The Real TWINS Paradox - the Simplest Version
Alen
Let it be supposed, in the following scenario, that 'acceleration'
is able to be accomplished in a manner, perhaps on some
electromagnetic basis, that applies an identical accelerating
force to every particle in an observer's reality, including himself,
his vehicle, and all his instruments, thus eliminating any
detectable gravitational effect of acceleration by the accelerated
observer.
Let A and B be two observers who start a long distance apart,
in the same inertial frame, and let them have synchronised clocks.
Let A and B be accelerated towards one another, in accordance
with the above specification, until they reach a mutual relative
velocity of v, at which time the acceleration ceases. Let the
acceleration be applied, independently of the observers own
actions, by a random choice among one of three possible methods:
1) A alone is accelerated towards B
2) B alone is accelerated towards A
3) A and B are both accelerated towards one another.
The result in each case is a relative velocity, v, of A and B towards
one another and, in view of the fact that the acceleration is applied
in a manner not detectable from within the accelerated environment
of either of the observers, neither observer will be able to detect
which of the above three methods of acceleration were used to
establish the relative velocity, v. Furthermore, the time dilation
effects involved can be almost completely determined by the time
spent travelling at the constant relative velocity, if the
acceleration
is rapid, and the acceleration period relatively very short.
Each of the two observers views his own frame as the 'stationary'
frame in respect of observations made by him in the reference
frame of the other observer which, to him, is the 'moving' observer.
In view of this, when they meet, the following will be the points of
view of A and B, whichever of the three methods of acceleration
were chosen:
!) A's viewpoint: B accelerates towards him, and travels for a time
at velocity v, the result being that B's clock acquires a time
dilation
effect such that, when they meet, B appears to be younger than A.
2) B's viewpoint: A accelerates towards him, and travels for a time
at velocity v, the result being that A's clock acquires a time
dilation
effect such that, when they meet, A appears to be younger than B.
This paradox appears to be unanswerable from the orthodox
viewpoint, without some kind of fudging of the POR concept, in
order to create some difference between the two frames in respect
of the effect of the relative velocity on one frame compared
to the other.
Alen
This post is addressed not to those who belong to the physics
orthodoxy, but to those who dissent from it. All dissenters,
merely by being so, contribute to liberating the understanding
of man from a parochial thralldom characterised by a
mathematical trickery (not necessarily intentional), and a
philosophical deficiency. Let it not be left to the orthodoxy to
determine, at their pleasure, how and when the understanding
of man is to be rescued from their errors. All dissenters are
free to attempt the rescue themselves as, indeed, they are
doing already, and need neither be impeded by the censure
of the orthodoxy nor wait on their approval.
Sue...
> THE REAL TWINS PARADOX - The Simplest Version
>
> Let it be supposed, in the following scenario, that 'acceleration'
> is able to be accomplished in a manner, perhaps on some
> electromagnetic basis, that applies an identical accelerating
> force to every particle in an observer's reality, including himself,
> his vehicle, and all his instruments, thus eliminating any
> detectable gravitational effect of acceleration by the accelerated
> observer.
You have no evidence that would be the
result of such an acceleration.
Try"
"Creative Writing/Fiction technique"
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Creative_Writing/Fiction_technique
OR
Learn some physics:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
[...]
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> On Oct 17, 10:37 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
> > THE REAL TWINS PARADOX - The Simplest Version
>
> > Let it be supposed, in the following scenario, that 'acceleration'
> > is able to be accomplished in a manner, perhaps on some
> > electromagnetic basis, that applies an identical accelerating
> > force to every particle in an observer's reality, including himself,
> > his vehicle, and all his instruments, thus eliminating any
> > detectable gravitational effect of acceleration by the accelerated
> > observer.
>
> You have no evidence that would be the
> result of such an acceleration.
>
very common in Nature, the gravity one. The Earth (and all the bodies
in it , including ourselves) receive an equal acceleration owed to the
Sun, sufficiently equal that even the very accurate GPS doesn't need
to take it into account. How can you say that Alen has "no evidence
that would be the result of such an acceleration"?
[...]
> Sue...
>
> [...]
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Sue...
Simply consider the surface of the ocean one of the
instruments Alen proposes should have a null response.
If you can discern a neap tide and a spring tide by
observing the ocean, then the situation you've described
would not be an example.
Sue...
Igor
Or you could simply understand that proper time is not integrable and
thus depends on the path taken and just be done with it.
Phil
> On Oct 17, 10:37 pm, Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>
>>THE REAL TWINS PARADOX - The Simplest Version
>>
>>Let it be supposed, in the following scenario, that 'acceleration'
>>is able to be accomplished in a manner, perhaps on some
>>electromagnetic basis, that applies an identical accelerating
>>force to every particle in an observer's reality, including himself,
>>his vehicle, and all his instruments, thus eliminating any
>>detectable gravitational effect of acceleration by the accelerated
>>observer.
>
>
> You have no evidence that would be the
> result of such an acceleration.
>
> Try"
>
> "Creative Writing/Fiction technique"
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Creative_Writing/Fiction_technique
Sue, I am very dissapointed in you. I thought you would be honest with
yourself, even if that meant having to accept something that at least
appears to contradict "The Great Beliefs." Resorting to debate
techniques such as, cutting your opponent down to "prove" him wrong is
intellectually dishonest, and childish, and I hope I never see you do
this again. If someone presents something that cannot immediately be
explained, be a TRUE scientist, like Newton or Einstein, take it,
examine it, and see if maybe you can USE it to see a little farther into
nature, into the truth.
He has no evidence? Please. Simply take a third, inertial observer C,
and use the verified laws of SR to determine what the results will be as
seen by C. Those will, in fact, be the "true" answers. And as a side
note, you get essentially the same situation if you simply knock A and B
out with a sleeping pill during the period of acceleration, so we really
don't even need the special acceleration device. If A is accelerated,
his clocks will be behind B's clocks when they meet, vice-versa if B is
accelerated, and they will have the same time if both are accelerated.
The response a TRUE scientist has is simply this: deal with it. No, that
doesn't mean to toss out SR, but it does mean think, reason, try to
understand how this could occur, and what it means. Your response, to
insult him by telling him to look up "Creative Writing/Fiction
technique" is pathetic, and the exact opposite of what a great scientist
does. However, it is also normal, the kind of non-scientific response
kids are taught at school, so you are simply obeying your training.
Still, that particular bit of training is something you need to lose,
permanently.
As for what it means, I will mostly let you think about that, and
mention only that our ability to view things as being relative, free of
any "absolute reference," has always technically applied only to
inertial observers, so you really shouldn't be that terrified or
whatever when someone whose "absolute velocity" CHANGES has results that
cannot be explained when taking ONLY relative velocities into account.
Now, does it suggest that claims such as, "absolutes" do not exist at
all, or "absolutes" have no place at all in physics, MIGHT BE a bit of
an exaggeration? Like I said, act like a TRUE scientist, and THINK about
it; conversely, do NOT use debating techniques to act like a politician,
and simply justify the act of not thinking about it. Of course, you can
always "cut me to shreds," thereby "proving" that everything I've said
here is pure crap ... ;-)
Phil
Sue...
Ahh... no. That doesn't agree with my references.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html
>
> The response a TRUE scientist has is simply this: deal with it. No, that
> doesn't mean to toss out SR, but it does mean think, reason, try to
> understand how this could occur, and what it means. Your response, to
> insult him by telling him to look up "Creative Writing/Fiction
> technique" is pathetic, and the exact opposite of what a great scientist
> does. However, it is also normal, the kind of non-scientific response
> kids are taught at school, so you are simply obeying your training.
> Still, that particular bit of training is something you need to lose,
> permanently.
>
> As for what it means, I will mostly let you think about that, and
> mention only that our ability to view things as being relative, free of
> any "absolute reference," has always technically applied only to
> inertial observers,
No... not true. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
> so you really shouldn't be that terrified or
> whatever when someone whose "absolute velocity" CHANGES has results that
> cannot be explained when taking ONLY relative velocities into account.
> Now, does it suggest that claims such as, "absolutes" do not exist at
> all, or "absolutes" have no place at all in physics, MIGHT BE a bit of
> an exaggeration? Like I said, act like a TRUE scientist, and THINK about
> it; conversely, do NOT use debating techniques to act like a politician,
> and simply justify the act of not thinking about it. Of course, you can
> always "cut me to shreds," thereby "proving" that everything I've said
> here is pure crap ... ;-)
It is simply a matter of time management. The OP will learn more
reading the pages I offered than I will learn considering a
situation nearly as unreal as a world where like charges which
attract.
Sue...
Phil
Well, this time I am mostly impressed! You still referred to "other
references," instead of reasoning it out for yourself, but I was fairly
harsh, and you responded with pure class ... the Sue I am used to seeing!
Thanks,
Phil
P.S. The universe does allow an experiment to "reveal" to us that
information about our "absolute velocity" which we could simply deduce
on our own, PRIOR to running the experiment. If we KNOW, prior to
running an experiment, that the experiment's velocity will include a
change of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C, as seen by inertial
observer C, then it would actually be amazing if the results of that
experiment were NOT consistent with a change of 0.6c, such as an elapsed
time of 0.8 relative to any inertial observer.
Similarly, simple geometry PROVES that if observer A goes on a round
trip with a constant velocity of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C
(the clock paradox), then A's AVERAGE absolute velocity is also at least
0.6c, meaning that A's clocks should show an elapsed time of 0.8
relative to C. However, we cannot deduce, prior to the experiment,
anything about C's absolute velocity of 0.6c, so unless the principle of
relativity is false, then as seen by C, A must ALWAYS end up with an
elapsed time of exactly 0.8, regardless of C's absolute velocity, and
that is in fact the case. Remember, relativity does not disprove
absolute velocity; the conclusion has been that absolute velocity should
be eliminated from physics because it is irrelevant, not because
relativity has somehow proven that absolute velocity doesn't exist.
Alen's exercise is an indication that this largely PHILOSOPHICAL
conclusion may not be completely justified, even though the exercise in
no way contradicts the LAWS of SR.
My (unpublished) paper is "The Need for Absolute References in a
Relativistic Universe," and its point is largely summed up in this
exercise; if it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS from OBSERVATIONS that some laws are
in fact functions of absolute velocity, then the fact that experimental
results are independent of initial absolute velocity does not mean that
we should declare that there are no "absolutes," no absolute laws, in
our universe. It's basically similar to dinosaurs; can we find any? No,
but their existence necessarily follows from things that CAN be directly
observed, and in true science, that should be enough. Similarly, even if
we can't measure our absolute velocity (without performing my "around
the universe experiment"), if it necessarily follows from observations
that some laws are in fact functions of absolute velocity, then by the
rules of true science, that should be enough. Okay, way too long for a P.S.!
RP
It is because observer C cannot determine that he is in motion that
there is no absolute reference. If the ticking rate offset is a
function of absolute velocity, then your argument would fail
instantly. It is because the ticking rate of the moving clock is
reduced independently of it's direction of motion wrt C that there is
no absolute reference. Suppose C is moving "absolutely" at .5c wrt the
absolute reference frame, and that A is moving at 0m/s wrt the
absolute reference frame. Direction wrt C would produce different
effects on A if there were an absolute frame. It is because the
ticking rate offset is a function of velocity wrt the reference frame
of C, regardless of the frame that C finds itself at rest in, that
there is no absolute reference frame.
Here's a very simple gedanken that will prove Lorentz's notion of a
physical contraction of measuring sticks is contradictory to the
lorentz transform. In this thought experiment we have 3 identical
poles arranged in free space in this manner.
|____________ ___________
|
| _____________
The system is at rest wrt K but moving at v to the right along x wrt
K'. According to the transorm these poles will be length contracted
wrt K'. If the space between the top two poles isn't contracted in
addition to the contraction of the poles, then either the total length
of the assemembly would have to be contracted by the lorentz factor,
thus including the space between the top two poles, or there will be a
displacement along x between the end points of the top poles and the
bottom pole. However, if we connect the three poles with beams at
right angles, like this
|____________ ___________
| | |
| |_____________|
then it is now a single object whose total length contracts, and thus
the space between the two top poles along with it. No physical forces
are applied to the top two poles to bring them closer together because
nothing has changed whatsover except our frame of reference, the
latter of which cannot provide for physical forces that weren't
already present wrt other inertial frames. To illustrate this point a
bit better, suppose that the poles are telescopic and have an internal
mechanism to extend or contract them. if two such poles (like the top
two poles above) contract while in motion or at rest then the space
between them will increase unless the two are bound in some way, in
which case forces would be required to accelerate the poles toward
each other as they contracted in length.
Since there is no such mechanism provide by a simple change in our
perspective, then it follows that the lorentz transform requires a
contraction of space wrt the moving observer rather than a contraction
of the objects located in it per se. This is in fact what the lorentz
transform is designed specifically to do, and one can only wonder what
lorentz was thinking. There is absolutely no connection between the
lorentz transform and his idea of forces acting to physically contract
objects. They are mutually exclusive theories. That is why Einstein
recieved credit.
Androcles
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192816124.7...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
You're setting some very lofty goals for Einstein, and yet not a
single equation posted. You better get busy.
Phil
Well, let's define "absolute reference." If you mean, we cannot use
changes in experimental results to determine our velocity relative to
the medium of space, then yes, there is no absolute refeernce. If, on
the other hand, we can PROVE that some physical law, such as the
"time-rate" of objects, is in fact a function of absolute velocity, then
there are absolute references. Note that our inability to USE this
absolute reference to measure our absolute velocity does NOT invalidate
a provable conclusion, any more than not being able to find a living
dinosaur invalidates the various proofs that they once existed. Now, the
"proof" has to be valid and significant, but IF that can be done, then
we know that some laws of nature ar in fact "absolute laws," i.e., are
functions of absolute velocity. There is a bit of philosophy here, but
again, no one has SEEN the nucleus of an atom; we use facts that CAN be
seen, and use rules of logical reasoning, to PROVE that most of the
mass of an atom exists in a small region that Rutherford called "the
nucleus." To claim that "I can't measure absolute velocity, therefore
there are no absolute laws," is faulty reasoning, and in fact, if you
read the old arguments carefully, Einstein and others said that there is
no NEED to state that there are absolute laws, not that they do not
exist! Arguments like Alen's at least seem to indicate that there may be
more of a need than we care to admit. For myself, the fact that it is so
easy to PROVE that some laws are in fact functions of absolute velocity
is the deciding factor.
