around here. By "time slowing down" I mean the phenomenon that
when two identical clocks are compared via E&M signals one may
observe the signal from the other to be redshifted.
This is the same phenomenon which makes a building look much narrower
when viewed from a corner than when viewed from directly in front.
The essential point is that some invariant length (width of a building,
time between ticks of a clock) is projected onto other coordinates
(spatially-rotated ones in the case of viewing the building, moving
ones in the case of time dilation of the clock).
BTW, I would not say "time slows down", just as I would not say "that
building got narrower" -- these are instances of changes in a _passive_
observation, and not "active" changes in the objects themselves.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucnet.com
Kevin Aylward
news:3A2FC581...@lucent.com...
> Soliton wrote:
> > In spite of so many messages in this group, I still don't have an
> > answer (I mean theory prediction) on question I initiated. What causes
> > the time to slow down?
>
> [I have NOT scanned the other responses in this thread; I will
> look at responses to this message, only.]
>
> In the context of SR and GR, the "cause" of "time slowing down" is
> simply geometrical perspective.
>
Dream on.
> By "cause" I mean the naive notions of causality often expressed
> around here. By "time slowing down" I mean the phenomenon that
> when two identical clocks are compared via E&M signals one may
> observe the signal from the other to be redshifted.
>
> This is the same phenomenon which makes a building look much narrower
> when viewed from a corner than when viewed from directly in front.
> The essential point is that some invariant length (width of a building,
> time between ticks of a clock) is projected onto other coordinates
> (spatially-rotated ones in the case of viewing the building, moving
> ones in the case of time dilation of the clock).
Nonsense. The poster is not asking about "perspective" effects, he is asking
why the clocks, on _return_ read slow. This is not geometrical artifact.
> BTW, I would not say "time slows down", just as I would not say "that
> building got narrower" -- these are instances of changes in a _passive_
> observation, and not "active" changes in the objects themselves.
>
>
Considering the post was:
*************************
What I want to know is what causes the twin clocks to show different time
when a one has traveled. Please don't write Lorentz transformation, rather
speaking by thermodynamic categories such as energy, intensial, flow,
dissipation... From thermodynamic point of view looks like there is a
dissipation effect like in everything in the nature. Which force causes this
dissipation?
*************************
You post was far from useful Tom. Clocks can _not_ read slow when
transported away and back again merely by "perspective". Try bending a ruler
and back again, does it change it length, even in S.R.?. Wayne's posting is
probably the best on this. i.e. the clocks take a _longer_ path in space
time. You are confusing here two _separate_ issues of clocks, as once again,
nicely explained by Wayne, one is the projection of an invariant length on
to a coordinate axis, and one is the actual path the clocks take.
larry richardson
Soliton wrote:
> Larry, I don't agree I am asking non-scientific question. Just very
> scientific - why two twin clocks shows different time after one has
> travelled. But I am trying to find thermodynamic answers treating clock
> as a thermodynamic system which has extensivity (impulse, mass) and
> intensivity (velocity, time run rate) factors. See previous messages
> (61-63) about how these factors are related.
>
> Unfortunately almost all people answering my questions in this
> newsgroup begin to explain Lorent'z transformations which I respect,
> but at the moment I don't need. If you know a bit general
> thermodynamics and relativity, please join discussion (see some
> previous messages and threads "Heating and time run rate", "Mass and
> time relationship").
I you're looking for answers to "why" type questions, except within the
confines of a particular interpretation, science will disappoint you.
Within the geometric interpretation of SR, the reason the two clocks don't
show the same time is that their spacetime paths between two
mutually-experienced events don't have the same magnitude. Finding an
interpretation completely free of geometric implications will be at least
difficult, because if distance and time are in any way involved in the
observables specified by the interpretation, the predicted measurements will
be subsumed under the Lorentz Transformations. You may succeed in
increasing the complexity of an interpretation's observables, but so far all
measurable qualities have been shown to be either Lorentz covariant or
Lorentz invariant. If you can find a set of observables that conforms to a
different relationship, or that should conform to the Lorentz relationship
but doesn't, you'll indeed have discovered something worthwhile.
LR
and...@attglobal.net
>
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.21.0011300846350.182478-
> Chris Hillman <hil...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Soliton wrote:
> >
> > > Speeding causes the time to slow down,
> >
> > No, no, no! This is NOT what str says! Not even close!
>
> shows less time as a twin in rest. What caused the slowing of moving
> clock? Looks like accelleration, or rather force causing it. From my
> point of view when you supply impulse to the body it changes not only
> speed, by time run rate as well. Agree?
>
Let me reiterate what Chris said, "No, no, no! This is NOT what str
says! Not even close" You still don't understand this even when given
a chance to think about it and restate it publically.
John Anderson
Arlin Brown
"publically".
---
Take care,
Jeannie
Soliton
an answer on a question in this news group. Posters prefer do not read
carefully what you are asking rather trying to show how smart they are
in general or even worse swearing (see first 10 messages). My keyboard
has tired to type the same question again and again...
Let me highlight I am looking for _thermodynamic_ explanation of the
effect of slowing a clock after the second clock has travelled and
return (FAQ on this I have read, no thermodynamic answer found). As
travelled clock shows less elapsed time, from thermodynamic viewpoint
it means there was a dissipation effect which cause the time run rate
as intensity factor to slow down (like a heated body loosing some heat
when travelled among the cooler ones). I am asking what force, energy
or matter outflow cause this time dilation?
Let's threat a clock as thermodynamic system which has extensivity
(mass and momentum) and intensivity (velocity and time run rate)
factors.
I value the answers operated with thermodynamic categories.
Kevin Aylward
"Soliton" <Sergei....@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:910st7$ud5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
There is _no_ thermodynamic explanation of clocks reading slow, as far as I
am aware, that is why no one is presenting one. In S.R. the simplest
"explanation" of why the clocks reads slow is that a relatively moving clock
takes a "longer" path then the stationary one. Why the path is "longer" is a
direct mathematical consequence of the speed of light always being a
constant. Why the speed of light is constant is not addressed in S.R. It
just is. However, if one accepts, just for the sake of argument, a concept
that an object "occupies" and has "length" components in both space and
time, and that this length is a constant, then it can follow that the speed
of light would be a constant. Then again there may be simply no real
rational why things are they way they are.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> John, let me be a jerk for a change. There is no such word as
> "publically".
> ---
My apology for the spelling mistake. I posted that a few hours
after I got back from Tokyo and I was a bit jet-lagged.
