Twin Paradox - I eat my words
Stephen Bint
retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
As you travel in your new frame, their clock remains slow, but constant.
As you decelerate, their clock runs faster than yours, so much that that you
observe more time has elapsed for them, than for you.
Though the treatment of the "paradox" in the FAQ does say this, it does not
do so clearly or explicitly. If you are considerate enough to answer
questions from idiots, you should pitch your argument accordingly. Not
everyone can understand the argument as it is described in the FAQ.
It would also be worth mentioning, that while decelerating to return to the
frame of the one who remained at rest, you are able to see light travelling
faster than c, from your POV. I think people could be forgiven for having
the impression that SR implies that the speed of light can never be seen to
go faster than c under any circumstances.
Thank you for your patience.
Stephen Bint
Martin Hogbin
"Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message news:3fa71f69$0$122$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
> Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
> retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
I take my hat off to you. You are the only sceptic
that I can recall who has admitted being wrong
on the physics newsgroups.
> As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
> As you travel in your new frame, their clock remains slow, but constant.
> As you decelerate, their clock runs faster than yours, so much that that you
> observe more time has elapsed for them, than for you.
Note that these effects depend on the distance between
the clocks when the undergo the acceleration. Beware
of concluding that it is the acceleration that causes the
effect. It is the acceleration that breaks the symmetry.
I still recommend, as would most of the physicists
on this group, that you read:
Spacetime Physics : Introduction to Special Relativity
by Edwin F. Taylor, John Archibald Wheeler, Archibald Wheeler (Contributor)
Paperback - 312 pages 2nd edition (December 1992)
W H Freeman & Co.; ISBN: 0716723271
Martin Hogbin
Androcles
equivalent to aether, against which background all relativistic calculations
are made. Relativists try to deny its existence, but it is there,
nevertheless. When MMX, along with the Earth, moves in the Universal frame,
it shrinks and dilates to make the null result Michelson saw. This Universal
frame has a Universal time as well. It is against this Universal time that
the frequency of light remains unaffected. Time dilation only affects
ponderable mass.
The speed of light is constant in the universal frame (supposedly).
The usual method of explaining the quantity of time dilation is to send a
light beam on a transverse path to the direction of motion, so that the
observer sees the hypotenuse as longer than the adjacent, the opposite being
vt, the adjacent being ct, and the hypotenuse being sqrt((ct)^2+(vt)^2)...
or sqrt((c.tau)^2+(v.tau)^2), I forget which. All this means is that the
relativists claim is the light path is longer for the hypotenuse than it is
for the adjacent, therefore it takes more time, but since the events of
departure and arrival are the same, this 'more time' must be squashed into
the same time in the other frame.
So... The longer path produces the longer time.
See
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Gardner.htm
for why this is nonsensical,
and
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
for the assumption made in Einstein's third postulate.
Androcles
Androcles
"Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:bo7s79$kuf$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
"On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein, a copy of
which is obtainable in "The Principle of Relativity", Dover Publications,
SBN 486-60081-5.
There is no point in reading the tail that wags the dog. In that may be
found the absurd assumptions upon which relativity is based.
Androcles
Steve Ralph
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2QLpb.5827$eT3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Is it? Where is the experimental evidence?
SR
Harry
Or just download "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (and others) from
Fourmilab:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
-But beware of the erroneous stellar aberration hypothesis in that paper.
Note that I also admitted my mistaken claim about the Twin paradox
calculation, see:
Subject: Re: Twin paradox solve ? + correction
<3e563fa8$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3e563fa8%24
1%40epflnews.epfl.ch
Harald
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message news:3fa71f69$0$122$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
> retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
>
> Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
> subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
>
> As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
> As you travel in your new frame, their clock remains slow, but constant.
> As you decelerate, their clock runs faster than yours, so much that that you
> observe more time has elapsed for them, than for you.
It does not.
When you say:
"As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs
slower and slower.",
you also have to say:
"As you decelerate, their clock runs less and less slower.",
certainly not faster.
But this is sloppy language anyway.
>
> Though the treatment of the "paradox" in the FAQ does say this,
> it does not do so clearly or explicitly.
Not only does it not say this clearly or explicitly, in
fact it does not say this at all because it is nonsense.
The FAQ explicitly handles the twin paradox without
accelerations:
| Let's lay out a "standard version" of the paradox in
| detail, and settle on some terminology. We'll get
| rid of Stella's acceleration at the start and end
| of the trip.
You clearly have not read the entire entry.
> If you are considerate enough to answer
> questions from idiots,
... then the idiot should listen.
And the idiot should also realize that he cannot possibly
know whether the answers he gets are good or bad.
You have had many answers that looked right, but that
were wrong. I think you will never find out which were
which.
> you should pitch your argument accordingly. Not
> everyone can understand the argument as it is described in the FAQ.
Apparently the subject is too difficult to be understood
by "everyone".
>
> It would also be worth mentioning, that while decelerating to return to the
> frame of the one who remained at rest, you are able to see light travelling
> faster than c, from your POV. I think people could be forgiven for having
> the impression that SR implies that the speed of light can never be seen to
> go faster than c under any circumstances.
sigh.
>
> Thank you for your patience.
So, next time you are bothered by a problem, induced
by your non-existing understanding of the subject, I
recommend asking one polite question instead of
barking two pompous dissonant symphonies and then
arrogantly and wrongly "apologizing" to make it even
worse.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Steve Ralph" <st...@steveralph.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GvMpb.4233$lm1....@wards.force9.net...
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of
the state of motion of the emitting body" either, but the obvious
implication is that the 'empty space' Einstein refers to constitutes a
universal frame.
We are not discussing experiment here, we are discussing a theory. If you
want experimental evidence, perform an experiment. Shoot the moon with a
laser from a moving source, when approaching the moon and receding from it
some 45 minutes later. Hubble Space Telescope would make a good platform. It
should be able to see the reflection from the mirror that is on the moon
quite easily.
For mathematical evidence based on the theory, well, there is plenty of
that. Just consider the frequency that a moving observer perceives from any
star in any direction. In Newtonian Mechanics, as the observer passes by the
star, the frequency shift is unity.
In Relativity, it is f' = f.([1-cos(phi).v/c]/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), so if v = c
in the universal frame, the star is infinitely bright out the side window.
f' = hf/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), E = hf'.
Of course, that is only the theory. Where is your experimental evidence to
show it either happens, or doesn't happen? You have none. If you have it,
then you either proved the vehicle moved in a universal frame, or you proved
the equation is wrong.
Androcles
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3fa79b9b$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Excellent ref, Harald. Thanks. I'll be using it in future. I'll revise my
own web page now to include it.
Androcles
Paul B. Andersen
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> skrev i melding news:3fa79b9b$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> Fourmilab:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> -But beware of the erroneous stellar aberration hypothesis in that paper.
There is no "stellar aberration hypothesis" which can be wrong in that paper.
What Einstein says about aberration - the phenomenon that the direction
of light propagation is different in different frames of reference - is correct.
Paul
Harry
news:bo8fia$e16$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
Paul,
Stellar aberration has nothing to do with the relative movement between the
light source and the observer.
I checked the archive and I found a link started by yourself in which you
mention it yourself -although you didn't emphasise it.
Subject: Stellar aberration explained by SR
Date: 1998/09/24
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2356866360d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa
fe=off&selm=36097961.16AF%40hia.no&rnum=1
Are you so forgetful?
Harald
EL
> retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
>
> Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
> subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
>
> As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
[EL]
Naturally, it is a shame that you were finally convinced that when I
accelerate away from you in my brand new car, your wrist watch takes
notice of me and runs slower.
Indeed it is a shame that you succumbed to the pressure of the
brain-smearing experts and parrots.
Do you know of another way in which an observer may observe a clock in
a spaceship flying away from him at the speed of light else than by
closing the eyes, dreaming and wishing?
Of course not, and that is why all that bull shit boils down to
equations and there is the crux of the error.
The triangulation of velocity vectors must be confined to the geometry
while excluding time because triangulating time is nonsense at best.
Squaring velocity is acceleration in disguise but multiplied by a
distance.
Any mathematical notation that does not treat negative time is a past
point is making a very big physical error.
Any mathematical formula that concludes a negative time interval is
insanity incarnated.
The twin's paradox is a trick and a fallacy from scratch but it was
constructed for the fun of its illogic.
If a clock runs slow, how do you know that it is running slow?
AND the answer is that you compare it to one that is not running slow.
If you can hold that comparison properly in your mind, then find out
if it was time that was running slow or the clock that was running
slow and find the difference for yourself.
If time should vary nonlinearly, encompassing the machine and the
observer then the observer should slow as much and see time in its
proper pace.
Therefore the issue being exposed by the so called the twin's paradox
was never really an issue of time but velocities.
The issue then is an apparent velocity and a true or real velocity
which is a displacement over time or delta distance over delta time.
The velocity vector may change sign when distance changes relative
direction but time may not change sign.
This means that the scalar quantities must be absolute while the sign
is direction indicative.
Naturally, you can imagine a very huge box as a thought experiment and
inside that box we put a planet and on the planet we put the twins
then let one of them leave at any speed you wish.
Now pretend to be god holding that box in your right hand and look in
your wrist watch in your left hand.
The twins must age exactly as your watch says and their screwed clocks
are irrelevant.
if you wish to discuss relative velocities let us do that in a new
thread and I am willing to correct all that misconception regarding
the negative time.
Regards.
EL
Dirk Van de moortel
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7563cb80.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message news:<3fa71f69$0$122$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
> > retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
> >
> > Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
> > subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
> >
> > As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
>
> [EL]
> Naturally, it is a shame that you were finally convinced that when I
> accelerate away from you in my brand new car, your wrist watch takes
> notice of me and runs slower.
> Indeed it is a shame that you succumbed to the pressure of the
> brain-smearing experts and parrots.
> Do you know of another way in which an observer may observe a clock in
> a spaceship flying away from him at the speed of light else than by
> closing the eyes, dreaming and wishing?
> Of course not, and that is why all that bull shit boils down to
> equations and there is the crux of the error.
>
> The triangulation of velocity vectors must be confined to the geometry
> while excluding time because triangulating time is nonsense at best.
I think you got it mixed up a bit. Please allow me to try to rephrase
this as follows: "The velocity of nonsense triangulations must be
excluded from the time while confining vectors, because best time
is geometry at triangulation."
Don't you agree that this sounds slightly better?
Dirk Vdm
stmx3
> "Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message news:3fa71f69$0$122$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
>>
>>As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
>>As you travel in your new frame, their clock remains slow, but constant.
>>As you decelerate, their clock runs faster than yours, so much that that you
>>observe more time has elapsed for them, than for you.
>
>
> It does not.
> When you say:
> "As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs
> slower and slower.",
> you also have to say:
> "As you decelerate, their clock runs less and less slower.",
> certainly not faster.
> But this is sloppy language anyway.
>
>
[snip]
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Stephen's understanding. It is important
not to confuse the effects of acceleration with the effects of
velocity on time dilation. If you follow the Principle of Equivalence,
then you conclude their effects are opposite. I.e. an accelerated
clock runs faster, just like one at the bottom of a gravitational well.
But a clock with relative velocity to the observer runs slower.
Ist das nicht richtig?
Uncle Al
>
> Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
> retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
Well la de dah. What outcome did you expect? Special Relativity is a
self-consistent axiomatic system. It contains no internal errors. If
you find one, go look for your mistake.
> Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
> subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
1) Educate it, or
2) Destroy it.
Only a fool (or a social advocate/priest/crook) administers medicine
to the dead.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
sal
stmx3 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Stephen's understanding. It is important
> not to confuse the effects of acceleration with the effects of
> velocity on time dilation. If you follow the Principle of Equivalence,
> then you conclude their effects are opposite. I.e. an accelerated
> clock runs faster, just like one at the bottom of a gravitational well.
> But a clock with relative velocity to the observer runs slower.
>
> Ist das nicht richtig?
I think ... doch nicht. Unless I'm mistaken, clocks in gravity wells
run slower. But let's think it through (no math needed for this).
Going back to first principles, the original gravitational redshift
gedanken experiment that I know of is to drop a particle which has mass
down a gravity well, convert 100% of its energy to a photon, and send it
back up.
The frequency of the photon when it arrives at the top of the well must
equal the frequency of a photon you get by converting the particle at
the top of the well, or conservation of energy is violated, since photon
energy is proportional to frequency.
BUT the particle had more energy at the bottom of the well (because it
fell down the well), so the observer at the bottom of the well must see
that the freshly converted photon at the bottom of the well has a
_higher_ frequency, and hence energy, than what the observer at the top
measures.
So, for the frequency in the well to be apparently higher, the clock in
the well must be running slower. (Of course, the imagined "God-frame"
photon frequency can't change or you'd end up with wave fronts piling up
between the two observers -- 'scuse my sloppy language.)
And now, I _really_ have to get back to the ol' day job...
--
To email me directly, take out nospam and put back foobox.
Richard
Right, the frequency cannot change, thus the change is that of the
clocks used to measure the frequency. In this experiment there is simply
physical difference in clock rates, relativity not required, the change
is due to change in position within the local field. Likewise a change
in velocity wrt the local field can change a clocks ticking rate, and
this change is absolute rather than relative, i.e. it is again just a
physical change.
Richard Perry
Patrick Reany
You're right. That form of the Light Principle is ambiguous at best
and meaningless at worst. The correct form is this: The measured speed
of light in a vacuum from an inertial reference frame is the constant
c. The assumption that light is propagated at a fixed speed is
blatantly contradicted in QED. Propagation is irrelevant; measurement
is everything.
Patrick
Martin Hogbin
>
> > Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
> > retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
>
> I take my hat off to you. You are the only sceptic
> that I can recall who has admitted being wrong
> on the physics newsgroups.
>
> > As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
> > As you travel in your new frame, their clock remains slow, but constant.
> > As you decelerate, their clock runs faster than yours, so much that that you
> > observe more time has elapsed for them, than for you.
I should have pointed out that you have still not got it
right. Firstly, you need to carefully distinguish between
what is seen (using light) and what is measured (after
allowing for the transit time of light).
Martin Hogbin
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
"stmx3" <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> wrote in message news:3FA7F138...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net...
Nein, das is nicht richtig... aber was richtig ist, das ist
das es zehr Slechte Sprache ist ;-)
The fact that we can say -with simple inertial motion- that
"both find that other one's clock is running slower", should
ring an alarm, and make one decide to use this kind of
language with extreme caution. So let's be even more
careful when accelerations are in the picture.
By the way, the principle of equivalence says (or rather
embodies the fact) that "a clock at the bottom of a
gravitational well runs slower", not faster, like you just said.
You'll have an interesting read on this in the last chapter
(ch13.pdf) of this excellent textbook:
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
But maybe you'll have to work yourself a way to it starting
with a few earlier chapters... Anyway... enjoy!
Dirk Vdm
Bonnie Granat
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3FA7F0F1...@hate.spam.net...
Uncle Al,
I like your Free Sticky Notes a lot!
--
Bonnie Granat
Granat Technical Editing and Writing
http://www.granatedit.com
stmx3
Well what an embarassing gross conceptual error! Thanks for the
correction and the warning on the language. BTW, that was the limit of
my German.
stmx3
[snip]
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Stephen's understanding. It is important
> not to confuse the effects of acceleration with the effects of
> velocity on time dilation. If you follow the Principle of Equivalence,
> then you conclude their effects are opposite. I.e. an accelerated
> clock runs faster, just like one at the bottom of a gravitational well.
> But a clock with relative velocity to the observer runs slower.
>
> Ist das nicht richtig?
>
Disregard. My statements were completely wrong. But I meant well.
Dirk Van de moortel
"stmx3" <stmx3N...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net> wrote in message news:3FA806C8...@NOSPAMM.netscape.net...
[snip]
> Well what an embarassing gross conceptual error! Thanks for the
> correction and the warning on the language. BTW, that was the limit of
> my German.
Mine as well I'm afraid - We got just enough of it at
school to comfortably survive our holidays in Germany
and Austria - and at Lake Garda in Italy ;-)
Auf Ihre Gesundheit!