If the ticking rate offset is a
> function of absolute velocity, then your argument would fail
> instantly.
You've lost me here completely.
It is because the ticking rate of the moving clock is
> reduced independently of it's direction of motion wrt C that there is
> no absolute reference.
Let's see if I can follow you here.
Suppose C is moving "absolutely" at .5c wrt the
> absolute reference frame, and that A is moving at 0m/s wrt the
> absolute reference frame.
Okay.
Direction wrt C would produce different
> effects on A if there were an absolute frame.
As seen by an absolute observer, yes, but not as seen by C.
Specifically, the absolute laws do affect the processes of C's
observations and experiments in ways that do vary as a function of C's
absolute velocity, but those effects ALWAYS "cancel each other out,"
leaving the RESULTS of C's observations and experiments unaffected by
C's absolute velocity. However, C can easily see the effect of the
absolute laws by, for example, noting how a CHANGE in his own absolute
velocity causes his clocks to lose synchronization. Mind you, the "clock
error" will be unaffected by C's initial absolute velocity, and
therefore cannot be used to measure C's absolute velocity. However, if
C's absolute velocity and NOTHING ELSE WHATSOEVER changes, meaning the
clocks are "frozen" during the change in velocity, then if there were no
absolute laws, then C's clocks could not possibly lose synchronization.
A non-existent cause cannot possibly produce a real result, so if a real
result occurs, something just as real HAD to cause it. If the ONLY
available factor is a CHANGE in absolute velocity, then that change MUST
have been the cause.
It is because the
> ticking rate offset is a function of velocity wrt the reference frame
> of C, regardless of the frame that C finds itself at rest in, that
> there is no absolute reference frame.
Again, no, as seen by C, the time-rate is relative to C, which means C
cannot MEASURE his absolute velocity, but, also again, the fact that you
cannot SEE a dinosaur or nucleus does not mean that they do not exist.
It merely means that EITHER they don't exist, or there is some barrier
that prevents you from seeing them. In the case of the absolute laws, we
can restate the principle of relativity as, "All events contain either
no absolute laws, ot TWO OR MORE absolute laws, and the INITIAL effect
that these laws have on an experiment's results always cancel out." Note
that any SUBSEQUENT changes in absolute velocity OFTEN have very visible
effects on experiments, such as time-dilation, or changes in clock
synchronization. These effects occur because some aspects of our
universe are indeed functions of absolute velocity. It is imperative to
DISTINGUISH between the existence of absolute laws, and the ability to
use those laws to measure absolute velocity. The changes in the
synchronization of our clocks that DO OCCUR when our absolute velocity
and nothing else whatsoever changes COULD NOT EXIST if there were no
absolute laws, therefore, absolute laws do exist. But then, do you
really believe that light does NOT travel at a constant velocity, c,
relative to space? The fact that we cannot USE those laws to measure our
absolute velocity means that you CANNOT DESIGN an experiment that uses,
or focuses on, just one absolute law. Every experiment, every EVENT,
incorporates two or more absolute laws (or none at all). Go ahead, try
to design an experiment that examines just one absolute law! Outside of
my "around the universe" experiment, it is absolutely impossible, at
least to my knowledge. Absolute laws include:
(1) Light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to space.
(2) An object's time-rate is a function of absolute velocity.
(3) An object's mass is a function of absolute velocity.
(4) An object's length is a function of absolute velocity.
(5) Acceleration, as measured by force, is relative to space.
The last absolute law is a function of absolute acceleration, not
absolute velocity, but technically speaking, it is also an "absolute"
law, in that it is relative to the universe as a whole, rather than to
some particular non-universal object.
>
> Here's a very simple gedanken that will prove Lorentz's notion of a
> physical contraction of measuring sticks is contradictory to the
> lorentz transform.
???
In this thought experiment we have 3 identical
> poles arranged in free space in this manner.
>
> |____________ ___________
> |
> | _____________
>
> The system is at rest wrt K but moving at v to the right along x wrt
> K'. According to the transorm these poles will be length contracted
> wrt K'.
Yes.
If the space between the top two poles isn't contracted in
> addition to the contraction of the poles,
It isn't.
then either the total length
> of the assemembly would have to be contracted by the lorentz factor,
Yes.
> thus including the space between the top two poles,
Actually, the space between the poles isn't moving, and remains unaffected.
or there will be a
> displacement along x between the end points of the top poles and the
> bottom pole.
???
However, if we connect the three poles with beams at
> right angles, like this
>
>
> |____________ ___________
> | | |
> | |_____________|
>
> then it is now a single object whose total length contracts, and thus
> the space between the two top poles along with it.
Well, the empty space, the MEASURED space, contracts.
No physical forces
> are applied to the top two poles to bring them closer together because
> nothing has changed whatsover except our frame of reference, the
> latter of which cannot provide for physical forces that weren't
> already present wrt other inertial frames. To illustrate this point a
> bit better, suppose that the poles are telescopic and have an internal
> mechanism to extend or contract them. if two such poles (like the top
> two poles above) contract while in motion or at rest then the space
> between them will increase unless the two are bound in some way, in
> which case forces would be required to accelerate the poles toward
> each other as they contracted in length.
You've lost me here. Maybe you can be more specific about which observer
a particular observation is relative to?
>
> Since there is no such mechanism provide by a simple change in our
> perspective, then it follows that the lorentz transform requires a
> contraction of space wrt the moving observer rather than a contraction
> of the objects located in it per se. This is in fact what the lorentz
> transform is designed specifically to do, and one can only wonder what
> lorentz was thinking. There is absolutely no connection between the
> lorentz transform and his idea of forces acting to physically contract
> objects. They are mutually exclusive theories. That is why Einstein
> recieved credit.
You've lost me completely, but Lorentz was absolutely brilliant, and
Einstein thought so as well.
Phil
>
>
bz
news:d%fTi.47497$RX.2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
> Absolute laws include:
>
> (1) Light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to space.
Light travels at the velocity 'c', as measured by any observer in an
inertial frame of reference.
>
> (2) An object's time-rate is a function of absolute velocity.
There is no absolute velocity. Velocity is change in position with respect
to time. Absolute velocity requires absolute positions. An objects
relative time rate is a function of its relative velocity.
>
> (3) An object's mass is a function of absolute velocity.
An objects effective mass is a function of its relative velocity.
>
> (4) An object's length is a function of absolute velocity.
An objects relative length is a function of its relative velocity.
>
> (5) Acceleration, as measured by force, is relative to space.
Acceleration is the rate of change in the relative velocity with respect
to the relative time.
ANGULAR velocity IS absolute.(though it may be relative to the mass of the
universe) ANGULAR acceleration IS absolute.(though it may be relative to
the mass of the universe)
No one is able to test for angular velocity in the absence of other
masses.
>
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Androcles
"bz" <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns99D4A9C7C985CWQ...@130.39.198.139...
: Phil <toob-h...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
: news:d%fTi.47497$RX.2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
:
: > Absolute laws include:
: >
: > (1) Light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to space.
:
: Light travels at the velocity 'c', as measured by any observer in an
: inertial frame of reference.
Hahahaha!
Prove it, fuckhead.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif
Phil
> Phil <toob-h...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:d%fTi.47497$RX.2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>>Absolute laws include:
>>
>>(1) Light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to space.
>
>
> Light travels at the velocity 'c', as measured by any observer in an
> inertial frame of reference.
The statement that inertial observer A MEASURES a velocity of c for
light in his own inertial reference frame does NOT, as you seem to
imply, CONTRADICT the statement that light travels at a velocity of c
relative to the medium of space. After all, if c is relative to space,
an absolute law basically equivalent to the old ether theory, but an
object's time-rate and length are functions of the object's absolute
velocity, then those three ABSOLUTE laws could easily combine in such a
way as to cause every inertial observer to MEASURE a velocity of c for
light in his own inertial reference frame. Indeed, if we ASSUME that c
is NOT relative to the source of light, which basically forces it to be
an absolute law (unless we believe in "prescient photons," which adjust
their velocity depending on who will eventually see them), and we also
ASSUME that the results of all experiments are independent of their
initial absolute velocity (i.e., are the same in all IRF's), then
time-rate and length MUST be absolute laws. Conversely, if we ASSUME
that the speed of light is relative (to the source), but continue to
ASSUME that experimental results are the same in all IRF's, then
time-rate and length must now be RELATIVE laws.
In general, you should not assume that simply repeating the current
(great) beliefs is the same thing as an intellectual analysis. I am
aware of the current beliefs, but the point of the paragraph (mostly cut
by you) was that neither you nor anyone else can DESIGN an experiment
that isolates just one absolute law for examination. I listed the
absolute laws (although I should mention that this technically only
applies to absolute VELOCITY laws) for your convenience, but if you are
bothered by the term "absolute," you are welcome to replace them with
the equivalent laws given relative to any inertial observer; the fact
remains that there are no events in this universe that use just ONE of
these absolute/IRF laws. All events have either TWO OR MORE absolute
/IRF laws, or no such laws at all (again, with the exception of the
"around the universe" experiments). If you know of an exception (a
room-sized exception), you can replace relativity and get your Nobel
prize at the same time.
>
>>(2) An object's time-rate is a function of absolute velocity.
>
>
> There is no absolute velocity. Velocity is change in position with respect
> to time. Absolute velocity requires absolute positions. An objects
> relative time rate is a function of its relative velocity.
More irrelevant talk; I might as well say that since you've never seen a
dinosaur, they must have never existed. Scientifically acceptable
concepts must be EITHER perceivable, or logically deduced FROM
perceivables using valid laws of logic. Absolute velocity is a valid
concept if and only if there is SOMETHING that varies as a FUNCTION of
absolute velocity.
To give an easier to understand example, an object's position is
meaningful iff there is SOMETHING that varies as a function of the
object's position. If we measure the number of miles a car can travel on
a tank of gas, we find that changing the car's POSITION from the
mountains to a valley CHANGES the results of the experiment (since
mountain roads demand more from a car's engine). Similarly, if CHANGING
an object's position and nothing else causes some change in an
experiment's results (while the experiment is stopped), then some
characteristic that VARIES as a function of position MUST EXIST. Well,
what happens when we change an object's absolute velocity, which we can
do, assuming such a thing exists, by changing its velocity relative to
the stars? We find that our clocks are no longer synchronized.
Therefore, a characteristic MUST EXIST that VARIES as a function of
absolute velocity (in this case, the velocity of light relative to the
clocks as seen by an absolute observer). Note that we cannot claim that
it was the velocity relative to distant objects, unless we abandon
locality, i.e., a SCIENTIFIC explanation requires that local effects
have local causes, meaning that it is the change in the experiment's
velocity relative to the local medium of space that MUST be responsible
for the loss of synchronization. In contrast, if no absolute laws exist,
then changing an experiment's absolute velocity and nothing else while
the experiment is stopped CANNOT POSSIBLY change the results. The fact
that things do change when absolute velocity changes PROVES that some of
the laws of the universe are indeed absolute, i.e., are indeed functions
of absolute velocity.
>
>>(3) An object's mass is a function of absolute velocity.
>
>
> An objects effective mass is a function of its relative velocity.
Which does not contradict the previous statement, and again ignores my
challenge of designing an experiment that ISOLATES the law of mass in an
experiment, allowing an inertial observer to measure his velocity by
observing changes in mass.
>
>>(4) An object's length is a function of absolute velocity.
>
>
> An objects relative length is a function of its relative velocity.
Ditto.
>
>>(5) Acceleration, as measured by force, is relative to space.
>
>
> Acceleration is the rate of change in the relative velocity with respect
> to the relative time.
Oh please, are you going to claim that non-inertial observer A is EVER
going to see some object with no forces acting on it as being motionless
relative to A??? One of Newton's greatest insights was that ALL
accelerating objects, including those that can only be seen by
telescopes, when measured by an observer who takes into account any
forces acting on himself (including gravitational), are being acted upon
by a force, i.e., are INTERACTING with another object. In other words,
force measured acceleration is relative to a UNIVERSAL set of reference
frames, a set which is INDEPENDENT of any known non-universal object
(although it could, as you say, be relative to UNIVERSAL mass). For
example, when the force in a rifle is applied to the bullet, the
resulting acceleration is not relative to the Earth, the sun, or any
other non-universal object, but is instead relative to the ABSOLUTE set
of reference frames. For extremely long range rifles, it is literally
necessary to take the Earth's rotation into account in order to know
where the bullet will land, because the bullet's motion is relative to
SPACE, not the Earth.
>
> ANGULAR velocity IS absolute.(though it may be relative to the mass of the
> universe) ANGULAR acceleration IS absolute.(though it may be relative to
> the mass of the universe)
Yes, no one has been able to dispute this, although as you say, the
ABSOLUTE set of reference frames could be relative to the medium of
space, or the combined mass of the universe, or to some extent both, we
really don't know the answer at this time.
>
> No one is able to test for angular velocity in the absence of other
> masses.
Actually, I think that Mach's point was that centrifugal force MIGHT not
exist in the absence of other objects; as long as it is changes in an
object's velocity relative to SPACE that requires a force, rather than
relative to the combined mass of the universe, we would indeed be able
to measure angular velocity by measuring the centrifugal/centripetal force.
Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sue...
> Sue... wrote:
>
> Well, this time I am mostly impressed! You still referred to "other
> references," instead of reasoning it out for yourself, but I was fairly
> harsh, and you responded with pure class ... the Sue I am used to seeing!