Do you have a scientific point to make, or are you just concerned
about spelling?
John Anderson
Soliton
This is not a thermodynamic explanation. Longer space-time path itself
means nothing unless we know some things affect the clock rate while
travelling. I'd understand, for example, if there is some sort of
resistance when a clock looses some energy - this is typical
thermodynamic dissipation. I just asking people here what phenomena
causes this dissipation.
Why the path is "longer" is a
> direct mathematical consequence of the speed of light always being a
> constant.
It's easy in Minkovsky's 4-space.
Why the speed of light is constant is not addressed in S.R.
From thermodynamic viewpoint its explainable - there is a second degree
of freedom (except velocity) - time run rate. Momentum pushing photon
out "spends" not on velocity but on the time run rate - that's why
speed of light is not depend on velocity of emitter.
It
> just is. However, if one accepts, just for the sake of argument, a
concept
> that an object "occupies" and has "length" components in both space
and
> time, and that this length is a constant, then it can follow that the
speed
> of light would be a constant. Then again there may be simply no real
> rational why things are they way they are.
I am not considering this. I need how this effect are treated in theory
pretended to be "official" today.
>
> Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
> ke...@anasoft.co.uk
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!", a currently
free
> GUI xspice, unlimited component, mixed-mode Windows simulator with
Schematic
> Capture, waveform display, FFT's and Filter Design.
> Opinions of my employer are not necessarily indicative of my own
> Oscillators don't, amplifiers do"
>
>
--
Jim Carr
in message news:901s5b$26$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
}
} Since relativity makes no claim to reality, ...
In article <j30V5.19540$IP1.5...@news1.giganews.com>
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> writes:
>
>With this lie as the first line, why should we read your post?
Why, to wonder at the marvelous illogic of your response to
the wrong half of the sentence. ;-) Sure, "relativity"
(being a theory and incapable of speech, let alone having
an account on the internet) only states a relationship between
some assumptions and some predictions, leaving it up to those
who can read and write and cipher to realize that its predictions
agree with real experiments in its domain of applicability to the
limits of experimental data.
His error was in making the illogical "deduction" (expressed in
the form of a question without a question mark) implied by his
second clause: "... what is the beef of relativity denying reality."
That does not follow from his first clause, nor from anything I
can imagine regarding experimental tests of SR.
} There can be (and are) certain theories that extend beyond the limited
} scope of "the relativity theory" and can be proven in their own context
} to be better than your relativity.
>False. Prove it using scientific evidence.
Well, General Relativity might be one of them. ;-)
But I agree that his list will be interesting, particularly the
list of experiments that disagree with "relativity".
--
James Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
"The half of knowledge is knowing where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Motto over the entrance to Dodd Hall, former library at FSCW.
DLZC
>> There is _no_ thermodynamic explanation of clocks reading slow, as
>far as I
>> am aware, that is why no one is presenting one. In S.R. the simplest
>> "explanation" of why the clocks reads slow is that a relatively
>moving clock
>> takes a "longer" path then the stationary one.
>
>This is not a thermodynamic explanation. Longer space-time path itself
>means nothing unless we know some things affect the clock rate while
>travelling. I'd understand, for example, if there is some sort of
>resistance when a clock looses some energy - this is typical
>thermodynamic dissipation. I just asking people here what phenomena
>causes this dissipation.
Thermodynamics is a little weak on 'mechanism'. It provides that things must
occur, not very much as to 'why'. The effect you seek is a little like the
trip was through a cooling process. Quartz clocks will run slower (???) if
their temperature is run low.
>It's easy in Minkovsky's 4-space.
>
>Why the speed of light is constant is not addressed in S.R.
Right, not addressed. Simply asserted as the basis for derivation. SR came
about because of this assertion.
What do you mean by not addressed?
David A. Smith
Factually Challenged
Paul Colby
wrote in message news:911ij3$ekh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[Soliton]
> > > People, now I starting to understand why it is so difficult to
> > > obtain an answer on a question in this news group. Posters
> > > prefer do not read carefully what you are asking rather trying
> > > to show how smart they are in general or even worse swearing
> > > (see first 10 messages). My keyboard has tired to type the
> > > same question again and again...
> > >
> > > Let me highlight I am looking for _thermodynamic_ explanation
> > > of the effect of slowing a clock after the second clock has
> > > travelled and return (FAQ on this I have read, no thermodynamic
> > > answer found).
This is good because there is none.
> > > As travelled clock shows less elapsed time, from thermodynamic
> > > viewpoint it means there was a dissipation effect which cause the
> > > time run rate as intensity factor to slow down (like a heated body
> > > loosing some heat when travelled among the cooler ones). I am
> > > asking what force, energy or matter outflow cause this time dilation?
> > >
There is no force since your assertion that there is a heat loss is faulty.
> > > Let's threat a clock as thermodynamic system which has
> > > extensivity (mass and momentum) and intensivity (velocity
> > > and time run rate) factors.
> > >
> > > I value the answers operated with thermodynamic categories.
> > >
Why? Such answers are incorrect.
Regards
Paul Colby
Soliton
dl...@aol.com (DLZC) wrote:
> Dear Soliton:
>
> >> There is _no_ thermodynamic explanation of clocks reading slow, as
> >far as I
> >> am aware, that is why no one is presenting one. In S.R. the
simplest
> >> "explanation" of why the clocks reads slow is that a relatively
> >moving clock
> >> takes a "longer" path then the stationary one.
> >
> >This is not a thermodynamic explanation. Longer space-time path
itself
> >means nothing unless we know some things affect the clock rate while
> >travelling. I'd understand, for example, if there is some sort of
> >resistance when a clock looses some energy - this is typical
> >thermodynamic dissipation. I just asking people here what phenomena
> >causes this dissipation.
>
> Thermodynamics is a little weak on 'mechanism'. It provides that
things must
> occur, not very much as to 'why'.
Totally agree with you - it is phenomenological theory. But anyway it
can predict many interesting things. For example, there must be
external dissipation effect and appropriate force (or better motive
force) affecting the time run rate of accelerated clock.
The effect you seek is a little like the
> trip was through a cooling process. Quartz clocks will run slower
(???) if
> their temperature is run low.
I am not considering temperature a such trying to understand what
physical process is responsible for clocks to slow down while
accellerating.
>
> >It's easy in Minkovsky's 4-space.
> >
> >Why the speed of light is constant is not addressed in S.R.
>
> Right, not addressed. Simply asserted as the basis for derivation.
SR came
> about because of this assertion.
