SR Experts Don't Know How to Measure Relative Velocity!!!
Ken Seto
relative velocity".
Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
to be Vba.
Question: Is Vab=Vba?
Another Question: How do we measure relative velocity?
To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
how to measure relative velocity.
Ken Seto
and...@attglobal.net
It's the same procedure that you use to measure just
plain velocity.
Nobody responded because you're an asshole.
John Anderson
Jeff Krimmel
> Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> > I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> > relative velocity".
> > Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
> > A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
> > to be Vba.
> > Question: Is Vab=Vba?
> > Another Question: How do we measure relative velocity?
> >
> > To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> > how to measure relative velocity.
> >
>
> It's the same procedure that you use to measure just
> plain velocity.
Indeed.
>
> Nobody responded because you're an asshole.
>
> John Anderson
Haha...a classic.
Jeff
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> how to measure relative velocity.
Have you considered the possibility that it wasn't that nobody *could* give
you an answer, but that nobody *wanted* to give you an answer?
David Evens
Or, quite possibly, he killfiled everyone who bothered to answer.
He's usually able to avoid answering the people he claims to have
killfiled.
Paul B. Andersen
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> skrev i melding
news:75dd81d3.02120...@posting.google.com...
That's because we don't know, Ken.
Can velocity really be measured?
I have been thinking a lot about this hard problem.
I thought for a while that I might measure the frequency of
the moving object and use your DTR to determine the velocity,
but then I realized that I cannot know whether the clock in the moving
object is running fast or slow. And I don't know the absolute time content
in my clock second, which make it kind of hard to know what frequency
I am measuring.
I also considered using metre sticks, but then it is the question of what
the light path length of my metre stick is.
So I am completely lost, Ken.
Will you please enlighten me?
Paul, confused
TomGee
> I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
>
> To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> how to measure relative velocity.
>
> Ken Seto
>
own. I did not care about your question at first because they seemed
irrelevant. But then, after you pounced on those who entered your
trap, I realized your questions were a clever way to expose those who
say there is no universal time but whose arguments show that they
really do think there is. Seems to have worked well, too, as you
stumped them so well all they could do was flame you with everything
they had.
Your point is that since SR claims lightspeed is a universal constant,
then if so, a second of time must be the same for all clocks. If
that's true, then time is Absolute. You believe that time is
universal, I think you said, but you say that lightspeed in not
universal. So let's look at that so far:
1. Relativity says there is no Absolute time.
2. You say time is Absolute.
3. You disagree that lightspeed is universal.
If 3. is correct, then 1. is also correct, but 2. is incorrect. That
is, unless you can show why you think it is, even though 1. and 3.
remain correct.
Which brings me to my point: I agree with 3., disagree w/1., and
disagree w/2. That means I believe time is both Absolute and not
Absolute. How can that be, anyone may ask? The Twin Paradox and
other experiments show that time is a property of discrete matter and
that it passes at rates inversely proportional to an object's state of
motion. As an aside, please note that I have said nothing about space
or direction. Relativity thus claims there is no Absolute time, only
time that accrues to discrete matter at rates dependent upon their
particular states of motion. That indicates that is one object is
moving at x speed, and another at y speed, then, upon comparison of
their states of motion, we will find they have different rates of time
accruing to each. However, if their states of motion are essentially
the same, their time rates will be the same. As another aside, it
does not matter who is going faster and who is going slower, nor in
whatever directions they are moving.
IF it is so, however, that time rates accrue to discrete objects at
rates dependent upon their individual states of motion, but that if
their speeds are the same then the rate of the passage of time for
each is the same, that can only mean that there is a set of universal
time rates that apply to every discrete object at whichever state of
motion they are in. In that sense only, we can say that there is an
Absolute time. If there is far far away across the universe another
galaxy with a solar system like ours with a planet like Earth in it
that is moving at essentially the same speed at which we are moving
through space, then the time rate at that planet must be the same as
the time rate of our planet.
So I have given both sides their cake to eat, but if anyone chooses to
throw their portions at someone else, have at it, I really don't care.
Ken Seto
> >
> > I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> > relative velocity".
> > Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
> > A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
> > to be Vba.
> > Question: Is Vab=Vba?
> > Another Question: How do we measure relative velocity?
> >
> > To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> > how to measure relative velocity.
> >
>
> It's the same procedure that you use to measure just
> plain velocity.
How do you measure relative or plain velocity between two
space ships?
>
> Nobody responded because you're an asshole.
Hey moron there were a lot of responds. But everybody avoided
answer the question except fot Randy Poe. He said that the
observer mark the positions x_1' and x_2' between two clock
readings t_1 and t_2. The relative velocity is:
x_2'-x_1'/t_2-t_1. But when I asked him how to get x_1' and x_2'
in the observer's frame he refused to answer me.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> <and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3DF422...@attglobal.net...
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > >
> > > I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> > > relative velocity".
> > > Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
> > > A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
> > > to be Vba.
> > > Question: Is Vab=Vba?
> > > Another Question: How do we measure relative velocity?
> > >
> > > To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> > > how to measure relative velocity.
> > >
> >
> > It's the same procedure that you use to measure just
> > plain velocity.
>
> Indeed.
Indeed--you were one of the responder who avoided the question.
So how do you measure plain velocity between two space ships?
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Yes I considered that except that there were a lot of responds and they
all avoided the question. So I guess your garbage is just that ...garbage.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:75dd81d3.02120...@posting.google.com...
Title: "Setomatical Division":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#SetoMatics
Dirk Vdm
John Holland
"TomGee" <lv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0212...@posting.google.com...
at which we are moving
> through space, then the time rate
at that planet must be the same as
> the time rate of our planet.
cheers,
JH
HenriWilson
Good question Ken.
Motion doesn't exist.
The space between two objects changes with time.
Henri Wilson.
Discoverer of the THREE TIME DIMENSIONS.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Randy Poe
> I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> relative velocity".
> Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
> A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
> to be Vba.
> Question: Is Vab=Vba?
Vab = -Vba.
Example: You are driving north on I-95 at 60 mph. I am
driving north on I-95 at 55 mph. You are behind me.
To you, I appear to be approaching you, i.e., moving
southward, at 5 mph.
To me, you appear to be moving northward at 5 mph.
Thus, I say your velocity is 5 mph in my frame, and you
say mine is -5 mph in your frame. Is that really so hard?
> Another Question: How do we measure relative velocity?
>
> To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> how to measure relative velocity.
Liar.
Plenty of people responded with procedures. I know
I did, because you responded to it.
TomGee
> > galaxy with a solar system like ours with a planet like Earth in it
> > that is moving at essentially the same speed
> (as observed by whom ?)
>
observes it, just like the Sun will rise again tomorrow whether or not
anyone is there to see it do so. It is pure egocentrism to think (as
many physicists seem to think today) that s--t don't happen unless
they are there to see it come out.
>
> at which we are moving
> > through space, then the time rate
> (as observed by whom)
>
>
> at that planet must be the same as
> > the time rate of our planet.
> (as observed by whom)
>
Regards, TomGee
Ken Seto
> "Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> skrev i melding
> news:75dd81d3.02120...@posting.google.com...
> > I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> > relative velocity".
> > Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
> > A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
> > to be Vba.
> > Question: Is Vab=Vba?
> > Another Question: How do we measure relative velocity?
> >
> > To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> > how to measure relative velocity.
>
> That's because we don't know, Ken.
> Can velocity really be measured?
You tell me. If not how do we determine v in all the SR equations?
> I have been thinking a lot about this hard problem.
> I thought for a while that I might measure the frequency of
> the moving object and use your DTR to determine the velocity,
> but then I realized that I cannot know whether the clock in the moving
> object is running fast or slow.
DRT don't use relative velocity in its equations. So once again your
sarcastic remark is pointless.