>
> Thanks,
> Phil
>
> P.S. The universe does allow an experiment to "reveal" to us that
> information about our "absolute velocity" which we could simply deduce
> on our own, PRIOR to running the experiment. If we KNOW, prior to
> running an experiment, that the experiment's velocity will include a
> change of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C, as seen by inertial
> observer C, then it would actually be amazing if the results of that
> experiment were NOT consistent with a change of 0.6c, such as an elapsed
> time of 0.8 relative to any inertial observer.
>
> Similarly, simple geometry PROVES that if observer A goes on a round
> trip with a constant velocity of 0.6c relative to inertial observer C
> (the clock paradox), then A's AVERAGE absolute velocity is also at least
> 0.6c, meaning that A's clocks should show an elapsed time of 0.8
> relative to C.
This is not *simple* geometry but rather space-time geometry.
It is far from simple and has many ambiguous interpretations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
"4-velocity and 4-acceleration "
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html
> However, we cannot deduce, prior to the experiment,
> anything about C's absolute velocity of 0.6c, so unless the principle of
> relativity is false, then as seen by C, A must ALWAYS end up with an
> elapsed time of exactly 0.8, regardless of C's absolute velocity, and
> that is in fact the case. Remember, relativity does not disprove
> absolute velocity; the conclusion has been that absolute velocity should
> be eliminated from physics because it is irrelevant, not because
> relativity has somehow proven that absolute velocity doesn't exist.
> Alen's exercise is an indication that this largely PHILOSOPHICAL
> conclusion may not be completely justified, even though the exercise in
> no way contradicts the LAWS of SR.
Can you rewrite that assuming a wave model?
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
The particle model seems implied and there is no justification
for such a propagation model.
<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .
As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
>
> My (unpublished) paper is "The Need for Absolute References in a
> Relativistic Universe," and its point is largely summed up in this
> exercise; if it NECESSARILY FOLLOWS from OBSERVATIONS that some laws are
> in fact functions of absolute velocity, then the fact that experimental
> results are independent of initial absolute velocity does not mean that
> we should declare that there are no "absolutes," no absolute laws, in
> our universe. It's basically similar to dinosaurs; can we find any? No,
> but their existence necessarily follows from things that CAN be directly
> observed, and in true science, that should be enough. Similarly, even if
> we can't measure our absolute velocity (without performing my "around
> the universe experiment"), if it necessarily follows from observations
> that some laws are in fact functions of absolute velocity, then by the
> rules of true science, that should be enough. Okay, way too long for a P.S.!
The rotational speed of the earth is measured absolutlely,
for what it is worth.
"Always Knowing Precisely How Fast the Earth is Turning"
http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/DB95426F0494AB1DC125717500445CEE/$File/Innovation_10_18.pdf
Sue...
Sue...
> bz wrote:
[...]
>
> Yes, no one has been able to dispute this, although as you say, the
> ABSOLUTE set of reference frames could be relative to the medium of
> space, or the combined mass of the universe, or to some extent both, we
> really don't know the answer at this time.
>
>
>
> > No one is able to test for angular velocity in the absence of other
> > masses.
>
> Actually, I think that Mach's point was that centrifugal force MIGHT not
> exist in the absence of other objects; as long as it is changes in an
> object's velocity relative to SPACE that requires a force, rather than
> relative to the combined mass of the universe, we would indeed be able
> to measure angular velocity by measuring the centrifugal/centripetal force.
This was Einstein's interpretion even tho it was not well expressed
in the psuedo-space of GR which had to produce most of the
characteristics of Newton's pseudo-space. (a local ether that
can give and take inertial energy)
<< Already Newton recognized that the
law of inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in this
exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the
inertial frames relative to all other
states of motion. It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material cause
for the inertial behaviour of the material
point but devises the cause for it
(absolute space or inertial ether). This
is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. For this reason
E. Mach demanded a modification of the
law of inertia in the sense that the
inertia should be interpreted as an
acceleration resistance of the bodies
against one another and not against "space".
This interpretation governs the expectation
that accelerated bodies have concordant
accelerating action in the same
sense on other bodies (acceleration induction).
This interpretation is even more
plausible according to general relativity
which eliminates the distinction between
inertial and gravitational effects.
It amounts to stipulating that, apart
from the arbitrariness governed by the
free choice of coordinates, the
gm v -field shall be completely determined
by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured
in general relativity by the circumstance
that acceleration induction in accordance
with the gravitational field equations really
exists, although of such slight intensity
that direct detection by mechanical experiments
is out of the question. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
Sue...
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bz
news:47215E7D...@sbcglobal.net:
> bz wrote:
>
>> Phil <toob-h...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:d%fTi.47497$RX.2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>
>>>Absolute laws include:
>>>
>>>(1) Light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to space.
>>
>>
>> Light travels at the velocity 'c', as measured by any observer in an
>> inertial frame of reference.
>
> The statement that inertial observer A MEASURES a velocity of c for
> light in his own inertial reference frame does NOT, as you seem to
> imply, CONTRADICT the statement that light travels at a velocity of c
> relative to the medium of space.
Define 'medium of space'.
If you can't do it without referencing existing matter in the universe,
the limits of said univers being unknown, then speaking of absolute
velocity is meaningless.
> After all, if c is relative to space,
'space' seems to be a local phenomena. One that 'we carry along with us'.
The residents of distant galaxies 'seem to be' receding from us at high
'absolute velocities'.
It is almost certain that they see us as receding from them at similar
velocities.
If there were such a thing as 'absolute velocity' and a single universal
object called 'space' then either we or they must be wrong.
> an absolute law basically equivalent to the old ether theory, but an
> object's time-rate and length are functions of the object's absolute
> velocity, then those three ABSOLUTE laws could easily combine in such a
> way as to cause every inertial observer to MEASURE a velocity of c for
> light in his own inertial reference frame.
When proposing an 'absolute law' you must carefully define your absolute
zero points of reference or at least provide a method for determining
them. You have not done so.
> Indeed, if we ASSUME that c
> is NOT relative to the source of light
An assumption that is contrary to all available evidence.
All evidence shows that light moves at c with respect to ALL inertial
frames of reference including the frame of reference that was co-moving
with the source at the instant of emission.
> , which basically forces it to be
> an absolute law (unless we believe in "prescient photons," which adjust
> their velocity depending on who will eventually see them)
NO prescience is required. The photons move at the same velocity at all
times. They do not care about the observer. The observer and his tools
seem to 'be adjusted' in such a way as to always measure the photons speed
as c. The photon's measured ENERGY/frequency/wavelength being dependent on
the relative velocity of the source and the observer.
All of our experiments indicate that these things are true.
> , and we also
> ASSUME that the results of all experiments are independent of their
> initial absolute velocity (i.e., are the same in all IRF's), then
> time-rate and length MUST be absolute laws. Conversely, if we ASSUME
> that the speed of light is relative (to the source), but continue to
> ASSUME that experimental results are the same in all IRF's, then
> time-rate and length must now be RELATIVE laws.
Show us where to put the 'zero' point marker and explain why it MUST be
there. Only then can you start to speak of 'absolute' distances from that
point and absolute velocities in relation to that point.
Otherwise throwing the word 'absolute' into sentence is just a meaningless
confusion factor.
>
> In general, you should not assume that simply repeating the current
> (great) beliefs is the same thing as an intellectual analysis.
I don't.
> I am
> aware of the current beliefs, but the point of the paragraph (mostly cut
> by you) was that neither you nor anyone else can DESIGN an experiment
> that isolates just one absolute law for examination.
That is not quite true, rotation seems to be 'absolute'. But no law of
physics can be examined in isolation. What must be done is that laws must
be formulated so that ALL data from ALL experiments are consistent with
the laws or the law must be restricted to a region of applicability. If
you seek a way to test a single law, you are destined for disappointment.
You MIGHT find that the results of an experiment invalidate a law or set
of laws. But this will only happen if the results are repeatable by
others.
> I listed the
> absolute laws (although I should mention that this technically only
> applies to absolute VELOCITY laws) for your convenience, but if you are
> bothered by the term "absolute," you are welcome to replace them with
> the equivalent laws given relative to any inertial observer;
I AM bothered by 'absolute' (unless it is used to mean the positive
value of a number that might be negative or positive) as it is often used
and thrown about on spr by those who are sure that they have receive some
inspired vision of the laws of physics and cling to that vision in spite
of evidence to the contrary.
> the fact
> remains that there are no events in this universe that use just ONE of
> these absolute/IRF laws. All events have either TWO OR MORE absolute
> /IRF laws, or no such laws at all (again, with the exception of the
> "around the universe" experiments). If you know of an exception (a
> room-sized exception), you can replace relativity and get your Nobel
> prize at the same time.
I know of no exception (aside from rotary motion) and I know of no place
to put the 'zero' marker for measurements of absolute distance and
absolute velocity, so I avoid using those terms.
>
>>
>>>(2) An object's time-rate is a function of absolute velocity.
>>
>>
>> There is no absolute velocity. Velocity is change in position with
>> respect to time. Absolute velocity requires absolute positions. An
>> objects relative time rate is a function of its relative velocity.
>
> More irrelevant talk; I might as well say that since you've never seen a
> dinosaur, they must have never existed. Scientifically acceptable
> concepts must be EITHER perceivable, or logically deduced FROM
> perceivables using valid laws of logic. Absolute velocity is a valid
> concept if and only if there is SOMETHING that varies as a FUNCTION of
> absolute velocity.
You have just shown that your concept of 'absolute velocity' is not a
valid concept unless you can show an absolute zero point for absolute
velocity.
How do you go about measuring 'absolute velocity'?
Science works with operational definitions. Absolute position and Absolute
velocity lack operational definitions.
Do you think that the things we measure wrt the nearby star clusters will
have any effect at all upon what someone 100 billion light years away
measures wrt HIS nearby star clusters? Can we both be right?
MUST we both be wrong?
Maybe we are only wrong if we think we have an absolute velocity.
All our velocity measurements are relative to things 'more or less "near"
us'.
This is done for a reason.
The reason is that these are all RELATIVE measurements.
The reason for this is that we lack a useful reference point for an
absolute measurement.
[snipping the rest because it just rehashes your arguments given above.]
as for Mach, See Milo Wolff's ideas:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm
see also http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_electron.htm
Gerald L. O'Barr
> THE REAL TWINS PARADOX - The Simplest Version
>
> Let it be supposed, in the following scenario,
> that 'acceleration' is able to be accomplished
> in a manner, perhaps on some
> electromagnetic basis, that applies an identical
> accelerating force to every particle in an
> observer's reality, including himself,
> his vehicle, and all his instruments, thus eliminating > any detectable gravitational effect of acceleration
> by the accelerated observer.
>
> Let A and B be two observers who start a long distance > apart, in the same inertial frame, and let them have
> synchronised clocks. Let A and B be accelerated
> towards one another, in accordance
> with the above specification, until they reach a
> mutual relative velocity of v, at which time the
> acceleration ceases. Let the
> acceleration be applied, independently of the
> observers own actions, by a random choice among
> one of three possible methods:
>
<DELETES BY O'Barr>
O'Barr's answers to this paradox of the twins,
starting with fixed distance between the twins!
Twin A and B are in a common rest frame, with
clocks properly synced.
Twin A is at point zero, time zero, and twin B at
point 1 ly (Light year) and time zero.
At time zero, let A move towards B with a velocity
of 0.866c, B remains at rest.
In the rest frame, which will be the same in terms
of twin B's data, it will take twin A 1/(0.866) years
to reach twin B. 1/(0.866) = 1.155 years.
At this time, twin B clock will show this time of
1.155 years, and twin A will show a time one-half of
this time, or 0.577 years.
There is no question at all about what twin B
sees happening and in what twin B measures.
Everything for twin B is clear and obvious. But what
will twin A see? (Twin A can use his own local
observers to verify all that happens, etc.)
Twin A sees some very interesting things. First
of all, twin A does not have to know that he
accelerated. He can look at the stars around him and
he will know that he has accelerated. He does not
have to feel anything. And this aberration that he
sees includes a new position for twin B. Twin B will
appear to be relocated, to be 2 ly away, but still
with a clock that shows zero, and with a velocity of
0.866c. And thus, twin A will see the following:
The rate of twin B's clock will be going slow, at a
rate of one-half of normal. And according to twin
A's data of the location of twin B and his velocity,
it will 2.31 years for these two twins to meet.
Thus, at this point,
twin B's clock will show half of this value, or 1.155
years. And this is exactly what it will be. And of
course twin A's clock at this point will show a time
of 0.577 years.
Now in all this, it is not important if twin A or
twin B was the one to move, this problem would still
have each twin to calculate the correct final
results for the same reasons as given above.
And if they both moved at one-half of 0.866c in
the rest frame, to make their relative velocity to be
0.866c, then they will each see the other to have
moved farther away, but at a lesser amount, and
they will each see the other
moving differently than with a relative velocity of
0.866c. They will each end up with the same time on
their clocks. In the rest frame, it will still take
1.155 years to meet, but the time on their clocks
will each be 1.155 * 0.901 = 1.04 years.
How come no one can see these things? Why do we
always seem to get things wrong when we do such
simple problems? In each of these problems, what
is seen by each is clear and exact, and what the
final results are clear and exact.
Now I did not take time to double check any
of this, but this should at least get you to
consider what has to be considered in order to
understand the basics. I hope you all know
about the aberration of light, and that this
aberration is not just a change in the
angle of veiw, but also a change in position.
Of course, if you have a change in the
angle of view, there had to be an effective
change in position, didn't it?
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
Sue...
> Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:47215E7D...@sbcglobal.net:
>
>
>
>
>
> > bz wrote:
>
> >> Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
Frayed knot.
There is no evidence light moves inertially and
none assumed in SR 1920
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
Formerly: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools,
but that the lightning ain't distributed right.