>
> What do you mean by not addressed?
This is Kevin's phrase. But I agree - SR just state c constancy as a
property of space-time. Thermodynamics can explain why it is, and I
obtained appropriate equations.
David, do you have any answers on my question in Msg 77?
>
> David A. Smith
> Factually Challenged
>
>
--
Soliton
"Paul Colby" <paulc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Soliton" <Sergei....@compaq.com>
> wrote in message news:911ij3$ekh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> [Soliton]
> > > > People, now I starting to understand why it is so difficult to
> > > > obtain an answer on a question in this news group. Posters
> > > > prefer do not read carefully what you are asking rather trying
> > > > to show how smart they are in general or even worse swearing
> > > > (see first 10 messages). My keyboard has tired to type the
> > > > same question again and again...
> > > >
> > > > Let me highlight I am looking for _thermodynamic_ explanation
> > > > of the effect of slowing a clock after the second clock has
> > > > travelled and return (FAQ on this I have read, no thermodynamic
> > > > answer found).
>
> This is good because there is none.
150-50 years ago thermodynamics was a science about heat and
thermoeffects. Gibbs, Onsager and Prigogine made thermodynamics as a
science about the generalised laws of nature studing interrelations
between different physical phenomena. Many existing field theories
follows the laws of generalised thermodynamics (energy and extensor
conservation, state, symmetry, transfer, reciprocity and dissipation),
including relativistic mechanics. That's why I don't agree with your
answer about there is no thermodynamic explanation of twin clock
paradox. You probably consider thermodynamics as thermo-science...
>
> > > > As travelled clock shows less elapsed time, from thermodynamic
> > > > viewpoint it means there was a dissipation effect which cause
the
> > > > time run rate as intensity factor to slow down (like a heated
body
> > > > loosing some heat when travelled among the cooler ones). I am
> > > > asking what force, energy or matter outflow cause this time
dilation?
> > > >
>
> There is no force since your assertion that there is a heat loss is
faulty.
Please read carefully - I told "LIKE" to involve analogy. There must be
another (not termal) dissipation effect (I have personal opinion which
one, but looking for physisist's advice) causing intensial (time run
rate) to decrease.
>
> > > > Let's threat a clock as thermodynamic system which has
> > > > extensivity (mass and momentum) and intensivity (velocity
> > > > and time run rate) factors.
> > > >
> > > > I value the answers operated with thermodynamic categories.
> > > >
>
> Why? Such answers are incorrect.
Only on your opinion as you probably treat thermodynamic categories
as "heat" categories. Let me repeat again last paragraph:
"Let's threat a clock as thermodynamic system which has
extensivity (mass and momentum) and intensivity (velocity and time run
rate) factors."
Buy the way, let me recommend Tolman, "Relativistic thermodynamics and
cosmology", Dover (199?) where you can find how effectively generalised
thermodynamics can be applied for SR and GR.
>
> Regards
> Paul Colby
Soliton
John, I am refering to twin paradox. Or you are not agree that 2 clocks
shows different elapsed time when one has travelled for a while? If no,
read FAQ.
Jim Carr
Soliton <Sergei....@compaq.com> writes:
>
>Fellows, could you please stop swearing and help me to understand What
>causes the time to slow down.
What you need to understand is that proper time does not slow down.
That is an etherist view of reality, not the relativistic one.
DLZC
>David, do you have any answers on my question in Msg 77?
No. I do not see that the question can have an answer. You ask for 'method'
and 'thermodynamics' in the same breath. Thermo does not work that way.
Method comes from other sciences. Thermo provides direction and that is about
it. Rates come from chemistry and physics. You have declined both.
Soliton
dl...@aol.com (DLZC) wrote:
> Dear Soliton:
>
> >David, do you have any answers on my question in Msg 77?
>
> No. I do not see that the question can have an answer.
Sure is. There must be a dissipation factor responsible for slowing of
a clock travelling in space-time in comparison with twin at rest. Which
one?
You ask for 'method'
> and 'thermodynamics' in the same breath. Thermo does not work that
way.
> Method comes from other sciences. Thermo provides direction and that
is about
> it. Rates come from chemistry and physics.
OK. I am asking you _physical_ explanation of question above.
You (me?) have declined (?) both (?).
>
> David A. Smith
> Factually Challenged
>
>
--
DLZC
>There must be a dissipation factor responsible for slowing of
>a clock travelling in space-time in comparison with twin at rest.
There is not one in the physical sciences. Friction will slow a clock, but the
energy loss is one way. Chilling a 'chemical clock' will slow its aging
process (the little chemical "lights" can be stored in the freezer after
activation, and all but the blue ones turn off completely until thawed).
Is this what you mean by dissipation factor?
Paul Colby
"Soliton" <Sergei....@compaq.com>
wrote in message news:913h9q$4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<cut>
>
> 150-50 years ago thermodynamics was a science
> about heat and thermoeffects. Gibbs, Onsager and
> Prigogine made thermodynamics as a science about
> the generalised laws of nature studing interrelations
> between different physical phenomena. Many existing
> field theories follows the laws of generalised
> thermodynamics (energy and extensor conservation,
>state, symmetry, transfer, reciprocity and dissipation),
> including relativistic mechanics. That's why I don't
> agree with your answer about there is no thermodynamic
> explanation of twin clock paradox. You probably
> consider thermodynamics as thermo-science...
>
In actual fact I view Thermodynamics as an off shoot of
statictical mechanics even though it was introduced before
Boltzman did his thing. When I look at the subject a see
an unusually clear and complelling science based of some
very simple principles like F=ma and in complicated systems
the most likely thing happens. All of statictical reasoning,
the phenomena and so on is absent from relativity time
dilation.
>
> Please read carefully - I told "LIKE" to involve analogy.
> There must be another (not termal) dissipation effect
> (I have personal opinion which one, but looking for
> physisist's advice) causing intensial (time run rate) to
> decrease.
Hey, I did read carefully. People are disagreeing
with you because what you'd LIKE is incorrect
not because they can't read or want to show how
bright they are.
Look, I have a Ph.D. in physics and in the past I've done
some. My take is you are barking up the wrong tree. I
advise that you think a bit about your idea, especially in
regard to multiple observers looking at say the sun. Let
one observer speed up toward the sun. He will see the
entire sun cool down while the other will not. Attributing
this cooling down to some dissipative influence acting on
the sun is lunacy (or is that sunacy?)