>And I don't know the absolute time content
> in my clock second, which make it kind of hard to know what frequency
> I am measuring.
You can define your clock second as an absolute second. That how the
GPS system do it. #hat this mean is that some clock will run at a
slower
rate (by 1/gamma)than your clock and some will run at a faster rate
(by gamma)and your clock will definitely run slower than the clock at
the rest frame of the ether.
> I also considered using metre sticks, but then it is the question of what
> the light path length of my metre stick is.
> So I am completely lost, Ken.
You can also define your physical meter stick length as the defined
light path length. Then the light path length of
>
> Will you please enlighten me?
Cut out the sarcastic crap Paul. YOU suppose to tell me how SR
determine relative velocity between two space ships.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> ken...@erinet.com (Ken Seto) wrote in message news:<75dd81d3.02120...@posting.google.com>...
> > I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> > relative velocity"....
> >
> > To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> > how to measure relative velocity.
> >
> > Ken Seto
> >
> I don't consider myself an SR expert, but I do have a few ideas of my
> own. I did not care about your question at first because they seemed
> irrelevant. But then, after you pounced on those who entered your
> trap, I realized your questions were a clever way to expose those who
> say there is no universal time but whose arguments show that they
> really do think there is. Seems to have worked well, too, as you
> stumped them so well all they could do was flame you with everything
> they had.
Thank you:-)
>
> Your point is that since SR claims lightspeed is a universal constant,
> then if so, a second of time must be the same for all clocks. If
> that's true, then time is Absolute. You believe that time is
> universal, I think you said, but you say that lightspeed in not
> universal. So let's look at that so far:
>
> 1. Relativity says there is no Absolute time.
> 2. You say time is Absolute.
> 3. You disagree that lightspeed is universal.
>
> If 3. is correct, then 1. is also correct, but 2. is incorrect. That
> is, unless you can show why you think it is, even though 1. and 3.
> remain correct.
Lightspeed is not a universal constant but it is a constant math
ratio as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,631,458 m)/the absolute itme content
for a clock second co-moving with the rod
With this defintion 1 is refuted 3 is changed from a universal constant
to a constant math ratio. And 2 becomes valid.
Also I suggest that you visit my website and click on to the section
entitled Doppler Relativity Theory. Also read the section entitled
Unification of Physics.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> Ken Seto wrote:
> > I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> > relative velocity".
> > Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
> > A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
> > to be Vba.
> > Question: Is Vab=Vba?
>
> Vab = -Vba.
>
> Example: You are driving north on I-95 at 60 mph. I am
> driving north on I-95 at 55 mph. You are behind me.
>
> To you, I appear to be approaching you, i.e., moving
> southward, at 5 mph.
>
> To me, you appear to be moving northward at 5 mph.
>
> Thus, I say your velocity is 5 mph in my frame, and you
> say mine is -5 mph in your frame. Is that really so hard?
But is your hour has the same duration as my hour? If so doesn't
that mean that the time interval of an hour is an interval of
universal time?
>
> > Another Question: How do we measure relative velocity?
> >
> > To my surprise, no SR expert was able to give me a procedure
> > how to measure relative velocity.
>
> Liar.
>
> Plenty of people responded with procedures. I know
> I did, because you responded to it.
Yes you did give an answer but it was limited to the case of a
stationary observer measuring the velocity of a moving object in
his frame of reference. I am interested in the general case where
the two observers are moving and that there is no ground serve as
reference for the positions of the moving object at any time.
Ken Seto.
Randy Poe
> Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<at2pr...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>>I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
>>>relative velocity".
>>>Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
>>>A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
>>>to be Vba.
>>>Question: Is Vab=Vba?
>>
>>Vab = -Vba.
>>
>>Example: You are driving north on I-95 at 60 mph. I am
>>driving north on I-95 at 55 mph. You are behind me.
>>
>>To you, I appear to be approaching you, i.e., moving
>>southward, at 5 mph.
>>
>>To me, you appear to be moving northward at 5 mph.
>>
>>Thus, I say your velocity is 5 mph in my frame, and you
>>say mine is -5 mph in your frame. Is that really so hard?
>
>
> But is your hour has the same duration as my hour? If so doesn't
> that mean that the time interval of an hour is an interval of
> universal time?
I will never have an answer for this question until you
tell me whether it means I measure your hour in my
frame, or we each measure one hour in our own frame.
By the way, do you think that you have to take an hour
to make a measurement of speed in mph? I noticed you
switched from hours to seconds.
When you keep making the leap to "universal second" I
wonder if you realize that A's measurement might use
a time interval of 0.847294 second, while B's measurement
uses an interval of 2.5709 second.
> Yes you did give an answer but it was limited to the case of a
> stationary observer measuring the velocity of a moving object in
> his frame of reference. I am interested in the general case where
> the two observers are moving and that there is no ground serve as
> reference for the positions of the moving object at any time.
An observer is always stationary in his own frame of
reference. That is the general case of constant
velocity motion. If you don't have a ground to
serve as reference, then you have two frames: A's
and B's. That's exactly the case we're talking about,
where A is stationary in his own frame and B is moving
(according to A).
- Randy
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> Yes you did give an answer but it was limited to the case of a
> stationary observer measuring the velocity of a moving object in
> his frame of reference. I am interested in the general case where
> the two observers are moving and that there is no ground serve as
> reference for the positions of the moving object at any time.
If there is no such reference, then you cannot say that both observers
are moving, you can only say that one is moving relative to the other.
Therefore, each observer can simply define himself to be stationary,
and consider the other one to be the moving one.
When you say that the two observers are moving, that means that there
must be a third frame of reference that they are moving relative to.
Ken Seto
OK...but how does the stationary observer mark the two positions of the
moving observer in his frame of reference so that he can measure
its relative velocity....the moving observer is a distance away from the
stationary observer?
Ken Seto
Nicholas Steele
Put them both in spaceships and then use radar. The time required for the
first pulse to return gives you the initial distance. After that you have
the relative velocity.
Nicholas Steele
Randy Poe
You seem to be asking "what is the one and only one method
for measuring relative velocity"? There's no answer to that
question. You have lots of choices, and some of the choices you
make will depend on the particulars of your experiment. If we
are not spaceships in instellar space as opposed to cars on
the highway, that dictates that certain things are more convenient
than others. If your agenda depends on somebody here saying
"yes, this is the single approved relativistic velocity
measuring experiment" then you are at a dead end. No such
thing.
It also depends on the speeds and length scales involved.
So give some specifics and I'll describe an experiment,
and then you can proceed with whatever your agenda is. Don't
keep shifting the assumptions.
- Randy
Ken Seto
> Ken Seto wrote:
> > Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<at2pr...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >>Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>>I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> >>>relative velocity".
> >>>Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
> >>>A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
> >>>to be Vba.
> >>>Question: Is Vab=Vba?
> >>
> >>Vab = -Vba.
> >>
> >>Example: You are driving north on I-95 at 60 mph. I am
> >>driving north on I-95 at 55 mph. You are behind me.
> >>
> >>To you, I appear to be approaching you, i.e., moving
> >>southward, at 5 mph.
> >>
> >>To me, you appear to be moving northward at 5 mph.
> >>
> >>Thus, I say your velocity is 5 mph in my frame, and you
> >>say mine is -5 mph in your frame. Is that really so hard?
> >
> >
> > But is your hour has the same duration as my hour? If so doesn't
> > that mean that the time interval of an hour is an interval of
> > universal time?
>
> I will never have an answer for this question until you
> tell me whether it means I measure your hour in my
> frame, or we each measure one hour in our own frame.
You were comparing velocity between A and B...so you tell me
what you were comparing.
>
> By the way, do you think that you have to take an hour
> to make a measurement of speed in mph? I noticed you
> switched from hours to seconds.