--Mark Twain :-)
Sue...
bz
news:1193429073.2...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com:
And I never said that LIGHT moves inertially.
Whence did you draw THAT conclusion?
Just because I spoke of inertial frames of reference does not imply I am
speaking of 1920 SR or any other SR.
If you know of experimental evidence refuting anything I said, please cite
it.
Alen
Hi Gerald! I think you answer is quite neat, and
works quite well. But is it true??
We have three contending answers:
1) the orthodox SR answer, which involves a supposition
of an underlying nonsimultaneity in one frame or another.
2) Your answer, which, if I understand, involves absolute
differences between moving clocks, which enables the
determination of which clock was the one that accelerated.
3) My answer, which also works perfectly well, as follows:
There is no real time dilation. Both A and B always remain
the same age and, when they come to a stop, both clocks
will show the same time, which will be same as the time they
would have shown if they had never moved at all. In other
words, time dilation is only a appearance caused by a trick
of light that is transmitted from one relatively moving frame to
another. Therefore, both clocks will always show the same time
in the end, if A accelerates and decelerates, or if A accelerates
and B 'decelerates', or if A and B accelerate, and both
or only one decelerate, etc. etc.
Thus, we have three contesting answers, which all claim
to 'work' perfectly well. The question, therefore, is:
Which is the true answer?
I have attempted to resolve this with arguments such
as the impossibility of the existence of spacelike length
contraction (i.e. independently of the use of light to make
length measurements), etc.
Alen
Sue...
bz:
<<The photons move at the same velocity at all times. >>
How did we find the center of the photon to
measure its speed if it has no spatial description?
<<All evidence shows that light moves at c
with respect to ALL inertial frames of reference
including the frame of reference that was co-moving
with the source at the instant of emission. >>
Frames of reference are imaginary but their use
does not uncoupled emitter, detector or media nor
does it establish a coupling to a Machian inertial
background, which your statement implies.
See the 1920 paper where inertial coupling is only
through the device of relativistic mass.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/15.html
That lends no support for statements about the real
speed or trajectory or speed of an imaginary particle
because the reference is imaginary, an inertial frame
of reference.
>
> Just because I spoke of inertial frames of reference does not imply I am
> speaking of 1920 SR or any other SR.
>
> If you know of experimental evidence refuting anything I said, please cite
> it.
"Propagation in a dielectric medium"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
Light doesn't know about inertial masses. It knows about
conductors and dielectrics. That is why hollow antennas
work just the same as solid antennas.
Sue...
>
> --
> bz
Sue...
>
> Thus, we have three contesting answers, which all claim
> to 'work' perfectly well. The question, therefore, is:
> Which is the true answer?
>
> I have attempted to resolve this with arguments such
> as the impossibility of the existence of spacelike length
> contraction (i.e. independently of the use of light to make
> length measurements), etc.
>
> Alen-
Your answer (3) is the better solution but your device
of "multiple foci" (perhaps in another thread) needs elaboration.
It is expressible with classical electromagnetism.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
... or as Feynman did by evaluating multiple classical
paths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_integral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Sue...
Phil
This is absolutely correct, and I will add that I said the same thing,
although with far less clarity and detailed information, earlier in this
thread. And I have to ask the same question, namely why doesn't everyone
know this? When I said:
"If A is accelerated, his clocks will be behind B's clocks when they
meet, vice-versa if B is accelerated, and they will have the same time
if both are accelerated."
even Sue, who knows far more math and physics than I do (and probably
ever will), said:
"Ahh... no. That doesn't agree with my references.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html"
Now I confess that I haven't bothered to read her references, but I
shouldn't HAVE to read them, because she should never have posted them!
EVERYONE should know exactly what happens in this situation, so what's
going on? My only guess, so far, is that people believe that the
universe is far more relativistic than what the actual equations of
relativity tell us it is. Yes, we can use any inertial reference frame
AS IF it was the absolute reference frame, and get the right answers,
BUT, the chosen IRF must be used THROUGHOUT the experiment. In other
words, we CANNOT shift among several IRF's during an experiment and get
the right answers! In this example, if A starts out in one IRF, then
accelerates to a different IRF, we CANNOT expect to be able to predict
what will happen by viewing everything relative to A at all times. In a
completely relativistic universe, yes, we could do this, but although
the universe is indeed relativistic, it isn't THAT relativistic. We
could even use the IRF that A eventually ends up in to predict the
results AS LONG AS we use that particular IRF throughout the analysis!
The only exception is when some observer has a constant acceleration,
either linear or centripetal, in which case we can replace his
acceleration with an equivalent gravitational field and get the right
answer. But if that acceleration changes, as in the clock paradox, then
that's it. As Wolfgang Rindler pointed out many years ago in Essential
Relativity, we can then get the right answer ONLY if we use the
velocities of the objects relative to a SINGLE IRF throughout the
experiment. Yes, the REASON we must do this is unpleasant, if you want
to believe that everything is completely relativistic, but that's too
bad, and more to the point, physicists should tell people the truth
about what we can do and must do in order to predict the results of
experiments, regardless of any ideological implications.
As a side note, the fact that we can use any SINGLE IRF to predict the
outcome of events means that special relativity is actually far more
powerful than most people realize; as long as no strong gravitational
fields are involved, and quantum mechanical effects don't play a
significant role, then SR can solve the problem, even if EVERY object
and observer undergoes occasional or continuous acceleration, and
changes in acceleration. The only "catch" is that all velocities must be
measured relative to a SINGLE IRF throughout the experiment.
Technically, an IRF is an "absolute" object, since it is defined as
having an acceleration of zero relative to ... whatever is responsible
for inertia (we KNOW this is the medium of space, we just don't always
want to say so ;-). Einstein wanted to reduce the presence of
"absolutes" to a minimum, and so declared that all velocities in a
problem are relative to a single inertial OBSERVER, instead of relative
to a single IRF. One can admire his desire to reduce the presence of
absolutes to a minimum (although an inertial observer is, by definition,
in an IRF, which technically defeats the purpose), but it resulted in a
crippled understanding of SR, which most people believe, to this day,
cannot be used to solve problems in which everyone is accelerating, even
though it can EASILY solve such problems.
Phil
P.S. Okay, I'll read Sue's references, but I'm telling you now, either
they're taken out of context, or they're as confused as everyone else.
Phil
Sue, you need to remember who you're dealing with; I am not nearly that
sophisticated or intelligent! The "simple geometry" I am referring to
can be explained even if we use SR and two inertial observers, A and B,
along with a moving observer C. Let A be either an absolute observer, or
simply an inertial observer with an "official" velocity of zero. Let B
and C be moving together "toward the right," by the standards of A, B,
and C, and at a velocity of 0.866c relative to A (both A and B/C will
measure velocities relative to each other of 0.866c). Therefore, as seen
by A, B and C have a time-rate of 0.5, just half of A's time-rate. Now,
if C goes on a round-trip relative to B, at a constant velocity relative
to B, the question is, can we deduce anything about C's velocity
relative to A? The answer is yes.
For example, suppose that B leaves "toward the left" at a velocity of
0.866c for 5 years by B's own clocks, making his new velocity relative
to A zero (the acceleration to 0.866c is assumed to take virtually no
time). During this time, C's clocks will advance 5 years, while B's
clocks will advance 2.5 years, as seen by A. Let C return to B at a
velocity that APPEARS to both B and C to be 0.866c. As seen by A this is
0.98974c. Now, (0.98974 - 0.866) is much less than (0.866 - 0.0), so it
takes much longer than 5 years for C to return to B as seen by A, 35
years to be specific. During this time, C has a time-rate of 1/7, so C's
clocks show an elapsed time of 5 years, while B's clocks show an elapsed
time of 35/2 = 17.5 years as seen by A, for total local times of 10
years for C, and 20 years for B, the normal result of the clock paradox.
If we add up C's velocities during this time, C's AVERAGE velocity, as
seen by A, is 0.866c. In fact, given ANY velocity for B up to a velocity
of 0.866c, C's AVERAGE velocity relative to A is 0.866c (if B has a
velocity x, where x > 0.866c, then C's average velocity = x).
Furthermore, if C's journey is not entirely "left and right," moving at
some angle relative to the line connecting A and B, then C's AVERAGE
velocity will be even higher. Regardless of the direction of C's
journey, or B's velocity, C's velocity relative to A will ALWAYS be AT
LEAST 0.866c.
This means that IF an object's time-rate is in fact a function of its
velocity relative to the medium of space, a function of its ABSOLUTE
velocity, then any object moving at a constant velocity of 0.866c
relative to some inertial observer MUST have an absolute velocity of at
least 0.866c. Since B KNOWS, from simple analytical geometry, that C has
an average ABSOLUTE velocity of 0.866c, wouldn't it actually be
completely incomprehensible to B if C did NOT age half as much as B? Do
you see what I mean here? We can deduce BEFORE C's journey that his
absolute velocity -- assuming such a thing really does exist -- is AT
LEAST 0.866c, so we should EXPECT C's clocks to run at half speed during
his journey. However, we cannot deduce anything about B's velocity, so
we cannot EXPECT to either learn or confirm anything at all about B's
velocity, and in fact C's time-rate will always be exactly 0.5
regardless of B's velocity.
>
>
>
>>However, we cannot deduce, prior to the experiment,
>>anything about C's absolute velocity of 0.6c, so unless the principle of
>>relativity is false, then as seen by C, A must ALWAYS end up with an
>>elapsed time of exactly 0.8, regardless of C's absolute velocity, and
>>that is in fact the case. Remember, relativity does not disprove
>>absolute velocity; the conclusion has been that absolute velocity should
>>be eliminated from physics because it is irrelevant, not because
>>relativity has somehow proven that absolute velocity doesn't exist.
>>Alen's exercise is an indication that this largely PHILOSOPHICAL
>>conclusion may not be completely justified, even though the exercise in
>>no way contradicts the LAWS of SR.
>
>
> Can you rewrite that assuming a wave model?
I have serious doubts, but if you will let me know what a wave model is,
I'll give it a shot!
>
> Propagation in a dielectric medium
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
>
> The particle model seems implied and there is no justification
> for such a propagation model.
I have no clue what you're talking about here, but again, I suspect
you're being way more complicated than is necessary here. The things I'm
talking about SHOULD be independent of waves and particles.
Well, yes, but that's because the absolute ACCELERATION of an object has
always been fairly easy to measure, since it's simply a function of the
force being applied to the object. Yes, you have to take gravity into
account, but any "unaccountable" gravitational forces tend to be
extremely small. In the case of objects with a centripetal acceleration,
it naturally becomes possible to USE the absolute acceleration to obtain
an absolute rotational velocity.
By the way, Newton's point with the rotating bucket was that it allows
us to see the water's absolute acceleration relative to the absolute
reference frame, NOT to some interstellar medium! His term "absolute
space" uses "space" as part of the normal geometric sequence, point,
line, plane, SPACE, which is also how "space" is used in "relative
space." Newton NEVER used the word "space" to refer to an interstellar
medium, which he always referred to as "the ether or celestial medium."
It is yet another example of Mach's sloppy thinking habits that he
misinterpreted "absolute space" to mean an interstellar medium, instead
of its true meaning, an absolute REFERENCE FRAME, analogous to the LOCAL
reference frame of Newton's "relative space." Mach's "great insight" was
that inertia could be relative to the combined mass of the universe
instead of an interstellar medium, which is quite true (although
locality demands that the combined mass produces a FIELD that directly
acts on accelerating objects, basically the same as an interstellar
medium), but regardless of whether inertia is relative to a medium that
is independent of matter, or a field that is produced by matter, we
still need to overlay it with a REFERENCE FRAME for our calculations, an
absolute reference frame.
My understanding is that one of Einstein's goals in developing GR was to
produce a physics that did NOT have to take absolute acceleration into
account, thereby "freeing" physics from "evil absolute references" of
any kind, velocity or acceleration. As long as an object undergoes a
CONSTANT linear or centripetal acceleration, we can indeed pretend that
the acceleration is actually a gravitational field and obtain the
correct answer, the only problem being that this makes use of something
that doesn't actually exist, whereas Mach objected to absolute space
(Mach's definition/misinterpretation of "absolute space," not Newton's)
merely because it could not be PROVEN to exist! In other words, absolute
acceleration is quite real, and quite demonstrable, and I'm not sure why
Einstein ever thought that not having to use it in our calculations was
such a good idea.
Phil
Phil H
> is able to be accomplished in a manner, perhaps on some
> electromagnetic basis, that applies an identical accelerating
> force to every particle in an observer's reality, including himself,
> his vehicle, and all his instruments, thus eliminating any
> detectable gravitational effect of acceleration by the accelerated
> observer.
Why does any gravitational effect have to be eliminated in order to
make the argument that follows?
Isn't the basis of the paradox to do with the apparent self
contradiction of relativity (as portrayed in SR)?
I'm not suggesting that gravity provides the answer (I don't know
whether it does or not) but any postulate that is used to support an
argument has to be based on a situation that can in fact occur in
nature (at least in theory). The one described cannot because the only
known force that can produce acceleration in the way described is
gravity. Electromagnetic forces can only accelerate charged particles.
Androcles
"Phil H" <goo...@philphall.me.uk> wrote in message
news:1193711637.5...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
:> Let it be supposed, in the following scenario, that 'acceleration'
: > is able to be accomplished in a manner, perhaps on some
: > electromagnetic basis, that applies an identical accelerating
: > force to every particle in an observer's reality, including himself,
: > his vehicle, and all his instruments, thus eliminating any
: > detectable gravitational effect of acceleration by the accelerated
: > observer.
:
: Why does any gravitational effect have to be eliminated in order to
: make the argument that follows?
:
: Isn't the basis of the paradox to do with the apparent self
: contradiction of relativity (as portrayed in SR)?
:
: I'm not suggesting that gravity provides the answer
Never mind the answer, what's the question?
A paradox is a contradiction, there has to be a primitive cause
of the contradiction.