Regards
Paul Colby
Gerry Quinn
>In article <9044h1$r2m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>Soliton <Sergei....@compaq.com> writes:
>>
>>Fellows, could you please stop swearing and help me to understand What
>>causes the time to slow down.
>
> What you need to understand is that proper time does not slow down.
> That is an etherist view of reality, not the relativistic one.
>
To elaborate slightly:
1. Aetherists believe that proper time slows with respect to absolute
time.
2. Relativists deny absolute time. They would say, however, that the
proper time of A as measured by B slows down, and vice versa (that of B
also slows as measured by A, if A and B are in relative motion).
3. Crackpots believe proper time slows with respect to itself.
4. There are those with a coherent theory of certain physical processes
may not be subject to special relativity, and a somewhat reasonable
explanation of why these don't seem to affect stuff in the lab. These
should probably count as aetherists, but usually are not so labelled...
With regard to explanations:
1. Some aetherists certainly have different views. My own
semi-aetheristic view is that the fundamental components of all matter
must be massless, and all processes involve at root the exchange of such
components. Then everything is effectively composed of light clocks.
[There are those who assert that this version is relativity under a
different name - I wouldn't go so far, but it is close insofar as it
makes no assumptions about the physical nature of the aether other than
its physicality and its Galilean geometry. One could say that it leaves
open the door to aether interpretations rather than actually being one.]
2. Relativists put it down to spacetime geometry. But it's the geometry
of something that is nothing. I'll leave it to the relativists to sort
that one out for you.
3. The views of crackpots are heterogeneous.
4. I don't find these convincing unless the processes involved are very
weak or very energetic. Fact is, relativity works very well in the lab.
- Gerry Quinn
Tom Roberts
> Let me highlight I am looking for _thermodynamic_ explanation of the
> effect of slowing a clock after the second clock has travelled and
> return (FAQ on this I have read, no thermodynamic answer found).
One problem with seeking a "thermodynamic" explanation is that there is
not one, in general. This is a purely geometrical effect, in the context
of SR and GR -- thermodynamics is not involved.
If I drive directly from Chicago to New York and you drive Chicago
to New Orleans to New York, what "thermodynamic" reason is there
for our odometers having different readings?
> As
> travelled clock shows less elapsed time, from thermodynamic viewpoint
> it means there was a dissipation effect [...]
No. There could be a _geometric_ effect. And SR/GR says there was.
BTW it is a misnomer to claim the travelling clock "slowed down". Yes,
it shows less elapsed time for its trip than does its inertial twin,
but "slower" is a _comparison_, and one must be _VERY_ careful when
using it, because one must specify to what one is comparing, and how.
As the two clocks do not remain collocated, it is not possible to
directly compare them, and one finds that any method of comparison
has drawbacks.... It is best to not attempt to use such a comparison
(e.g. different methods of comparison can yield different answers, and
one gets different answers for the seemingly-identical outbound and
return legs, and....).
> which cause the time run rate
> as intensity factor to slow down (like a heated body loosing some heat
> when travelled among the cooler ones). I am asking what force, energy
> or matter outflow cause this time dilation?
Time is not heat, and there is no "force" involved at all. There is
_geometry_.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Soliton
"Paul Colby" <paulc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> "Soliton" <Sergei....@compaq.com>
> wrote in message news:913h9q$4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> <cut>
>
> >
> > 150-50 years ago thermodynamics was a science
> > about heat and thermoeffects. Gibbs, Onsager and
> > Prigogine made thermodynamics as a science about
> > the generalised laws of nature studing interrelations
> > between different physical phenomena. Many existing
> > field theories follows the laws of generalised
> > thermodynamics (energy and extensor conservation,
> >state, symmetry, transfer, reciprocity and dissipation),
> > including relativistic mechanics. That's why I don't
> > agree with your answer about there is no thermodynamic
> > explanation of twin clock paradox. You probably
> > consider thermodynamics as thermo-science...
> >
>
> In actual fact I view Thermodynamics as an off shoot of
> statictical mechanics even though it was introduced before
> Boltzman did his thing.
Paul, this was ages ago. Now generalised thermodynamics is a science of
general laws in nature with (energy and extensor conservation,
state, symmetry, transfer, reciprocity and dissipation) applicable in
many-many sciences. Thermodynamicians Onsager and later Prigogine
became a Nobel Prize winners extending thermodynamics far beyond
statistical interpretation of thermal motion of molecules. I agree it
is not self-sufficient science as some laws (for example, state law
linking intensials and extensors) come from physics.
When I look at the subject
what subject?
a see
> an unusually clear and complelling science based of some
> very simple principles like F=ma and in complicated systems
> the most likely thing happens. All of statictical reasoning,
> the phenomena and so on is absent from relativity time
> dilation.
>
> >
> > Please read carefully - I told "LIKE" to involve analogy.
> > There must be another (not termal) dissipation effect
> > (I have personal opinion which one, but looking for
> > physisist's advice) causing intensial (time run rate) to
> > decrease.
>
> Hey, I did read carefully. People are disagreeing
> with you because what you'd LIKE is incorrect
> not because they can't read or want to show how
> bright they are.
> Look, I have a Ph.D. in physics and in the past I've done
> some.
I respect your degree and knowledge. I've got two PhDs, but not in
physics. That's why I am seeking physicist's advice on my question.
My take is you are barking up the wrong tree. I
> advise that you think a bit about your idea, especially in
> regard to multiple observers looking at say the sun. Let
> one observer speed up toward the sun. He will see the
> entire sun cool down while the other will not. Attributing
> this cooling down to some dissipative influence acting on
> the sun is lunacy (or is that sunacy?)
Let me remind again I am looking for explanation of twin clock paradox
(what dissipation force caused one clock to show less elapsed time
after travelling), not time dilation when observer views moving clocks.
Please see threads above about my question.
Paul Colby
"Soliton" <Sergei....@compaq.com>
wrote in message news:9166nc$5jn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
It's clear your degrees aren't in physics. Just because there has
been advancement in a field doesn't mean that the "old"
interpretations are outdated or even changed. The underlying
physics in all of the above (with the exception of quantum
mechanics which introduces important *new* phenomena
such as wave function symmetries) is the same as or follows
from what was true in Boltzman's day, just more advanced.
The "trap" you've fallen into is a common one for people who
manipulate formalisms without bearing in mind the
underlying ideas. You're by no means alone in this regard.
Hawking radiation and the relation between thermodynamics
and black holes is touted as real science. I for one will not
think of it in these terms until a real connection is drawn
between the phenomena and some form of consistent
statistical mechanics type argument. Failing this connection
the analogy is simply fortuitous. At best they've gotten the
right answer for the wrong reasons.