No you can use any time interval to do the measurements. But when
you say that A measures 5 mph and B measures 5mph then you are
comparing speed using the same time interval. So my question remains:
Does a second or an hour in A's frame has the same duration as a
second or an hour in B's frame. If not then the comparison is meaningless
If a second in A's frame has the same duration as a second in B's
frame then a clock second represents an interval of universal time.
The third alternative is that speed is a math ratio of
length/universal time content for a clock second.
Which one of these alternative you are saying??
You asked me what is the different between a constant ratio
than a constant math ratio. The differences are as follows:
1. A constant ratio can be reduced to one pure number. For example:
2/4=4/8=0.5.
2. A constant math ratio such as speed cannot be reduced to one pure
number. It remains meter/unit time.
>
> When you keep making the leap to "universal second" I
> wonder if you realize that A's measurement might use
> a time interval of 0.847294 second, while B's measurement
> uses an interval of 2.5709 second.
But when you comparing speed you have to use the same interval
of time to do the comparison. So the question remains: Does a clock
second in A's frame has the same duration as a clock second in B's frame.
>
> > Yes you did give an answer but it was limited to the case of a
> > stationary observer measuring the velocity of a moving object in
> > his frame of reference. I am interested in the general case where
> > the two observers are moving and that there is no ground serve as
> > reference for the positions of the moving object at any time.
>
> An observer is always stationary in his own frame of
> reference. That is the general case of constant
> velocity motion. If you don't have a ground to
> serve as reference, then you have two frames: A's
> and B's. That's exactly the case we're talking about,
> where A is stationary in his own frame and B is moving
> (according to A).
If there is no ground serve as reference then how does A
mark B's positions in his frame so that he can
measure B's relative velocity?
Ken Seto
Ken seto
Randy Poe
> Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<at5gl...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Ken Seto wrote:
>>>But is your hour has the same duration as my hour? If so doesn't
>>>that mean that the time interval of an hour is an interval of
>>>universal time?
>>
>>I will never have an answer for this question until you
>>tell me whether it means I measure your hour in my
>>frame, or we each measure one hour in our own frame.
>
> You were comparing velocity between A and B...so you tell me
> what you were comparing.
The numbers obtained in two separate experiments, one in
frame A and one in frame B. They do not compare time sources
with each other in doing this experiment.
>>By the way, do you think that you have to take an hour
>>to make a measurement of speed in mph? I noticed you
>>switched from hours to seconds.
>
> No you can use any time interval to do the measurements.
Good.
> But when
> you say that A measures 5 mph and B measures 5mph then you are
> comparing speed using the same time interval.
You just changed your mind. Make up your mind.
I'm not "comparing speed using the same time interval".
I'm comparing speed, period. I don't know what time interval
each person used, and I don't care. You already admitted that.
If observer A makes a measurement of 60 mph, and observer
B makes a measurement of 88 ft/sec, I would conclude that
both had measured the same speed. I would say "those two
speeds are equal". I draw no conclusions about the nature
of their experiments. I don't conclude that they are comparing
"using the same time interval."
Your mental blocks are very, very strange.
- Randy
Randy Poe
> Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<at5gl...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>
>>Ken Seto wrote:
>>>But is your hour has the same duration as my hour? If so doesn't
>>>that mean that the time interval of an hour is an interval of
>>>universal time?
>>
>>I will never have an answer for this question until you
>>tell me whether it means I measure your hour in my
>>frame, or we each measure one hour in our own frame.
>
> You were comparing velocity between A and B...so you tell me
> what you were comparing.
The numbers obtained in two separate experiments, one in
frame A and one in frame B. They do not compare time sources
with each other in doing this experiment.
>>By the way, do you think that you have to take an hour
>>to make a measurement of speed in mph? I noticed you
>>switched from hours to seconds.
>
> No you can use any time interval to do the measurements.
Good.
> But when
> you say that A measures 5 mph and B measures 5mph then you are
> comparing speed using the same time interval.
You just changed your mind. Make up your mind.
I'm not "comparing speed using the same time interval".
I'm comparing speed, period. I don't know what time interval
each person used, and I don't care. You already admitted that.
If observer A makes a measurement of 60 mph, and observer
B makes a measurement of 88 ft/sec, I would conclude that
both had measured the same speed. I would say "those two
speeds are equal". I draw no conclusions about the nature
of their experiments. I don't conclude that they are comparing
"using the same time interval."
Your mental blocks are very, very strange.
- Randy
Paul Cardinale
[snip]
> No you can use any time interval to do the measurements. But when
> you say that A measures 5 mph and B measures 5mph then you are
> comparing speed using the same time interval.
So if A measures the distance that B travels in 2 hours and finds it
to be 10 miles then calculates that 10 miles divided by 2 hours is 5
mph; then B measures
the distance that A travels in 1 hour and finds it to be 5 miles then
calculates that 5 miles divided by 1 hour is 5 mph; then you can't
compare the
5 mph that A measured with the 5 mph that B measured because they used
different
time intervals. Is that what your saying ken?
Paul Cardinale
Ken Seto
> Ken Seto wrote:
> > Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<at5gl...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >>Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>But is your hour has the same duration as my hour? If so doesn't
> >>>that mean that the time interval of an hour is an interval of
> >>>universal time?
> >>
> >>I will never have an answer for this question until you
> >>tell me whether it means I measure your hour in my
> >>frame, or we each measure one hour in our own frame.
> >
> > You were comparing velocity between A and B...so you tell me
> > what you were comparing.
>
> The numbers obtained in two separate experiments, one in
> frame A and one in frame B. They do not compare time sources
> with each other in doing this experiment.
So you don't want to express the the speed they get in the same
form for comparison purpose? Once you do that the natural question is:
does a clock second in A has the same duration as a clock second in B.
>
> >>By the way, do you think that you have to take an hour
> >>to make a measurement of speed in mph? I noticed you
> >>switched from hours to seconds.
> >
> > No you can use any time interval to do the measurements.
>
> Good.
Not very good for you.
>
> > But when
> > you say that A measures 5 mph and B measures 5mph then you are
> > comparing speed using the same time interval.
>
> You just changed your mind. Make up your mind.
No I didn't changed my mind.
>
> I'm not "comparing speed using the same time interval".
> I'm comparing speed, period.
Speed is expressed in term of length per specific time interval.
>I don't know what time interval
> each person used, and I don't care. You already admitted that.
It is irrelevant what time interval you use to measure speed. But
when you want to compare speed you must express speed in terms of
length per specific interval of time.
>
> If observer A makes a measurement of 60 mph, and observer
> B makes a measurement of 88 ft/sec, I would conclude that
> both had measured the same speed.
Right...for comparison you either say A measures 60 mi/h and B measures
60 mi/h. Or you can say A measures 88ft/sec and B measures 88ft/sec.
What this mean is simply you are converting from miles into ft and
hour into seconds so that you can do the comparison directly. The
question remains: does the passage of an hour or a second in A's
frame has the same duration as the passage of an hour or a second
in B's frame. Why? Because that would affect the measured speed.
>I would say "those two
> speeds are equal". I draw no conclusions about the nature
> of their experiments. I don't conclude that they are comparing
> "using the same time interval."
ROTFL...We are talking about whether a clock second in A's frame has
the same duration as a clock secodn in B's frame. However you want to
express speed is irrelevant.
Ken Seto
HenriWilson
Let's imagine a huge clock in the sky that everyone in the universe can
see.
They all use its reading as a universal time reference.
When they correct for light travel time, their local clocks are all in
absolute synch. If they are at rest wrt the big clock, the correction is
easy. If they are moving, the correcting equation is straightforward
doppler..
TomGee
>
> Let's imagine a huge clock in the sky that everyone in the universe can
> see.