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> skrev i melding news:3fa7c9c1$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:bo8fia$e16$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> >
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> skrev i melding
> news:3fa79b9b$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > > Fourmilab:
> > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> > > -But beware of the erroneous stellar aberration hypothesis in that paper.
> >
> > There is no "stellar aberration hypothesis" which can be wrong in that paper.
> > What Einstein says about aberration - the phenomenon that the direction
> > of light propagation is different in different frames of reference - is correct.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Paul,
>
> Stellar aberration has nothing to do with the relative movement between the
> light source and the observer.
Indeed.
It only has to do with the change in the velocity of the observer.
It is aberration between the two inertial frames in which the observer
is instantly at rest at two different times of the year.
> I checked the archive and I found a link started by yourself in which you
> mention it yourself -although you didn't emphasise it.
I think I even emphasized it:
"The important point to note is that the stellar aberration
according to SR is v/c radians, e.g. it only depend on the
change in the velocity of the Earth throughout the year.
v/c = 3*10^4/3*10^8 = 10^-4 radians = 20 arcsecs, as observed."
>
> Subject: Stellar aberration explained by SR
> Date: 1998/09/24
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2356866360d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa
> fe=off&selm=36097961.16AF%40hia.no&rnum=1
>
> Are you so forgetful?
And what should I have forgotten?
You obviously didn't read my posting properly.
We don't disagree about the cause of stellar aberration,
but we disagree about what Einstein said the cause was.
I wrote:
" There is no "stellar aberration hypothesis" which can be wrong in that paper.
What Einstein says about aberration - the phenomenon that the direction
of light propagation is different in different frames of reference - is correct."
Read it again, please. Note the first centence.
Einstein did not address stellar aberration at all in his paper,
and he can't be wrong about something he never addressed!
You seem to think that according to Einstein, "stellar aberration"
is caused by the relative motion between the star and the observer.
But Einstein never said so! It is a myth!
I will however admit that a few years ago, I did believe that
myth myself. In the very posting you referred above,
(which is 5 years old) I wrote:
" ... in the explanation
given by Einstein and in a number of text books, stellar
aberration is said to depend on the relative velocity between
the star and the Earth."
[which is wrong, as explained in the rest of the posting]
So I thought like you, that Einstein explained stellar aberration
by the relative motion between the star and the observer,
and thus got it wrong.
The reason for thinking so was that I often had seen it
claimed that Einstein had stated so. But after having seached
Einstein's texts for where he said so and found none, I realized
that the claim originated from a misintepretation of paragraph 7,
in "Electrodynamics":
"Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration"
NOTE: "Aberration" is NOT "stellar aberration"!
When the equations for an EM-wave are Lorentz transformed
from one inertial frame to another, both the frequency
of the wave and the direction of the wave vector changes.
The former is called "Doppler shift", the latter is called
"aberration". And Einstein's equations for both Doppler
shift and aberration are indeed correct.
Note that these equations are valid for the transforms
between two arbitrary inertial frames.
Sure, the two specific frames he used in the calculations
were the "observer frame" and the "light source frame".
But the equations are general, they do not apply only for
these two specific frames.
Einstein even states this specifically.
He says about the aberration equation:
"This equation expresses the law of aberration in its most general form."
Got it now?
Einstein's equation for how the direction of the wave vector
tranforms between two arbitrary frames of reference is correct!
You can safely apply it on stellar aberration as well, but you
must then realize that the two frames of reference to apply it on
are the two inertial frames in which the observer is instantly at
rest at two different times of the year.
Einstein NEVER stated that "stellar aberration" was the aberration
between the stellar frame and the Earth frame.
You are wrong if you claim so, and I was wrong when I claimed so.
But now we both know better.
Don't we? :-)
Paul
Randy Poe
> "Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message news:<3fa71f69$0$122$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
> > retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
> >
> > Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
> > subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
> >
> > As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
>
> [EL]
> Naturally, it is a shame that you were finally convinced that when I
> accelerate away from you in my brand new car, your wrist watch takes
> notice of me and runs slower.
You're making the same error Henry Wilson keeps making.
My wristwatch takes no notice of you as you accelerate
away. However, as you accelerate away, your measurements
of my wristwatch change. But I'm not going to tell you
my wristwatch has changed in any way.
- Randy
Timo Nieminen
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote:
> >
> > Or just download "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (and others)
> from
> > Fourmilab:
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Excellent ref, Harald. Thanks. I'll be using it in future. I'll revise my
> own web page now to include it.
The original German version is also available on www, on the German
(but English language) homepage of the journal Annalen der Physik, in
their historical papers section. Google search for:
"annalen der physik" .de wiley
finds it easily.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:6tNpb.7091$eT3....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
[snip]
> > Or just download "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"
> > (and others) from Fourmilab:
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Excellent ref, Harald. Thanks. I'll be using it in future. I'll revise my
> own web page now to include it.
Correction: to delibertely misunderstand, and then rape
and molest it like on
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=7XDA4.3227$Tn4....@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com
:-)
Dirk Vdm
Edward Green
> Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
> retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
I repeat the congratulations of others on your humility. Well done.
> Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
> subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
>
> As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
> As you travel in your new frame, their clock remains slow, but constant.
> As you decelerate, their clock runs faster than yours, so much that that you
> observe more time has elapsed for them, than for you.
However it is possible your understanding here is not yet complete.
Actually, most people's understanding of SR is incomplete, but some
understandings are more incomplete than others. :-)
As Martin Hogbin pointed out, there is no intrinsic acceleration
effect is SR: that is, we don't address what would happen "in an
accelerated coordinate system", and any effects on accelerated object
are effects which are supposed to be explicable in terms of physics in
a particular inertial (non-accelerated) frame -- and they are not
supposed to play a direct role here.
One might think of the twin effect this way: assume an unobserved
absolute frame, relative to which clocks really slow (I resist putting
shudder quotes on "really"). First assume this frame is that of the
unaccelerated twin. Next assume it is the initial frame of the
accelerated frame: N.B., we don't change the frame of analysis for the
part of the journey after the acceleration. Finally, choose any damn
frame you like. The predicted clock difference is the same regardless
-- In case the first twin is at rest, the second is always moving
faster. In case the second twin begins at rest, with the first twin
moving away from him, it happens that when the second twin suddenly
says "Oh shit!", and takes off to overtake the prodigal, his clock
will run sufficiently slow on his overtaking leg to lag behind the
slowed clock of the receding twin. And so forth.
> Though the treatment of the "paradox" in the FAQ does say this, it does not
> do so clearly or explicitly. If you are considerate enough to answer
> questions from idiots, you should pitch your argument accordingly. Not
> everyone can understand the argument as it is described in the FAQ.
>
> It would also be worth mentioning, that while decelerating to return to the
> frame of the one who remained at rest, you are able to see light travelling
> faster than c, from your POV. I think people could be forgiven for having
> the impression that SR implies that the speed of light can never be seen to
> go faster than c under any circumstances.
For suitable values of "see".
Jon Bell
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message
>news:3fa71f69$0$122$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
>>
>> slower.
>> As you travel in your new frame, their clock remains slow, but
>> constant.
>> As you decelerate, their clock runs faster than yours, so much that
>> that you observe more time has elapsed for them, than for you.
>
>It does not.
>When you say:
> "As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs
> slower and slower.",
>you also have to say:
> "As you decelerate, their clock runs less and less slower.",
>certainly not faster.
>But this is sloppy language anyway.
I think Stephen's description actually just suffers from sloppy language.
Consider a specific example, which I think reflects what he's thinking of.
I'll try to be careful in describing this, and will avoid the words "see"
and "observe" which can mislead people who aren't used to dealing with
relativistic situations.
You set off in a spaceship to Star Base Alpha, which is 4 light-years
away. Your twin remains on earth. In his reference frame, you travel at
0.8c for 5 years, then come to a stop at Alpha. In his reference frame,
your clock runs at a slower rate because of time dilation so that when you
arrive, it indicates that 3 years have elapsed as opposed to his 5. He
remains in the same reference frame at all times, so the "remote time
shift effect" (as I dubbed it in a previous posting) doesn't come into
play, as far as your clock is concerned.
Here's what happens in *your* reference frames (note plural). Just before
you start out, your clock and his clock both read zero. Just after you
start out (let's assume the periods of acceleration are very brief) you
are now in a different reference frame, but in your new frame his clock
still reads (almost) zero. There has been no "remote time shift effect"
because his clock is still right next to you, i.e. not remote. However,
his clock runs at a slower rate in your new reference frame, because of
time dilation. If you had accelerated during a short but finite amount of
time, I think it would be plausible, although sloppy, to describe his
clock as "running slower and slower" during your acceleration period.
This accounts for Stephen's first sentence.
As you travel away from him at constant velocity, in your reference frame
his clock runs at a constant but slower rate than yours because of time
dilation. This accounts for Stephen's second sentence.
The trip lasts three years for you, and during that time, in your
reference frame, 1.8 years elapse on your twin's clock. Just before you
reach Alpha, your clock reads 3 years and his clock reads 1.8 (in your
reference frame).
Now you come to a stop at Alpha, changing reference frames again and
returning to your original frame. Now his clock is no longer next to you,
and the "remote time shift" effect kicks in. In your "new" reference
frame just after you come to a stop, his clock reads 3.2 years later than
it did in your "old" reference frame, so that it now reads 5 years as
compared to 3 years on your own clock. If you did the deceleration in a
short but finite amount of time, I think it would be plausible, although
sloppy, to describe this in terms of his clock "running faster than yours"
in your reference frame(s) during your deceleration. After all, if his
clock starts out behind yours, and ends up ahead of yours, doesn't it have
to "run faster" in some loose, sloppy sense? This accounts for Stephen's
third sentence.
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
EL
> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message news:<7563cb80.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message news:<3fa71f69$0$122$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net>...
> > > Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
> > > retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
> > >
> > > Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
> > > subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
> > >
> > > As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
> >
> > [EL]
> > Naturally, it is a shame that you were finally convinced that when I
> > accelerate away from you in my brand new car, your wrist watch takes
> > notice of me and runs slower.
>
> You're making the same error Henry Wilson keeps making.
[EL]
With all my respect to Mr. Henry, I refuse to be related to anyone on
these Usenet news groups, including you.
It is a psychological malicious trick to try to give impressions by
similarity that does not exist because readers who trust you shall put
me in the same box with some who was shut down and this is very unfair
and irrelevant.
>
> My wristwatch takes no notice of you as you accelerate
> away.
[EL]
Good, then we are in agreement and it is you alone who are like Henry.
:)
> However, as you accelerate away, your measurements
> of my wristwatch change.
[EL]
Pray tell how you conduct such measurements, by closing your eyes,
dreaming and wishing?
I accelerate away and become separated from you and your watch
physically and yet you imply that I may/ can measure your wristwatch
ticks!
Well, I call this assertion an unfounded silly claim, so if you can
express it more scientifically to convince me I am all ears.
>But I'm not going to tell you
> my wristwatch has changed in any way.
>
> - Randy
[EL]
Because it does not change in any way else than going out of absolute
order as designed.
Every precision machine has a set of conditions for perfect
performance, which yet means that the expected deviations are below
the threshold of any significant error.
This means that your argument is still empty of any solid logic that
supports the twin's paradox in any way.
I claim that no observer my observe any remote events in any direct
manner that is not being reported.
Looking at your watch is yet remote and the image is reported by light
over a very short distance that renders any relativistic calculations
very silly.
Using telescopes to watch flying clocks is something I have not seen
yet experimented.
Reporting locally measured time over great distances involving EM
waves for communicating information does not interfere with the local
measurements being made.
Receiving a delayed report involve calculating the time of the signal
departure and arrival through wave velocity and estimated distances
but it does not change the fact that time measurements are relatively
local first and before remote reporting the information. That is why
time dilation is a mathematical artefact and a fallacy.
Did you get it Randy?
EL
Jim Greenfield
Walk out onto freeway
After having both legs broken by truck, have friend drag you around to
the back of vehicle
Truck backs over you
Voila! change of sign in equations due to direction should have
reversed the action, and legs fixed!
(Hint: all velocity is positive, so don't try it)
Jim G
Androcles
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.03110...@posting.google.com...
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
middle of the second paragraph.
> The correct form is this: The measured speed
> of light in a vacuum from an inertial reference frame is the constant
> c. The assumption that light is propagated at a fixed speed is
> blatantly contradicted in QED. Propagation is irrelevant; measurement
> is everything.
>
> Patrick
Disagree with Einstein all you want to, makes no difference to me.
I think it is wrong however you say it.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jim Greenfield" <greenf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3c4afb26.03110...@posting.google.com...
Hint: whenever someone tries to explain the difference
between velocity and speed, run away asap, because
you might learn something. And that really hurts.
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Bint
"Jon Bell" <jtbe...@presby.edu> wrote in message
news:bo9pk2$1kj$1...@jtbell.presby.edu...
Jon,
I think you should cut and paste that post into a web page, for referring
people to, when they ask about time dilation.
I have seen many accounts of time dilation and this is the clearest I have
seen. For example, the FAQ at http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/twin.html uses
an example in which the traveller returns to Earth at the end, so that the
doppler effect brings a load of blue shifted timing pulses at the end,
masking the effects of time dilation. The confusion is compounded by the
analysis. At one point it says:
"On the outward leg Jane observes Joe's clock to run slowly, and she
observes that it ticks slowly on the return run."
Then, later it says:
"In the second of these inertial frames, she receives a lot of anniversary
messages from Joe. If she pretended that she had been in this frame when Joe
sent them (the dashed line extrapolation of her returning world line, i.e.
if she had been travelling towards Earth at constant v for six of her
years), she would conclude that Joe had been sending them for eight of his
years."
So it is unclear whether time is dilated or contracted on earth, from the
traveller's frame, during the second leg of the journey. Sure, it's not
confusing to people who already understand SR.
This successful excorcism of the paradox makes me wonder whether it is
possible to demonstrate the "speeding up" effect at the end. If a clock was
put into orbit for a long time, then brought back, would it jump forward? Is
it logically possible to test the theory that way?
Stephen
Dirk Van de moortel
There has been a time dilation effect of gamma to an
"<(almost) zero>" time.
> However,
> his clock runs at a slower rate in your new reference frame, because of
> time dilation. If you had accelerated during a short but finite amount of
> time, I think it would be plausible, although sloppy, to describe his
> clock as "running slower and slower" during your acceleration period.
> This accounts for Stephen's first sentence.
Yes, and that is sloppy talk, but just barely acceptable.
> As you travel away from him at constant velocity, in your reference frame
> his clock runs at a constant but slower rate than yours because of time
> dilation. This accounts for Stephen's second sentence.
Yes, and that is sloppy talk, but barely acceptable.
> The trip lasts three years for you, and during that time, in your
> reference frame, 1.8 years elapse on your twin's clock. Just before you
> reach Alpha, your clock reads 3 years and his clock reads 1.8 (in your
> reference frame).
John, have a close look at
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/Twinalpha.gif
where c = 1 and g = gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2)
and notice that even the careful sloppy talk has resulted in
talking about a physically rather uninteresting event C.
What keeps you from talking about event D and then
down, or event B and then up?
Maybe you better continue (or rather restart) your
explanation in terms of the events on this diagram.
Feel free to download the gif, modify it and publish it
somewhere, preferebly with a version number. (I have
omitted the x and x' coordinates, but you'll need them
if you are going to introduce new events).
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
>poespa...@yahoo.com (Randy Poe) wrote in message news:<df76407e.03110...@posting.google.com>...
>> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message news:<7563cb80.03110...@posting.google.com>...
>> > "Stephen Bint" <bi...@iname.com> wrote in message news:<3fa71f69$0$122$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net>...
>> > > Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
>> > > retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin paradox.
>> > >
>> > > Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
>> > > subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
>> > >
>> > > As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
>> >
>> > [EL]
>> > Naturally, it is a shame that you were finally convinced that when I
>> > accelerate away from you in my brand new car, your wrist watch takes
>> > notice of me and runs slower.
>>
>> You're making the same error Henry Wilson keeps making.
>
>[EL]
>With all my respect to Mr. Henry, I refuse to be related to anyone on
>these Usenet news groups, including you.
>It is a psychological malicious trick to try to give impressions by
>similarity that does not exist
If you say the same thing as somebody else, it's fair to say "you're
saying the same thing as somebody else".