> I agree it is not self-sufficient science as some laws
> (for example, state law linking intensials and extensors)
> come from physics.
>
This may be big where you're from.
> When I look at the subject
>
> what subject?
>
Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics
The answer to your question is; there is no dissipative force
in the phenomena of which you speak. Your question is
meaningless quite independent of how many Noble prizes
have been awarded to Onsager and Prigogine.
Regards
Paul Colby
Soliton
> > In article <y8hZ5.61361
Paul, agree, let Onsager to sleep quietly.
If there is no dissipative force or process, what is? What is your
explanation of twin clock paradox?
Soliton
Tom Roberts <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote:
> Soliton wrote:
> > Let me highlight I am looking for _thermodynamic_ explanation of the
> > effect of slowing a clock after the second clock has travelled and
> > return (FAQ on this I have read, no thermodynamic answer found).
>
> One problem with seeking a "thermodynamic" explanation is that there
is
> not one, in general. This is a purely geometrical effect, in the
context
> of SR and GR -- thermodynamics is not involved.
>
> If I drive directly from Chicago to New York and you drive
Chicago
> to New Orleans to New York, what "thermodynamic" reason is there
> for our odometers having different readings?
>
> > As
> > travelled clock shows less elapsed time, from thermodynamic
viewpoint
> > it means there was a dissipation effect [...]
>
> No. There could be a _geometric_ effect. And SR/GR says there was.
>
> BTW it is a misnomer to claim the travelling clock "slowed down". Yes,
> it shows less elapsed time for its trip than does its inertial twin,
> but "slower" is a _comparison_, and one must be _VERY_ careful when
> using it, because one must specify to what one is comparing, and how.
As far as I know, these experiments already done, and comparison made.
> As the two clocks do not remain collocated, it is not possible to
> directly compare them, and one finds that any method of comparison
> has drawbacks.... It is best to not attempt to use such a comparison
> (e.g. different methods of comparison can yield different answers,
and
> one gets different answers for the seemingly-identical outbound and
> return legs, and....).
I agree, direct comparison when moving are controversial. But according
to twin paraxox, the clocks are to be compared after one has travelled,
and both clocks are in rest.
>
> > which cause the time run rate
> > as intensity factor to slow down (like a heated body loosing some
heat
> > when travelled among the cooler ones). I am asking what force,
energy
> > or matter outflow cause this time dilation?
>
> Time is not heat, and there is no "force" involved at all. There is
> _geometry_.
This is not satisfactory as the state of the system can only be change
either by supplying matter (or better, extensors) or energy. There is
no physical way of _geometry_ as abstract mathematical concept to
affect clock rate. I'd understand if you tell, for example, while
moving in 4D a clock is affected by 4D momentum-energy (which causes
change of space-time geometry) while resting twin clock is not. In this
case elapsed time difference is explainable in physical (and
thermodynamic) way.
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Paul Colby
"Soliton" <Sergei....@compaq.com>
wrote in message news:918ngh$8fm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<cut>
> If there is no dissipative force or process, what is?
> What is your explanation of twin clock paradox?
>
It depends on what you mean by explanation. If you
buy relativity and the constancy of the speed of light
as fundamental properties governing the nature of
things then the explanation is found in terms of the
a careful relativistic analysis of the two clocks. If you
are asking what is behind relativity or what causes light
speed to be a constant then I can't claim to know. This
would not be an empty question. Why are Maxwell's
equations the way they are? I only know they are the
way they are and that's in part why clocks behave
the way they do.
Regards
Paul Colby
Regards
Paul Colby
Tom Roberts
> I agree, direct comparison when moving are controversial. But according
> to twin paraxox, the clocks are to be compared after one has travelled,
> and both clocks are in rest.
OK. So one can say the travelling clock showed a smaller elapsed time
than the inertial clock. But one can NOT say "it had a slower rate".
This is because the word "rate" is a ratio, and there is no independent
standard with which to take the ratio.
And, of course, in SR the intrinsic rate of each clock remains
unchanged, even though the travelling clock displays less elapsed
time.
> > Time is not heat, and there is no "force" involved at all. There is
> > _geometry_.
> This is not satisfactory as the state of the system can only be change
> either by supplying matter (or better, extensors) or energy.
We are not discussing any abstract "state of the system", we are
discussing the elapsed times displayed by the clocks. If you are going
to try to define "states of the system" you need to include the inner
workings of the clocks, and will get hopelessly bogged down in minutiae.
Yes, one did add energy to the system in order to make the
travelling clock make its journey, but that does not seem to
be what you are talking about.
> There is
> no physical way of _geometry_ as abstract mathematical concept to
> affect clock rate.
Perhaps not. But clocks are inherently geometrical measuring devices, and
are sensitive to the geometrical influences upon their measurements. Just
like rulers. What "physical" effect makes rulers laid in a triangle show
two different path lengths between a given pair of vertices? The twin
scenario is just a triangle laid out in the X-T plane rather than the
rulers laid out in the X-Y plane. _BOTH_ triangles are merely geometrical
figures, and there is no mystery at all why one obtains different lengths
for one side of a triangle compared to the sum of the other two sides.
This _IS_ best explained via geometry, and attempting to seek a "physical"
"cause" is hopeless.
As I have said so often around here, this last is an attempt to
apply a naive definition of "causality" to physics. No modern
physical theory adheres to that naive meaning -- it is at best
an approximation (but a very good one in our daily lives).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Soliton
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Soliton wrote:
> > I agree, direct comparison when moving are controversial. But
according
> > to twin paraxox, the clocks are to be compared after one has
travelled,
> > and both clocks are in rest.
>
> OK. So one can say the travelling clock showed a smaller elapsed time
> than the inertial clock. But one can NOT say "it had a slower rate".
Why actually not? What's wrong assuming your clocks show less elapsed
time because of slower rate while you travelling and I am sleeping?
> This is because the word "rate" is a ratio, and there is no
independent
> standard with which to take the ratio.
1) I agree, rate might not have "absolute" meaning, only relative to
something. For example, I can say your computer running faster than
mine.
2) Regardless of standard can't we assume your and my (identical)
clocks are making the same number of cycles, but because of you
travelling the frequency of your clocks is less?
>
> And, of course, in SR the intrinsic rate of each clock remains
> unchanged, even though the travelling clock displays less
elapsed
> time.
Could you explain more?