> They all use its reading as a universal time reference.
>
> When they correct for light travel time, their local clocks are all in
> absolute synch. If they are at rest wrt the big clock, the correction is
> easy. If they are moving, the correcting equation is straightforward
> doppler..
>
> Henri Wilson.
> Discoverer of the THREE TIME DIMENSIONS.
>
> See my animations at:
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
understanding is that your type of clock imposes a universality to
time which I do not endorse. What I said was that In One Sense Only
can we presume that there does indeed exist a way that we can think of
time as being universal. I said that time has no force with which to
subject things to it, so there is no such thing as the fabric of time
and space, and the only time-space continuum is that which exists in
our mathematical minds. No one can use any clock as a universal time
reference, I'm afraid, because time is a property of matter having
positive energy and it is inversely related to the state of motion of
individual objects. To learn the many levels of time rates available
to accrue to discrete matter at any and all states of motion, we would
have to be able to develop a way to measure the speed of matter wrt
the universe. Only then could we predict the time rate of an object
at any particular speed. At present, like Einstein said, "...motion
is meaningful only to two objects moving with respect to each
other..." (Or words to that effect). I have found that statement to
be untrue in one instance, however, as motion is also meaningful,
according to relativity, where time (and space) are dependent upon the
state of motion of an observer. Although the two statements appear
contradictory, there is a way we can allow both to stand. More on
that later if anyone is interested.
Regards, TomGee
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<g5m10vcqna0mplbja...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Let's imagine a huge clock in the sky that everyone in the universe can
>> see.
>> They all use its reading as a universal time reference.
>>
>> When they correct for light travel time, their local clocks are all in
>> absolute synch. If they are at rest wrt the big clock, the correction is
>> easy. If they are moving, the correcting equation is straightforward
>> doppler..
>>
>> Henri Wilson.
>> Discoverer of the THREE TIME DIMENSIONS.
>>
>> See my animations at:
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>>
>Henri, I did not imagine such a clock as you propose. My
>understanding is that your type of clock imposes a universality to
>time which I do not endorse. What I said was that In One Sense Only
>can we presume that there does indeed exist a way that we can think of
>time as being universal.
But isn't that good enough. If every observer DID use the 'one big clock in
the sky', why would their local clocks be affected by anything thye did by
way of movement?
>I said that time has no force with which to
>subject things to it, so there is no such thing as the fabric of time
>and space, and the only time-space continuum is that which exists in
>our mathematical minds.
I agree with that. Space time is purely a mathematical concept.
>No one can use any clock as a universal time
>reference, I'm afraid, because time is a property of matter having
>positive energy and it is inversely related to the state of motion of
>individual objects.
That's what some believe.
>to learn the many levels of time rates available
>to accrue to discrete matter at any and all states of motion, we would
>have to be able to develop a way to measure the speed of matter wrt
>the universe. Only then could we predict the time rate of an object
>at any particular speed. At present, like Einstein said, "...motion
>is meaningful only to two objects moving with respect to each
>other..." (Or words to that effect).
One of the few instances where I basically agree with Einstein.
>I have found that statement to
>be untrue in one instance, however, as motion is also meaningful,
>according to relativity, where time (and space) are dependent upon the
>state of motion of an observer. Although the two statements appear
>contradictory, there is a way we can allow both to stand. More on
>that later if anyone is interested.
I'm not quite sure what you are ghetting at here.
It is my opinion that movement has no effect on local measured time.
It is trivial to prove that clocks do not change their rates with movement.
>Regards, TomGee
TomGee
> On 18 Dec 2002 22:07:40 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<g5m10vcqna0mplbja...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> Let's imagine a huge clock in the sky that everyone in the universe can
> >> see.
> >> They all use its reading as a universal time reference.
> >>
>
not first overthrown. Imagine that time accrues to objects large and
small but at rates inversely related to their individual states of
motion within the universe. That is Relativity's solution to the Twin
Paradox, and that is not so difficult to imagine. To imagine that
plus your huge clock in the sky would create another paradox because
the one idea contradicts the other. So I repeat, to imagine your sky
clock we first have to say relativity's Twin Paradox solution is wrong
or we must show that there is no conflict due to this or that idea.
> >> When they correct for light travel time, their local clocks are all in
> >> absolute synch. If they are at rest wrt the big clock, the correction is
> >> easy. If they are moving, the correcting equation is straightforward
> >> doppler..
> >>
>
When you say "at rest wrt the big clock", what do you mean? To be at
rest wrt a closed system, like a discrete object, simply means that we
are in a state of constant velocity wrt the object. To be at rest
with time, however, is quite another matter, I should think, since
time, like space, cannot be as easily studied as discrete matter.
Let's say time does not accrue to discrete objects dependent upon
their particular states of motion and so Relativity is wrong about
that, so then we can imagine your huge clock. In order to be able to
know whether we are at rest or moving wrt it, we must first be able to
learn the time rate of your clock. We cannot just imagine its time
rate and expect that to be related to reality. If you don't mean it
to be reality, then yes, we can agree that if everyone is "at rest" or
not wrt a big clock whose time rate we know, it would be possible to
learn their individual time rates. But that still does not mean that
time is a continuum or universal "fabric" of space-time in which all
things exist equally subject to the "force" of time's irresistable and
unwavering flow.
>
> >Henri, I did not imagine such a clock as you propose. My
> >understanding is that your type of clock imposes a universality to
> >time which I do not endorse. What I said was that In One Sense Only
> >can we presume that there does indeed exist a way that we can think of
> >time as being universal.
>
> But isn't that good enough. If every observer DID use the 'one big clock in
> the sky', why would their local clocks be affected by anything thye did by
> way of movement?
>
Because Relativity states otherwise by way of its resolution to the
Twin Paradox. Local clocks are affected by their state of motion in
that their time rates are set inversely proportional to their state of
motion. There is no "at rest" within the universe, except in the case
of constant velocity wrt to two or more objects, and even then that
system is itself in motion due to the expansion process of the
universe. For every observer to use the one big clock, the Twin
Paradox resolution has to be untrue.
But you did ask "Why?" and that may mean you are saying, "Ok, I agree
with the resolution to the Twin Paradox, but why is it true? Why does
nature seem to prefer one twin over the other?" As far as I know,
Relativity says that is a "gift" of nature granted to one twin, but it
goes no further by way of explanation. That is a shortcoming of
physics in that it seems to only want to explain how but not why.
Some say it should be that way, but I disagree. Humans will never be
satisfied with only the how of things; we will forever strive to learn
the why no matter what. To be happy with only the how is like being
happy with having only half a brain, and who could ever truly be happy
knowing they had only half a brain?
>
> >No one can use any clock as a universal time
> >reference, I'm afraid, because time is a property of matter having
> >positive energy and it is inversely related to the state of motion of
> >individual objects.
>
> That's what some believe.
>
You have the option to believe otherwise, but to be supported in that,
you must make very strong arguments that have the chance to overthrow
Relativity's resolution to the Twin Paradox.
>
> >....At present, like Einstein said, "...motion
> >is meaningful only to two objects moving with respect to each
> >other..." (Or words to that effect).
>
> One of the few instances where I basically agree with Einstein.
>
> >I have found that statement to
> >be untrue in one instance, however, as motion is also meaningful,
> >according to relativity, where time (and space) are dependent upon the
> >state of motion of an observer. Although the two statements appear
> >contradictory, there is a way we can allow both to stand. More on
> >that later if anyone is interested.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you are ghetting at here.
>
> It is my opinion that movement has no effect on local measured time.
> It is trivial to prove that clocks do not change their rates with movement.