>because readers who trust you shall put
>me in the same box with some who was shut down and this is very unfair
>and irrelevant.
Fine. Nevertheless, you are making a distortion. There is a difference
between
1. The proper time as measured by me with my wristwatch is affected by
your motion.
2. Your measurements of the time intervals between ticks of my
wristwatch are affected by your motion.
>> My wristwatch takes no notice of you as you accelerate
>> away.
>
>[EL]
>Good, then we are in agreement and it is you alone who are like Henry.
There's a logical problem there: We agree on this statement, but you
claim my agreement is Henry-like while yours is not.
>> However, as you accelerate away, your measurements
>> of my wristwatch change.
>
>[EL]
>Pray tell how you conduct such measurements, by closing your eyes,
>dreaming and wishing?
Are you saying you can't think of any way to watch the ticks from a
distant clock? Have you ever heard of GPS? Have you ever heard of
pulsars? Have you ever heard of radio? All of these involve periodic
events, with information about those events being transmitted to
distant receivers. Those receivers can measure the time between the
periodic events, which is all we're talking about here. And in all of
those cases the sender and receiver disagree about the time between
the periodic events (not that we know this in the case of the pulsar,
but we certainly do for radio and GPS).
Since we're talking about wristwatches, how about this: I have a
camera watching my wristwatch and transmitting images at high speed
(many per second). That way you're sure, to high precision, about the
boundaries between seconds as observed on your screen.
Then you compare them to your wristwatch.
This is the situation governed by relativity: when you measure the
times between those ticks (as seen on your screen), how does it
compare to the time intervals on your own watch?
>I accelerate away and become separated from you and your watch
>physically and yet you imply that I may/ can measure your wristwatch
>ticks!
Sure. Happens every day with every GPS receiver which is being told by
every GPS satellite in range how many ticks have elapsed, on every
single reception.
- Randy
Patrick Reany
[snip]
> > The correct form is this: The measured speed
> > of light in a vacuum from an inertial reference frame is the constant
> > c. The assumption that light is propagated at a fixed speed is
> > blatantly contradicted in QED. Propagation is irrelevant; measurement
> > is everything.
> >
> > Patrick
> Disagree with Einstein all you want to, makes no difference to me.
> I think it is wrong however you say it.
> Androcles
The Light Principle is a directly testable empirical claim which has
been around for a hundred years. After all this time, it's either been
determined to be reliably accurate or not; there's nothing to "think"
about.
Patrick
Jon Bell
Stephen Bint <bi...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>This successful excorcism of the paradox makes me wonder whether it is
>possible to demonstrate the "speeding up" effect at the end. If a clock was
>put into orbit for a long time, then brought back, would it jump forward? Is
>it logically possible to test the theory that way?
This "remote time shift effect" applies when the *observer* changes
from one reference frame to another, not the object being "observed."
In the example I posted, you (the traveling twin) would be able to
"observe" the remote time shift of your stay-at-home twin's clock when you
come to a stop at Alpha, only with the help of an assistant.
You would have to have an assistant in a second spaceship, traveling at
the same speed and direction as you during the "traveling" portion of your
trip, and maintaining a constant distance of 3 light-years behind you in
your mutual reference frame. You arrange to have both of your clocks
synchronized while you're both in motion relative to the earth and Alpha.
In your reference frame, he passes the Earth at the same time that you
arrive at Alpha. At this time, he records the reading on your
stay-at-home twin's clock as he passes it.
Now let's suppose that there is a clock on Alpha that has been
synchronized with your stay-at-home twin's clock on earth, in *their*
mutual reference frame. Right after you arrive at Alpha, you record the
time on the Alpha clock.
At some later time, you and your assistant meet and compare notes, or he
sends you his observations via radio or whatever. In any event, you won't
be able to compare his observation of the Earth clock with your indirect
observation of the Earth clock (via the synchronized Alpha clock) until a
few years have passed. Only *then* can you verify that the "remote time
shift" has actually taken place.
And as far as your stay-at-home twin is concerned, nothing has happened to
his clock at all. The "remote time shift" effect signifies that something
has happened to *you* to change your "point of view" of the universe, so
to speak.
Stephen Bint
I have been thinking of something more practical. The experiment that has an
atomic clock circling the globe in a jet could be done again, but reports
from the eatrth-bound clock could be sent to a computer on the plane, which
subtracts earth time from plane time. During the journey, the difference
should be positive and after deceleration it should be negative.
Do you think that would work?
Stephen
Minor Crank
> I have been thinking of something more practical. The experiment that has an
> atomic clock circling the globe in a jet could be done again,
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
> but reports
> from the eatrth-bound clock could be sent to a computer on the plane, which
> subtracts earth time from plane time. During the journey, the difference
> should be positive and after deceleration it should be negative.
>
> Do you think that would work?
Interestingly, the reference I've given is NOT a test of relativity,
but rather is a verification that the high precision time
dissemination system under development correctly takes into account
relativistic effects.
To the current crop of engineers involved in GPS and the high
precision dissemination of time, relativity is not something to be
proven; rather, it is a practical engineering concern.
Minor Crank
Dan Bloomquist
Stephen Bint wrote:
>
>
> I have been thinking of something more practical. The experiment that has an
> atomic clock circling the globe in a jet could be done again, but reports
> from the eatrth-bound clock could be sent to a computer on the plane, which
> subtracts earth time from plane time. During the journey, the difference
> should be positive and after deceleration it should be negative.
>
> Do you think that would work?
>
Hi Stephen,
In the case of the jets, they are continuously changing frames while
flying. Neither jet, nor the clock on the earth can be considered to be
in an inertial frame. Did you notice that the clock that flew west
actually gained time? It was in the 'most' inertial frame during the
flight. You would see these time differences accrue during the flight.
It works the same in the GPS.
> Stephen
>
>
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
dbAtLakewebDotCom
Androcles
news:<OV1qb.1692$Op6...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> [snip]
The correct form is as Einstein stated it, not your version. We are not
discussing your relativity, but Einstein's.
Einstein says, http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
> > > Patrick
> > Disagree with Einstein all you want to, makes no difference to me.
> > I think it is wrong however you say it.
> > Androcles
>
> The Light Principle is a directly testable empirical claim which has
> been around for a hundred years. After all this time, it's either been
> determined to be reliably accurate or not; there's nothing to "think"
> about.
It was around before that, but was never stated as such. And whilst I agree
that it is directly testable, it never has been. To test it, shoot the moon
with a laser from HST.
All your assertions carry no weight, you do understand that, I trust?
Androcles
EL
EL
}}}
That was the part which you snipped and proves that your reply was
silly, malicious, and ridiculous and that you are an idiot. Please do
not respond to any of my posts any more as your knowledge is worthless
without good communications' ethics. You washed out my point
completely and deliberately like the fool you are.
So be gone you idiot.
EL
Randy Poe <rpo...@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<8juhqvgthlflun977...@4ax.com>...
Jim Greenfield
I can't run, apparently, as I'm not sure whether to apply velocity or
speed to my motion!
>
> Dirk Vdm
"Ode to those who get kudos from misleading ten year olds"
"When I was a child, I thought as a child, believed as a child, and
learnt as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish
things, and refused hence forth to accept contradictory, arbitrary,
illogical and erroneous bullshit"
(So trucks don't have speed or velocity? which please)
Jim G
Jon Bell
Stephen Bint <bi...@iname.com> wrote:
>
>"Jon Bell" <jtbe...@presby.edu> wrote in message
>news:bob5n5$c2j$1...@jtbell.presby.edu...
>>
>> "observe" the remote time shift of your stay-at-home twin's clock when you
>> come to a stop at Alpha, only with the help of an assistant.
>
>atomic clock circling the globe in a jet could be done again, but reports
>from the eatrth-bound clock could be sent to a computer on the plane, which
>subtracts earth time from plane time. During the journey, the difference
>should be positive and after deceleration it should be negative.
The signals from the ground to the plane must travel at the speed of light
(or less), so you have to deal with the time delay and Doppler shift
effects. You've basically got a situation like the first two examples I
posted, with you looking at your twin's clock through a telescope.
Stephen Bint
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:40bb2cea.03110...@posting.google.com...
That's a very interesting paper, which it's taking me a while to digest. It
gives the impression that there is so much technolgy out there that the data
to test any theory probably exists somewhere, as a spin-off from something
else.
Harry
I meant your statement:
"This is the "usual SR explanation" for stellar aberration, (But
the details can be varied - Einstein used Doppler shift. You
may also consider the wave front, or planes of equal phase and
transform them. But the result will be the same.)
In this explanation the v is quite obviously the relative speed
between the star and the observer.
So what's wrong with this explanation?
Nothing, really. It is only not "stellar aberration"!"
> > Subject: Stellar aberration explained by SR
> > Date: 1998/09/24
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl2356866360d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa
> > fe=off&selm=36097961.16AF%40hia.no&rnum=1
> >
> > Are you so forgetful?
>
> And what should I have forgotten?
See above.
> You obviously didn't read my posting properly.
> We don't disagree about the cause of stellar aberration,
> but we disagree about what Einstein said the cause was.
> I wrote:
> " There is no "stellar aberration hypothesis" which can be wrong in that
paper.
> What Einstein says about aberration - the phenomenon that the direction
> of light propagation is different in different frames of reference - is
correct."
>
> Read it again, please. Note the first centence.
> Einstein did not address stellar aberration at all in his paper,
> and he can't be wrong about something he never addressed!
> You seem to think that according to Einstein, "stellar aberration"
> is caused by the relative motion between the star and the observer.
Yes. I certainly think that that is what he meant in that 1905 paper.
> But Einstein never said so! It is a myth!
:-))
> I will however admit that a few years ago, I did believe that
> myth myself. In the very posting you referred above,
> (which is 5 years old) I wrote:
> " ... in the explanation
> given by Einstein and in a number of text books, stellar
> aberration is said to depend on the relative velocity between
> the star and the Earth."
> [which is wrong, as explained in the rest of the posting]
Ah. Yes, that is interesting!
> So I thought like you, that Einstein explained stellar aberration
> by the relative motion between the star and the observer,
> and thus got it wrong.
> The reason for thinking so was that I often had seen it
> claimed that Einstein had stated so. But after having seached
> Einstein's texts for where he said so and found none, I realized
> that the claim originated from a misintepretation of paragraph 7,
> in "Electrodynamics":
> "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration"
>
> NOTE: "Aberration" is NOT "stellar aberration"!
Stellar aberration is, by definition, a kind of aberration! (Not the other
way round...)
> When the equations for an EM-wave are Lorentz transformed
> from one inertial frame to another, both the frequency
> of the wave and the direction of the wave vector changes.
> The former is called "Doppler shift", the latter is called
> "aberration". And Einstein's equations for both Doppler
> shift and aberration are indeed correct.
>
> Note that these equations are valid for the transforms
> between two arbitrary inertial frames.
> Sure, the two specific frames he used in the calculations
> were the "observer frame" and the "light source frame".
> But the equations are general, they do not apply only for
> these two specific frames.
> Einstein even states this specifically.
> He says about the aberration equation:
> "This equation expresses the law of aberration in its most general form."
>
> Got it now?
> Einstein's equation for how the direction of the wave vector
> tranforms between two arbitrary frames of reference is correct!
Of course, that's not the point!
I just checked the original paper. His cos phi' aberration equation refered
to the following.
"In *the system K, very far from the origin of co-ordinates*, let there be a
source of electrodynamic waves, [...] "
From which he obtained the equation for l'. He continued a little further:
"It follows that if an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an
*infinitely distant source of light* [...] with the velocity of the observer
referred to a system of co-ordinates which is at rest relatively to the
source of light
[...]
If we call the angle between the wave-normal (direction of the ray) in the
moving system and the *connecting line "source-observer*" phi', the equation
for l' assumes the form [...]. If phi=1/2 pi, the equation becomes simply
cos phi' = -v/c "
Thus: v is defined as the velocity between the observer and the light
source. and phi' relates simply to the line between the light source and the
observer. Of course *we* can *now* easily point out why that is not to the
point for stellar aberration...
You are right that the Doppler equations are correct. Nevertheless, how can
you think that he was not discussing stellar Doppler shifts and stellar
aberration? It looks like somebody fooled you! ;-)
> You can safely apply it on stellar aberration as well,
What aberration problem did you think he was trying to solve?
> but you
> must then realize that the two frames of reference to apply it on
> are the two inertial frames in which the observer is instantly at
> rest at two different times of the year.
>
> Einstein NEVER stated that "stellar aberration" was the aberration
> between the stellar frame and the Earth frame.
Technically you are right: he claimed that the "aberration" angle between a
far away light source and the observer is a function of their relative
velocity. So what was he referring to?
> You are wrong if you claim so, and I was wrong when I claimed so.
>
> But now we both know better.
> Don't we? :-)
No, we don't know "better", except if you can give a plausible alternative
explanation of what he could have meant instead!
Harald
Harry
"Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.031105...@kolmogorov.physics.uq.edu.au..
.
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Androcles wrote:
>
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > Or just download "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (and
others)
> > from
> > > Fourmilab:
> > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> >
> > Excellent ref, Harald. Thanks. I'll be using it in future. I'll revise
my
> > own web page now to include it.
>
> The original German version is also available on www, on the German
> (but English language) homepage of the journal Annalen der Physik, in
> their historical papers section. Google search for:
> "annalen der physik" .de wiley
> finds it easily.
Thanks, I didn't have it in pdf!
Harald
Paul B. Andersen
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> skrev i melding news:3faa3668$3...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:bo94vn$js4$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> >
> > We don't disagree about the cause of stellar aberration,
> > but we disagree about what Einstein said the cause was.
> > I wrote:
> > " There is no "stellar aberration hypothesis" which can be wrong in that paper.
> > What Einstein says about aberration - the phenomenon that the direction
> > of light propagation is different in different frames of reference - is correct."
> >
> > Read it again, please. Note the first centence.
> > Einstein did not address stellar aberration at all in his paper,
> > and he can't be wrong about something he never addressed!
> > You seem to think that according to Einstein, "stellar aberration"
> > is caused by the relative motion between the star and the observer.
>
> Yes. I certainly think that that is what he meant in that 1905 paper.
There is no point in discussing what we think he may have meant.
Einstein is dead, and there is no way to determine that question.
So let's talk about what he actually said.
OK?
> > But Einstein never said so! It is a myth!
>
> :-))
You may smile, but there is actually nothing to discuss.
It is a fact that Einstein never specifically addressed
"stellar aberration" in his 1905 paper.
> > I will however admit that a few years ago, I did believe that
> > myth myself. In the very posting you referred above,
> > (which is 5 years old) I wrote:
> > " ... in the explanation
> > given by Einstein and in a number of text books, stellar
> > aberration is said to depend on the relative velocity between
> > the star and the Earth."
> > [which is wrong, as explained in the rest of the posting]
>
> Ah. Yes, that is interesting!
Indeed.
I am arguing that I was wrong! :-)
I am not doing that because I like to be wrong,
but because I have realized that I actually was wrong.
I think you should do the same.
>
> > So I thought like you, that Einstein explained stellar aberration
> > by the relative motion between the star and the observer,
> > and thus got it wrong.
> > The reason for thinking so was that I often had seen it
> > claimed that Einstein had stated so. But after having seached
> > Einstein's texts for where he said so and found none, I realized
> > that the claim originated from a misintepretation of paragraph 7,
> > in "Electrodynamics":
> > "Theory of Doppler's Principle and of Aberration"
> >
> > NOTE: "Aberration" is NOT "stellar aberration"!
>
> Stellar aberration is, by definition, a kind of aberration! (Not the other
> way round...)
Exactly.
"Stellar aberration" is "aberration".
But "aberration" isn't necessarily "stellar aberration."
My very point.
> > When the equations for an EM-wave are Lorentz transformed
> > from one inertial frame to another, both the frequency
> > of the wave and the direction of the wave vector changes.
> > The former is called "Doppler shift", the latter is called
> > "aberration". And Einstein's equations for both Doppler
> > shift and aberration are indeed correct.
> >
> > Note that these equations are valid for the transforms
> > between two arbitrary inertial frames.
> > Sure, the two specific frames he used in the calculations
> > were the "observer frame" and the "light source frame".