Of course there is such a cause:
Gerald L. O'Barr
- the Simplest Version
Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>THE REAL TWINS PARADOX - The Simplest Version
>>> . . .
>> <DELETES BY O'Barr>
>> . . . .
>> . . . . I hope you all know
>> about the aberration of light, and that this
>> aberration is not just a change in the
>> angle of view, but also a change in position.
>> Of course, if you have a change in the
>> angle of view, there had to be an effective
>> change in position, didn't it?
>>
>> Thanks for reading.
>> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
>>
Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> This is absolutely correct, . . .
O'Barr comments:
Thanks! But I said a lot of things up above. You
might want to be more careful when it comes to what
O'Barr says.
<deletes by O'Barr>
Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "If A is accelerated, his clocks will be behind
>B's clocks when they meet, vice-versa if B is
>accelerated, and they will have the same time if
>both are accelerated."
O'Barr comments:
Yes, this is all true, as long as when both are
accelerated, they both are given the same velocity
parameters, etc.
<deletes by O'Barr>
Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> . . . Yes, we can use any inertial reference frame
> AS IF it was the absolute reference frame, and get
> the right answers, . . .
O'Barr comments:
Yes, so far this seems to be correct. And this
absolute reference frame is a simple 3-D grid with an
independent time, and as long as you use local
observers, etc, you will have the correct data and
the correct physics described by this simpe 3-D
system.
Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> BUT, the chosen IRF must be used THROUGHOUT the
>experiment. In other words, we CANNOT shift among
>several IRF's during an experiment and get the right
>answers!
O'Barr comments:
This is not correct. Of course it is easier if
you can stay in one frame. But if you know how to
correctly do it, you can certainly change frames.
This is what the Lorentz transforms allow you to do.
What many people forget to do, when they think they
are changing frames, is they over-look the changes in
the times on the clocks, and the new syncs that are
required in a new frame. Just changing ruler lengths
is not sufficient.
Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In this example, if A starts out in one IRF, then
>accelerates to a different IRF, we CANNOT expect to
>be able to predict what will happen by viewing
>everything relative to A at all times.
O'Barr comments:
Yes you can, if you do it correctly.
You can get into problems if you are doing more
than two frames, and if you are doing more than one
direction, or taking more than one path, and comparing
final results. Since there is a loss of linearity,
you can end up with different results by taking
different paths, even though you end up in the
same final frame. So you must be careful.
Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In a completely relativistic universe, yes, we
>could do this, but although the universe is indeed
>relativistic, it isn't THAT relativistic. We could
>even use the IRF that A eventually ends up in to
>predict the results AS LONG AS we use that
>particular IRF throughout the analysis!
O'Barr comments:
Well, this is correct, if you properly understand
our physics. Since the correct physics is LET, then
yes, the base of our reality is an absolute reference
frame, but the nature of this frame is such that SR
math works.
Let me delete the rest of what you had to say. I
have said enough to show that you will not get too
much support from me. But I do like your attitude.
It is better than these SR people who are being so
unscientific that they cannot even see that they have
no direct evidence that there is even a 4-D spacetime
continuum. As long as LET math supports the same
results as SR math, then no SR experiment can show
anything that has to be 4-D. It is most sick for
them not to be willing to admit all this, and they
never show any of this in their FAQ. They are sick,
sick people.
Phil
[snip]
> Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>BUT, the chosen IRF must be used THROUGHOUT the
>>experiment. In other words, we CANNOT shift among
>>several IRF's during an experiment and get the right
>>answers!
>
>
> O'Barr comments:
> This is not correct. Of course it is easier if
> you can stay in one frame. But if you know how to
> correctly do it, you can certainly change frames.
> This is what the Lorentz transforms allow you to do.
> What many people forget to do, when they think they
> are changing frames, is they over-look the changes in
> the times on the clocks, and the new syncs that are
> required in a new frame. Just changing ruler lengths
> is not sufficient.
Good point, I should have said, we cannot shift from one IRF to another
WITHOUT taking that shift into account! In contrast, when examining
experiments that fall under Newtonian laws (or are at least ASSUMED to
fall completely under those laws), we can shift among thousands of
IRF's, during the experiment, and still correctly predict the results,
without having to perform a "transform" from one IRF to another, for the
simple reason that a Newtonian experiment's results are NOT affected by
its overall velocity relative to some inertial frame of reference.
Relativistic experiments, in contrast, are unaffected by their INITIAL
velocity relative to some IRF, but that's it; any subsequent changes DO
AFFECT the results. For example, we can measure c by measuring the time
it takes to send a light pulse 3 meters "to the right," wait 3 hours,
send another light pulse 3 meters back toward the left, and subtract 3
hours. If this experiment was as relativistic as Newtonian experiments,
we could change the experiment's velocity during the 3 hour "layover,"
and still get the right answer without having to make any adjustments,
but in fact, any change in the experiment's velocity during the 3 hour
wait WILL AFFECT the results (specifically, we must either account for
the change in velocity by applying a Lorentz transform to the results,
as you say, or we must resynchronize the clocks).
>
>
>
> Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>In this example, if A starts out in one IRF, then
>>accelerates to a different IRF, we CANNOT expect to
>>be able to predict what will happen by viewing
>>everything relative to A at all times.
>
>
> O'Barr comments:
> Yes you can, if you do it correctly.
> You can get into problems if you are doing more
> than two frames, and if you are doing more than one
> direction, or taking more than one path, and comparing
> final results. Since there is a loss of linearity,
> you can end up with different results by taking
> different paths, even though you end up in the
> same final frame. So you must be careful.
Yes, basically the same comments as above, although in performing a
Lorentz transform, you are basically doing what I said must be done,
namely taking all values and measurements relative to a SINGLE IRF
throughout the experiment. In other words, using one IRF, or using
several IRF's with Lorentz transforms at every shift, are mathematically
equivalent actions (in terms of results).
I don't know about the "ins and outs" of LET (hell, I can't even
remember what that stands for!) versus a 4-D spacetime, but I do know
enough to know that far too many of the SR loyalists are more religious
than scientific in their attitude. They do not follow Einstein's advice,
which was to NOT mindlessly believe what he or any other "authority"
said, and to THINK about it for ourselves, in part because that's how
advances are made, and in part because you really do get a better
understanding that way than if you merely memorize what the "Holy
Experts" say without examining their REASONS for saying what they do.
I suspect I would get more support from you than you realize, assuming
you ever read in more detail my various analyses. I don't know why you
would want to, however.
Phil
Phil
Oops! I knew there was something I forgot to respond to ...
> Phil <toob-h...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:47215E7D...@sbcglobal.net:
>
>
>>bz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Phil <toob-h...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>news:d%fTi.47497$RX.2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Absolute laws include:
>>>>
>>>>(1) Light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to space.
>>>
>>>
>>>Light travels at the velocity 'c', as measured by any observer in an
>>>inertial frame of reference.
>>
>>The statement that inertial observer A MEASURES a velocity of c for
>>light in his own inertial reference frame does NOT, as you seem to
>>imply, CONTRADICT the statement that light travels at a velocity of c
>>relative to the medium of space.
>
>
> Define 'medium of space'.
> If you can't do it without referencing existing matter in the universe,
> the limits of said univers being unknown, then speaking of absolute
> velocity is meaningless.
Okay, just this one point: giving a scientifically valid and meaningful
response to my response does NOT mean simply shifting to yet another
counter argument, as if we were in a DEBATE and you were trying to
"score points" by listing several "good arguments." Science means doing
an analysis of reality, without letting prior beliefs force you to "take
sides," and simply list arguments! In other words (I realize that a
translation is needed, which is NOT a criticism of you), we need to stay
on topic until an answer that necessarily follows from basic facts
appears. You CANNOT simply say, over and over, in various ways,
"absolutes ARE TOO meaningless!" That has to be a CONCLUSION, not a
series of dialectic arguments.
Now, back to the issue at hand ... If I have an experiment that uses
existing matter, but which MEASURES my velocity relative to one
universal reference frame, then I have SOME TYPE of "absolute velocity."
Our velocity relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation is a
universal, or absolute, velocity, although it uses an "existing object"
as you say and therefore is NOT the type of absolute velocity we are
looking for. In other words, "absolute velocity" in physics refers to a
LAW OF NATURE that varies as a function of velocity relative to the
universe as a whole, and NOT to our velocity relative to something like
the CMBR, even if the laws of physics tell us that the CMBR is
motionless relative to the medium of space. Realistically, if we accept
locality, and reject the idea of action at a distance, this means that
absolute velocity is a law of nature that varies as a function of
velocity relative to the medium of space.
However, to say, over and over in various ways, as you are doing that
such laws exist ONLY if we can use them to MEASURE our velocity relative
to space IS AN ERROR OF LOGIC AND REASONING!!! Quit doing that! That's
like saying that the nucleus of an atom exists ONLY if we can "see it"
in the center of an atom, or that we can only claim that dinosaurs once
existed on this Earth if one of them eats someone (preferably an
annoying would-be physicist). Things are scientifically valid if they
(1) are directly observable, or (2) if their existence NECESSARILY
FOLLOWS, using valid rules of logic and reasoning, from things that CAN
be observed (Aristotle 101).
If we can PROVE that some OBSERVABLE phenomenon can occur only if law X
is a function of absolute velocity, then we have a proof that law X is a
function of absolute velocity, and that such laws do exist in our
universe, and that the universe is not entirely relative. That's TRUE
science! In general, changing our POSITION in a medium of any type,
including the medium of space (and remember that under GR such a medium
DOES EXIST), and nothing else whatsoever, can change the results of some
experiment ONLY if that medium has characteristics or laws that are
functions of position.
In other words, assume that an experiment is run several times, and that
the ONLY thing that changes from run to run is the LOCATION of the
experiment within or on some medium (a "medium" can be the 2-dimensional
surface of the Earth). Further suppose that the results change. It
necessarily follows that the medium has characteristics that VARY as a
function of location. For example, if we see how many miles a car can
run on a tank of gas, changing the location of the experiment from the
mountains of Colorado to the plains of Kansas will cause the results to
change, proving that from Colorado to Kansas, characteristics exist that
VARY as a function of position. Note that we could run the experiment
for a while in Colorado, stop it (with half a tank of gas left), move it
to Kansas, resume the experiment, and we would still see CHANGES in the
results of the experiment. In contrast, measuring how many miles a boat
can go on a lake will usually give the same results no matter where the
experiment is performed, because the "medium" of a lake's surface does
NOT have characteristics that vary as a function of position (there are
exceptions, but in general this is true). Note that if a medium does NOT
have characteristics that vary as a function of position, then running
an experiment for a while, changing its position, and then resuming the
experiment, CANNOT POSSIBLY change the results.
Similarly, if we perform an experiment at different velocities relative
to some medium, and the results change, then characteristics that vary
as a function of velocity relative to that medium do exist. In the case
of the medium of space, performing experiments at various INITIAL
velocities does NOT change the results. However, as noted above, we can
also stop an experiment in the middle of the experiment (if doing so
does not by itself change the results), CHANGE the experiment's absolute
velocity (its velocity relative to space), and then resume it. As above,
if the medium of space has NO characteristics, i.e., laws, that VARY as
a function of velocity, then doing so CANNOT POSSIBLY change the
results. Do you have any problem, any at all, with the LOGIC AND
REASONING of this conclusion? Again, if there are no absolute laws,
meaning no laws that vary as a function of velocity relative to the
medium of space, then changing an experiment's velocity relative to
space in the MIDDLE of the experiment, while it is stopped, and nothing
else whatsoever, cannot possibly change the results. Do you have any
problem with this? Please don't tell me, "How do you know that nothing
else changed?" I will list experiments later about which you yourself
will agree that nothing else changes, and you can easily come up with
many other ones.
As a side note, the fact that experiments are independent of their
INITIAL absolute velocity means that IF absolute laws exist, then all
experiments contain TWO OR MORE absolute laws, whose initial effects
cancel each other out. For example, suppose that light travels at a
constant velocity, c, relative to the medium of space, making it an
absolute law, and that an observer who is moving "toward the right" at
0.866c measures the speed of light by sending a light pulse "up and
down" on a round-trip a total distance of 6 meters as measured by the
moving observer. This means that as seen by an absolute observer, the
light moves "up and right" at an angle of 30 degrees, then "down and
right" at -30 degrees, traveling a total distance of 12 meters. By
itself, this absolute law would cause the experiment to measure a
velocity for c of 150,0000 km/s, half the correct value, but since the
results of all experiments are independent of their initial absolute
velocity, there must be another absolute law, one which causes the
clocks moving with the experiment to move at half speed. This second law
has been experimentally confirmed by measuring the rate at which
radioactive particles moving in a circle at high speed decay (moving in
a circle at 0.866c relative to an inertial observer forces the
particles, simply as a consequence of the physical geometry of the
situation, to spend most or all of their time at absolute velocities
higher than the absolute velocity of the inertial observer).
Suppose that an experiment sends a light pulse up and down, as above,
but that instead of simply reflecting the light pulse back down, that it
receives the light pulse, waits 1 year, and then sends another light
pulse back down. The velocity of light is determined by taking the total
time, subtracting 1 year giving time t = 20 ns (nanoseconds), and
dividing into the distance 6 meters, so that c = (6 m)/(20 ns) = 300,000
km/s. During the time that the experiment is stopped we can CHANGE the
velocity of the experiment. If we accelerate it toward the right,
nothing will happen, because although the light pulse will travel
further (assuming the experiment's absolute velocity was initially
zero), time will pass more slowly. However, if we accelerate it UPWARD
to 0.866c, the distance traveled by the light pulse will be cut in half,
from 3 m to 1.5 m, and the upper clock will advance by 4.51 ns relative
to the lower clock as seen by an absolute observer. Therefore, it will
send a light pulse back down 4.51 ns "too soon," and the light will
travel just (1.5/1.866) = 0.804 m in 2.68 ns absolute. This is 1.83 ns
absolute, or 0.915 ns local, BEFORE the bottom clock even reaches 1
year! Therefore t = (10 ns - 0.915 ns) = 9.085 ns, and c = 6/t = 660,000
km/s. Clearly, changing the velocity of the experiment in the middle,
while it was stopped, changed the results, which means that the laws
involved here, time-rate, length, and the velocity of light, are all
ABSOLUTE laws. Notice that under relativity, we would analyze this by
using an inertial observer instead of an absolute observer, but get
EXACTLY the same predictions for the result of this experiment.