>
You seem to be saying above that movement has no effect on the time
rate of a given object. If so, then show how you overthrow the Twin
Paradox resolution. If you mean otherwise, please explain further as
I do not understand your meaning. If, as you say, movement has no
effect on local time, why is it trivial to prove that the time rates
of objects are not affected by movement? Your claim that movement has
no effect on time directly conflicts with the Twin Paradox resolution,
so it is by no means trivial to prove that resolution is false. If
that is what you meant, that is.
What I am getting at above where I said Einstein contradicted himself
is that there is a way both of his posits can be held valid. It is
complicated and somewhat long, but I see no way to make it simpler; so
please pardon my imposition of my point upon you, the readers.
Relativity theory states that time and space are interdependent,
flexible and dependent upon the state of motion of an observer(premise
one).[J. Ray Dettling, "Time Travel: The Ultimate Trip" (Science
Digest, September 1982, pg 82)].
Yet, Relativity also states that motion is meaningful only between two
bodies moving relatively to each other (premise two). But isn't
premise one - that time and space depend upon the motion of observers
- simply the _one_ exception to premise two because it shows that
motion is meaningful to something _other than_ the relative motion of
two bodies? Taken literally, premise two cannot be true if premise
one is true. Taken with regard to the context in which they were
proposed, however, premise two can stand alone as inductive reasoning,
or as a "special" case induced from the general case.
Premise two holds true when we wish to measure the relative motion of
discrete objects because that requires only other bodies to enable us
to make comparisons between them. How is that inductive reasoning?
Since the universe is in a state of constant expansion, all visible
matter in it is in motion; therefore, we cannot locate a stationary
point in the universe from which to measure the motion of a single
body. Any and all of our measurements of motion may only be obtained
by comparison to the relative motion and position of other objects.
That means our frame of reference cannot include the entire universe,
only the system which includes the bodies that we measure. So our
measurements are true only as they regard bodies within the "special"
case but they are not valid as it regards their states of motion
relative to the universe. We know they are in motion relative to the
universe because we know objects in the universe are moving due to the
expansion process, but we cannot compare their motion to a stationary
point in the universe from which to measure their motion. The state
of motion of objects wrt a stationary point in the universe is the
general case, but since we cannot know what that is, we can only
measure the state of motion of objects through induction from the
general case to the specific, or "special" case by limiting our
measurements to include only two or more bodies.
My contention that motion is indeed meaningful to something other than
just the motion of two bodies holds true to measurements taken by
observers whose states of motion differ, as they do in the Twin
Paradox experiment.
If we agree to the Twin Paradox resolution, we can validly deduce that
the rate of the passage of time for objects depends on their states of
motion and not simply on the fact that two or more bodies are moving
relatively to each other. This is a relevant argument because, if it
were true in all cases that motion is meaningful only between two
bodies, it could be argued then that time rates vary only when bodies
in relatively close proximity to each other move at relatively
different speeds because in such cases they will affect each other's
states of motion, and thus, their time rates, at certain distances
from each other. That interpretation has to do with the _spatial_
positioning of bodies and that does indeed require the involvement of
both time and space in an interdependent relationship, as Einstein has
correctly noted.
If it is true instead, though, that time alone - sans space - is
dependent on motion, then the rate of the passage of time for an
object depends at any given moment upon the current state of motion of
that single object (except, of course, when the condition aof any
nearby body is such that it may affect our object's state of motion).
A small point, admittedly so, but a relevant one nevertheless because
if we accept the latter of the two arguments above as true, and if the
reader is in agreement with my arguments so far, then we can say that
we have broken the interdependence between time and space. Now space
remains a property of the universe, but time must be recognized as an
essential property of visible matter, and the rate of the passage of
time for a discrete object depends on the state of motion of that
object, and not necessarily on an interdependent Siamese twin
relationship with space.
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<6b7c0vggtroepic66...@4ax.com>...
>> On 18 Dec 2002 22:07:40 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>>
>> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<g5m10vcqna0mplbja...@4ax.com>...
>> >>
>> >> Let's imagine a huge clock in the sky that everyone in the universe can
>> >> see.
>> >> They all use its reading as a universal time reference.
>> >>
>>
>But such a clock cannot exist if the solution to the Twin Paradox is
>not first overthrown. Imagine that time accrues to objects large and
>small but at rates inversely related to their individual states of
>motion within the universe. That is Relativity's solution to the Twin
>Paradox, and that is not so difficult to imagine. To imagine that
>plus your huge clock in the sky would create another paradox because
>the one idea contradicts the other. So I repeat, to imagine your sky
>clock we first have to say relativity's Twin Paradox solution is wrong
>or we must show that there is no conflict due to this or that idea.
Of course the SR twin paradox is a complete hoax. They both age at the same
rate.Velocity has no effect on physical properties.
>
>> >> When they correct for light travel time, their local clocks are all in
>> >> absolute synch. If they are at rest wrt the big clock, the correction is
>> >> easy. If they are moving, the correcting equation is straightforward
>> >> doppler..
>> >>
>>
>When you say "at rest wrt the big clock", what do you mean? To be at
>rest wrt a closed system, like a discrete object, simply means that we
>are in a state of constant velocity wrt the object. To be at rest
>with time, however, is quite another matter, I should think, since
>time, like space, cannot be as easily studied as discrete matter.
>Let's say time does not accrue to discrete objects dependent upon
>their particular states of motion and so Relativity is wrong about
>that, so then we can imagine your huge clock. In order to be able to
>know whether we are at rest or moving wrt it, we must first be able to
>learn the time rate of your clock. We cannot just imagine its time
>rate and expect that to be related to reality. If you don't mean it
>to be reality, then yes, we can agree that if everyone is "at rest" or
>not wrt a big clock whose time rate we know, it would be possible to
>learn their individual time rates. But that still does not mean that
>time is a continuum or universal "fabric" of space-time in which all
>things exist equally subject to the "force" of time's irresistable and
>unwavering flow.
That is only true if the second postulate is accepted and if OWLS=TWLS. In
SR, it IS, by definition. That doesn't mean this is physically correct.
If we didn't use light for communication, nothing in SR would be relevant.
>>
>> >Henri, I did not imagine such a clock as you propose. My
>> >understanding is that your type of clock imposes a universality to
>> >time which I do not endorse. What I said was that In One Sense Only
>> >can we presume that there does indeed exist a way that we can think of
>> >time as being universal.
>>
>> But isn't that good enough. If every observer DID use the 'one big clock in
>> the sky', why would their local clocks be affected by anything thye did by
>> way of movement?
>>
>Because Relativity states otherwise by way of its resolution to the
>Twin Paradox. Local clocks are affected by their state of motion in
>that their time rates are set inversely proportional to their state of
>motion.
So if you fire a rocket, are you accelerating or decelerating? Does your
clock physically speed up or slow down? Does it do both at the same time?
Can you not see it depends on the observer?
>There is no "at rest" within the universe, except in the case
>of constant velocity wrt to two or more objects, and even then that
>system is itself in motion due to the expansion process of the
>universe. For every observer to use the one big clock, the Twin
>Paradox resolution has to be untrue.
It IS untrue.
>
>But you did ask "Why?" and that may mean you are saying, "Ok, I agree
>with the resolution to the Twin Paradox, but why is it true? Why does
>nature seem to prefer one twin over the other?" As far as I know,
>Relativity says that is a "gift" of nature granted to one twin, but it
>goes no further by way of explanation. That is a shortcoming of
>physics in that it seems to only want to explain how but not why.
>Some say it should be that way, but I disagree. Humans will never be
>satisfied with only the how of things; we will forever strive to learn
>the why no matter what. To be happy with only the how is like being
>happy with having only half a brain, and who could ever truly be happy
>knowing they had only half a brain?