> > But the equations are general, they do not apply only for
> > these two specific frames.
> > Einstein even states this specifically.
> > He says about the aberration equation:
> > "This equation expresses the law of aberration in its most general form."
> >
> > Got it now?
> > Einstein's equation for how the direction of the wave vector
> > tranforms between two arbitrary frames of reference is correct!
>
> Of course, that's not the point!
That is the VERY point.
Einstein's "aberration" equation is correct.
So it is not wrong.
You cannot have it both ways.
> I just checked the original paper. His cos phi' aberration equation refered
> to the following.
>
> "In *the system K, very far from the origin of co-ordinates*, let there be a
> source of electrodynamic waves, [...] "
>
> From which he obtained the equation for l'. He continued a little further:
>
> "It follows that if an observer is moving with velocity v relatively to an
> *infinitely distant source of light* [...] with the velocity of the observer
> referred to a system of co-ordinates which is at rest relatively to the
> source of light
> [...]
> If we call the angle between the wave-normal (direction of the ray) in the
> moving system and the *connecting line "source-observer*" phi', the equation
> for l' assumes the form [...]. If phi=1/2 pi, the equation becomes simply
> cos phi' = -v/c "
>
> Thus: v is defined as the velocity between the observer and the light
> source. and phi' relates simply to the line between the light source and the
> observer. Of course *we* can *now* easily point out why that is not to the
> point for stellar aberration...
>
> You are right that the Doppler equations are correct. Nevertheless, how can
> you think that he was not discussing stellar Doppler shifts and stellar
> aberration? It looks like somebody fooled you! ;-)
Please stop guessing at what Einstein may or may not have thought.
My simple point is that everything he wrote in that chapter is correct.
The equation he wrote IS the aberration between the frames
of reference in question.
Do you claim otherwise?
> > You can safely apply it on stellar aberration as well,
>
> What aberration problem did you think he was trying to solve?
The one he correctly solved.
> > but you
> > must then realize that the two frames of reference to apply it on
> > are the two inertial frames in which the observer is instantly at
> > rest at two different times of the year.
> >
> > Einstein NEVER stated that "stellar aberration" was the aberration
> > between the stellar frame and the Earth frame.
>
> Technically you are right: he claimed that the "aberration" angle between a
> far away light source and the observer is a function of their relative
> velocity. So what was he referring to?
The aberration angle between the frame of the far away source
and the frame of the observer.
Which he solved correctly.
But the "aberration" equation is general, it applies between
two arbitrary frames of reference.
Which he specifically pointed out.
> > You are wrong if you claim so, and I was wrong when I claimed so.
> >
> > But now we both know better.
> > Don't we? :-)
>
> No, we don't know "better", except if you can give a plausible alternative
> explanation of what he could have meant instead!
But there is no point in discussing "what he could have meant."
What he actually wrote is correct.
There are no errors in that chapter of "Electrodynamics".
Do you still claim there are?
In that case I challenge you to point it out.
And saying that "Einstein was wrong, because he may have
thought that stellar aberration depend on the relative speed
star -observer" won't do.
He may have thought so, for all I know. We will never know.
But he did NOT state so in his 1905 paper.
Which your claimed he did!
Paul
Randy Poe
> Because
> it does not change in any way else than going out of absolute
> order as designed.
This appears to be an answer to a "why" question. Because
of your posting style, I am unable to discern what question
you are answering.
In general, every conversation with you eventually ends
up with a post which I am completely unable to decipher.
I don't have the faintest idea what any sentence here
says.
> Every precision machine has a set of conditions for perfect
> performance, which yet means that the expected deviations are below
> the threshold of any significant error.
What is this supposed to mean and what does it have to do
with what we were talking about? As I recall, the subject
was "can a distant observer measure the time intervals
of a remote clock"?
Now to me, this seems a trivial point, that a distant
event can generate some sort of signal that is detected
by a remote observer. You seem to be saying that the
entire concept of remote measurement of anything is
ridiculous. I hope that's not what you're saying (I
really can't tell WHAT you're saying, but that's my
best guess), because if it is, it eliminates most
of science, including astronomy, satellite observation
of earth, most spy devices, all space experiments,
any biological experiment involving radio tracking
of wildlife, etc.
> This means that your argument is still empty of any solid logic that
> supports the twin's paradox in any way.
The only "argument" I am aware of here was your skepticism
that there was such a thing as remote observation of a
periodic event. I tried to point out such things are
routine and easy to envision. This post appears in
response to mine, but I can't tell whether it says
anything to that subject or not.
> I claim that no observer my observe any remote events in any direct
> manner that is not being reported.
I don't know what that means. A remote event sends a
signal. A distant observer measures the signal. Physics
predicts what the observer will measure, and how the
context of the experiment influences that measurement.
It does so with high accuracy.
> Looking at your watch is yet remote and the image is reported by light
> over a very short distance that renders any relativistic calculations
> very silly.
What does that mean? Do you object to my television
camera proposal? In what way does that not give a distant
observer a way to measure the wristwatch?
> Using telescopes to watch flying clocks is something I have not seen
> yet experimented.
Pulsars. "Telescopes" and "flying clocks" stand in as
specific examples of "remote measurement of transmitted
signal" and "distant periodic event".
> Reporting locally measured time over great distances involving EM
> waves for communicating information does not interfere with the local
> measurements being made.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Interfere?
What? Who said anything about interfering with anything?
> Receiving a delayed report involve calculating the time of the signal
> departure and arrival through wave velocity and estimated distances
> but it does not change the fact that time measurements are relatively
> local first and before remote reporting the information. That is why
> time dilation is a mathematical artefact and a fallacy.
The structure of this paragraph implies you are presenting
an argument, but I can't figure out what it is.
You are next to a periodic event. That periodic event
generates some sort of transmitted signal. I receive the
transmitted signal. What exactly do you find impossible
about this?
> Did you get it Randy?
No. I can't comprehend anything you wrote here. Seriously.
The discussion was "can a periodic event be measured by
a distant observer". I say the answer is "of course".
You appear to be arguing with me, which means you appear
to think the answer is "no". So Mission Control can't
watch an astronaut's vital signs, or read the health
of the space shuttle as it flies away. GPS receivers
can't receive readings from satellite clocks. Astronomers
can't measure periods of pulsars or orbiting binary
star system, or the periods of planets. Radio receivers
can't tune into a signal generated at a transmitter.
That appears to be what you're saying. But I have no
idea why, nor what specific argument you're making.
- Randy
EL
That was the part which you snipped and proves that your reply was
silly, malicious, and ridiculous and that you are an idiot. Please do
not respond to any of my posts any more as your knowledge is worthless
without good communications' ethics. You washed out my point
completely and deliberately like the fool you are.
So be gone you idiot.
EL
}}}
What was so difficult to understand!
I told you very clearly:
BE GONE YOU IDIOT.
It could have been possible that you deliberately twist and
misunderstand every word I wrote, but after a second thought I prefer
to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider you as incompetent
to comprehend simple concepts and points of vies that differ than
yours.
That is why my final verdict is:
BE GONE YOU IDIOT.
Please do not respond to any of my posts any more as your knowledge is
worthless without good communications' ethics.
EL
Randy Poe
>{{{
>That was the part which you snipped
What was? You didn't include any of my post, so I don't know what
"that" refers to. Speaking of snipping.
I included every word of yours. I snipped ZERO.
> and proves that your reply was
>silly, malicious, and ridiculous and that you are an idiot. Please do
>not respond to any of my posts any more as your knowledge is worthless
>without good communications' ethics. You washed out my point
>completely and deliberately like the fool you are.
>So be gone you idiot.
>
>EL
>}}}
>
>What was so difficult to understand!
I thought I called out every single sentence which I didn't
understand. That should answer your question.
>
>I told you very clearly:
No you didn't. You never addressed this point: Do you really believe
it's impossible to get signals about a periodic event which is located
far away?
- Randy
EL
You are either pretending to be an idiot or you are one who needs not
to pretend to be what he is, an idiot.
Any further discussion with you is either fruitless or
counterproductive.
Try to understand that you may not play games with me in an attempt to
fish for what you could twist into a mistake and make me look bad for
your pathetic and psychopathic satisfaction.
I do not need to repeat my claims and you may read them thoroughly
first and learn, but any further discussion with you had been shut
down, so keep dreaming that you may win my recognition again.
You just blew all your chances of civilised responses from me and only
flame wars are welcome as my tongue is itching.
There is a new set of smarmy that you might win being the first on
which I try them.
Let me know if you are interested.
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Open Quotes}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
[EL]
Naturally, it is a shame that you were finally convinced that when I
accelerate away from you in my brand new car, your wrist watch takes
notice of me and runs slower.
Indeed it is a shame that you succumbed to the pressure of the
brain-smearing experts and parrots.
Do you know of another way in which an observer may observe a clock in
a spaceship flying away from him at the speed of light else than by
closing the eyes, dreaming and wishing?
Of course not, and that is why all that bull shit boils down to
equations and there is the crux of the error.
The triangulation of velocity vectors must be confined to the geometry
while excluding time because triangulating time is nonsense at best.
Squaring velocity is acceleration in disguise but multiplied by a
distance.
Any mathematical notation that does not treat negative time is a past
point is making a very big physical error.
Any mathematical formula that concludes a negative time interval is
insanity incarnated.
The twin's paradox is a trick and a fallacy from scratch but it was
constructed for the fun of its illogic.
If a clock runs slow, how do you know that it is running slow?
AND the answer is that you compare it to one that is not running slow.
If you can hold that comparison properly in your mind, then find out
if it was time that was running slow or the clock that was running
slow and find the difference for yourself.
If time should vary nonlinearly, encompassing the machine and the
observer then the observer should slow as much and see time in its
proper pace.
Therefore the issue being exposed by the so called the twin's paradox
was never really an issue of time but velocities.
The issue then is an apparent velocity and a true or real velocity
which is a displacement over time or delta distance over delta time.
The velocity vector may change sign when distance changes relative
direction but time may not change sign.
This means that the scalar quantities must be absolute while the sign
is direction indicative.
Naturally, you can imagine a very huge box as a thought experiment and
inside that box we put a planet and on the planet we put the twins
then let one of them leave at any speed you wish.
Now pretend to be god holding that box in your right hand and look in
your wrist watch in your left hand.
The twins must age exactly as your watch says and their screwed clocks
are irrelevant.
if you wish to discuss relative velocities let us do that in a new
thread and I am willing to correct all that misconception regarding
the negative time.
Regards.
EL
[EL]
With all my respect to Mr. Henry, I refuse to be related to anyone on
these Usenet news groups, including you.
It is a psychological malicious trick to try to give impressions by
similarity that does not exist because readers who trust you shall put
me in the same box with some who was shut down and this is very unfair
and irrelevant.
>
> My wristwatch takes no notice of you as you accelerate
> away.
[EL]
Good, then we are in agreement and it is you alone who are like Henry.
:)
> However, as you accelerate away, your measurements
> of my wristwatch change.
[EL]
Pray tell how you conduct such measurements, by closing your eyes,
dreaming and wishing?
I accelerate away and become separated from you and your watch
physically and yet you imply that I may/ can measure your wristwatch
ticks!
Well, I call this assertion an unfounded silly claim, so if you can
express it more scientifically to convince me I am all ears.
>But I'm not going to tell you
> my wristwatch has changed in any way.
>
> - Randy
[EL]
Because it does not change in any way else than going out of absolute
order as designed.
Every precision machine has a set of conditions for perfect
performance, which yet means that the expected deviations are below
the threshold of any significant error.
This means that your argument is still empty of any solid logic that
supports the twin's paradox in any way.
I claim that no observer my observe any remote events in any direct
manner that is not being reported.
Looking at your watch is yet remote and the image is reported by light
over a very short distance that renders any relativistic calculations
very silly.
Using telescopes to watch flying clocks is something I have not seen
yet experimented.
Reporting locally measured time over great distances involving EM
waves for communicating information does not interfere with the local
measurements being made.
Receiving a delayed report involve calculating the time of the signal
departure and arrival through wave velocity and estimated distances
but it does not change the fact that time measurements are relatively
local first and before remote reporting the information. That is why
time dilation is a mathematical artefact and a fallacy.
Did you get it Randy?
EL
{{{{
[EL]
Because it does not change in any way else than going out of absolute
order as designed.
Every precision machine has a set of conditions for perfect
performance, which yet means that the expected deviations are below
the threshold of any significant error.
This means that your argument is still empty of any solid logic that
supports the twin's paradox in any way.
I claim that no observer my observe any remote events in any direct
manner that is not being reported.
Looking at your watch is yet remote and the image is reported by light
over a very short distance that renders any relativistic calculations
very silly.
Using telescopes to watch flying clocks is something I have not seen
yet experimented.
Reporting locally measured time over great distances involving EM
waves for communicating information does not interfere with the local
measurements being made.
Receiving a delayed report involve calculating the time of the signal
departure and arrival through wave velocity and estimated distances
but it does not change the fact that time measurements are relatively
local first and before remote reporting the information. That is why
time dilation is a mathematical artefact and a fallacy.
Did you get it Randy?
EL
}}}
That was the part which you snipped and proves that your reply was
silly, malicious, and ridiculous and that you are an idiot. Please do
not respond to any of my posts any more as your knowledge is worthless
without good communications' ethics. You washed out my point
completely and deliberately like the fool you are.
So be gone you idiot.
EL
{{{
That was the part which you snipped and proves that your reply was
silly, malicious, and ridiculous and that you are an idiot. Please do
not respond to any of my posts any more as your knowledge is worthless
without good communications' ethics. You washed out my point
completely and deliberately like the fool you are.
So be gone you idiot.
EL
}}}
What was so difficult to understand!
I told you very clearly:
BE GONE YOU IDIOT.
It could have been possible that you deliberately twist and
misunderstand every word I wrote, but after a second thought I prefer
to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider you as incompetent
to comprehend simple concepts and points of vies that differ than
yours.
That is why my final verdict is:
BE GONE YOU IDIOT.
Please do not respond to any of my posts any more as your knowledge is
worthless without good communications' ethics.
EL
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{Close Quotes}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Harry
aberration".
Or is this thread appropriate, because one of us will have to eat his
words?! ;-)
See below.
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:bodr87$c5$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> skrev i melding
news:3faa3668$3...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
SNIP
> You may smile, but there is actually nothing to discuss.
> It is a fact that Einstein never specifically addressed
> "stellar aberration" in his 1905 paper.
>
> > > I will however admit that a few years ago, I did believe that
> > > myth myself. In the very posting you referred above,
> > > (which is 5 years old) I wrote:
> > > " ... in the explanation
> > > given by Einstein and in a number of text books, stellar
> > > aberration is said to depend on the relative velocity between
> > > the star and the Earth."
> > > [which is wrong, as explained in the rest of the posting]
> >
> > Ah. Yes, that is interesting!
>
> Indeed.
> I am arguing that I was wrong! :-)
> I am not doing that because I like to be wrong,
> but because I have realized that I actually was wrong.
SNIP
> > > When the equations for an EM-wave are Lorentz transformed
> > > from one inertial frame to another, both the frequency
> > > of the wave and the direction of the wave vector changes.
> > > The former is called "Doppler shift", the latter is called
> > > "aberration".
Reference please (and no, not that same paper, no circular argument!)
SNIP
> Please stop guessing at what Einstein may or may not have thought.
> My simple point is that everything he wrote in that chapter is correct.
>
> The equation he wrote IS the aberration between the frames
> of reference in question.
> Do you claim otherwise?
>
> > > You can safely apply it on stellar aberration as well,
> >
> > What aberration problem did you think he was trying to solve?
>
> The one he correctly solved.
SNIP
> The aberration angle between the frame of the far away source
> and the frame of the observer.
> Which he solved correctly.
> But the "aberration" equation is general, it applies between
> two arbitrary frames of reference.
> Which he specifically pointed out.
Wrong, it doesn't and he didn't. See below.
SNIP
> Do you still claim there are?
> In that case I challenge you to point it out.
I take that challenge!
> And saying that "Einstein was wrong, because he may have
> thought that stellar aberration depend on the relative speed
> star -observer" won't do.
>
> He may have thought so, for all I know. We will never know.