There is nothing wrong with the laws of relativity, or even with the
principle of relativity. The problem is the largely PHILOSOPHICAL
conclusions that physicists came up with as a result of the fact that an
experiment's INITIAL absolute velocity has no effect on the results. It
is not that this independence from the initial absolute velocity is
insignificant -- it is VERY significant -- but it does NOT necessarily
follow from this, does not logically follow from this, that there are no
absolute laws. It necessarily follows that EITHER there are no absolute
laws, OR that all events contain two or more absolute laws, with initial
effects that cancel each other out. However, if there were no absolute
laws (option 1), then changing an experiment's velocity relative to
space and nothing else in the middle of the experiment while it was
stopped could not possibly change the results, and since the results DO
change, laws that are functions of absolute velocity DO exist (option 2).
You can get the same results by stopping the clock paradox in the middle
and changing its absolute velocity, actually a very nice experiment,
since if done correctly, you get a change that ONLY involves time-rate.
Or you can use several thousand other experiments. Try it yourself!
>
>
>>After all, if c is relative to space,
>
>
> 'space' seems to be a local phenomena. One that 'we carry along with us'.
> The residents of distant galaxies 'seem to be' receding from us at high
> 'absolute velocities'.
>
> It is almost certain that they see us as receding from them at similar
> velocities.
Correct.
>
> If there were such a thing as 'absolute velocity' and a single universal
> object called 'space' then either we or they must be wrong.
Nope. Their relative observations of each other are not affected by the
absolute velocities of the galaxies in question.
>
>
>>an absolute law basically equivalent to the old ether theory, but an
>>object's time-rate and length are functions of the object's absolute
>>velocity, then those three ABSOLUTE laws could easily combine in such a
>>way as to cause every inertial observer to MEASURE a velocity of c for
>>light in his own inertial reference frame.
>
>
> When proposing an 'absolute law' you must carefully define your absolute
> zero points of reference or at least provide a method for determining
> them. You have not done so.
Wrong again. I have defined them as being relative to space, and am here
simply showing that IF their initial effects cancel out, they cannot be
used to MEASURE absolute velocity. Again, I do NOT have to observe that
a nucleus is indeed a very small region in the center of an atom to know
that this is the case, and to repeatedly claim, in a similar manner,
that we must MEASURE absolute velocity to know that absolute laws exist
is to repeatedly make a logical error.
>
>
>>Indeed, if we ASSUME that c
>>is NOT relative to the source of light
>
>
> An assumption that is contrary to all available evidence.
> All evidence shows that light moves at c with respect to ALL inertial
> frames of reference including the frame of reference that was co-moving
> with the source at the instant of emission.
Actually, Einstein's second postulate states that c is independent of
light's source, and it is quite correct.
>
>
>>, which basically forces it to be
>>an absolute law (unless we believe in "prescient photons," which adjust
>>their velocity depending on who will eventually see them)
>
>
> NO prescience is required. The photons move at the same velocity at all
> times. They do not care about the observer. The observer and his tools
> seem to 'be adjusted' in such a way as to always measure the photons speed
> as c. The photon's measured ENERGY/frequency/wavelength being dependent on
> the relative velocity of the source and the observer.
>
> All of our experiments indicate that these things are true.
We're actually saying the same thing here; light does not ACTUALLY move
at different velocities. My point is that IF the velocity of light is
NOT relative to its source (as proven by observations of binary stars),
then unless it ACTUALLY adjusts its velocity depending on who will see
it, prescient photons, then there is really no other option for light's
velocity other than to be relative to space. We can VIEW it as being
relative to some particular inertial reference frame throughout an
experiment and get the right answers, but since its velocity cannot
SHIFT from one IRF to another in reality, and yet we can INITIALLY pick
any IRF and use it as "light's reference frame," c cannot ACTUALLY be
relative to any IRF. In REALITY, c must be relative to space, and it is
only the fact that the initial effect from other absolute laws cancel
this out that causes experiments using light to be independent of their
initial absolute velocity.
>
>
>>, and we also
>>ASSUME that the results of all experiments are independent of their
>>initial absolute velocity (i.e., are the same in all IRF's), then
>>time-rate and length MUST be absolute laws. Conversely, if we ASSUME
>>that the speed of light is relative (to the source), but continue to
>>ASSUME that experimental results are the same in all IRF's, then
>>time-rate and length must now be RELATIVE laws.
>
>
> Show us where to put the 'zero' point marker and explain why it MUST be
> there.
I can't do that.
Only then can you start to speak of 'absolute' distances from that
> point and absolute velocities in relation to that point.
This is completely false; your conclusion does NOT logically follow. I
can speak of absolute velocities (or the nucleus of an atom) as soon as
they NECESSARILY FOLLOW from things that CAN be observed, such as the
changes in the results of experiments that occur when the absolute
velocities of those experiments are changed in the middle of the
experiments, while they are stopped.
>
> Otherwise throwing the word 'absolute' into sentence is just a meaningless
> confusion factor.
The only meaningless confusion factor here is the crap that "absolutes"
are meaningless UNLESS we can actually MEASURE absolute velocity, or
that there is no nucleus unless we can actually see it.
>
>
>>In general, you should not assume that simply repeating the current
>>(great) beliefs is the same thing as an intellectual analysis.
>
>
> I don't.
Yeah, well, how many times have you repeated the same crap here?
>
>
>>I am
>>aware of the current beliefs, but the point of the paragraph (mostly cut
>>by you) was that neither you nor anyone else can DESIGN an experiment
>>that isolates just one absolute law for examination.
>
>
> That is not quite true, rotation seems to be 'absolute'. But no law of
> physics can be examined in isolation. What must be done is that laws must
> be formulated so that ALL data from ALL experiments are consistent with
> the laws or the law must be restricted to a region of applicability. If
> you seek a way to test a single law, you are destined for disappointment.
Well, you sort of have a point here, but the law in question is one of
absolute acceleration, not velocity. Still, I should have said here, you
cannot isolate an absolute VELOCITY law, although I did so later on.
>
> You MIGHT find that the results of an experiment invalidate a law or set
> of laws. But this will only happen if the results are repeatable by
> others.
>
>
>>I listed the
>>absolute laws (although I should mention that this technically only
>>applies to absolute VELOCITY laws) for your convenience, but if you are
>>bothered by the term "absolute," you are welcome to replace them with
>>the equivalent laws given relative to any inertial observer;
>
>
> I AM bothered by 'absolute' (unless it is used to mean the positive
> value of a number that might be negative or positive) as it is often used
> and thrown about on spr by those who are sure that they have receive some
> inspired vision of the laws of physics and cling to that vision in spite
> of evidence to the contrary.
A lovely example of a "criticism without supporting examples," an old,
tired, but widely used debating tactic. Please give evidence to the
contrary of my arguments. However, I will admit that "the inspired" do
indeed cling to visions in spite of reality. Of course, this applies as
much to the "true believers" who mindlessly follow the "Holy Experts" as
much as it applies to the true cranks. But perhaps you will prove that
you fall into neither category by honestly thinking about what I am
saying. ;-)
>
>
>>the fact
>>remains that there are no events in this universe that use just ONE of
>>these absolute/IRF laws. All events have either TWO OR MORE absolute
>>/IRF laws, or no such laws at all (again, with the exception of the
>>"around the universe" experiments). If you know of an exception (a
>>room-sized exception), you can replace relativity and get your Nobel
>>prize at the same time.
>
>
> I know of no exception (aside from rotary motion) and I know of no place
> to put the 'zero' marker for measurements of absolute distance and
> absolute velocity, so I avoid using those terms.
Your "so" does not necessarily follow from your premise, as I keep
telling you. Please use conclusions that necessarily follow from your
premises.
>
>
>>>>(2) An object's time-rate is a function of absolute velocity.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no absolute velocity. Velocity is change in position with
>>>respect to time. Absolute velocity requires absolute positions. An
>>>objects relative time rate is a function of its relative velocity.
>>
>>More irrelevant talk; I might as well say that since you've never seen a
>>dinosaur, they must have never existed. Scientifically acceptable
>>concepts must be EITHER perceivable, or logically deduced FROM
>>perceivables using valid laws of logic. Absolute velocity is a valid
>>concept if and only if there is SOMETHING that varies as a FUNCTION of
>>absolute velocity.
>
>
> You have just shown that your concept of 'absolute velocity' is not a
> valid concept unless you can show an absolute zero point for absolute
> velocity.
No, I have shown that absolute velocity is valid only if something
ACTUALLY VARIES as a function of absolute velocity. Our ability to USE
that something to MEASURE our absolute velocity will exist ONLY if it is
possible to isolate just one absolute law in an experiment for
examination, and that is NOT possible. In other words, our ability to
measure absolute velocity, and the existence of absolute laws, are NOT
logically equivalent; the one does NOT necessarily follow from the other.
Science is completely insane to work with operational definitions, as
they properly "define" nothing, being examples, rather than true
definitions, but that's another story (they make sense in, and belong
to, debates, not science). You don't measure absolute velocity, anymore
than you feed a dinosaur. What true science does, and should ADMIT it
does, whenever some barrier to DIRECT observation exists, such as time
(dinosaurs) or size (atomic nucleus) or the principle of relativity
(absolute velocity), is look for things that CAN be seen that will PROVE
whether the concept in question is scientifically valid. IF absolute
laws do not exist, then changing the absolute velocity of an experiment
during the experiment cannot possibly change the results. Since the
results do change, absolute laws do exist, MUST exist, and we can even
figure out what they are. But then, as I said elsewhere, did you ever
ACTUALLY BELIEVE that light does NOT travel at a constant velocity, c,
relative to the medium of space? To note that we can SAY c is relative
to some IRF and calculate the right results is one thing, but to then
claim that c is actually NOT relative to space is nuts, and always has been.
>
> Do you think that the things we measure wrt the nearby star clusters will
> have any effect at all upon what someone 100 billion light years away
> measures wrt HIS nearby star clusters? Can we both be right?
> MUST we both be wrong?
I have no idea what your point is here.
>
> Maybe we are only wrong if we think we have an absolute velocity.
Ditto.
>
> All our velocity measurements are relative to things 'more or less "near"
> us'.
>
> This is done for a reason.
> The reason is that these are all RELATIVE measurements.
So? Maybe we should deny the existence of an atomic nucleus because "all
our measurements are done on much larger scales?"
>
> The reason for this is that we lack a useful reference point for an
> absolute measurement.
So? This means anything in regard to the existence of absolute velocity
laws ... why? Let me guess, because we must measure our absolute
velocity, or even worse, absolute POSITION, before absolute velocity
laws can be scientifically valid, even though dinosaurs, which are at
least as unobservable (in the direct sense), are perfectly acceptable.
>
> [snipping the rest because it just rehashes your arguments given above.]
> as for Mach, See Milo Wolff's ideas:
> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Wave-Structure-Matter.htm
> see also http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_electron.htm
Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Lorentz, and Einstein were all brilliant. In
comparison to any of them, Mach was an idiot, and his "great insights,"
whether on Newton's definition of mass (don't get me started), or
Einstein's proof of the existence of atoms (which Mach declared didn't
exist "because they can't be seen," even though his alternative,
infinitely divisible matter, was just as unobservable), or the need for
NEWTONIAN physics to be "relative," are just examples of faulty,
second-rate thinking, useful only in high-school classes on common
errors in logic and reasoning. Why on Earth Einstein had so much respect
for him is beyond my understanding.
Phil
>
>
>
>
bz
news:4733187E...@sbcglobal.net:
Until we can define what we are talking about, we are not communicating.
In science[perhaps in everything], 90% of finding the answer to the
question is learning how to ask it properly. In fact, many questions are
already answered when asked correctly.
That is what I have been trying to get you to see.
You need to look more clearly at the meaning of the question that you are
trying to ask.
> Now, back to the issue at hand ... If I have an experiment that uses
> existing matter, but which MEASURES my velocity relative to one
> universal reference frame, then I have SOME TYPE of "absolute velocity."
If we had some bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs!
First, we need to get the eggs. You still have not defined 'absolute
velocity'. I recommend you read chapter 1 in 'Foundations of Physics' by
Lindsay and Margenau. It covers
The data of physics
Experiment and measurement
Symbolism
Symbolism in physics
What is a Physical Law
What is a Physical Theory
The Mathematical Development of Physical Theories. The Method of
Elementary Abstraction
Further illustrations of the Method of Elementary Abstraction. Wave motion
Significance of Boundary Conditions in Physical Theories
Integral equations and difference equations in the development of physical
theories.
> Our velocity relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation is a
> universal, or absolute, velocity, although it uses an "existing object"
> as you say and therefore is NOT the type of absolute velocity we are
> looking for.
Not only that, but the current indications are that someone millions of
light years away, that appears to us to be moving away from us at a high
velocity would find that THEY are close to being at rest with respect to
the CMBR.
> In other words, "absolute velocity" in physics refers to a
> LAW OF NATURE that varies as a function of velocity relative to the
> universe as a whole, and NOT to our velocity relative to something like
> the CMBR, even if the laws of physics tell us that the CMBR is
> motionless relative to the medium of space.
We can't be sure that almost everyone in the 'expanding universe' doesn't
find themselves at rest wrt the CMBR.
> Realistically, if we accept
> locality, and reject the idea of action at a distance, this means that
> absolute velocity is a law of nature that varies as a function of
> velocity relative to the medium of space.
Why should we reject the idea of action at a distance?
