relative illusion?
arthur blair
the special theory of relativity.
Imagine you are on a train, facing rearwards, looking at a clock.
As the train accelerates away from the clock it takes longer and
longer for "successive" images of the clock to arrive at your eyes.
So time slows down for you. Until, if the train could reach the
speed of light, the clock appears to stop.
This bothers me. It mes relativistic time dilation look like an
illusion. After all, if you turned around and went back, you'd find
the clock on the wall matched your own watch again.
Is this explanation valid?
Art.
Alexander Abian
blair) writes:
some lines deleted
>This bothers me. It makes relativistic time dilation look like an
>illusion. After all, if you turned around and went back, you'd find
>the clock on the wall matched your own watch again.
>Is this explanation valid?
>Art.
Abian answers:
The trouble is that the notion of TIME in SR, GR, QM, etc. is not
treated, analyzed and handled intelligently, profoundly and con-
cretely. Your conclusion that TIME in Physics is a crack-potish
illusion, is quite correct. In fact it is a crack-potish twisted
illusion , twisted to match nonconvincing theories of crackpots
such as Lorentz, Einstein and Co.
I have shown the way how the question of Time must be settled. There
is a UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE TIME T which is measured in terms of the
MASS OF THE UNIVERSE M by a formula such as:
1/T + 1/ log M positive T, M < 1 Abian and
M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian.
This Absolute time T will not lead to crack-potish illusions and
paradoxes.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
James Kibo Parry
In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> [...] Your conclusion that TIME in Physics is a crack-potish
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> illusion, is quite correct. In fact it is a crack-potish twisted
> illusion , twisted to match nonconvincing theories of crackpots
Boys and girls, today's sci.physics has been brought to you by the word
'crackpot'. Can you say 'crackpot'? Can you make a sentence involving
the word 'Abian', the word 'is', and today's word? I knew you could!
> I have shown the way how the question of Time must be settled. [...]
Yes, let's find a Final Solution to the problem of Time! Time is evil
and must be destroyed! SMASH YOUR CLOCK NOW! GO ON FLEX-TIME! DEATH
TO THE PRE-NEANDERTHAL CRACK-POTISH CALENDAR WITH ITS 200 TONS OF
COSMETIC LAVA!!! VENUS MUST BE GIVEN AN ARBITRARY-LENGTH WEEK TO BECOME
A RELAXED EARTH!!!!!!
> This Absolute time T will not lead to crack-potish illusions and
> paradoxes. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dr. Abian, you might want to ask alt.drugs for advice on your hangups
with crack and pot.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
> ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
Sooner or later someone will tell him how to make a .sig longer than
four lines, and then BOY WILL WE BE SORRY. And then later someone will
invent letters BIGGER THAN CAPITALS and ABIAN'S POSTS WILL BE SO HEAVY
THEY KNOCK THE EARTH OFF ITS AXIS SO THAT IT SPIRALS INTO THE SUN AND
OBVIOUSLY CAUSES A SUPERNOVA DESTROYING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE AND
CONVERTING US TO ANTI-MATTER!!!!!!!!
-- K.
Leigh Palmer
No, the explanation indicates a profound lack of understanding of
special relativity on the part of the explainer.
The first incorrect point is the introduction of the accelerating train.
Time dilation is an effect which certainly attends relatively
accelerating systems, but it is a term most commonly associated with the
relative time coordinates of two non-accelerating systems which have
relative velocities with respect to one another. For that reason in what
follows I will assume the train is moving with constant velocity with
respect to the clock, and that both clock and train are in inertial
(non-accelerating) frames of reference.
The second incorrect point is the suggestion that time observed by the,
ah, "trained" observer watching the clock is the time coordinate at the
location of the clock in the "station"ary frame. It is not. The observer
knows that light propagates at a finite speed, and he takes the time lag
he calculates in his own frame into account when determining the time
coordinate pertaining to the stationary frame. He knows that the clock at
any given instant (in his frame) reads ahead of the time he sees, and by
exactly how much.
I'll let the lightspeed train pass and go on to the last point. If you
were to turn the train around and head back toward the clock at constant
speed, you would see the clock running *faster* than your own watch. You
could more than account for this speedup by taking the diminishing time
lag into account as before, and you'd still need a time dilation to make
things come out right. When you reach the clock again, however, you will
find that your watch is slow with respect to the station clock. They will
not match.