> But he did NOT state so in his 1905 paper.
> Which your claimed he did!
And you claimed he did not; but now you claim that neither can be proved,
and indeed we can only make a case for what is most plausible.
Paul, sometimes things really are what they seem to be. I wonder who
indoctrinated you!
To make a case for your interesting new point of view, you should make
plausible that Einstein was discussing an "aberration" problem that didn't
exist (the "question" of where the star will be now if it had continued in a
straight line and if you know the velocity).
Please don't overlook that Einstein claimed to calculate aberration of light
coming from an infinitely distant light source, and that he *defined v in
that equation* as relative to that infinitely far source.
But first you should make a case that the relative velocity of a star and
the earth is related to what was understood in optics by the concept of
aberration - *it is not*, just check dictionaries and optics books.
- See for example "Fundamentals of Optics", Jenkins&White (who, by the way,
correct Einstein on this point but don't mention it).
- See also papers and books of that time. For example Poincare, in Bull. des
Sc.Math. II, XXXVIII, p.302, 1904. After describing the "completely new
mechanics" in which nothing can go faster than light, he referred to what is
called in this newsgroup "stellar aberration", and called it "aberration of
light".
To spell it out to you:
Aberration in optics means optical deviation, for example spherical
aberration or stellar aberration.
Only one type of aberration was meant when referring to light coming from
"an infinitely distant source of light", with Bradley's equation tg phi =
v/c and Einstein's equation cos phi' = -v/c .
I therefore reiterate my first comments, omitting the word "stellar":
In order not to be confused, readers of that 1905 paper should realise that
aberration is not caused by the relative movement between the light source
and the observer.
Harald
Randy Poe
>
> You are either pretending to be an idiot
I do not lie or pretend. That is very fundamental to
my system of values, and I take very seriously any accusations
of doing either. Even on Usenet.
> or you are one who needs not
> to pretend to be what he is, an idiot.
> Any further discussion with you is either fruitless or
> counterproductive.
Well, as I said, discussions with you sooner or later
end up in a post which I can not decipher.
> Try to understand that you may not play games with me in an attempt to
> fish for what you could twist into a mistake and make me look bad for
> your pathetic and psychopathic satisfaction.
What satisfaction do you think I derived from getting to
a dead end in a conversation, an incomprehensible post
which effectively ended any attempt to communicate?
> There is a new set of smarmy that you might win being the first on
> which I try them.
What?
There's one of those sentences again.
What is a "set of smarmy"? Why would I want to win one?
>
> Let me know if you are interested.
Once again, I have no clue as to what you are asking. I say
that in all sincerity.
> {{{{{{{{{{{{{{Open Quotes}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
> [EL]
> Naturally, it is a shame that you were finally convinced that when I
> accelerate away from you in my brand new car, your wrist watch takes
> notice of me and runs slower.
This is where I jumped in. Your observations of your
own wristwatch are not changed by my motion. But
my observations of your wristwatch are changed by
my motion.
This is where you jumped down my throat with the apparent
claim that there is no such thing as "my observations of
your wristwatch", and no you have never explained that
claim, which is why I kept asking.
> Indeed it is a shame that you succumbed to the pressure of the
> brain-smearing experts and parrots.
> Do you know of another way in which an observer may observe a clock in
> a spaceship flying away from him at the speed of light else than by
> closing the eyes, dreaming and wishing?
There is no way to observe something which is receding
at the speed of light.
> Of course not, and that is why all that bull shit boils down to
> equations and there is the crux of the error.
No, nothing in relativity, no equation, describes anything
like an observation of something receding at the speed
of light. Such a thing is unobservable.
> The triangulation of velocity vectors must be confined to the geometry
> while excluding time because triangulating time is nonsense at best.
What?
> Squaring velocity is acceleration in disguise but multiplied by a
> distance.
What?
> Any mathematical notation that does not treat negative time is a past
> point is making a very big physical error.
And where have you seen such a thing?
> Any mathematical formula that concludes a negative time interval is
> insanity incarnated.
And where have you seen such a thing?
> The twin's paradox is a trick and a fallacy from scratch but it was
> constructed for the fun of its illogic.
What?
> If a clock runs slow, how do you know that it is running slow?
> AND the answer is that you compare it to one that is not running slow.
Comparison is always inherent in relativity. The very term
"slow" is defined as "slow in comparison to my clock". By
definition.
> If you can hold that comparison properly in your mind, then find out
> if it was time that was running slow or the clock that was running
> slow and find the difference for yourself.
Well, it's something more than "the clock", since "clock"
stands in for any pair of events with a time separation.
Two observers will not agree on the value of that
separation, and GR tells you to very high precision what
the amount of the disagreement will be.
> If time should vary nonlinearly, encompassing the machine and the
> observer then the observer should slow as much and see time in its
> proper pace.
What?
> Therefore the issue being exposed by the so called the twin's paradox
> was never really an issue of time but velocities.
What?
> The issue then is an apparent velocity and a true or real velocity
> which is a displacement over time or delta distance over delta time.
What?
> The velocity vector may change sign when distance changes relative
> direction but time may not change sign.
Where is this "negative time" thing coming from?
Enough. Yes, I'm snipping. Once again, I have no idea
what point you're trying to make. It really would be simpler
and less frustrating all around to make smaller replies.
- Randy
Minor Crank
> If a clock runs slow, how do you know that it is running slow?
> AND the answer is that you compare it to one that is not running slow.
> If you can hold that comparison properly in your mind, then find out
> if it was time that was running slow or the clock that was running
> slow and find the difference for yourself.
Please read
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
In the AT3 flight tests, a plane carrying a high performance cesium
clock would leave Edwards AFB, fly around for about 3 1/2 hours at a
speed of about 560 km/hr an altitude of about 8,200 meters, then
return to base. Comparison of the flight clock against the ground
clock consistently showed the flight clock to be ahead by 7 to 8
nanoseconds, well within the capabilities of the cesium clocks to
measure.
In the C-135 flight tests, the two way time transfer technology that
was being tested in these series of flights enabled continuous
comparison of flight clock behavior against GPS time. A typical flight
lasted 4 hours, with the plane traveling at 11,000 meters at an
average speed of 790 km/hr. Continuous comparison of the flight clock
against GPS time showed variations in accordance with relativistic
predictions. At the end of the flight, the flight clock would
typically be about 8 nanoseconds fast relative to the ground clock.
We are left with two choices:
1) Either the flight clocks experienced time differently than did the
ground clocks.
2) Cesium clocks do not measure time.
If, as you evidently claim, time flows at an absolute rate for all
observers, then cesium clocks do not measure time.
If cesium clocks do not measure time, what ARE they measuring?
Let us call your concept of time, which has been proven to be distinct
from what is measurable by cesium or rubidium clocks, "absolute time."
1) How do you recommend that "absolute time" be measured?
2) Evidently, "absolute time" can not be measured by any technology we
possess. Given this fact, is "absolute time" a valid concept?
Minor Crank
Mark Palenik
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df76407e.03110...@posting.google.com...
> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message
news:<7563cb80.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> > [EL]
> >
> > You are either pretending to be an idiot
>
> I do not lie or pretend. That is very fundamental to
> my system of values, and I take very seriously any accusations
> of doing either. Even on Usenet.
>
Don't worry about it, he says that same thing a lot. And for the record, I
ran into the same kinds of problems and recieved the same types of responses
as you have the last time I tried to have a discussion with him here.
kenseto
Yes a flight clock second would contain less absolute time than a ground
clock second.
> 2) Cesium clocks do not measure time.
Cesium clocks measure absolute time. But a clock second will contain a
different amount of absolute time in different frames.
>
> If, as you evidently claim, time flows at an absolute rate for all
> observers, then cesium clocks do not measure time.
That's not true. A cesium clcok second will contain a different amount of
absolute time in different frames. That's all.
>
> If cesium clocks do not measure time, what ARE they measuring?
You are speculating here.
>
> Let us call your concept of time, which has been proven to be distinct
> from what is measurable by cesium or rubidium clocks, "absolute time."
Yes but how much absolute time a cesium clcok second is measuring? You can
use the earth's clcok second as a defined absolute second. Then a ground
clock second and a defined absolute second will have the same duration
(absolute time) and this is the only place in the unverse where a clock
second and a defined absolute second will have the same duration. To
determine the clock time value for a defined absolute second in any other
frame you use SR/GR. This is exactly how the GPS works.
>
> 1) How do you recommend that "absolute time" be measured?
You define the earth clock second as a defined absolute second then you use
SR/GR to determine the clock time value for a defined absolute second in any
other frame.
> 2) Evidently, "absolute time" can not be measured by any technology we
> possess. Given this fact, is "absolute time" a valid concept?
Wrong. Absolute time can be measured as outlined above. That's the reason
SR/GR were invented.
Ken Seto
EL
news:<40bb2cea.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message
news:<7563cb80.03110...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > If a clock runs slow, how do you know that it is running slow?
> > AND the answer is that you compare it to one that is not running slow.
> > If you can hold that comparison properly in your mind, then find out
> > if it was time that was running slow or the clock that was running
> > slow and find the difference for yourself.
>
> Please read
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
[EL]
Yes, thank you, I have a copy of that paper for reference.
>
> In the AT3 flight tests, a plane carrying a high performance cesium
> clock would leave Edwards AFB, fly around for about 3 1/2 hours at a
> speed of about 560 km/hr an altitude of about 8,200 meters, then
> return to base. Comparison of the flight clock against the ground
> clock consistently showed the flight clock to be ahead by 7 to 8
> nanoseconds, well within the capabilities of the cesium clocks to
> measure.
[EL]
Yes, the effect is noted.
>
> In the C-135 flight tests, the two way time transfer technology that
> was being tested in these series of flights enabled continuous
> comparison of flight clock behavior against GPS time. A typical flight
> lasted 4 hours, with the plane traveling at 11,000 meters at an
> average speed of 790 km/hr. Continuous comparison of the flight clock
> against GPS time showed variations in accordance with relativistic
> predictions. At the end of the flight, the flight clock would
> typically be about 8 nanoseconds fast relative to the ground clock.
[EL]
Yes, the effect is noted.
>
> We are left with two choices:
[EL]
No, it is only you who was left with two choices when you wrote this
down before posting, but I have to see if that was true for me also,
if you do not mind.
> 1) Either the flight clocks experienced time differently than did the
> ground clocks.
[EL]
How can a clock experience time differently than another clock!
Think about it.
Your own statement here is founded on the concept that time is
absolute and whatever experiences that absolute time is relative (may
vary), which means that the experience of time rather than time
varies.
So that is what you are saying not me.
I repeat that that is what YOU just said not me.
This means that you are aware (or unaware) of the fact that you have
ASSUMED that time is absolute like an absolute frequency and that
experiencing that absolute frequency shall be shifted depending on the
velocity into that frequency to experience it accordingly.
That simple statement of yours is in fact hiding a huge set of
assumptions when we begin to talk about the practical method of
verification and we discover a hidden postulate of the constancy of
the speed of EM waves in vacuum being set as the fundamental
arbitration of the concept of an absolute universal time scale. Then
the word experiencing comes in like the relative velocity of the
device that experiences that assumed absolute frequency of a constant
speed phenomenon. Hence the frequency shifts that are translated into
empirical time variations.
Is this not Special Relativity or am I imagining things!
> 2) Cesium clocks do not measure time.
[EL]
Is that YOUR second choice really or is it that you had only one
choice set in mind and you found yourself looking bad by forcing one
and only one idea to be compared with self?
It does not matter if a clock was caesium based or not, what matters
is that a clock is the name of a device constructed to change state
periodically and display a numerical or any other analogue
representation of such periodicity count for further useful meanings.
If a clock was defined to be a device that measures time then your
second choice is not a choice by definition, and therefore you had
only one choice, Special Relativity.
>
> If, as you evidently claim, time flows at an absolute rate for all
> observers, then cesium clocks do not measure time.
[EL]
No sir, your statement is totally off the wall because I never made
any claims that could be obviously interpreted in the way you did. In
fact I do understand the theory of Special relativity more than you do
and even more than Einstein himself because what his followers claim
his understanding was shows that it was wanting. I have to conclude
that it could not have been HIS theory if he did not understand it and
that he must have plagiarized some other idiot who plagiarised a third
who stole the idea from the original genius who is lost completely in
the clouded history. That is why I do not care WHO was the original
source of the concepts adopted by SR but what matters is that there
are very good ideas in that theory and that there are also mistakes
related to its application in science. This is the crux of my
objections, and I am not attacking persons or theories but purifying
the good from the bad.
>
> If cesium clocks do not measure time, what ARE they measuring?
[EL]
You tell me, ..... do they measure the cup size of women's breasts
when you Caesium?
So that is why they say that there is time for cocks erected by
caesium, hmm ...!
{hahahahaha}
>
> Let us call your concept of time, which has been proven to be distinct
> from what is measurable by cesium or rubidium clocks, "absolute time."
[EL]
My concept of time!
What do you call Professor Einstein's concept of time, which is
founded on any constant frequency of any electromagnetic wave
propagating in vacuum at a constant speed then?
Add to that, that Professor Einstein's concept was that that speed was
absolutely independent of the observer.
Really, what do you call it?
>
> 1) How do you recommend that "absolute time" be measured?
> 2) Evidently, "absolute time" can not be measured by any technology we
> possess.
[EL]
This means that you do not consider Special Relativity to be in your
possession as part of your technology base!
Noted.
>Given this fact, is "absolute time" a valid concept?
[EL]
As far as you have demonstrated, you have no idea what is an absolute
time or whether Special Relativity endorse it or rejects it.
>
> Minor Crank
{{{Quote}}}
> 1) How do you recommend that "absolute time" be measured?
{{{End Quote}}}
[EL]
Firstly, I would throw away all the caesium clocks in the garbage
because they are based on caesium gas cells.
Gas cells have a big disadvantage in any moving system that
accelerates and decelerates because the inertial state of the gas
molecules may not change to other inertial states acquired by the
container through acceleration or deceleration without being
compressed temporarily and affecting their periodical transitions from
which time is intervals are being counted.
Secondly, I would choose the purest solid transparent medium available
that has no dispersive anomalies at the widest range of temperatures
and with respect to the widest bandwidth of frequencies possible.
I would also choose the highest frequency to which that medium shows
linear responses for frequencies below that frequency.
The time taken by that wave to travel from one end of the medium to
the other is a constant of that medium which is homogenous and
isotropic in any inertial frame but to build an absolute time
reference demands 12 identical clocks of that construct to be placed
and oriented spherically and radially around the 13th spherical zone
in which the 12 time counts are added and averaged such that the final
measurement is locally compensated against any state of motion in any
direction.
You may call it EL's Absolute Time Gauge if you please.
I claim that the concept of time was never an absolute concept of
nature as assumed by SR.
I claim that time is a human psychological function in cognition of
relative periodicities in my Quantology.
I claim that concluding an absolute time is by mathematically
manipulating the dimensionless ratio of the observed relative
periodicities, such that we cancel out all causes of spatial variance
of the systems, including spatial transitions between inertial frames
of those systems inside which the periodical phenomena is encapsulated
as yet a predetermined spatial cyclic redundant variance.
That was my recommendation while of course understanding it and
applying it is a completely different issue.
Regards.
EL
Minor Crank
news:7563cb80.03110...@posting.google.com...
> Firstly, I would throw away all the caesium clocks in the garbage
> because they are based on caesium gas cells.
> Gas cells have a big disadvantage in any moving system that
> accelerates and decelerates because the inertial state of the gas
> molecules may not change to other inertial states acquired by the
> container through acceleration or deceleration without being
> compressed temporarily and affecting their periodical transitions from
> which time is intervals are being counted.
What you are saying corresponds to choice (2) that I offered. You believe
that cesium clocks are useless for accurate time measurement.
> Secondly, I would choose the purest solid transparent medium available
> that has no dispersive anomalies at the widest range of temperatures
> and with respect to the widest bandwidth of frequencies possible.
No such thing. Try a vacuum, instead.
> I would also choose the highest frequency to which that medium shows
> linear responses for frequencies below that frequency.
Huh?