Fields and light give the effects of 'action at a distance'.
> However, to say, over and over in various ways, as you are doing that
> such laws exist ONLY if we can use them to MEASURE our velocity relative
> to space IS AN ERROR OF LOGIC AND REASONING!!!
How so?
> Quit doing that! That's
> like saying that the nucleus of an atom exists ONLY if we can "see it"
> in the center of an atom
It is only the information from various experiments that gave us the idea
that there is a nucleus in an atom. In one of my early chemistry classes,
the professor, Dr. Rose, came in one day and proposed the 'Rose Goo
Theory'. "Everything is made out of different kinds of goo mixed together
in different proportions". "Each type of goo is uniform throughout".
Our task was to test the theory and disprove it by citing various
experiments that had been done or could be done.
We learned a lot about science that day.
> , or that we can only claim that dinosaurs once
> existed on this Earth if one of them eats someone
No. 'once existed' only requires evidence that they 'once ate something'.
Now if you claim they NOW exist, THEN you will need to show fresh dinosaur
dropping or some other evidence they do exist.
[by the way, there is pretty good evidence that their decedents DO still
exist and are called 'bird'. Also, turtles have been around since early in
the age of dinosaurs and occasionally eat those with delusions of being
able to 'fix' science by offering a 'fresh idea'. The only problem is that
they seldom understand science well enough to understand why their idea is
rejected{and do not understand that it was thought of and rejected
thousands of times before}.].
> (preferably an
> annoying would-be physicist). Things are scientifically valid if they
> (1) are directly observable, or (2) if their existence NECESSARILY
> FOLLOWS, using valid rules of logic and reasoning, from things that CAN
> be observed (Aristotle 101).
Though I tend to agree with that statement, I must caution you that
Aristotle and Aristotelian logic is useful but somewhat obsolete as many
things are not divided into A and not A. Multivalued logic and probability
are tools better suited for many problems of daily life.
I recommend to you the study of general semantics. You might start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory
> If we can PROVE that some OBSERVABLE phenomenon can occur only if law X
> is a function of absolute velocity, then we have a proof that law X is a
> function of absolute velocity,
If we had some bacon and if we had some eggs....
> and that such laws do exist in our
> universe, and that the universe is not entirely relative. That's TRUE
> science! In general, changing our POSITION in a medium of any type,
> including the medium of space (and remember that under GR such a medium
> DOES EXIST), and nothing else whatsoever, can change the results of some
> experiment ONLY if that medium has characteristics or laws that are
> functions of position.
You are assuming what you want to prove.
You are, in the rules of logic, only allowed to do something like that if
you want to DISPROVE something by showing it leads to illogical
conclusions.
> In other words, assume that an experiment is run several times, and that
> the ONLY thing that changes from run to run is the LOCATION of the
> experiment within or on some medium (a "medium" can be the 2-dimensional
> surface of the Earth).
Go and run the experiment. Then come back with your results.
Don't try to get others to run the experiment for you.
You are the only one that has enough 'faith' in your ideas to be willing
to spend time, money and effort on it.
Or write a grant proposal and submit it to NSF. You just might get funded.
> Further suppose that the results change.
Impossible. Many things are changing from run to run for every experiment.
The time changes. The position of the earth with relation to the moon
changes. The position of the earth with relation to the sun changes. The
position of the sun with respect to the galactic center changes. All kinds
of things in the environment change.
We could try to look for correlations with all the things that change, but
an experiment with 'that is the ONLY thing that changes' is impossible to
run.
> It
> necessarily follows that the medium has characteristics that VARY as a
> function of location. For example, if we see how many miles a car can
> run on a tank of gas, changing the location of the experiment from the
> mountains of Colorado to the plains of Kansas will cause the results to
> change, proving that from Colorado to Kansas, characteristics exist that
> VARY as a function of position. Note that we could run the experiment
> for a while in Colorado, stop it (with half a tank of gas left), move it
> to Kansas, resume the experiment, and we would still see CHANGES in the
> results of the experiment.
On the other hand, we can run the same experiment over the same road in
Colorado 10 times and find that the results change MORE from run to run
that they did between Colorado and Kansas. We can also find that the
results are much different when the road surface is different. We can also
find that the results are much different when there is a head wind.
We must gather data on all the things that are different from run to run.
Then, after running multiple regression analysis, we may find that due to
the difference in air density between Colorado and Kansas, there is a
difference in mileage. We find that hills vs level ground is also important
but the difference in LOCATION doesn't matter. In other words there is no
function of latitude and longitude that correlates with gas mileage.
> In contrast, measuring how many miles a boat
> can go on a lake will usually give the same results no matter where the
> experiment is performed, because the "medium" of a lake's surface does
> NOT have characteristics that vary as a function of position (there are
> exceptions, but in general this is true).
Now that is incorrect. Water density varies with salt content and with
temperature so drag factors *are* going to be mildly correlated with
location.
> Note that if a medium does NOT
> have characteristics that vary as a function of position, then running
> an experiment for a while, changing its position, and then resuming the
> experiment, CANNOT POSSIBLY change the results.
You appear to have very little experience with actually running any kind
of experiment. The results of repeated experiments, even when every thing
is carefully controlled, will vary.
>
> Similarly, if we perform an experiment at different velocities relative
> to some medium, and the results change, then characteristics that vary
> as a function of velocity relative to that medium do exist. In the case
> of the medium of space, performing experiments at various INITIAL
> velocities does NOT change the results.
Within the experimental margins of error, that is correct.
> However, as noted above, we can
> also stop an experiment in the middle of the experiment (if doing so
> does not by itself change the results)
It will.
, CHANGE the experiment's absolute
> velocity (its velocity relative to space), and then resume it.
You have to accelerate to change the velocity and you have just
introduced the term 'absolute' without any justification.
Accelerating changes more than just the speed. It changes the kinetic
energy, for example. It changes the Doppler shift of incoming and outgoing
signals, for another. It changes the relativistic length and time rate,
for another.
There is no way to move that experiment from one velocity to another
without changing other things.
Your problem goes back to failure to define your terms carefully.
> As above,
> if the medium of space has NO characteristics, i.e., laws, that VARY as
> a function of velocity, then doing so CANNOT POSSIBLY change the
> results.
You have just performed an acceleration. That changes many things that do
NOT depend on location in space nor starting velocity.
> Do you have any problem, any at all
Yes. Many as already stated above.
> , with the LOGIC AND
> REASONING of this conclusion? Again, if there are no absolute laws,
> meaning no laws that vary as a function of velocity relative to the
> medium of space, then changing an experiment's velocity relative to
> space in the MIDDLE of the experiment, while it is stopped, and nothing
> else whatsoever, cannot possibly change the results. Do you have any
> problem with this?
Many, as already stated.
> Please don't tell me, "How do you know that nothing
> else changed?" I will list experiments later about which you yourself
> will agree that nothing else changes, and you can easily come up with
> many other ones.
I can't come up with ANY way to change the velocity of something without
applying an acceleration to it. Accelerating an object changes many
things.
>
> As a side note, the fact that experiments are independent of their
> INITIAL absolute velocity means that IF absolute laws exist, then all
> experiments contain TWO OR MORE absolute laws, whose initial effects
> cancel each other out.
If we had some bacon, we could have bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs.
If multiple 'absolute laws' exist in such a way as to cancel the absolutes
out completely then it is as if no absolute laws exist.
That involves an acceleration. Acceleration changes many things.
The experiment is no longer the same experiment.
> If we accelerate it toward the right,
> nothing will happen, because although the light pulse will travel
> further (assuming the experiment's absolute velocity was initially
> zero), time will pass more slowly. However, if we accelerate it UPWARD
> to 0.866c, the distance traveled by the light pulse will be cut in half,
> from 3 m to 1.5 m, and the upper clock will advance by 4.51 ns relative
> to the lower clock as seen by an absolute observer. Therefore, it will
> send a light pulse back down 4.51 ns "too soon," and the light will
> travel just (1.5/1.866) = 0.804 m in 2.68 ns absolute. This is 1.83 ns
> absolute, or 0.915 ns local, BEFORE the bottom clock even reaches 1
> year! Therefore t = (10 ns - 0.915 ns) = 9.085 ns, and c = 6/t = 660,000
> km/s. Clearly, changing the velocity of the experiment in the middle,
> while it was stopped, changed the results, which means that the laws
> involved here, time-rate, length, and the velocity of light, are all
> ABSOLUTE laws. Notice that under relativity, we would analyze this by
> using an inertial observer instead of an absolute observer, but get
> EXACTLY the same predictions for the result of this experiment.
>
> There is nothing wrong with the laws of relativity, or even with the
> principle of relativity. The problem is the largely PHILOSOPHICAL
> conclusions that physicists came up with as a result of the fact that an
> experiment's INITIAL absolute velocity has no effect on the results.
Then go post in a philosophical news group.
I agree that you are discussing philosophy.
Such a discussion does not belong here.
> It
> is not that this independence from the initial absolute velocity is
> insignificant -- it is VERY significant -- but it does NOT necessarily
> follow from this, does not logically follow from this, that there are no
> absolute laws. It necessarily follows that EITHER there are no absolute
> laws, OR that all events contain two or more absolute laws, with initial
> effects that cancel each other out. However, if there were no absolute
> laws (option 1), then changing an experiment's velocity relative to
> space and nothing else in the middle of the experiment while it was
> stopped could not possibly change the results, and since the results DO
> change, laws that are functions of absolute velocity DO exist (option
> 2).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_entailment
>
> You can get the same results by stopping the clock paradox in the middle
> and changing its absolute velocity, actually a very nice experiment,
> since if done correctly, you get a change that ONLY involves time-rate.
> Or you can use several thousand other experiments. Try it yourself!
There is NO way to change ONLY the velocity.
>>
>>>After all, if c is relative to space,
>>
>>
>> 'space' seems to be a local phenomena. One that 'we carry along with
>> us'. The residents of distant galaxies 'seem to be' receding from us at
>> high 'absolute velocities'.
>>
>> It is almost certain that they see us as receding from them at similar
>> velocities.
>
> Correct.
>>
>> If there were such a thing as 'absolute velocity' and a single
>> universal object called 'space' then either we or they must be wrong.
>
> Nope. Their relative observations of each other are not affected by the
> absolute velocities of the galaxies in question.
Then 'absolute velocities' has no [useful] meaning, as I have been trying
to explain to you.
>>>an absolute law basically equivalent to the old ether theory, but an
>>>object's time-rate and length are functions of the object's absolute
>>>velocity, then those three ABSOLUTE laws could easily combine in such a
>>>way as to cause every inertial observer to MEASURE a velocity of c for
>>>light in his own inertial reference frame.
>>
>> When proposing an 'absolute law' you must carefully define your
>> absolute zero points of reference or at least provide a method for
>> determining them. You have not done so.
>
> Wrong again. I have defined them as being relative to space, and am here
> simply showing that IF their initial effects cancel out, they cannot be
> used to MEASURE absolute velocity. Again, I do NOT have to observe that
> a nucleus is indeed a very small region in the center of an atom to know
> that this is the case, and to repeatedly claim, in a similar manner,
> that we must MEASURE absolute velocity to know that absolute laws exist
> is to repeatedly make a logical error.
No. To insist on operational definitions is to take something from the
realm of philosophy to the realm of science.
>>>Indeed, if we ASSUME that c
>>>is NOT relative to the source of light
>>
>>
>> An assumption that is contrary to all available evidence.
>> All evidence shows that light moves at c with respect to ALL inertial
>> frames of reference including the frame of reference that was co-moving
>> with the source at the instant of emission.
>
> Actually, Einstein's second postulate states that c is independent of
> light's source, and it is quite correct.
Correct, for his 1905 paper on relativity.
Science progressed after he wrote that paper, it didn't stay static.
The postulates are often reworded to indicate that the laws of physics are
the same in all inertial frames of reference. One of the laws of physics
is that light travels at c. My statement was also correct.
>>>, which basically forces it to be
>>>an absolute law (unless we believe in "prescient photons," which adjust
>>>their velocity depending on who will eventually see them)
>>
>>
>> NO prescience is required. The photons move at the same velocity at all
>> times. They do not care about the observer. The observer and his tools
>> seem to 'be adjusted' in such a way as to always measure the photons
>> speed as c. The photon's measured ENERGY/frequency/wavelength being
>> dependent on the relative velocity of the source and the observer.
>>
>> All of our experiments indicate that these things are true.
>
> We're actually saying the same thing here; light does not ACTUALLY move
> at different velocities. My point is that IF the velocity of light is
> NOT relative to its source (as proven by observations of binary stars),
agreed.
> then unless it ACTUALLY adjusts its velocity depending on who will see
> it,
There is no need for it to do so. Just for the measurement instruments to
always yield a value of 'c'.
> prescient photons, then there is really no other option for light's
> velocity other than to be relative to space. We can VIEW it as being
> relative to some particular inertial reference frame throughout an
> experiment and get the right answers
Yes. And we get the same answer no matter WHICH IRF is chosen, including
the IRF that was co-moving with the source at the instant of emission.
We can even use certain transformation equations and use data collected in
more than one IRF and get correct results.
> , but since its velocity cannot
> SHIFT from one IRF to another in reality, and yet we can INITIALLY pick
> any IRF and use it as "light's reference frame," c cannot ACTUALLY be
> relative to any IRF.
Wrong. Light moves at 'c', as measure in ALL IRFs.
> In REALITY, c must be relative to space, and it is
> only the fact that the initial effect from other absolute laws cancel
> this out that causes experiments using light to be independent of their
> initial absolute velocity.
Your statement does NOT logically follow. In fact, since 'relative to
space' has not been meaningfully defined, your statement does not mean
anything.
However, let me, for a moment, assume that you HAVE some kind of
meaningful definition for 'relative to space'. What must its
characteristics be?
1) light always moves at c with respect to 'space'.