>
> > > Time is not heat, and there is no "force" involved at all.
Who knows... In boiled water looks like the processes running faster...
Time run rate is not, but might be related with temperature, according
to some thermodynamic theories...
There is
> > > _geometry_.
I (and generalised thermodynamics) can't accept it until you show me
the energy or matter. I'd understand if you telling "There is _mass_"
which defines _geometry_ (more exactly the possible trajectories of
light) which defines clock rate. This is materialistic view of the
world.
> > This is not satisfactory as the state of the system can only be
change
> > either by supplying matter (or better, extensors) or energy.
>
> We are not discussing any abstract "state of the system",
As a state I understand general thermodynamic state law expressing
intensials via extensors.
we are
> discussing the elapsed times displayed by the clocks. If you are going
> to try to define "states of the system" you need to include the inner
> workings of the clocks, and will get hopelessly bogged down in
minutiae.
>
> Yes, one did add energy to the system in order to make the
> travelling clock make its journey, but that does not seem to
> be what you are talking about.
Yes, that's what I am talking about! My thermodynamical understanding
is adding an energy (or better momentum) to a clock inevitably change
their intencials causing clock to change their velocity and time run
rate. Please forget thermo- in thermodynamics as we are not talking
about heat.
>
> > There is
> > no physical way of _geometry_ as abstract mathematical concept to
> > affect clock rate.
>
> Perhaps not. But clocks are inherently geometrical measuring devices,
and
> are sensitive to the geometrical influences upon their measurements.
Just
> like rulers. What "physical" effect makes rulers laid in a triangle
show
> two different path lengths between a given pair of vertices? The twin
> scenario is just a triangle laid out in the X-T plane rather than the
> rulers laid out in the X-Y plane. _BOTH_ triangles are merely
geometrical
> figures, and there is no mystery at all why one obtains different
lengths
> for one side of a triangle compared to the sum of the other two sides.
> This _IS_ best explained via geometry, and attempting to seek
a "physical"
> "cause" is hopeless.
Difficult to argue... But let's better return to our "simple" case.
Let's assume I don't know geometry but do know what if the laws of
energy and matter conservation, intensials and extensors, state law,
resistances, flows, dissipation and forces. Don't tell me I can't
describe the twin paradox within this categories only. Generalised
thermodynamics is "generalised" because of capable (in conjunction with
physics) to describe almost everyting.
>
> As I have said so often around here, this last is an attempt to
> apply a naive definition of "causality" to physics.
This is dialectic materialism. Let's do not dig down to uncertainty at
the moment (buy the way, I am reading now "End of certainty" by Nobel
Prize I.Prigogine).
No modern
> physical theory adheres to that naive meaning -- it is at best
> an approximation (but a very good one in our daily lives).
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom, thanks very much for your interesting thoughts. I see its very
good people discussing things from different positions.
What I am interested in is understanding the bridge between generalised
thermodynamics and relativity. I invite you to take part in new
thread "Thermodynamics ang relativity".
Soliton
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: This is not satisfactory as the state of the system can only be
> :: change either by supplying matter (or better, extensors) or
energy.
>
> : Yes, one did add energy to the system in order to make the
travelling
> : clock make its journey, but that does not seem to be what you are
> : talking about.
>
> constructed without actually accelerating or "adding energy" to
> ANY of the clocks involved. (All you need is three clocks).
Wayne, could you explain more?
>
> : And, of course, in SR the intrinsic rate of each clock remains
> : unchanged, even though the travelling clock displays less elapsed
> : time.
>
> Yes, the distinction between the ratio of elapsed times and the ratio
of
> rates is crucial to keep in mind. Consider: let's take the elapsed
> reading on a clock e-sub-clockname, and the time it took to accumulate
> that elapsed time reading as t-sub-clockname. Specifically for clock
A,
> e(A) and t(A) respectively. Then the ratio of elapsed time is e(A)
> compared to e(B) (or for the unaccelerated case, e(a) compared to
> e(b)+e(C)). But the ratio of rates is e(A)/t(A) comapred to e(B)/t
(B).
> And there's no guarantee that t(A)=t(B), even if we are considering
the
> time between the same two events for A as for B.
>
> And this is no different than the analogous situation for odometers,
> where e(X) is an odometer reading, and t(X) is the distance traveled
> by odometer X, even if two odometers travel between the same two
points.
>
> In SR for the twin paradox, the ratio (e(A)/t(A))/(e(B)/t(B)) is 1,
> but the ratio e(A)/e(B) can be as large as you like.
>
> There's only a question of "dissipation" being necessary for e(A)/e(B)
> being other than one, if t(A)/t(B) is guaranteed to be one. And it's
not.
Wayne, it was very useful. But I still in doubt.
Let's consider everything from the viewpoint of my rest clock. We've
been sitting together (in Sydney), you flew away (to US) and come back
in a year. From my point t(A)=(t(B)) in moment of comparison, but e(A)
> e(B). I conclude your clocks lost a pace. It means you clocks been
affected by something material (not geometry, please). By what?
>
> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> "He's not just a Galaxy Ranger... he's a Super-Trooper!"
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > OK. So one can say the travelling clock showed a smaller elapsed time
> > than the inertial clock. But one can NOT say "it had a slower rate".
> Why actually not? What's wrong assuming your clocks show less elapsed
> time because of slower rate while you travelling and I am sleeping?
Oh, you can _ASSUME_ it, but you cannot _CONCLUDE_ it. And before making
such an _ASSUMPTION_ you had better show that it does not conflict with
the rest of the theory. But before you can do that, you must specify your
assumption precisely enough so such a conflict can be determined, and you
will find it difficult to define it precisely enough....
The problem is: what do you mean by "rate". As I said before,
a rate is _inherently_ a ratio, and you have no standard with
which to make such a ratio.
Basically, if you make such an assumption, you will end up with an
additional assumption which is either inconsistent with the rest of the
theory, or which is of no use whatsoever (because it is completely
determined by the requirement of being consistent with the rest of the
theory). Why bother?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Soliton
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> Soliton wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > > OK. So one can say the travelling clock showed a smaller elapsed
time
> > > than the inertial clock. But one can NOT say "it had a slower
rate".
> > Why actually not? What's wrong assuming your clocks show less
elapsed
> > time because of slower rate while you travelling and I am sleeping?
>
> Oh, you can _ASSUME_ it, but you cannot _CONCLUDE_ it. And before
making
> such an _ASSUMPTION_ you had better show that it does not conflict
with
> the rest of the theory.