> The time taken by that wave to travel from one end of the medium to
> the other is a constant of that medium which is homogenous and
> isotropic in any inertial frame but to build an absolute time
> reference demands 12 identical clocks of that construct to be placed
> and oriented spherically and radially around the 13th spherical zone
> in which the 12 time counts are added and averaged such that the final
> measurement is locally compensated against any state of motion in any
> direction.
I would hope that this construct of yours is not spinning...
If all 12 clocks are oriented at the vertices of an icosahedron, and if the
icosahedron is NOT spinning, then all 12 clocks should experience the same
state of motion.
Therefore you ARE spinning the icosahedron.
Incidentally, what about gravitational effects?
> You may call it EL's Absolute Time Gauge if you please.
How big is the icosahedron? As big as the entire world?
> I claim that the concept of time was never an absolute concept of
> nature as assumed by SR.
This single statement of yours reveals an incredible number of
misconceptions.
> I claim that time is a human psychological function in cognition of
> relative periodicities in my Quantology.
Wait, wait, wait...you want to measure time using a physical artifact,
although you claim it is not a physically measurable phenomenon, but a human
psychological function? Contradiction, contradiction.
> I claim that concluding an absolute time is by mathematically
> manipulating the dimensionless ratio of the observed relative
> periodicities, such that we cancel out all causes of spatial variance
> of the systems, including spatial transitions between inertial frames
> of those systems inside which the periodical phenomena is encapsulated
> as yet a predetermined spatial cyclic redundant variance.
And the practical realization of this would be...?
> That was my recommendation while of course understanding it and
> applying it is a completely different issue.
In other words, you have proposed an imaginary construct with no means of
practical realization, with which you would replace all the cesium and
rubidium clocks in the world.
Go away, EL.
Minor Crank
EL
news:<Mofrb.108376$ao4.332791@attbi_s51>...
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.03110...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Firstly, I would throw away all the caesium clocks in the garbage
> > because they are based on caesium gas cells.
> > Gas cells have a big disadvantage in any moving system that
> > accelerates and decelerates because the inertial state of the gas
> > molecules may not change to other inertial states acquired by the
> > container through acceleration or deceleration without being
> > compressed temporarily and affecting their periodical transitions from
> > which time is intervals are being counted.
>
> What you are saying corresponds to choice (2) that I offered. You believe
> that cesium clocks are useless for accurate time measurement.
[EL]
You are performing the same clownish trick over and over relentlessly,
don't you? :)
Caesium (not sesame) clocks do measure time by design and they are
very accurate when operating on earth.
Perhaps they are second in precision as far as clocks go, because
gases are much easier to purify.
So you just failed to make me look like as if I reject caesium clocks
as clocks altogether, which is not the case.
I specifically stated that they are not suitable for measuring time in
systems that undergo acceleration every now and then. Also the weight
of the gas is reduced at higher altitudes and whatever follows by
changing such a gravitational relation to the frame of reference. So
although I do understand that caesium clocks are very precise in the
lab, I also understand that they are the least suitable for measuring
time on accelerated vehicles for obtaining ultimate precision and
synchronization with stationary clocks.
>
> > Secondly, I would choose the purest solid transparent medium available
> > that has no dispersive anomalies at the widest range of temperatures
> > and with respect to the widest bandwidth of frequencies possible.
>
> No such thing. Try a vacuum, instead.
[EL]
And where do you suggest I could find absolute vacuum?
What material do you suggest for the container of that vacuum?
All what I did was suggesting a crystal such that the inter-atomic
space is the vacuum I need and that the solid molecular structure
itself is the container I trust to be free from gasses of the
container material.
You need to adjust the scale of which you are thinking Minor Crank.
>
> > I would also choose the highest frequency to which that medium shows
> > linear responses for frequencies below that frequency.
>
> Huh?
[EL]
Never mind my arrows that I shoot above your head, they are for fun.
>
> > The time taken by that wave to travel from one end of the medium to
> > the other is a constant of that medium which is homogenous and
> > isotropic in any inertial frame but to build an absolute time
> > reference demands 12 identical clocks of that construct to be placed
> > and oriented spherically and radially around the 13th spherical zone
> > in which the 12 time counts are added and averaged such that the final
> > measurement is locally compensated against any state of motion in any
> > direction.
>
> I would hope that this construct of yours is not spinning...
[EL]
It is not spinning.
>
> If all 12 clocks are oriented at the vertices of an icosahedron, and if the
> icosahedron is NOT spinning, then all 12 clocks should experience the same
> state of motion.
[EL]
No, that is incorrect when they are radially oriented.
Radial orientation demands that each clock must be identical and
polar.
Let us imagine that the designer may call one end the head and the
other end the foot.
This means that if all 12 clocks' heads were oriented radially away
from the centre, each symmetrical two should compensate the vectors of
the other in the vector space.
Of course it can be done by two clocks only in line and three clocks
in an equilateral distribution in a plane and with eight clocks in a
cubical distribution as well and all shall be better then one but I
chose 12 clocks distributed like a dodecahedron for absolute spatial
coordinates to mimic that of the primordial space axis.
Just like squares and hexagons may be set in an infinite matrix in a
plane, cubes and dodecahedrons may fill the 3D space entirely without
leaving voids. Squares and cubes have the disadvantage of the binary
identity of the side and the vertex while hexagons and dodecahedrons
do not have such a duality of topological identity.
>
> Therefore you ARE spinning the icosahedron.
[EL]
No, your conclusion is wrong.
>
> Incidentally, what about gravitational effects?
[EL]
By this construct the global gravitational field shall act as global
frame of reference of course and the Absolute Time Frame being
calculated must be within such a gravitational frame of reference.
This fact is not troubling at all because there is no remote magic
allowed in my Quantology, as all reported observations must arrive to
the spatial coordinates of the observer. We only need to have absolute
confidence in the Absolute Time Frame of our local gravitational field
as expressed within the whole universe.
As I said, the final time measurements are the result of the
mathematical manipulations in which all odds are symmetrical and
cancelled out. What I am proposing assumes nothing being absolute in
nature but I depend on capturing the relative variations in opposing
symmetry to extract the absolute proportionality.
>
> > You may call it EL's Absolute Time Gauge if you please.
>
> How big is the icosahedron? As big as the entire world?
[EL]
No, it is as big as a peanut of the size of your head. :)
Get serious you Major Crank. :)
It could be as big as a soccer ball or a basket ball or a meter in
diameter as I have not designed one but I can imagine how it looks
like when it is miniaturized.
Prototypes though may be a meter or three in diameter depending on the
crude technology being applied.
>
> > I claim that the concept of time was never an absolute concept of
> > nature as assumed by SR.
>
> This single statement of yours reveals an incredible number of
> misconceptions.
[EL]
Is that why you snipped the part in which I proved that the
misconception was yours?
You failed to provide any equally valid evidence to your argument
here.
You failed to answer my direct questions I asked you too, so what more
can I do for you!
>
> > I claim that time is a human psychological function in cognition of
> > relative periodicities in my Quantology.
>
> Wait, wait, wait...you want to measure time using a physical artifact,
> although you claim it is not a physically measurable phenomenon, but a human
> psychological function? Contradiction, contradiction.
[EL]
The contradiction is in your wanting logic only.
There is nothing that you and me can communicate that neither you nor
me could psychologically conceive by the mind. That is why time must
boil down to be a mental logical aspect or conception of the human
brain.
Once you agree and get over with it, we proceed to the means of
arbitrating a dimensionless ratio of periodical sequences of events,
which are yet further observations of the mind. Once you agree and get
over with it, we realise that there could be a periodic sequence of
higher resolution than another such that we could measure the later by
means of the first. Once you agree and get over with it, we need to
standardise the highest resolution of time by comparing it to itself
in all directions, at all speeds and under all accelerations such that
we end up with an invariant upon which all our arbitrations may stand
solid.
If I lost you on the way to this line then go back and read again
until you arrive safely. :)
>
> > I claim that concluding an absolute time is by mathematically
> > manipulating the dimensionless ratio of the observed relative
> > periodicities, such that we cancel out all causes of spatial variance
> > of the systems, including spatial transitions between inertial frames
> > of those systems inside which the periodical phenomena is encapsulated
> > as yet a predetermined spatial cyclic redundant variance.
>
> And the practical realization of this would be...?
>
> > That was my recommendation while of course understanding it and
> > applying it is a completely different issue.
>
> In other words, you have proposed an imaginary construct with no means of
> practical realization, with which you would replace all the cesium and
> rubidium clocks in the world.
[EL]
No, not at all; I have not proposed any fictitious constructs but your
technical experience is not providing you with enough images to
imagine what I am talking about. When my proposals are adopted and
manufactured it must take time until it becomes fully integrated and
miniaturized, and any EL's Absolute Time Gauge Meter should not be
bigger than a tennis ball in solid state.
>
> Go away, EL.
[EL]
Thank you for reminding me, I really have to go swimming in the club
for two hours after lunch.
>
> Minor Crank
[EL]
See ya.
:)
EL
Stephen Bint
has an
> > atomic clock circling the globe in a jet could be done again,
>
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
>
the more detailed analysis at
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper33.pdf
...but ran out of time. (Please don't think I am rude if I do not pursue
this thread any further; I am off the internet for a while, as of tomorrow.)
I put it to you, that Einstein predicted reciprocal time dilation, but these
observations are of time dilation in one of the frames, not in both as
Einstein predicted.
SR makes time dilation a function of relative velocity, so that passing
observers see the speed of light as constant on eachother's spaceships. The
time dilation is reciprocal.
These C-135 results suggest that time dilation is not reciprocal. As a
solution to the twin paradox, it was suggested to me on this ng that, time
dilation is reciprocal until the at-rest twin's clock jumps forward as the
plane returns to the at-rest twin's frame. This certainly does away with the
paradox, but does it match these results?
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
(see page 9, Figure 5)
It appears not.
It seems that these findings of steady, one-way dilation, spell doom for
SR's claim, that time dilation is reciprocal.
Stephen
Minor Crank
news:7563cb80.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<Mofrb.108376$ao4.332791@attbi_s51>...
> > In other words, you have proposed an imaginary construct with no means
of
> > practical realization, with which you would replace all the cesium and
> > rubidium clocks in the world.
>
> [EL]
> No, not at all; I have not proposed any fictitious constructs but your
> technical experience is not providing you with enough images to
> imagine what I am talking about. When my proposals are adopted and
> manufactured it must take time until it becomes fully integrated and
> miniaturized, and any EL's Absolute Time Gauge Meter should not be
> bigger than a tennis ball in solid state.
All I can say is, good luck with marketing your device. Your description of
your Absolute Time Gauge Meter shows that your understanding of physics is
so hopelessly out of touch with reality, that there is no point for us to
continue.
This was my conclusion the first time that I exchanged views with you. This
second exchange reinforces this conclusion.
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
> These C-135 results suggest that time dilation is not reciprocal. As a
> solution to the twin paradox, it was suggested to me on this ng that, time
> dilation is reciprocal until the at-rest twin's clock jumps forward as the
> plane returns to the at-rest twin's frame.
> This certainly does away with the
> paradox, but does it match these results?
>
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
> (see page 9, Figure 5)
>
> It appears not.
>
> It seems that these findings of steady, one-way dilation, spell doom for
> SR's claim, that time dilation is reciprocal.
Several things wrong with this. GR effects account for most of the time
dilation observed. If the plane could be suspended by a static balloon at
the height reached, I would see the plane clock running faster, and the
pilot would see my ground clock running slower. Also, the plane is not in an
inertial frame, but is continuously changing its velocity vector. Learn to
manipulate Minkowski diagrams, path integrals, and what it means to
integrate proper time.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
(Outlook Express, being a very stupid newsreader, will split up the above
URL onto separate lines. Sorry about that.)
Remember the intent of this technology is unidirectional, to transfer
Earth-based time to the plane, not to transfer plane-based time to the
Earth.
Finally, remember that the TWTT technology being developed hinges on the
correctness of relativity. It is an -application- of relativity, not
a -test- of relativity, and the consistent matchup of observed results with
relativistic predictions shows that relativity provides a sound basis for
explaining the flight clock's behavior.
Minor Crank
Dan Bloomquist
Stephen Bint wrote:
>
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
More than once.
I'm seven sheets to the wind. Watched the 200 but South Park is better.
(So Hard to type...) I'll read your link in morn. (See moon disappear!_)
But you think'n wrong way!. Learn SR first, then argue. Don't sound
like dummy.
Think first, so much better!
Remember what Uncle say, Math work, don't argue with math.
Look for hidden jewel. Jewel not found in what work. Jewel found in
think'n beyond.
June R Harton
> > Thanks to the patience and expertise of the contributers to this list, I
> > retract my assertion that there can be no defence against the twin
paradox.
> > Next time you are bothered by someone with a poor understanding of the
> > subject, I recommend you state explicitly that:
> > As you accelerate away from someone, their clock runs slower and slower.
> Naturally, it is a shame that you were finally convinced that when I
> accelerate away from you in my brand new car, your wrist watch takes
> notice of me and runs slower.
> brain-smearing experts and parrots.
> Do you know of another way in which an observer may observe a clock in
> a spaceship flying away from him at the speed of light else than by
> closing the eyes, dreaming and wishing?
> equations and there is the crux of the error.
You are not correct and neither is he. Relativity re the twin paradox is
ACTUAL
if the speed of light (and thus sub-atomic particles) is constant. The
younger
will be due to faster velocity BECAUSE the particles have a longer
tradjectory
at a constant speed. There is no way this can be argued against. Conversely
the false apparency of the system moving at faster velocity considering
that
the slower system is the one moving at the faster velocity is simply FALSE.
The DRIVER had better know he is in faster motion or he shouldn't be
driving!
Thus *he* has to make the mathematical corrections based on his faster
velocity and thus deduce that he is aging less!
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
EL
> All I can say is, good luck with marketing your device.
[EL]
Thank you for your sincere wishes and warm feelings Crank.
> Your description of your Absolute Time Gauge Meter shows
> that your understanding of physics is so hopelessly out of touch with reality,
[EL]
If you mean YOUR reality then I have to agree with you that I am not
in your dream.
Oops, I mean reality.
If you mean that the market in reality is already controlled by
gangsters who sell theories along with devices that include
compensations and anti-compensations to balance out the unnecessary
hogwash that was sold then I have to think about it and I may have to
hire some muscles to show up with me when I am ready.
> that there is no point for us to continue.
[EL]
Indeed there was never any point to start either because the only time
in which I was in agreement with you, you disagreed with me for
agreeing with you!
>
> This was my conclusion the first time that I exchanged views with you.
[EL]
You mean when you were correct and I agreed with you then you changed
your mind and started kissing Frantz H. ass and thus disagreed with me
for agreeing with you, oh, yes, I remember very well.
> This second exchange reinforces this conclusion.
>
> Minor Crank
[EL]
You may conclude all you wish and sing with the choir like Hanson
says.
All your conclusions are worthless since you failed to address any
point objectively or answer any direct questions asked.
Snipping the equations and the logical argumentations and the
questions does not put you in any condescending position with respect
to me.
You simply declare that you are incompetent or at a required level to
provide for a fruitful debate.
Your style is that if I was not in agreement with you and your
understanding then it is me who must be wrong.
You completely forget the fact that a debate necessarily means that
neither of us could be right or wrong until the evidence was presented
from both sides and evaluated. One of us should realise something that
he missed and learn.
What did you teach Minor Crank sir, minor-crankness!
EL
kenseto
You are right....Time dilation is not reciprocal.
For two observers A and B in relative motion there are two possibilities for
each observer as follows:
From A's point of view:
Tab=Taa(Faa/Fab) or Tab=Taa(Fab/Faa)
Taa=A time interval in observer A's clock.
Tab= The predicted B's clock time value for a time interval Taa (in A's
frame)
Faa=Frequency of a standard light source in A's frame as measured by
observer A.
Fab=Frequency of an identical light source in B's frame as measured by A. If
Fab is not constant then use the mean value.
From B's point of view:
Tba=Tbb(Fbb/Fba) or Tba=Tbb(Fba/Fbb)
Tbb=A time interval in observer A's clock.
Tba= The predicted A's clock time value for a time interval Taa (in B's
frame)
Fbb=Frequency of a standard light source in B's frame as measured by
observer B.
Fba=Frequency of an identical light source in A's frame as measured by B. If
Fba is not constant then use the mean value.