The paradoxical thing about this superficial analysis is this: While the
trained observer figured the stationary clock was running slow the whole
time, when he returned to the station he found that his own watch must
have been running slower than the station clock, for it was behind! I
have left out a crucial step in the calculation, and you will have to go
through it yourself to understand it properly. Suffice it to say that,
when everything is taken properly into account, there is no paradox. The
explanation I have just given (including the error) is called "the twin
paradox of special relativity", by the way.
The only way to truly understand time dilation is to go through the
mathematics of it, and that's not very hard. I recommend the book
"Spacetime Physics" by Edwin F. Taylor and Jonathan Archibald Wheeler,
now in its second edition, though either edition is very good. Relativity
is certainly a subject which should be understood mathematically. Simple
word pictures are incapable of enlightening one. Even the odd physicist
has died within living memory without fully understanding the subject,
though it is not difficult.
Leigh
Silver Omega
> cretely. Your conclusion that TIME in Physics is a crack-potish
> illusion, is quite correct. In fact it is a crack-potish twisted
> illusion , twisted to match nonconvincing theories of crackpots
> such as Lorentz, Einstein and Co.
And, of course, nonconvincing and obviously falsified evidence from
experiments performed regularly by many thousands of scientists, um
I mean crackpots, across the globe... :-)
Silver.
--
Question: If all roads lead to Rome, does every roam leads to Rhodes?
Silver Omega, uda...@oak.cc.kcl.ac.uk
Ron Maimon
> the special theory of relativity.
> as the train accelarates away from the clock it takes longer and
> longer for successive images of the clock to arrive at your eyes
> speed of light, the clock appears to stop.
>
with good reason. This intuitive explanation is wrong both in
principle and in detail. Its true that, if the world was non
relativistic, then indeed the clock would appear to slow down
from your point of view if you were moving away from it at a
speed v, but then, it would seem that the pulses would be
moving towards you at a speed c-v, and that the clock would be
slowed down by a factor of 1/(c-v) and this is not the case
this gives a wrong value for the time dilation factor which is
1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
second, this explanation makes it seem as if the time dilation is
reversed when you move toward the clock, since then the light is
hitting you faster and faster as you approach the clock. this is
not the case at all. The time dilation factor depends only on your
speed, not on the direction you are travelling. In that sense it
is real. If you stop and reverse your motion so as to return to
the clock you dont see your own watch resynchronize with it.
lastly and most importantly, this explanation covers up the central
fact that is crucial to relativity, the fact that the light appears
to travel at the same speed to you. In fact,the images of the clock
are still rushing at you with speed c from your point of view, so
intuitively, they should hit you at the same times no matter how fast
youre going. Of course in the last sentence I havn't taken into
account the real time dilation.
the only way to resolve these 'paradoxes' is to carefully think about
what it means to say 'time' and `space'. Try reading Einsteins
relativity book for the general public, or practically any other
introductory book on SR.
If you want a simple explanation of time dilation that is correct
in detail, imagine a clock composed of two mirrors a distance 'l'
apart with light bouncing back and forth between them. Relative
to an observer at rest, this clock measures time in oscillations
whose duration is 2l/c.
If the clock is observed by someone travelling relative to it at
a speed v, moving perpendicular to the line joining the mirrors
the light is still observed to move at the same speed c
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
also, the mirrors are still observed to be the same distance apart.
The reason the mirrors still appear to be the same distance apart
is that distance perpendicular to your direction of motion cannot
change- if you smash two cylinders together one moving at velocity
u the other moving at velocity -u as pictured below
0___0 ---> <---- 0____0
u -u
and then observe them to smash, you should also observe them
to smash in any frame of reference, even one moving with velocity u
where one of the cylinders is at rest. by arguments like this you
can convince yourself that distance perpendicular to your direction
of motion is invariant.
now for the clock. We now know that the distance between the mirrors
hasn't changed.