Making this assumption what am I contradicting with (in terms of SR,GR)?
But before you can do that, you must specify your
> assumption precisely enough so such a conflict can be determined, and
you
> will find it difficult to define it precisely enough....
Speaking about rate I understand we have to refer to "relative" rate.
In a case of twin clocks I can conclude that your clocks rate less than
mine because after your travel your clocks show less elapsed time (I
assume again? the number of cycles are the same for two clocks).
Could you make alternative conclusion?
>
> The problem is: what do you mean by "rate". As I said before,
> a rate is _inherently_ a ratio, and you have no standard with
> which to make such a ratio.
>
> Basically, if you make such an assumption, you will end up with an
> additional assumption which is either inconsistent with the rest of
the
> theory, or which is of no use whatsoever (because it is completely
> determined by the requirement of being consistent with the rest of the
> theory). Why bother?
Tom, I am looking for answers, not questions :)
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Making this assumption what am I contradicting with (in terms of SR,GR)?
You have not yet given what assumption you want to make; you have only
said "time rate slows down". You need to specify _how_ it slows down
(i.e. an expression for clock rate as a function of velocity). And to
do that you will need to specify wrt what is the velocity measured.
To be consistent with SR you will find that you need to specify some
inertial frame to be the standard wrt which velocity is measured, and
the formula for clock rate as a function of velocity wrt that frame
will have to be 1/gamma. This, incidentally, is basically what LET does.
As I said before, this assumption is superfluous becuase it is completely
determined by the requirement to be consistent with SR.
> Speaking about rate I understand we have to refer to "relative" rate.
> In a case of twin clocks I can conclude that your clocks rate less than
> mine because after your travel your clocks show less elapsed time (I
> assume again? the number of cycles are the same for two clocks).
> Could you make alternative conclusion?
Sure. I conclude that the intrinsic clock rates remain unchanged, but
that the total elapsed time shown on each clock was determined by its
path through spacetime. That is how SR interprets this. Note this is
quite similar to the Euclidean interpretation of odometers travelling
along the sides of a triangle -- the "odometer rate" is constant and
unchanging (i.e. its change-in-display-value/distance-travelled), but
the total distance displayed on an odometer depends upon its path
through 3-space.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jim Carr
... appropriate newsgroup added with followups there ...
In article <90kh5i$far$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Soliton <Sergei....@compaq.com> writes:
>
>Difficult to talk to you, but anyway... maybe it's my fault.
It is clearly your fault, since here you don't even identify
who you are talking to or what s/he said. [I can tell from
the threading info, but that is hardly the point.] IMO it is
also your fault that you are "talking" in the wrong newsgroup.
>Let's start again, if you wish.
You are "starting" in a newsgroup where you topic is off-topic,
and you are discussing a subject that is covered in the Relativity
FAQ without indicating if you have read it and which of the half
dozen explanations you are objecting to, if any.
>2 sinchronised clocks.
You are misusing a technical term here, since one of your clocks
is presumably in motion. Be careful.
>One is travelling for 10 years and return back.
>Compare. Find a travelling clock shows less elapsed time (twin paradox).
>
>What causes this discrepancy?
The answer you were already given: the world line for one of them
shows a "longer" integrated proper time. Read the FAQ or the
answers you were already given.
Note that your not liking the answer does not make the answer
either wrong or inappropriate.
>Let's try to analyse this problem from
>general thermodynamic point of view.
Why? Thermodynamics has assumptions about coordinate systems
already built into it. The only question is whether one or
the other system is around for a longer proper time.
>I am asking what generalised forces and extensor
>(thermodynamic parameters following a law of conservation) flows can
>cause clocks to show less time than a twin.
None are needed, as has been explained to you already. The clock
that shows less time was running for a shorter proper time than the
other one. Read the FAQ, which has the advantage of drawings, or
look at some of Wayne Throop's excellent analogies, which also have
drawings (better ones than the FAQ, IMO).
Jim Carr
in message news:910st7$ud5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
}
} People, now I starting to understand why it is so difficult to obtain
Note well that you may have gotten an answer but not realized
it because you did not like it. That happened to be the case
when you read Kevin Aylward's reply below.
} Let me highlight I am looking for _thermodynamic_ explanation of the
} effect of slowing a clock after the second clock has travelled and
} return (FAQ on this I have read, no thermodynamic answer found). As
} travelled clock shows less elapsed time, from thermodynamic viewpoint
} it means there was a dissipation effect which cause the time run rate
} as intensity factor to slow down (like a heated body loosing some heat
} when travelled among the cooler ones).
I'll inteject right here that this is the statement Kevin was
commenting on, by pointing out that you failed to consider the
possibility that the different thermodynamic state of the clock
*could* be because it ran for a shorter period of proper time,
rather than there being some new force showing up.
} I am asking what force, energy
} or matter outflow cause this time dilation?
}
} Let's threat a clock as thermodynamic system which has extensivity
} (mass and momentum) and intensivity (velocity and time run rate)
} factors.
}
} I value the answers operated with thermodynamic categories.
In article <H8UY5.12253$x6.68...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>
"Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com> writes:
>
>There is _no_ thermodynamic explanation of clocks reading slow, as far as I
>am aware, that is why no one is presenting one. In S.R. the simplest
>"explanation" of why the clocks reads slow is that a relatively moving clock
>takes a "longer" path then the stationary one.
Very good. I *am* impressed. You may be tied up in knots over some
things, but you have this general concept under control. What you
needed to do to make your reply clearer to Sergei (aka Soliton) was
to tie it to his implicit assumption that time is absolute up above.
>Why the path is "longer" is a
>direct mathematical consequence of the speed of light always being a
>constant.
Better to say invariant, and you might think of it being
the other way around: the invariance is a result of this
property of space-time.
>Why the speed of light is constant is not addressed in S.R. It
>just is.
The word is, again, invariant (to distinquish constancy in
space and time in one coordinate system, with the possibility
that it is constant with a different value in another inertial
coordinate system, from having the same value in both systems).
One might also add that experiment seems to be consistent
with this invariance assumption (or derivation, depending
on how you approach the derivation of SR).
Jim Carr
dl...@aol.com (DLZC) wrote:
}
} Thermodynamics is a little weak on 'mechanism'. It provides that
} things must occur, not very much as to 'why'.
In article <913f9a$u82$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Soliton <Sergei....@compaq.com> writes:
>
>Totally agree with you - it is phenomenological theory. But anyway it
>can predict many interesting things.