With the above concept if A determines (calculates) B's clcok is running
slow then B will determines (calculates) that A's clock is running fast.
Ken Seto
EL
> You are not correct and neither is he. Relativity re the twin paradox is
> ACTUAL if the speed of light (and thus sub-atomic particles) is constant.
> The younger will be due to faster velocity BECAUSE the particles have
> a longer tradjectory at a constant speed.
>
>
> There is no way this can be argued against.
>
[EL]
Oh! But I d have in fact several ways of argument not just one.
Here is one way of arguing that might amuse you sir.
Let John and Jim be two twins.
Let John leave earth in a spaceship to Mars and back at an average
speed of 10000 Km/h while Jim leaves earth to the moon and back at an
average speed of 1000 Km/h. They do not land or complete the course
but they fly for an equal but undetermined period of time.
After all the ceremonies of arrival have ended they both headed home
and sat to their desks to calculate their relativistic ages but
suddenly a crowd of people barge in shouting and yelling and singing
to both of them, "Happy birthday to you". So they throw the papers on
which they wrote the relativistic equations in the garbage and they
look on a table and find a big cake with 60 candles, 30 in each half
as they were twins.
How old is Jim and how old is John, can you guess?
:)
EL
Stephen Bint
"Dan Bloomquist" <lak...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3FADEB6...@citlink.net...
>
>
> Stephen Bint wrote:
> >
> > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
>
> More than once.
> I'm seven sheets to the wind. Watched the 200 but South Park is better.
> (So Hard to type...) I'll read your link in morn. (See moon disappear!_)
>
> But you think'n wrong way!. Learn SR first, then argue. Don't sound
> like dummy.
>
> Think first, so much better!
>
> Remember what Uncle say, Math work, don't argue with math.
>
> Look for hidden jewel. Jewel not found in what work. Jewel found in
> think'n beyond.
>
> >
> > Stephen
> >
>
> Best, Dan.
>
>
this ng.
Stephen
Bilge
The trajectory in four dimensions (world line) is the elapsed proper
time, so the twin which is youngest has the shortest world line.
Stephen Bint
relativity with it. The velocity effect is a small part of the time
difference and dangerously close to the accuracy limits of the clocks. Also,
I am not impressed with the fit of their prediction in figure 8, sectio 5.2,
in the period between 2000 and 4000
seconds, nor between 8000 and 10000.
I am also unsure whether we are looking at time dilation, or an effect on
the mechanisms of atomic clocks.
> Remember the intent of this technology is unidirectional, to transfer
> Earth-based time to the plane, not to transfer plane-based time to the
> Earth.
>
As I understand it (and I might not), DTWTT involves both clocks sending a
time reporting signal and data being collected on plane and in lab. You send
a time signal both ways and take the difference between arrival time and
sending time, at each end. I do not know how the two sets of data are
combined in the graphs.
But it's not a conclusive proof of anything. The jury's still out on two-way
time dilation. It might happen, if one party sees a time contraction in the
other, before clocks are reunited.
Stephen
EL
[EL]
Objection Bilge, your statement is incorrect.
Since any change of spatial state demands the passage of proper time,
the shortest world line must be parallel to the time axis and is of a
relatively stationary object and in that case it is of the stationary
brother who is static to the frame of reference.
The brother who was moving with a velocity has a coordinate changing
with respect to time at a slope proportional to his speed, and the
steeper that slope is the longer is his world line, because he would
have covered a greater distance at a greater velocity within the same
Time Window.
Claiming that he returns younger was a good joke back then but it is
not funny anymore.
Sorry.
EL
Minor Crank
> "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:OAkrb.150911$Fm2.133694@attbi_s04...
> > Several things wrong with this. GR effects account for most of the time
> > dilation observed. If the plane could be suspended by a static balloon
at
> > the height reached, I would see the plane clock running faster, and the
> > pilot would see my ground clock running slower. Also, the plane is not
in
> > an
> > inertial frame, but is continuously changing its velocity vector. Learn
to
> > manipulate Minkowski diagrams, path integrals, and what it means to
> > integrate proper time.
> >
>
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html
> > (Outlook Express, being a very stupid newsreader, will split up the
above
> > URL onto separate lines. Sorry about that.)
> >
> On reflection, I agree with you and I am embarassed that I tried to kill
> relativity with it. The velocity effect is a small part of the time
> difference and dangerously close to the accuracy limits of the clocks.
Also,
> I am not impressed with the fit of their prediction in figure 8, sectio
5.2,
> in the period between 2000 and 4000
> seconds, nor between 8000 and 10000.
As I mentioned before, these are -not- tests of relativity, but of the TWTT
system being developed, with software being used to simulate various parts
of the system later to be implemented in hardware. If these were tests of
relativity, the planes would have carried at least four clocks to enable
correlated rate change analysis to be performed on the clock outputs. Since
these were tests of the TWTT system being developed, the planes were
equipped with a single cesium clock (the same as an actual working system),
so that defects of the system, such as the sporadic clock drifts that you
noted, would show up.
> I am also unsure whether we are looking at time dilation, or an effect on
> the mechanisms of atomic clocks.
Relativistic time dilation (mostly GR effects) adequately account for the
observed effects (except for the above mentioned clock glitches). However,
if there were other effects on the mechanisms of the atomic clocks, such as
irregularities resulting from vibration, loss of calibration due to power
supply glitches, or whatever, these tests were intended to reveal them.
> > Remember the intent of this technology is unidirectional, to transfer
> > Earth-based time to the plane, not to transfer plane-based time to the
> > Earth.
> >
> As I understand it (and I might not), DTWTT involves both clocks sending a
> time reporting signal and data being collected on plane and in lab. You
send
> a time signal both ways and take the difference between arrival time and
> sending time, at each end. I do not know how the two sets of data are
> combined in the graphs.
>
> But it's not a conclusive proof of anything. The jury's still out on
two-way
> time dilation. It might happen, if one party sees a time contraction in
the
> other, before clocks are reunited.
Repeat, these were tests of the two way time transfer technology under
development, NOT of relativity. These tests confirm that the algorithms
being employed to account for relativistic effects in their system appear to
be correct. They also show that clock glitches (which also occur in ground
clocks) occur in their flight system, that can result in temporary 2 to 3
nanosecond anomalies in the time readings.
Minor Crank
June R Harton
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbqt36a....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
You say I have assumed the trajectory incorrectly. Look at the idea of light
going from right to left in a stationary craft. Then look at light started
at the same
time across same distance but in a craft that moves. The trajectory of the
light
is greater (period!). So, the light for the person on the moving craft
travels in
a time frame that is slower than that of the stationary craft.
Related to your "worldline"....you have a BIG problem.....there is no time
dimension at all. There is continuity of space and particles then simply
relative
rates of change....giving an _apparency_ not actuality of time.
Bilge
>
>Objection Bilge, your statement is incorrect.
>
>Since any change of spatial state demands the passage of proper time,
>the shortest world line must be parallel to the time axis and is of a
>relatively stationary object and in that case it is of the stationary
>brother who is static to the frame of reference.
The length of a trajectory is the elapsed proper time along the
trajectory. The longest elapsed proper time occurs in the rest
frame of the observer. Since an observer in his/her won rest frame
does not move, dx^2 is zero and:
d\tau^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx^2 = (cdt)^2
For any value of dx^2, d\tau^2 is shorter. For example, the
length of any light trajectory is zero.
Bilge
>Related to your "worldline"....you have a BIG problem.....there is no time
>dimension at all. There is continuity of space and particles then simply
>relative rates of change....giving an _apparency_ not actuality of time.
That's strictly your problem. Now come up with a useable theory.
Bilge
>I am also unsure whether we are looking at time dilation, or an effect on
>the mechanisms of atomic clocks.
transition is related to only 3 things, the charge, the selection
rules and the phase space. The charge is frame independent. If you
believe a hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom regardless of where it
is, the selection rules are the same. That leaves the phase space
as the only factor. The phase space is essentially the energy available
for a transition to occur, so if an atom is moving at some large
velocity, the transition will appear to take longer.
>
>> Remember the intent of this technology is unidirectional, to transfer
>> Earth-based time to the plane, not to transfer plane-based time to the
>> Earth.
>>
>As I understand it (and I might not), DTWTT involves both clocks sending a
>time reporting signal and data being collected on plane and in lab. You send
>a time signal both ways and take the difference between arrival time and
>sending time, at each end. I do not know how the two sets of data are
>combined in the graphs.
>
>But it's not a conclusive proof of anything. The jury's still out on two-way
>time dilation. It might happen, if one party sees a time contraction in the
>other, before clocks are reunited.
with a complex mechanism that only appears to be a symmetry. It requires
endowing nature with the ability to do something and plan ahead rather
than do nothing at all.
EL
[EL]
Tau is a distance. :)
EL
Paul R. Mays
[Paul:]
Tau Ceti isn't is it.... (o)(o)
Paul...
Bilge
\Tau is the elapsed proper time. The proper distance is given
by the spacelike metric:
ds^2 = -(cdt)^2 + dx^2
EL
[EL]
No Paul, this isn't a joke at all, because Bilge and I both know that
he is reciting what we both know very well but I am having a stab at.
(therefore the smiley)
Bilge said that the length of a trajectory is the elapsed proper time,
but I insist that it is a spatial distance and not time. That is why I
consequently insist that it is the longest distance travelled in the
moving frame and the rest frame moved ZERO distance exactly as Bilge
said that delta distance squared is zero.
Bilge knows that I am not disputing the equations because there is
nothing wrong with them.
I am disputing the meaning of the terms and the consequences of the
semantics.
That is why d\tau^2 being shorter does not mean earlier or younger.
So I cut the race short and said:
Tau is a distance. :)
Read my extra previous post again and you shall notice that I used a
time axis and not a tau axis to emphasise my point.
Regards.
Oh! And we are having fun, yes, but not going as far as "Tau Ceti",
no, that would be too much, and funk. :)
LOL.
EL
EL
> EL:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
> >news:<slrnbqvq13....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> >> EL:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Objection Bilge, your statement is incorrect.
> >> >
> >> >Since any change of spatial state demands the passage of proper time,
> >> >the shortest world line must be parallel to the time axis and is of a
> >> >relatively stationary object and in that case it is of the stationary
> >> >brother who is static to the frame of reference.
> >>
> >> The length of a trajectory is the elapsed proper time along the
> >> trajectory. The longest elapsed proper time occurs in the rest
> >> frame of the observer. Since an observer in his/her won rest frame
> >> does not move, dx^2 is zero and:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For any value of dx^2, d\tau^2 is shorter. For example, the
> >> length of any light trajectory is zero.
> >
> >
> >[EL]
> >Tau is a distance. :)
>
>
> by the spacelike metric:
>
>
> ds^2 = -(cdt)^2 + dx^2
[EL]
Hold on for a second Bilge.
Since you brought this up I would like to check my understanding
against yours.
In a full scaled diagram of the light-cones, light itself is on the
surface of those cones, and all observable events of cause and effect
must be contained within the light cones, whether that is past or
future passing through the observer at the origin. The space-like
metric is whatever is happening elsewhere in space and is never
observed.
We were discussing if the Time-like events that happen inside the
light cones represented spatial quantities or time quantities and I
can only make sense of space being available in time not time in time.
That is exactly what I meant by [ct] being spatial quantities within
the light cones.
Subtracting two lengths rather than adding them does not change the
dimensional classification of the quantities.
The speed of light [c] multiplied by a time interval [dt] and then
squared is dimensionally a surface in the Minkowski flat space. Of
course taking the square roots of both sides returns the dimensions to
length quantities. So I am not impressed.
Try to plug sum numbers into the equations and give me an answer with
a quantity qualifier please.
And please balance the dimensional equation too.
Kind regards.
EL
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge):
>> /Tau is the elapsed proper time. The proper distance is given
>> by the spacelike metric:
>>
>>
>> ds^2 = -(cdt)^2 + dx^2
>
>[EL]
>Hold on for a second Bilge.
>Since you brought this up I would like to check my understanding
>against yours.
>In a full scaled diagram of the light-cones, light itself is on the
>surface of those cones, and all observable events of cause and effect
>must be contained within the light cones, whether that is past or
>future passing through the observer at the origin. The space-like
>metric is whatever is happening elsewhere in space and is never
>observed.
The metric just tells you how to calculate intervals. The only
difference between the time-like signature (-2) and space-like
signature (+2), is that with a time-like signature, timelike
intervals are positive and with a spacelike signature, proper
distances are positive: ds^2 = -d\tau^2.
>We were discussing if the Time-like events that happen inside the
>light cones represented spatial quantities or time quantities and I
>can only make sense of space being available in time not time in time.
>
>That is exactly what I meant by [ct] being spatial quantities within
>the light cones.
That's ok. You can measure time in meters or distances in seconds.
Same difference.
>Subtracting two lengths rather than adding them does not change the
>dimensional classification of the quantities.
Of course not. What matters is that if you use a timelike metric,
you remember that timelike intervals are positive and if you use
a spacelike metric that spacelike intervals are positive. Which
one you use is matter of personal preference.
>
>The speed of light [c] multiplied by a time interval [dt] and then
>squared is dimensionally a surface in the Minkowski flat space. Of
>course taking the square roots of both sides returns the dimensions to
>length quantities. So I am not impressed.
About what? All I did was wriye the metric using two different
signatures, both of which are in common use.
>Try to plug sum numbers into the equations and give me an answer with
>a quantity qualifier please.
>And please balance the dimensional equation too.
>
I'm not sure what you want. I mean, the proper time is given by:
d\tau^2 = dt^2 - dx^2
It has to be the longest when the velocity is zero so that dx^2 is zero.
Similarly, the proper distance is:
ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2
It's longest when dt^2 is zero.
EL
[EL]
<I snipped the part in which we seem to be in agreement>
> I'm not sure what you want. I mean, the proper time is given by:
>
> d\tau^2 = dt^2 - dx^2
>
> It has to be the longest when the velocity is zero so that dx^2 is zero.
> Similarly, the proper distance is:
>
> ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2
>
> It's longest when dt^2 is zero.
[EL]
Well, that is not the issue as I said because I do know that the flat
Minkowski spacetime is divided by light world-lines at 45 degrees.
That is why subtracting the space component from the time component
takes the result into the time-like region and subtracting the time
component from the space component takes the result into the
space-like region, that is below and above the 45 degrees light
world-lines.
I am discussing a much more fundamental issue Bilge.
I am discussing the Tau-Charts as constructed by Minkowski with a
spatial vertical axis in length dimension and the horizontal axis in
tau units of geometrical time represented as [ct], which is still
length.
You said:
{
That's ok. You can measure time in meters or distances in seconds.
Same difference.
}
I say no that is what I do not agree with.
I may not overlook that those meters are travelled by light during
that equivalent time.
So meters are meters and seconds are seconds, tautologically.
So I do conceive the equivalence and reject the equality.
3x10^8 meters travelled by light in one second are still 3x10^8 meters
and NOT one second even if they are equivalent in any sense.
If it was time we were after from start then why the fancy operation
of multiplying it by c?
You see, my objection is that while distance vectors may be broken
down to orthogonal components of different magnitudes, the Time
dimension may not be vectored to orthogonal components of different
durations.
A velocity vector can be broken down to two orthogonal components of
space that differ in magnitude but the time interval is the same for
the vector and the two components as well.
If we follow this discipline no twin-paradoxes would ever show up.
Kind regards.
EL
Bilge
was to point out that the elapsed proper time was longest for the
inertial twin.
>I may not overlook that those meters are travelled by light during
>that equivalent time.
>So meters are meters and seconds are seconds, tautologically.
>So I do conceive the equivalence and reject the equality.
>
>3x10^8 meters travelled by light in one second are still 3x10^8 meters
>and NOT one second even if they are equivalent in any sense.
>
>If it was time we were after from start then why the fancy operation
>of multiplying it by c?
kilometers - everybody didn't choose the same units to measure
the same things for reasons related to human convenience.
>You see, my objection is that while distance vectors may be broken
>down to orthogonal components of different magnitudes, the Time
>dimension may not be vectored to orthogonal components of different
>durations.
Why not?
>A velocity vector can be broken down to two orthogonal components of
>space that differ in magnitude but the time interval is the same for
>the vector and the two components as well.