>>
>> >No one can use any clock as a universal time
>> >reference, I'm afraid, because time is a property of matter having
>> >positive energy and it is inversely related to the state of motion of
>> >individual objects.
>>
>> That's what some believe.
>>
>You have the option to believe otherwise, but to be supported in that,
>you must make very strong arguments that have the chance to overthrow
>Relativity's resolution to the Twin Paradox.
The twins age at the same rate, simple as that.
Like I said, if you are in a spaceship and fire a rocket, you are both
accelerating and decelerating depending on which object you chose as an
observer.
So (v/c) is both increasing and deceasing simultaneously. If this was
associated wioth a physical change, that change would have to be both + and
- at the same time. Clearly impossible , UNLESS an absolute spatial
reference exists.
TomGee
> On 22 Dec 2002 23:28:50 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<6b7c0vggtroepic66...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 18 Dec 2002 22:07:40 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
> >>
> >> But isn't that good enough. If every observer DID use the 'one big clock in
> >> the sky', why would their local clocks be affected by anything thye did by
> >> way of movement?
> >>
> >Because Relativity states otherwise by way of its resolution to the
> >Twin Paradox. Local clocks are affected by their state of motion in
> >that their time rates are set inversely proportional to their state of
> >motion.
>
> So if you fire a rocket, are you accelerating or decelerating? Does your
> clock physically speed up or slow down? Does it do both at the same time?
> Can you not see it depends on the observer?
>
The fact that anything happens does not depend on any observer. It is
the epitome of egocentrism for humans to think and argue that things
like time rates vary only when and if there are observers around to
see that happen. That is the same as saying a tree falling in the
forest makes no sound if no one is there to hear it fall. Both
statements are nonsense. Why wouldn't the rate of the passage of time
simply depend upon the state of motion of discrete objects or systems,
sans observers?
The answer is, it does. Another experiment from Relativity proves the
validity of the Twin Paradox resolution. The one where two observers,
one in a moving train or spaceship and the other stationary by the rr
tracks or on earth, measure accurately the time it takes light to fall
from the ceiling to the floor of the train or the spaceship. Each one
comes up with a different amount of time. Time passes slower for the
passengers than it does for those not riding in the train or
spaceship. The reason for that lies in the fact that while the
passenger in the train or spaceship measures the light only as it
falls straight down to the floor, the stationary observer measures the
light as it falls down but for him, as the light falls, it also curves
diagonally in the direction the train or spaceship is moving. Thus,
his measurement must include that distance as well, which makes the
time it takes for him to see the light reach the floor longer than it
does for the moving passenger. How can that happen, you ask? The
only significant difference between the two observers is that one is
moving faster than the other, which proves the Twin Paradox resolution
that time passes slower for the astronaut moving faster than his twin
during his trip into space and back to Earth.
>
> >There is no "at rest" within the universe, except in the case
> >of constant velocity wrt to two or more objects, and even then that
> >system is itself in motion due to the expansion process of the
> >universe. For every observer to use the one big clock, the Twin
> >Paradox resolution has to be untrue.
>
> It IS untrue.
>
You certainly have every right to believe that, but you cannot make a
decent argument that way, by simply saying, "Yes, it's true", because
I can say, "No, it isn't", and we can never get any farther than that.
You must back up your contention, "It IS untrue", with posits why you
think it is untrue, and those posits must stand up to the glare of all
who read this ng, so your ideas must be sound and reasonable. Simply
saying, "It IS untrue" is not a sound and reasonable argument.
>
> >> >No one can use any clock as a universal time
> >> >reference, I'm afraid, because time is a property of matter having
> >> >positive energy and it is inversely related to the state of motion of
> >> >individual objects.
> >>
> >> That's what some believe.
> >>
> >You have the option to believe otherwise, but to be supported in that,
> >you must make very strong arguments that have the chance to overthrow
> >Relativity's resolution to the Twin Paradox.
>
> The twins age at the same rate, simple as that.
> >>
>
That is too simple. You are saying that you do not agree with the
resolutions, but you offer no reason why. To disagree with an idea
"just because" cannot win you any followers.
Regards, TomGee
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<5s3f0vst8utlvisfg...@4ax.com>...
>> On 22 Dec 2002 23:28:50 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>>
>> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<6b7c0vggtroepic66...@4ax.com>...
>> So if you fire a rocket, are you accelerating or decelerating? Does your
>> clock physically speed up or slow down? Does it do both at the same time?
>> Can you not see it depends on the observer?
>>
>It is only what the observer observes that depends on the observer.
>The fact that anything happens does not depend on any observer. It is
>the epitome of egocentrism for humans to think and argue that things
>like time rates vary only when and if there are observers around to
>see that happen. That is the same as saying a tree falling in the
>forest makes no sound if no one is there to hear it fall. Both
>statements are nonsense. Why wouldn't the rate of the passage of time
>simply depend upon the state of motion of discrete objects or systems,
>sans observers?
You seem to miss the point.
When an object moves, nothing happens to it PHYSICALLY. When a clock moves,
nothing happens to its physical rate of ticking. If I take a mtre rod
anywhere in the universe at any speed, it is exactly the same metre rod I
had at the start.
Observational effects are explained in a very strange way by relativity on
the assumption that space is described according to the identity OWLS=TWLS.
TomGee
> On 23 Dec 2002 20:43:42 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>
> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<5s3f0vst8utlvisfg...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 22 Dec 2002 23:28:50 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
> >>
> >> >He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<6b7c0vggtroepic66...@4ax.com>...
>
> >> So if you fire a rocket, are you accelerating or decelerating? Does your
> >> clock physically speed up or slow down? Does it do both at the same time?
> >> Can you not see it depends on the observer?
> >>
> >It is only what the observer observes that depends on the observer.
> >The fact that anything happens does not depend on any observer. It is
> >the epitome of egocentrism for humans to think and argue that things
> >like time rates vary only when and if there are observers around to
> >see that happen. That is the same as saying a tree falling in the
> >forest makes no sound if no one is there to hear it fall. Both
> >statements are nonsense. Why wouldn't the rate of the passage of time
> >simply depend upon the state of motion of discrete objects or systems,
> >sans observers?
>
> You seem to miss the point.
> When an object moves, nothing happens to it PHYSICALLY. When a clock moves,
> nothing happens to its physical rate of ticking. If I take a mtre rod
> anywhere in the universe at any speed, it is exactly the same metre rod I
> had at the start.
>
mine. I think that something physical can happen to a clock when it
moves, and that something is, if it is accelerating in speed, it's
time rate is also changing. If it was still once but now it is
moving, its time rate is now slower than it was then. If it was
moving faster then than it is now, it's time rate has increased from
then. Your meter rod is never the same, since it ages from instant to
instant. Even though it is the same rod, granted, it is not exactly
the same rod you started with, simply because it is now an older rod.
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<9cjh0vk7hk4m1d93b...@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Dec 2002 20:43:42 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>>
>> >simply depend upon the state of motion of discrete objects or systems,
>> >sans observers?
>>
>> You seem to miss the point.
>> When an object moves, nothing happens to it PHYSICALLY. When a clock moves,
>> nothing happens to its physical rate of ticking. If I take a mtre rod
>> anywhere in the universe at any speed, it is exactly the same metre rod I
>> had at the start.
>>
>It could be that I missed your point, but certainly I did not miss
>mine. I think that something physical can happen to a clock when it
>moves, and that something is, if it is accelerating in speed, it's
>time rate is also changing.
The rate or a real clock MIGHT change slightly during acceleration but
their is no reason to believe that an 'ideal clock' would do the same.
>If it was still once but now it is
>moving, its time rate is now slower than it was then.
Tom, IS IT MOVING FASTER OR SLOWER THAN IT WAS?
(a meaningless question)
Is its physical rate faster or slower than it was?