Yes, but what you fail to notice and DLZC failed to remind you
is that thermodynamics has a _time_ variable in it. Thus it
is built on the space-time you assume, not vice versa.
Kevin Aylward
"Jim Carr" <j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:92165v$d62$1...@news.fsu.edu...
> In article <H8UY5.12253$x6.68...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>
> "Kevin Aylward" <kevinan...@home.com> writes:
> >
> >There is _no_ thermodynamic explanation of clocks reading slow, as far as
I
> >am aware, that is why no one is presenting one. In S.R. the simplest
> >"explanation" of why the clocks reads slow is that a relatively moving
clock
> >takes a "longer" path then the stationary one.
>
> Very good. I *am* impressed. You may be tied up in knots over some
> things, but you have this general concept under control. What you
> needed to do to make your reply clearer to Sergei (aka Soliton) was
> to tie it to his implicit assumption that time is absolute up above.
>
> >Why the path is "longer" is a
> >direct mathematical consequence of the speed of light always being a
> >constant.
>
> Better to say invariant, and you might think of it being
> the other way around: the invariance is a result of this
> property of space-time.
>
> >Why the speed of light is constant is not addressed in S.R. It
> >just is.
>
> The word is, again, invariant (to distinquish constancy in
> space and time in one coordinate system, with the possibility
> that it is constant with a different value in another inertial
> coordinate system, from having the same value in both systems).
The way I currently "think" about what is happening is that a clock is
covering more time as it moves, so to speak. A moving object is effectively
moving into the future at a faster rate, e.g. covering more "time" at a rate
of foe example, 10sec/sec, this is what the net effect of one twin aging
less means. He is traveling into the future, faster wrt to the "stationary"
one. So his clock never slows, its reading the correct time, but covering
more of it. In a similar manner a moving object is covering more "distance"
This is why I thing the invariant distances associated with time and space
as the key bit. The "real distance" is the hypotenuse's on the space-time
diagram, which can be projected to each observer to give an illusion of
contraction/dilation fo both observers.
However, if one does not expand ones concept of what distance means in a 4 d
sense, I don't see how one can ague that more time or distance is covered at
all. I think proper length is a bit of an illusion in as much as an
invariant proper length does not really explain the rod paradox on its own,
only a 4 d length does, i.e. ends in differant points in time or
equivalently the relativity of simultaneity.
Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
ke...@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice "Cheap, No Shit!", a currently free
GUI xspice, unlimited component, mixed-mode Windows simulator with Schematic
Capture, waveform display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Opinions of my employer are not necessarily indicative of my own
Oscillators don't, amplifiers do"
Jim Carr
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) writes:
>
<... snip some interesting comments ...>
>
>1. Some aetherists certainly have different views. My own
>semi-aetheristic view is that the fundamental components of all matter
>must be massless, and all processes involve at root the exchange of such
>components.
That could be called string theory, which is a covariant
(relativistic) theory without an ether.
>2. Relativists put it down to spacetime geometry. But it's the geometry
>of something that is nothing. I'll leave it to the relativists to sort
>that one out for you.
Why? Is there no geometry at all in the model you would use? AFAICT,
every theory -- etherist or relativistic -- has a geometry and has
attributed some observable effects to that geometry.
Paul Stowe
j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>In article <POoZ5.5228$Er5....@news.indigo.ie>
>ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) writes:
>>
> <... snip some interesting comments ...>
>>
>> 1. Some aetherists certainly have different views. My own
>> semi-aetheristic view is that the fundamental components
>> of all matter must be massless, and all processes involve
>> at root the exchange of such components.
>
> That could be called string theory, which is a covariant
> (relativistic) theory without an ether.
Hmmmm, what physically, are 'strings'?
>> 2. Relativists put it down to spacetime geometry. But it's
>> the geometry of something that is nothing. I'll leave it
>> to the relativists to sort that one out for you.
>
> Why? Is there no geometry at all in the model you would use?
> AFAICT, every theory -- etherist or relativistic -- has a
> geometry and has attributed some observable effects to that
> geometry.
But ether theory ascribe NO special physical status to 'geometry'
or symmetry...
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>
>But ether theory ascribe NO special physical status to 'geometry'
>or symmetry...
>
That's both redundant and a detriment. A material ether has to
orginate from something. Without some mechanism to create it, you
have a religion. While simply passing off the stone tablet at that
point might be appealing once you reach the base of mt. ether,
it doesn't seem very appealing to put a lot of effort into something
that has essentially nothing more fundamental to offer than has already
been squeezed out.
Paul Stowe
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to either say, or get, at but
you're correct that the physical world around us must 'be' something.
But did it 'orginate', as in come into being from 'nothing'? Such
an event would, by definition, be religous. This is my problem with
the Big Bang Hypothesis. It seems to be explicitly religous, such as
"... in the beginning the universe was created...". The fact is, we
are simply groping in the dark, attempting to describe the elephant
by 'feeling' around it.
I am currently reading Dr Beckmann's book "Einstein Plus Two" and
he very elegantly discusses and addresses these issues. In fact,
the ether hypothesis is fundamentally much more simple than our
current hodgepodge of Elephantine groping guesses. For example
ether theory predicts properties of the physical realm that are
not currently predicted in the standard regime. One very distinct
example is the deceleration of masses in linear, inertial motion.
This coupling with its ability to explain the nature of 'fields'
give it a better foundation that SR/GR/QT black box approach.
Paul Stowe
Francis Litterio
> ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
> > A material ether has to
> > orginate from something. Without some mechanism to create it,
> > you have a religion.
> But did [the physical world around us] 'orginate', as in come into
> being from 'nothing'? Such an event would, by definition, be religous.
> This is my problem with the Big Bang Hypothesis.
But the BB hypothesis can only predict (or "retrodict", since it's
explaining what happened in the past) events to the point where the very
laws of physics used to make the predictions fail to allow any further
prediction. Prior to that, the hypothesis simply has nothing to predict.
It does not invoke religion -- the consumers of the hypothesis do that
all by themselves.
The standard theory of black holes is widely agreed upon, yet it is
missing a prediction of events at the singularity. It's incomplete but
not wrong. I see the Big Bang hypothesis the same way.
> It seems to be
> explicitly religous, such as "... in the beginning the universe was
> created...".
I don't think the Big Bang hypothesis claims the universe was created.
It describes events back to a particular locus of events ... and then
stops.
--
Francis Litterio
franl-re...@world.omitthis.std.com
Soliton
Paul, where is comprehensive FAQ on ether theory online?