Huh? A vector (as far as I'm concerned) is a four-vector. It has
four components, dx^u == (dt, dx, dy, dz). dy/dx defines an angle
in the x-y plane by tan(A) = dy/dx. dx/dt defines an angle in the
x-t plane by tanh(B) = dx/dt. You've only broken down the
components into the quantities dx/dt and dy/dt ("the time interval
is the same", as you put it). You left out dy/dx which has no "duration",
(also as you put it). I really don't see the problem here.
>If we follow this discipline no twin-paradoxes would ever show up.
It mainly shows up on this newsgroup. I can't recall anyone ever
getting very excited about it in real life. Aside from a problem or
two in jackson and goldstein, the only other place it ever came
up was in the first week or so of a general relativity course as
a review of special relativity and I'm not sure whether anyone
thought it was an issue then as everyone in those classes had
seen it before. This newsgroup doesn't reflect the real world
of physics.
EL
[EL]
Theoretical physics is a very tricky business Bilge. :)
Selling it, usually and more often than occasionally, demands some
glittering paradoxes and mind confusing, or confused, interpretations
of the mathematics describing nature.
We are in agreement apparently, but you really should not buy into
twins living different times since their birth.
You do not seem to be a man who endorses ridiculousness.
To tell you the truth Bilge, I am convinced that "Time Dilation" as a
concept is in fact an inverse velocity.
To make my point crystal clear for no further confusions, I place a
very simple example (not an analogy):
When runners run in a race at different velocities the one who runs
with the greatest velocity magnitude should reach the line first.
All other opponents come in after, dilated more than the first, such
that the results board shows a "dilatency" list of time intervals over
a fixed race distance. This is the only acceptable physical meaning
of time dilation, ... an inverse velocity.
EL
June R Harton
Bilge, do you realize that "worldline" implies not one iota of free will?
It is fundamentally impossible the conception of block universe/block time
leading to 'worldine of every minutiae so you really cannot talk of that as
a
useable theory.
The point of the Lynds observation is that continuity is the *result* of no
actual time dimension of any sort. And then with the actual change of
trajectory between different reference frames relative rate of change
of position and change of state is observed.
You can see the actual model by opening your window and looking out!
However, you can think of it like a rolling pin rolling forward....only the
continuity exists, not time, and events unfold at different rates in that
continuity based on the relative velocity.
June R Harton
El, they have *physically* aged at different rates.
Martin Hogbin
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:WCmtb.24652$pj....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Bilge, do you realize that "worldline" implies not one iota of free will?
Why?
Martin Hogbin
EL
> [June R Harton]
> El, they have *physically* aged at different rates.
>
>
[EL]
The quiz was very easy yet you chose to fail solving it.
Each of the two twins was 30 YEARS old chronologically.
I did not say that their IQ was identical because apparently one of
them was so stupid that he accepted risking his life to verify an even
more stupid hypothesis.
Did you believe that all human beings living on the surface of earth
age at the same rate!
Do you have a definition of a scientific aging rate?
Or are you repeating the same silly joke just because the first man
saying it was a star?
You just fell in my lap and in my arena because one such definition
could be related to the rate of metabolism, which is exceedingly
evident to increase under the stress of continued travelling and being
alert almost all of the time while awake tending meters and equipment.
This means that if any of the two twins has to get older than the
other then he must be the one who travels regardless of his freaking
velocity.
So your argument is not for any aging rates you twit, it was only a
silly way for representing Time Dilation.
So let us give the Emperor his real cloths back because I am really
disgusted with his nakedness, which is coupled with impotence.
All what the twin paradox emphasized is that it was Time herself that
was changing rather than the time it takes things to happen, and that
is exactly the nonsense being refuted, and that is exactly what you
have missed.
Any comparable velocity is a Length interval magnitude per One Single
Unit of Proper Universal Time owned by the mind that compares the
velocities or else comparison may not take place.
Time dilation is the inverse of velocity when it is Time intervals
that we measure per One Unit Of Proper Length as measured in a
relatively stationary frame at rest such as 100 meters long for
conducting an Olympic running contest.
If a contestant made the 100 meters in 9 seconds then his Time
dilation is 0.09 seconds per meter on average.
The relativistic scenario of "time dilation" is a funny nonsensical
explanation of the reason behind a remotely reported time interval
from a body in motion with respect to the receiving station.
The true reason behind the difference in such time intervals is that
moving away from the station adds the time needed by the signal to
traverse the delta distance travelled between the two signals while it
must be subtracted from it if the moving transmitter was moving
towards the receiver.
All you need is take a very deep breath and use your mind fairly
without any biased stance to grasp the truth.
It is really silly to try to imagine any time-vector components at
right angles, don't you think so!
EL
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnbqvq48....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> June R Harton:
>> >Related to your "worldline"....you have a BIG problem.....there is no
>time
>> >dimension at all. There is continuity of space and particles then simply
>> >relative rates of change....giving an _apparency_ not actuality of time.
>> That's strictly your problem. Now come up with a useable theory.
>
>Bilge, do you realize that "worldline" implies not one iota of free will?
imply anything regarding free will. Second, why should it? You have
free will in chosing how you get to the grocery store, don't you?
You also have free will in choosing how you want to get to tomorrow,
don't you, e.g., whether or not you stay home or go to a hotel?
The only "free will" you don't have is when your worldline starts
and ends for you, unless you figure out how to cheat death.
>It is fundamentally impossible the conception of block universe/block time
>leading to 'worldine of every minutiae so you really cannot talk of that as
>a useable theory.
Why not? Physicists use it every day, probably more often than they
use F = ma. That makes it a pretty usable theory.
>The point of the Lynds observation is that continuity is the *result* of no
>actual time dimension of any sort. And then with the actual change of
>trajectory between different reference frames relative rate of change
>of position and change of state is observed.
Lynds can only be taken seriously if one gives him the benefit of the
doubt in assuming he is saying something about quantum mechanics in
which case what he said is not really that novel and he didn't express
that very well.
>You can see the actual model by opening your window and looking out!
>However, you can think of it like a rolling pin rolling forward....only the
>continuity exists, not time, and events unfold at different rates in that
>continuity based on the relative velocity.
You have no idea how I "think of it". We weren't discussing that.
We were discussing special relativity, which is just a preliminary
requirement to understanding anything deeper.
Kids learn how to add numbers like 2+2. When they get older, they learn
to add umbers in different bases, like binary, hexadecimal, octal, etc.
Mathematicians learn the general structure of arithmetic (i.e., an
algebra) in terms of things like rings, groups, etc. Learning physics is
the same way. At this point, you haven't realized that the geometry in
special relativity is no different than just "geometry". You haven't
reached the stage analogous to knowing how to use different number
systems to add two numbers, given above.
Bilge
>Theoretical physics is a very tricky business Bilge. :)
That's why I leave theoretical physics up to theoretical physicists.
They have the same idea about experimental physics, so it works out
ok. However, we aren't talking about anything I would call theoretical
physics. What we have here is plain, ordinary undergraduate level special
relativity and one does not need to be a theoretical physicist to grasp
the basic concepts.
>Selling it, usually and more often than occasionally, demands some
>glittering paradoxes and mind confusing, or confused, interpretations
>of the mathematics describing nature.
Unfortunately, it isn't possible to decide between what is plausible
and what is pointless navel contemplation without casting ideas into
a form which allow for comparison to the real world. Relativity manages
to do that without "glittering paradoxes and mind confusing or
confused, interpretations of the mathematics".
>We are in agreement apparently, but you really should not buy into
>twins living different times since their birth.
Why not? Pions live different times under the same circumstances.
>You do not seem to be a man who endorses ridiculousness.
That's my take on it.
>
>To tell you the truth Bilge, I am convinced that "Time Dilation" as a
>concept is in fact an inverse velocity.
>
>To make my point crystal clear for no further confusions, I place a
>very simple example (not an analogy):
>When runners run in a race at different velocities the one who runs
>with the greatest velocity magnitude should reach the line first.
>All other opponents come in after, dilated more than the first, such
>that the results board shows a "dilatency" list of time intervals over
>a fixed race distance. This is the only acceptable physical meaning
>of time dilation, ... an inverse velocity.
To the best I understand that, I don't see the problem:
\Delta t' = \Delta t / sqrt(1 - \beta^2)
1/sqrt(1 - \beta^2) is an inverse velocity, since \beta is a velocity
in special relativity. It ranges from -1 < \beta < 1.
EL
> >To tell you the truth Bilge, I am convinced that "Time Dilation" as a
> >concept is in fact an inverse velocity.
> >
> >To make my point crystal clear for no further confusions, I place a
> >very simple example (not an analogy):
> >When runners run in a race at different velocities the one who runs
> >with the greatest velocity magnitude should reach the line first.
> >All other opponents come in after, dilated more than the first, such
> >that the results board shows a "dilatency" list of time intervals over
> >a fixed race distance. This is the only acceptable physical meaning
> >of time dilation, ... an inverse velocity.
>
> To the best I understand that, I don't see the problem:
>
> \Delta t' = \Delta t / sqrt(1 - \beta^2)
>
> 1/sqrt(1 - \beta^2) is an inverse velocity, since \beta is a velocity
> in special relativity. It ranges from -1 < \beta < 1.
[EL]
It is rather very interesting to me that I have more or less placed
some confidence in your knowledge Bilge after reading your posts.
Knowledge is acquired by learning and practicing what we learn in
general.
As long as there are no "problems" one is generally not expected to
doubt such learned knowledge especially if one takes most of it as
being an arbitrated standard founded by consensus.
So the issue is not a problem to be seen as much as being the able to
see problems.
Yes there are two problems here, one is a problem to be seen and the
other is the inability to see the problem by a mind that was trained
enough to see it; now that is a paradox worthy of note.
I assume that you should agree that the Time Dimension quantities are
scalars, if you think that time alone is a vector then I am sure that
I have to admit that it is impossible for you to see a problem even if
you were hugging it.
Therefore we need to agree on this first before proceeding anywhere.
Do you see Time as a vector or as a scalar Bilge?
EL
Bilge
>news:<slrnbrem3p....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>
>I assume that you should agree that the Time Dimension quantities are
>scalars, if you think that time alone is a vector then I am sure that
>I have to admit that it is impossible for you to see a problem even if
>you were hugging it.
>
>Therefore we need to agree on this first before proceeding anywhere.
>
>Do you see Time as a vector or as a scalar Bilge?
Time and space are on equal footing. A vector in spacetime has
four components, x^u = (t, x, y, z), just like a vector in three
spatial dimensions is given by X = (x, y, z). Time is a component
of a vector, just like x, y and z. The proper time is the length
a curve,
\tau = \integral sqrt(g_uv dx^u dx^v)
= \integral sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)
just like s would be in three-dimensions:
s = \integral sqrt(dX.dX)
= \integral sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
That should make everything as clear as it gets regardless of whether
you meant coordinate time or proper time.
EL
> EL:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
> >news:<slrnbrem3p....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
>
> >
> >I assume that you should agree that the Time Dimension quantities are
> >scalars, if you think that time alone is a vector then I am sure that
> >I have to admit that it is impossible for you to see a problem even if
> >you were hugging it.
> >
> >Therefore we need to agree on this first before proceeding anywhere.
> >
> >Do you see Time as a vector or as a scalar Bilge?
>
> Time and space are on equal footing.
[EL]
This means that you do not believe anymore in the dimensions of [L]
and [T] as separate entities.
That is fine by me, but what is the freaking dimension of that
magnificent Spacetime new dimension?
Any clue?
> A vector in spacetime has four components,
[EL]
This means that after cutting the green space into thin slices like
cucumber and adding the red cylindrical slices of Time Tomato we have
now a spacetime delicious salad in which time slices could
occasionally fall into orthogonal relations. Here you head north and I
head south.
> x^u = (t, x, y, z), just like a vector in three
> spatial dimensions is given by X = (x, y, z). Time is a component
> of a vector, just like x, y and z. The proper time is the length
> a curve,
[EL]
I was under the impression that you were talking about a spacetime
salad, why suddenly do I see you talking about curved time like a
perfect recorder? Did you lose the identity of time into that of space
or not, make up your mind Bilge.
>
> \tau = \integral sqrt(g_uv dx^u dx^v)
>
> = \integral sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)
>
>
> just like s would be in three-dimensions:
>
>
> s = \integral sqrt(dX.dX)
>
> = \integral sqrt(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)
>
>
> That should make everything as clear as
[EL]
Mud.
> it gets regardless of whether
> you meant coordinate time or proper time.
[EL]
To summarize the mathematical recital and the cautious and defensive
way of avoiding any direct answers, you are still hanging to an
identity of time even that you would very much love to pretend that
time and space were indistinguishable in a new salad. However, the
hidden answer is that YES you think that time is still there in
disguise, standing in the dark with two costumes, one proper and one
coordinated and that they (times) have a fabulous vector components at
different directions.
If you cannot demonstrate any empirical evidence of curved time
(wearing any costume you wish) that can be shown to precede at an
angle rather than being Omni-directional then we should agree to
disagree and if there was a bed in the Modern-Physics plague hospital
I shall reserve it for you even if your case was chronic and hopeless.
I am dead sure that you cannot provide any new dimensions of a
combined spacetime thingy.
I am equally sure that you cannot provide empirical evidence for time
being curved or having multiple dimensions set at right angles.
I am also sad to have discovered that you committed your brain to an
irreversible program like a truly loyal Robot.
I still respect the classical wealth of your knowledge Bilge but it is
better for both of us to agree to disagree at this point.
Goodbye.
EL
June R Harton
> June R Harton:
> >
> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> >news:slrnbqvq48....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> June R Harton:
> >> >Related to your "worldline"....you have a BIG problem.....there is
no
> >time
> >> >dimension at all. There is continuity of space and particles then
simply
> >> >relative rates of change....giving an _apparency_ not actuality of
time.
> >> That's strictly your problem. Now come up with a useable theory.
> >
> >Bilge, do you realize that "worldline" implies not one iota of free
will?
>
> First, a worldline is not a philosphical quantity, so it doesn't
> imply anything regarding free will. Second, why should it? You have
> free will in chosing how you get to the grocery store, don't you?
> You also have free will in choosing how you want to get to tomorrow,
> don't you, e.g., whether or not you stay home or go to a hotel?
> The only "free will" you don't have is when your worldline starts
> and ends for you, unless you figure out how to cheat death.
Of course it does. everything is premeditated....thus no free will.
>
> >It is fundamentally impossible the conception of block universe/block
time
> >leading to 'worldine of every minutiae so you really cannot talk of that
as
> >a useable theory.
>
> Why not? Physicists use it every day, probably more often than they
> use F = ma. That makes it a pretty usable theory.
No, the assumption itself would mean they are working to clockwork.
> >The point of the Lynds observation is that continuity is the *result* of
no
> >actual time dimension of any sort. And then with the actual change of
> >trajectory between different reference frames relative rate of change
> >of position and change of state is observed.
> Lynds can only be taken seriously if one gives him the benefit of the
> doubt in assuming he is saying something about quantum mechanics in
> which case what he said is not really that novel and he didn't express
> that very well.
I guess you assume that because you have not fully followed the argument.
Time is the basic false concept, and he shows that.
> >You can see the actual model by opening your window and looking out!
> >However, you can think of it like a rolling pin rolling forward....only
the
> >continuity exists, not time, and events unfold at different rates in
that
> >continuity based on the relative velocity.
>
> You have no idea how I "think of it". We weren't discussing that.
> We were discussing special relativity, which is just a preliminary
> requirement to understanding anything deeper.
:)
> Kids learn how to add numbers like 2+2. When they get older, they learn
> to add umbers in different bases, like binary, hexadecimal, octal, etc.
> Mathematicians learn the general structure of arithmetic (i.e., an
> algebra) in terms of things like rings, groups, etc. Learning physics is
> the same way. At this point, you haven't realized that the geometry in
> special relativity is no different than just "geometry". You haven't
> reached the stage analogous to knowing how to use different number
> systems to add two numbers, given above.
You obviously haven't been following the concepts and physics posted here.
I'll see if I can help later.
June R Harton
"Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:bp5l4u$ci$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Because it implies every motion is foretold.