(a very meaningful question)
See the stupidity of your arguments.
You are assuming an absolute reference.
You are an aetheriest.
>If it was
>moving faster then than it is now, it's time rate has increased from
>then.
If something accelerates, it doesn't necessarily move faster. It can move
faster or slower - depending solely on the observer.
>Your meter rod is never the same, since it ages from instant to
>instant. Even though it is the same rod, granted, it is not exactly
>the same rod you started with, simply because it is now an older rod.
We are assuming perfect rods TOM.
TomGee
> On 24 Dec 2002 20:58:17 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>
> The rate or a real clock MIGHT change slightly during acceleration but
> their is no reason to believe that an 'ideal clock' would do the same.
>
a real clock WILL change it's time rate relatively to another object
upon acceleration from the same speed of that object? An "ideal
clock" such as the one you imagine does not affect the time rates of
individual objects, and neither would any particular object have the
power to affect the time rate of an idea clock.
>
> >If it was still once but now it is
> >moving, its time rate is now slower than it was then.
>
> Tom, IS IT MOVING FASTER OR SLOWER THAN IT WAS?
>
> (a meaningless question)
>
> Is its physical rate faster or slower than it was?
>
> (a very meaningful question)
>
you mean its time rate, it will be faster or slower depending on
whether it sped up or slowed down.
>
> See the stupidity of your arguments.
>
your own.
>
> You are assuming an absolute reference.
>
clock in the sky.
>
> You are an aetheriest.
>
Please at least try to spell the names you call me correctly.
>
> >If it was
> >moving faster then than it is now, it's time rate has increased from
> >then.
>
> If something accelerates, it doesn't necessarily move faster. It can move
> faster or slower - depending solely on the observer.
>
it was MOVING faster....".
>
> >Your meter rod is never the same, since it ages from instant to
> >instant. Even though it is the same rod, granted, it is not exactly
> >the same rod you started with, simply because it is now an older rod.
>
> We are assuming perfect rods TOM.
>
assume that?
Pmb
> I post the following questions in the thread "questions on
> Two observers A and B are moving relative to each other.
> A measures B's velocity to be Vab and B measures A's velocity
> to be Vba.
> Question: Is Vab=Vba?
>
> how to measure relative velocity.
Nope. In fact that's the furthest thing from the truth. We answered.
You just didn't like the answer or whatever. That doesn't mean we
didn't give it to you.
Remember? Use radar. Or is it you don't know how to use radar to
measure velocity? Ask any State Trooper if it can be done. :-)
Pmb
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<ek7k0v81i8p9njqtk...@4ax.com>...
>> On 24 Dec 2002 20:58:17 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>>
>> The rate or a real clock MIGHT change slightly during acceleration but
>> their is no reason to believe that an 'ideal clock' would do the same.
>>
>I did not say that it would. What will it take for you to agree that
>a real clock WILL change it's time rate relatively to another object
>upon acceleration from the same speed of that object? An "ideal
>clock" such as the one you imagine does not affect the time rates of
>individual objects, and neither would any particular object have the
>power to affect the time rate of an idea clock.
>>
>> >If it was still once but now it is
>> >moving, its time rate is now slower than it was then.
>>
>> Tom, IS IT MOVING FASTER OR SLOWER THAN IT WAS?
>>
>> (a meaningless question)
>>
>> Is its physical rate faster or slower than it was?
>>
>> (a very meaningful question)
>>
>Meaningful as far as what? What do you mean by "physical rate"? If
>you mean its time rate, it will be faster or slower depending on
>whether it sped up or slowed down.
can you not get it into your head that it can be simultaneously speeding up
wrt one observer but slowing down wrt another.
Therefore no physical change can occur. Which way would it go?
See my simple little demo 'contractions.exe' for an animation of this.
>>
>> See the stupidity of your arguments.
>>
>If you do not see the pure logic of my arguments, post some logic of
>your own.
Your arguments are devoid of logic.
>>
>> You are assuming an absolute reference.
>>
>No, you are the assuming an absolute reference with your ideal huge
>clock in the sky.
A universal reference. I claim it was an absolute reference.
I pointed out that all observers would have to adjust their readings for
light travel time.
>>
>> You are an aetheriest.
>>
>Please at least try to spell the names you call me correctly.
Resorting to pointing out spelling mistakes is a sure indication that you
are losing the argument.
>>
>> >If it was
>> >moving faster then than it is now, it's time rate has increased from
>> >then.
>>
>> If something accelerates, it doesn't necessarily move faster. It can move
>> faster or slower - depending solely on the observer.
>>
>I did not say "accelerates", please read again the above. I said, "If
>it was MOVING faster....".
Nothing moves 'faster or slower'.
In fact nothing 'moves'.
It can only move faster or slower wrt another object - but you haven't said
that.
>>
>> >Your meter rod is never the same, since it ages from instant to
>> >instant. Even though it is the same rod, granted, it is not exactly
>> >the same rod you started with, simply because it is now an older rod.
>>
>> We are assuming perfect rods TOM.
>>
>Since it is not possible to have perfect rods, Henri, why bother to
>assume that?
They are sufficiently perfect for the purpose of this exercise.
I think you need a lesson about SR from Paul Anderson. He will explain to
you that nothing changes physically as a result of a velocity change.
He will also assure you that all good SRians know this.
TomGee
> On 25 Dec 2002 19:59:52 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>
> >Meaningful as far as what? What do you mean by "physical rate"? If
> >you mean its time rate, it will be faster or slower depending on
> >whether it sped up or slowed down.
>
> can you not get it into your head that it can be simultaneously speeding up
> wrt one observer but slowing down wrt another.
>
for one observer but slow down wrt another, unless that's what you
mean above. You keep wanting to leave off the time factor because you
want to say no physical change can occur, in the sense of length. My
argument (and Relativity's) is that the change which occurs is in the
time rates. The passage of time varies with speed, inversely
proportional to an object's state of motion.
>
>
> See my simple little demo 'contractions.exe' for an animation of this.
>
then you say that applies to time rate changes as well. But no, it
doesn't. I never did go with the rod lengthening/contracting posit,
although I agreed it could be possible at quantum levels. That issue
is not relevant to my model, so I have left it as another bone of
contention. Recently I read where physicists nowadays don't buy the
length/contraction posit either, so I don't blame you for arguing that
there is no length change. But for you to say that also means there
is no time rate change is incorrect because you have not overthrown
the Twin Paradox resolution by overthrowing the length proposition.
The TP has to do only with time rate changes and as far as i know, it
mentions not one whit about rod lengthening or shortening. Is it not
possible for Relativity to be right in time rate change and wrong in
the rod length argument? Of course it is.
> >>
> >> See the stupidity of your arguments.
> >>
> >If you do not see the pure logic of my arguments, post some logic of
> >your own.
>
> Your arguments are devoid of logic.
> >>
without supporting rebuttal.
>
> >> You are assuming an absolute reference.
> >>
> >No, you are the assuming an absolute reference with your ideal huge
> >clock in the sky.
>
> A universal reference. I claim it was an absolute reference.
>
mean you did that but I claimed a universal ref., you need to know
they mean the same thing. Also, go back and read where I said ONLY In
One Sense can we assume a universal reference. If you did not
understand what I meant, ask me.
>
> I pointed out that all observers would have to adjust their readings for
> light travel time.
> >>
>
> >> You are an aetheriest.
> >>
> >Please at least try to spell the names you call me correctly.
>
> Resorting to pointing out spelling mistakes is a sure indication that you
> are losing the argument.
>
first.
>
> >> If something accelerates, it doesn't necessarily move faster. It can move
> >> faster or slower - depending solely on the observer.
> >>
> >I did not say "accelerates", please read again the above. I said, "If
> >it was MOVING faster....".