_____ _________
| x ---- 2x ----
| / \
| / \
|l / \
| / \
| / \
---- ----
as pictured above the light must travel a distance 2sqrt(l*l+x*x)
instead of 2l, and therefore takes an amount of time
2sqrt(l*l+x*x)/c
(which, in any case is longer than 2l- hence the clock is slow)
and in that time the mirrors move an amount
v*sqrt(l*l+x*x)/c
and this equals 2x. so we have
2x= v/c * 2sqrt(l*l+x*x)
squaring both sides and solving for x gives
x= (lv/c) / sqrt(1-v*v/c*c)
and 2x/v is the time required for one 'tick' of the clock, giving
t'= (2l/c)* 1/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c)
notice that this is slower than 2l/c by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)
as promised.
This effect cannot just be confined to this simple type of clock,
but must be true of any clock, otherwise we could use the difference
between the readings of this clock and the other clock as a natural
speedometer, giving the absolute speed.
Ron Maimon
(this is my first post ever, so I hope it works)
Alexander Abian
>In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>,
>ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>> Your conclusion that TIME in Physics is a crack-potish
>> illusion, is quite correct. In fact it is a crack-potish twisted
>> illusion , twisted to match nonconvincing theories of crackpots
>> such as Lorentz, Einstein and Co.
>And, of course, nonconvincing and obviously falsified evidence from
>experiments performed regularly by many thousands of scientists, um
>I mean crackpots, across the globe... :-)
Abian answers:
In any political organization (and as far as I am concerned, any
organization is a political organization) in science, and, especially in
Physics the experiments performed regularly by means of thousands of
scientists always asserts the expectations and the predictions of
the scientific authorities, i.e., the ruling class, the politbureau.
I am telling you the concept of TIME, its dilation, its twin paradoxes
are all crack-potish illusions and are all nonconvincing follow ups of
the central committee of the SR, GR, QM, party lines) .
The truth is that:
THERE IS A UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE TIME T AND IT IS EQUIVALENT
TO MASS AND IT IS MEASURED IN TERM OF THE MASS M OF THE
UNIVERSE via:
1/T + 1/log M = 1 positive T, M < 1
with M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian (log is e-log)
( I do not insist that the above formula is the best possible expression,
the same way that E = mcc, is not the best possible expression. People
may further elaborate on my formula ).
The point is that I am telling you that THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL
TIME MEASURED IN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSAL MASS, AND AS I HAVE EXPLAINED
THE UNIVERSAL MASS CHANGES SINCE A PART OF IT IS SPENT IRRETRIEVABLY
TO MOVE TIME FORWARD)!!!!
Is there a soul up there who would reexplain this to the "scientific
world" on my behalf ? - my fingers are tired of typing in capitals the
" EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS .... "
Craig Powderkeg DeForest
This bothers me. It mes relativistic time dilation look like an
illusion. After all, if you turned around and went back, you'd find
the clock on the wall matched your own watch again.
Is this explanation valid?
No. The idea is that your spatial axis (and time axis) is at an angle
in between the space and time axes on the Earth (because you're moving
relative to it.) When you reverse your direction of motion, you
reverse that angle. The Earth appears to rapidly age by an amount
proportional to the length of the spatial distance between you and it,
and the angle of your spatial axis due to your motion. The aging
happens during the time it takes you to reverse direction.
Put slightly differently, as you change direction, your spatial axis
is sweeping out an angle on the (Earth-space, Earth-time) plane. The
intersection of your spatial axis and the Earth's time axis moves
along the Earth's time axis because of the change in which direction
you consider `spatial'.
Another way to think of it is that you still see the same signal
(light waves that were about to hit you still hit you at the same
time) but you reverse the sense of the correction you have to make to
the speed-of-light delay, in calculating what time it is `now' on the Earth.
--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!
Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus
If you post something about his principle, no matter how polite you
formulate it, the usual thing for Abian is to either answer rudely and with
no real content, or ignore you.
It has been proved that his principle is informationless, unusable, and not
science, but he still lingers on in this newsgroup.
People have tried to explain to him what science is, but he is unable to
understand it. He uses a private language where words like 'science' have a
meaning totally different from that in English. He refuses to learn English
words.
Abian feeds on replies. Please don't feed him.
Kim0
Duane Takamine
>blair) writes:
>some lines deleted
>
>>This bothers me. It makes relativistic time dilation look like an
>>illusion. After all, if you turned around and went back, you'd find
>>the clock on the wall matched your own watch again.