2) Anything other than light has NO meaningful relative speed with respect
to space because, for anything other than light, speed relative to space
has no effect.
I guess we could say that for things other than light that the speed
'relative to space' could never reach or exceed c. The problem is that the
speed 'relative to other things' ALSO can never reach or exceed c. The
speed 'relative to space' has NO use because no one can measure their
speed 'relative to space'.
But, as I said, 'relative to space' is poorly specified so it is really a
meaningless phrase.
>>>, and we also
>>>ASSUME that the results of all experiments are independent of their
>>>initial absolute velocity (i.e., are the same in all IRF's), then
>>>time-rate and length MUST be absolute laws. Conversely, if we ASSUME
>>>that the speed of light is relative (to the source), but continue to
>>>ASSUME that experimental results are the same in all IRF's, then
>>>time-rate and length must now be RELATIVE laws.
>>
>>
>> Show us where to put the 'zero' point marker and explain why it MUST be
>> there.
>
> I can't do that.
I suspected as much.
>
> Only then can you start to speak of 'absolute' distances from that
>> point and absolute velocities in relation to that point.
>
> This is completely false; your conclusion does NOT logically follow. I
> can speak of absolute velocities (or the nucleus of an atom) as soon as
> they NECESSARILY FOLLOW from things that CAN be observed, such as the
> changes in the results of experiments that occur when the absolute
> velocities of those experiments are changed in the middle of the
> experiments, while they are stopped.
The problem is that although there IS evidence for the nucleus of the
atom, there is no evidence for an absolute velocity. That makes 'absolute
velocity' NOT logically follow from anything.
>> Otherwise throwing the word 'absolute' into sentence is just a
>> meaningless confusion factor.
>
> The only meaningless confusion factor here is the cr*p that "absolutes"
> are meaningless UNLESS we can actually MEASURE absolute velocity, or
> that there is no nucleus unless we can actually see it.
Please keep the language clean and civil, if you wish to continue our
correspondence. ....
>
> Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Lorentz, and Einstein were all brilliant. In
> comparison to any of them, Mach was an idiot, and his "great insights,"
> whether on Newton's definition of mass (don't get me started), or
> Einstein's proof of the existence of atoms (which Mach declared didn't
> exist "because they can't be seen," even though his alternative,
> infinitely divisible matter, was just as unobservable), or the need for
> NEWTONIAN physics to be "relative," are just examples of faulty,
> second-rate thinking, useful only in high-school classes on common
> errors in logic and reasoning. Why on Earth Einstein had so much respect
> for him is beyond my understanding.
Since you judge Einstein as brilliant, perhaps you should reexamine your
evaluation of Mach. There seems to be a logical inconsistency there.
> Phil
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
Phil
step you either take things out of context, or refer to issues
irrelevant to the core of the argument. This is a dialectic response,
not a scientific response. You're not willing to discuss the actual
logic of an argument, but instead try to simply dismiss the argument
because of issues that have nothing to do with the inherent logic. E.g.,
according to you, we can't discuss how the characteristics of a medium
will and will not change experimental results "because experimental
results always change," but in REALITY the large scale changes referred
to in the argument could not possibly occur as a result of any minor
run-to-run variations, and you damn well know it. That's like saying
that since we can't make perfect circles, geometry cannot study them.
I'm also not real impressed with your constant use of the old debating
tactic of giving general criticisms without relevant examples, and of
course, that even older, even more boring tactic of cutting your
opponent to shreds in order to "prove" that his arguments are wrong.
Really pathetic. If you ever get the balls to tackle my reasoning in an
HONEST scientific way, instead of with a bunch of debating tactics and
evasions, let me know. Until then, I'm going to put you into the
"useless/dishonest" category.
Phil
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Phil" <toob-h...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4736628A...@sbcglobal.net...
> I'm not going to bother to refute your nonsense point
> by point.
Who the heck are you talking to? Can't you leave some trace for
others to follow?
David A. Smith
bz
news:4736628A...@sbcglobal.net:
> I'm not going to bother to refute your nonsense point by point. At every
> step you either take things out of context, or refer to issues
> irrelevant to the core of the argument. This is a dialectic response,
> not a scientific response. You're not willing to discuss the actual
> logic of an argument, but instead try to simply dismiss the argument
> because of issues that have nothing to do with the inherent logic. E.g.,
> according to you, we can't discuss how the characteristics of a medium
> will and will not change experimental results "because experimental
> results always change," but in REALITY the large scale changes referred
> to in the argument could not possibly occur as a result of any minor
> run-to-run variations, and you damn well know it. That's like saying
> that since we can't make perfect circles, geometry cannot study them.
> I'm also not real impressed with your constant use of the old debating
> tactic of giving general criticisms without relevant examples, and of
> course, that even older, even more boring tactic of cutting your
> opponent to shreds in order to "prove" that his arguments are wrong.
When it suits you, you want to use logic rather than experimental data,
saying that we must bow to logic even when there is no way to measure what
you say exists.
When it suits you, you insist that we must be 'scientific' and pretend that
your thought experiments can be done AND that the results of those thought
experiments will prove you right.
When I repeatedly point out that in order to be scientific, we must define
our terms carefully and ask our questions carefully, you accuse me of
being dishonest.
When you are confronted with the lack of scientific and logical value to
your philosophical approach, you resort to insults and imprecations.
Come back when you can stick to discussing science in a civil manner.
Sue...
> Phil <toob-head...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:4736628A...@sbcglobal.net:
I don't think either of you are dishonest,
but you are talking past each other on an
important point.
Try to clarify what is meant by "inertial observer".
I can make the case that an inertial observer can't be
only an observer of light. Light does not
move inertially. It has no mass. You'll find most
expressions of the principle of relativity easier
to comprehend with such a restriction.
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
A broader interpretation of *inertial observer*
that could include massless light only makes
sense in the context of GR where mass/energy
equivalence with a volume of space-time has
been mathematically (not semantically)
established.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor
The formalism GR doesn't yield a compact modular
expression that you can port directly directly to
the SR problem. The imaginaries that accumulated
in the tranformations have to be formally removed.
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Sue...
>
> --
> bz
Phil
Sorry about that. Here's a bit -- well, quite a bit -- from the original
post:
How so?
>> Quit doing that! That's
It will.
Many, as already stated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_entailment
The rest was snipped, unread.
Phil
bz
news:1194773119.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
I never accused him of dishonesty, only of lack of understanding how
science works.
> but you are talking past each other on an
> important point.
Granted. Probably on several points.
>
> Try to clarify what is meant by "inertial observer".
I don't think either of us used that term.
> I can make the case that an inertial observer can't be
> only an observer of light.
What more must an observer be?
> Light does not
> move inertially.
Agreed, though light appears to carry 'momentum' or 'inertia' or energy
from emitter to receiver.
> It has no mass.
No 'rest mass'.
> You'll find most
> expressions of the principle of relativity easier
> to comprehend with such a restriction.
Exactly how would you state the restriction?
>
> "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
> Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>
> A broader interpretation of *inertial observer*
> that could include massless light only makes
> sense in the context of GR where mass/energy
> equivalence with a volume of space-time has
> been mathematically (not semantically)
> established.
I agree that properly establishing definitions, through math is vital.
I do not quite follow your statement that massless light only makes sense
in the context of GR.
Would you care to explain further?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor
>
> The formalism GR doesn't yield a compact modular
> expression that you can port directly directly to
> the SR problem. The imaginaries that accumulated
> in the tranformations have to be formally removed.
Seems like you and I have been around that bush before.
Which of those imaginaries are something other than a matter of convenience
in math?
> <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
> transformation will convert electric or magnetic
> fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
> but no transformation mixes them with the
> gravitational field. >>
> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
Sue...
[...]
>
> > I don't think either of you are dishonest,
>
> I never accused him of dishonesty, only of lack of understanding how
> science works.
>
> > but you are talking past each other on an
> > important point.
>
> Granted. Probably on several points.
>
>
>
> > Try to clarify what is meant by "inertial observer".
>
> I don't think either of us used that term.
Then you might as well move the thread to
sci.physics.electromag :o)
>
> > I can make the case that an inertial observer can't be
> > only an observer of light.
>
> What more must an observer be?
A child on a carousel does not observe inertia
with his eyes, but with his hand. If he loosens
his grip on a carousel he'll be thrown off.
If he loosens his grip standing on a
moving on a rail car, nothing happens.
>
> > Light does not
> > move inertially.
>
> Agreed, though light appears to carry 'momentum' or 'inertia' or energy
> from emitter to receiver.
The formalism of GR exploits that rather well.
SR does not. If it did GR wouldn't be necessary.
>
> > It has no mass.
>
> No 'rest mass'.
Moving or not... there is no inertial coupling
to exploit.
>
> > You'll find most
> > expressions of the principle of relativity easier
> > to comprehend with such a restriction.
>
> Exactly how would you state the restriction?
<< The strength of special relativity lies in
its derivation from simple, basic principles,
*including the invariance of the laws of physics
under a shift of inertial reference frames.
(See also: Lorentz covariance.) * >>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
Remove the words between the asterisks,
as the 1920 paper does.
>
>
>
> > "The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
> > Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
>
> > A broader interpretation of *inertial observer*
> > that could include massless light only makes
> > sense in the context of GR where mass/energy
> > equivalence with a volume of space-time has
> > been mathematically (not semantically)
> > established.
>
> I agree that properly establishing definitions, through math is vital.
> I do not quite follow your statement that massless light only makes sense
> in the context of GR.
> Would you care to explain further?
The IRF's are imaginary. You can't
~shift frames~ of a mass without application
of force. that force is expoloted by GR
via mass/energy equivalence. SR can't
exploit it because:
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Resolving the conflict of SR's postulates is
no great mastery over inertia/gravity because
the conflict was imaginary.
The imaginary time that resolve's SR's postulate
is in the nearfield and has no relation to
the imaginary time that can *represent* kinetic
energy between inertial frames.
Where are the words inertia or gravity on this page?
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Energy and its mass equivalent is on
THIS page:
<<invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well known law of conservation of energy>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
>
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor
>
> > The formalism GR doesn't yield a compact modular
> > expression that you can port directly directly to
> > the SR problem. The imaginaries that accumulated
> > in the tranformations have to be formally removed.
>
> Seems like you and I have been around that bush before.
> Which of those imaginaries are something other than a matter of convenience
> in math?
The tensor calculus of of GR makes more imaginaries
than will be explained in a news group posting. You'll
have to take that up the way Tucker does if you want to
find some to eliminate.
The three applicable to SR are the time of the
B field, the time of the E field...
http://www.sm.luth.se/~urban/master/Theory/3.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
and the time that is conserved with energy as
an intoduction to GR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
>
> > <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
> > transformation will convert electric or magnetic
> > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
> > but no transformation mixes them with the
> > gravitational field. >>
> >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
>
Sue...
> --
> bz
>
bz
news:1194845616....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 11, 8:34 pm, bz <bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> > I don't think either of you are dishonest,
>> I never accused him of dishonesty, only of lack of understanding how
>> science works.
>>
>> > but you are talking past each other on an
>> > important point.
>>
>> Granted. Probably on several points.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Try to clarify what is meant by "inertial observer".
>>
>> I don't think either of us used that term.
>
> Then you might as well move the thread to
> sci.physics.electromag :o)
Never visited that group.
As for an inertial observer, I observed some inertia this morning, on the
way to work.
But it disippated.
>> > I can make the case that an inertial observer can't be
>> > only an observer of light.
>>
>> What more must an observer be?
>
> A child on a carousel does not observe inertia
> with his eyes, but with his hand. If he loosens
> his grip on a carousel he'll be thrown off.
Depends on his stance on the issues, doesn't it?
> If he loosens his grip standing on a
> moving on a rail car, nothing happens.
I saw someone do that once. It was his downfall.
>> > Light does not
>> > move inertially.
>>
>> Agreed, though light appears to carry 'momentum' or 'inertia' or energy
>> from emitter to receiver.
>
> The formalism of GR exploits that rather well.
> SR does not. If it did GR wouldn't be necessary.
I thought GR was more about the equivalence of acceleration and gravity
than Planks constant and E=mcc.
But then I am searching for enlightenment.
>> > It has no mass.
>>
>> No 'rest mass'.
>
> Moving or not... there is no inertial coupling
> to exploit.
Every time I stop a photon to measure its mass, I get energy when I stop
it, but there is none left over to measure after it is stopped.
No rest mass.
Compton effect seems to indicate some kind of coupling between inertia,
mass and energy.
>> > You'll find most
>> > expressions of the principle of relativity easier
>> > to comprehend with such a restriction.
>>
>> Exactly how would you state the restriction?
> << The strength of special relativity lies in
> its derivation from simple, basic principles,
>
> *including the invariance of the laws of physics
> under a shift of inertial reference frames.
> (See also: Lorentz covariance.) * >>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity
>
> Remove the words between the asterisks,
> as the 1920 paper does.
I would suspect that the word 'special' would also need be removed.
Seems like as long as 'special' is there, so should the asterisked phrase.
In other words, there is no conflict.
> The imaginary time that resolve's SR's postulate
> is in the nearfield and has no relation to
> the imaginary time that can *represent* kinetic
> energy between inertial frames.
The time is never really imaginary. It is always really real.
The MATH notation just uses complex numbers for complex reasons (because it
is easier).
>
> Where are the words inertia or gravity on this page?
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
I am not about to go on a scavenger hunt.
You should look at the next page
"In this manner a time-value is associated with every event which is
essentially capable of observation."
He doesn't say an imaginary time value.
On the next page he says
" Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous
relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in
the negative."
He goes on to say
" Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly
been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute
significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the
body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is
incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we
discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the
propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in
Section VII) disappears."
which clearly indicates to me that he thinks that time passes at a
different rate for those aboard the train than for those on the embankment.
In fact, he says
"according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a
particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered
equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment
(as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man[in the
railway car] in walking travels the distance w relative to the railway line
in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment."
--