>
> Nothing moves 'faster or slower'.
> In fact nothing 'moves'.
>
me now?
>
> It can only move faster or slower wrt another object - but you haven't said
> that.
>
>
> I think you need a lesson about SR from Paul Anderson. He will explain to
> you that nothing changes physically as a result of a velocity change.
>
know that everything changes with age (see ENTROPY), like it or not,
and that how fast or how slow everything changes depends on each
particular object's state of motion?
There is another Relativity posit that supports the Twin Paradox
resolution quite well. It is the one where two observers, one riding
in a train and the other standing by the railroad tracks, measure the
TIME it takes a photon to move from the ceiling lamp to the floor of
the train. The passenger sees the light move straight down to the
floor, but the observer outside sees the light move downward but also
move diagonally along with the train as it moves by him. A line drawn
by the rider describing the path of the photon would be a straight
vertical line, but the line drawn by the stationary observer would
curve diagonally in the direction the train is moving. Thus, the line
drawn by the outside observer is longer than the one drawn by the
rider. That means time has to have passed faster for the outside
observer than for the rider, or the speed of light has to have varied
for each observer.
I feel sure you will agree that lightspeed is invariant in this
experiment, so you cannot deny that time passed at different rates for
each of the observers. The only essential difference between the two
observers was their states of motion, just like for the twins of the
Twin Paradox. So we have not just one but two experiments proving
that time varies inversely proportional to an object's state of
motion.
This experiment proves that time varies for observers depending upon
their states of motion. Do you have at least one experiment
disproving either of these two experiments? If you do, let's hear it
(and don't forget to put some logic in it).
HenriWilson
>He...@the.edge(HenriWilson) wrote in message news:<7kqm0vcfic2gtb269...@4ax.com>...
>> On 25 Dec 2002 19:59:52 -0800, lv...@hotmail.com (TomGee) wrote:
>>
>> >Meaningful as far as what? What do you mean by "physical rate"? If
>> >you mean its time rate, it will be faster or slower depending on
>> >whether it sped up or slowed down.
>>
>> can you not get it into your head that it can be simultaneously speeding up
>> wrt one observer but slowing down wrt another.
>>
>No, that is not what anyone said. No one said an object will speed up
>for one observer but slow down wrt another, unless that's what you
>mean above. You keep wanting to leave off the time factor because you
>want to say no physical change can occur, in the sense of length. My
>argument (and Relativity's) is that the change which occurs is in the
>time rates. The passage of time varies with speed, inversely
>proportional to an object's state of motion.
there is no such quantity as 'state of motion'.
>>
>> Therefore no physical change can occur. Which way would it go?
>>
>> See my simple little demo 'contractions.exe' for an animation of this.
>>
>Ok, I saw it, but your experiment is based on length changes only,
>then you say that applies to time rate changes as well. But no, it
>doesn't. I never did go with the rod lengthening/contracting posit,
>although I agreed it could be possible at quantum levels. That issue
>is not relevant to my model, so I have left it as another bone of
>contention. Recently I read where physicists nowadays don't buy the
>length/contraction posit either, so I don't blame you for arguing that
>there is no length change. But for you to say that also means there
>is no time rate change is incorrect because you have not overthrown
>the Twin Paradox resolution by overthrowing the length proposition.
>The TP has to do only with time rate changes and as far as i know, it
>mentions not one whit about rod lengthening or shortening. Is it not
>possible for Relativity to be right in time rate change and wrong in
>the rod length argument? Of course it is.
Well relativity could be wrong in all respects, as far as I'm concerned.
Otherwise the same argument applies equally to rods and clocks.
>> >>
>> >> See the stupidity of your arguments.
>> >>
>> >If you do not see the pure logic of my arguments, post some logic of
>> >your own.
>>
>> Your arguments are devoid of logic.
>> >>
>Talk is cheap - show me where my logic is wrong, don't just say it
>without supporting rebuttal.
>>
>> >> You are assuming an absolute reference.
>> >>
>> >No, you are the assuming an absolute reference with your ideal huge
>> >clock in the sky.
>>
>> A universal reference. I claim it was an absolute reference.
>>
>So you admit it was you who assumed an absolute reference?
No a genuine typo. That should read "I didn't claim it was an absolute
reference"
>If you
>mean you did that but I claimed a universal ref., you need to know
>they mean the same thing. Also, go back and read where I said ONLY In
>One Sense can we assume a universal reference. If you did not
>understand what I meant, ask me.
yes it can be a universal reference. If all observers can see it and can
compensate for communication travel time they can all use it as the same
time reference no matter where they are.
The question is, "do their local clocks vary wrt the BIG CLOCK when they
are in relative motion WRT it."
I think not. But there is no concluisive experiment that reveals an answer
either way.
>>
>> I pointed out that all observers would have to adjust their readings for
>> light travel time.
>> >>
>I could not make any sense out of that one.
If you see the hands on a distant BIG clock you still have to make an
adjustment for the time the information has taken to reach you in order to
convert to universal time..
>>
>> >> You are an aetheriest.
>> >>
>> >Please at least try to spell the names you call me correctly.
>>
>> Resorting to pointing out spelling mistakes is a sure indication that you
>> are losing the argument.
>>
>You did it first by calling me a name, so you are losing the argument
>first.
touche
>>
>> >> If something accelerates, it doesn't necessarily move faster. It can move
>> >> faster or slower - depending solely on the observer.
>> >>
>> >I did not say "accelerates", please read again the above. I said, "If
>> >it was MOVING faster....".
>>
>> Nothing moves 'faster or slower'.
>> In fact nothing 'moves'.
>>
>Hello Hello - This is planet Earth in the BB universe - can you hear
>me now?
If there WAS a BB, then there must be an absolute centre of space about
which all (vector) momentum sums to zero.
>>
>> It can only move faster or slower wrt another object - but you haven't said
>> that.
>>
>I have said that, from the very first.
>>
>> I think you need a lesson about SR from Paul Anderson. He will explain to
>> you that nothing changes physically as a result of a velocity change.
>>
>What makes you think he can explain it any better than you? Does he
>know that everything changes with age (see ENTROPY), like it or not,
>and that how fast or how slow everything changes depends on each
>particular object's state of motion?
>
>There is another Relativity posit that supports the Twin Paradox
>resolution quite well. It is the one where two observers, one riding
>in a train and the other standing by the railroad tracks, measure the
>TIME it takes a photon to move from the ceiling lamp to the floor of
>the train. The passenger sees the light move straight down to the
>floor, but the observer outside sees the light move downward but also
>move diagonally along with the train as it moves by him. A line drawn
>by the rider describing the path of the photon would be a straight
>vertical line, but the line drawn by the stationary observer would
>curve diagonally in the direction the train is moving. Thus, the line
>drawn by the outside observer is longer than the one drawn by the
>rider. That means time has to have passed faster for the outside
>observer than for the rider, or the speed of light has to have varied
>for each observer.
Ihave discussed this at length with Paul.
The fact is, LIGHT doesn't move diagonally in the moving observer's frame.
The light beam as a whole remains vertical. Individual infinitesimal
elements of the light DO follow a diagonal path but these do NOT constitute
light.
>
>I feel sure you will agree that lightspeed is invariant in this
>experiment, so you cannot deny that time passed at different rates for
>each of the observers. The only essential difference between the two
>observers was their states of motion, just like for the twins of the
>Twin Paradox. So we have not just one but two experiments proving
>that time varies inversely proportional to an object's state of
>motion.
The light takes the same time to return when measured by each observer.
Same applies to falling raindrops.
>
>This experiment proves that time varies for observers depending upon
>their states of motion. Do you have at least one experiment
>disproving either of these two experiments? If you do, let's hear it
>(and don't forget to put some logic in it).
The MMX disproves it.