>>Is this explanation valid?
>>Art.
>
>Abian answers:
> The trouble is that the notion of TIME in SR, GR, QM, etc. is not
> treated, analyzed and handled intelligently, profoundly and con-
> cretely. Your conclusion that TIME in Physics is a crack-potish
> illusion, is quite correct. In fact it is a crack-potish twisted
> illusion , twisted to match nonconvincing theories of crackpots
> such as Lorentz, Einstein and Co.
>
>I have shown the way how the question of Time must be settled. There
>is a UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE TIME T which is measured in terms of the
>MASS OF THE UNIVERSE M by a formula such as:
>
> 1/T + 1/ log M positive T, M < 1 Abian and
> M = 1 Abian at T = 0 Abian.
>
>This Absolute time T will not lead to crack-potish illusions and
>paradoxes.
Not again. If you ever wonder about that expression about
"a little knowledge..." wonder no more.
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TIME HAS INERTIA. EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS: (1/T)+(1/log M) = 1 (ABIAN).
>ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC.
> VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH
I think that Abian needs to be given a near earth-like orbit. His
current one is way too eccentric.
Duane
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Takamine du...@shell.portal.com
Island CD Creations Madd Hacker Productions
Home of the Sound Site CDROM - nearly 1400 mods on disc
Duane Takamine
>world" on my behalf ? - my fingers are tired of typing in capitals the
>" EQUIVALENCE OF TIME AND MASS .... "
And you all thought Abian contributed nothing to science. Here,
he clearly makes a strong case for the existance of a benevolent God.
Alexander Abian
Press " N " to skip this posting of Abian
LOGIC SAYS:
GALILEO was called a crackpot and later GALILEO was accepted
to be a genius.
ABIAN is called a crackpot, but this does not preclude that later
ABIAN will be accepted to be a genius.
Terence M. Rokop
ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> Press " N " to skip this posting of Abian
That is pretty much the whole theory, in summary.
Terry
Ron Maimon
about to lose faith in mankind-
- Ron Maimon
Alexander Abian
' press " N " to skip this posting of Abian "
In <1993Jul28....@newstand.syr.edu> rma...@top.cis.syr.edu (Ron Maimon) writes:
>Is this guy abian for real? does he_really_think that 1/T + 1/logM = 1 abian ?
>about to lose faith in mankind-
>- Ron Maimon
Abian answers:
I have never, never said that in my formula
(A) 1/T + 1/log M = 1 this latter 1 is 1 Abian - NEVER !!!!
In formula (A) the items M and T are in " Abians " not
the 1 appearing at the right side of = in (1) !!!!!!!
Many, many times I have repeated that in (A) it is the case that
M = 1 Abian when T = 0 Abian
and M = 0.5 Abian when T = 0.367879 Abian etc., etc
In my signature I have
(1/T) + (1/ log M) = 1 (ABIAN)
the above (ABIAN) refers to the authorship not the unit " Abian"
So, please restore your hope in me !
Duane Takamine
>
>
>LOGIC SAYS:
>
> GALILEO was called a crackpot and later GALILEO was accepted
> to be a genius.
>
> ABIAN is called a crackpot, but this does not preclude that later
> ABIAN will be accepted to be a genius.
Duane says:
Galileo was not called a crackpot and was only persecuted bu the
Catholic Church in Italy. His ideas flurished elsewhere.
Abian is called a crackpot, and not just in Italy, and this should
have precluded him from comparing himself to Galileo.
Michael Moroney
>In article <abian.7...@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>LOGIC SAYS:
>>
>> GALILEO was called a crackpot and later GALILEO was accepted
>> to be a genius.
>>
>> ABIAN is called a crackpot, but this does not preclude that later
>> ABIAN will be accepted to be a genius.
>Duane says:
> Galileo was not called a crackpot and was only persecuted bu the
> Catholic Church in Italy. His ideas flurished elsewhere.
> Abian is called a crackpot, and not just in Italy, and this should
> have precluded him from comparing himself to Galileo.
Mike says:
"For every crackpot that turns out to be an Einstein or a Galileo, ten
million crackpots turn out to be crackpots."
-Mike