Speed of Time
Ste
earth?
Mark
> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> earth?
At w/ever I tell it.
--
Mark
My website http://www.hosanna1.com/
Dirk Van de moortel
ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> earth?
I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells
you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one
clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity.
Dirk Vdm
snapdragon31
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>
> > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> > earth?
>
> I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells
> you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one
> clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity.
>
> Dirk Vdm
The rate time advances is 1 sec per sec. That is true for all clocks
including those malfunction clocks in relativity.
Androcles
"snapdragon31" <snapdr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9dc0b9f-663d-4564...@u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
=======================================
Dork likes to hallucinate moving clocks make stationary clocks
run faster. He's insane, but of course lunatics never know they
are lunatics.
Ste
Let's do the maths with that then. Time advances at a rate seconds/
seconds (i.e. 1 second for every second). Any number divided by itself
is 1. Therefore time advances at 1 second.
So I'll ask again, at what *rate* does time advance. Telling me that
time has a velocity of 1 second per second is as tautologous as saying
an object has a spatial velocity of 1 metre per metre.
Androcles
=========================================
And one tonne per tonne.
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b5e0a622-6862-43ec...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Dec, 20:39, snapdragon31 <snapdrago...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 25, 6:21 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>
> > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> > > > earth?
>
> > > I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells
> > > you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one
> > > clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity.
>
> > > Dirk Vdm
>
> > The rate time advances is 1 sec per sec. That is true for all clocks
> > including those malfunction clocks in relativity.
>
> Let's do the maths with that then. Time advances at a rate seconds/
> seconds (i.e. 1 second for every second). Any number divided by itself
> is 1. Therefore time advances at 1 second.
>
> So I'll ask again, at what *rate* does time advance. Telling me that
> time has a velocity of 1 second per second is as tautologous as saying
> an object has a spatial velocity of 1 metre per metre.
>
> =========================================
> And one tonne per tonne.
Indeed.
Androcles
You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can
pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it,
so if you go from London to New York you can do it
twice without ever going from New York to London.
He says
quote/
"We use 3 inertial reference frames.
S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin.
S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip".
S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip".
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years.
/unquote
Dork has aged 20 years since he posted to Usenet in 1999, he stayed
at home.
Amazing what drugs do to immature minds.
Ste
>
> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can
> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it,
> so if you go from London to New York you can do it
> twice without ever going from New York to London.
>
> He says
> quote/
> "We use 3 inertial reference frames.
> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin.
> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip".
> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip".
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>
> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
> 6 years.
> /unquote
I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion. It
rubbishes relativity. Relativity says that both twins will perceive
the same effects, relative to their own frame of reference. If that is
true, then the astronaut cannot return younger than the homebody - it
cannot happen. Because if you change the analysis and have the
astronaut in the fixed frame of reference, and have the universe
accelerate around him, then by exactly the same logic the *homebody*
will be the younger twin when the astronaut returns to earth.
If the astronaut is younger when he returns, then either relativity is
false, or there is another factor in play that applies differently to
the astronaut than the homebody.
Incidentally, what evidence is there exactly to suggest that such
twins ages would differ once the astronaut returned to earth?
Inertial
> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> earth?
There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over
time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if
not all human languages).
But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time) and
compare the rates in different locations or at different relative
velocities.
There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means)
Inertial
news:BWaZm.1$QX...@newsfe13.ams2...
Nope .. 'moving' clocks do nothing at all to 'stationary' clocks or vice
versa. Unless of coude the moving clocks runs into the stationary clock and
smashes it . Or the clocks are so massive their gravitational fields affect
their ticking :):)
Inertial
> On 25 Dec, 20:39, snapdragon31 <snapdrago...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 6:21 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>>
>> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8-8565-c830f685d...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>>
>> > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances
>> > > on
>> > > earth?
>>
>> > I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells
>> > you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one
>> > clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity.
>>
>> > Dirk Vdm
>>
>> The rate time advances is 1 sec per sec. That is true for all clocks
>> including those malfunction clocks in relativity.
>
> Let's do the maths with that then. Time advances at a rate seconds/
> seconds (i.e. 1 second for every second). Any number divided by itself
> is 1. Therefore time advances at 1 second.
it is nonsense to talk of the 'rate' of time
> So I'll ask again, at what *rate* does time advance.
There is only the relative rate at which processes happen
> Telling me that
> time has a velocity of 1 second per second is as tautologous as saying
> an object has a spatial velocity of 1 metre per metre.
Indeed it is .. but then, asking the rate of time is similarly nonsensical
Inertial
Again .. you lie to make SR, and hte statments of others about it, appear
ridiculous.
> He says
> quote/
> "We use 3 inertial reference frames.
> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin.
> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip".
> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip".
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>
> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
> 6 years.
> /unquote
Indeed they will. Of course, I guess Androcles will deny all the
experimental evidence of time dilation etc.
Inertial
> On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>>
>> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can
>> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it,
>> so if you go from London to New York you can do it
>> twice without ever going from New York to London.
>>
>> He says
>> quote/
>> "We use 3 inertial reference frames.
>> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin.
>> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip".
>> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip".
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>>
>> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
>> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
>> 6 years.
>> /unquote
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion.
He was using the Lorentz transforms of SR
> It
> rubbishes relativity.
Nope
> Relativity says that both twins will perceive
> the same effects, relative to their own frame of reference.
No .. it does not. This is something many novices stumble over. The two
twins are no equivalent as one remains at rest in his initial frame of
reference, the other twin changes frames of reference (ie does not remain at
rest in his initial frame of reference). In fact he changes inertial frames
three times (given instantaneous acceleration) .. once when he leave his
twin, one when re turns around to come back, and another when he stops when
he gets back to the stay-at-home-twin. The stay-at-home twin stays at rest
in his inertial frame of reference through out.
NOTE: You can avoid two of the changes by starting the experiment the
instance after the twin starts to move away, and finishing the instant
before he stops .. then there is just one change in inertial frame.
NOTE: You can also eliminate the instantaneous (infinite) acceleration
altogether by having three 'twins' (triplets then). I'll explain if you
like. What really makes a difference is the change of inertial frame of
reference.
> If that is
> true, then the astronaut cannot return younger than the homebody - it
> cannot happen.
Sorry .. it does
> Because if you change the analysis and have the
> astronaut in the fixed frame of reference, and have the universe
> accelerate around him, then by exactly the same logic the *homebody*
> will be the younger twin when the astronaut returns to earth.
Nope .. you can do the analysis from either point of view, and you get the
same result
> If the astronaut is younger when he returns, then either relativity is
> false, or there is another factor in play that applies differently to
> the astronaut than the homebody.
>
> Incidentally, what evidence is there exactly to suggest that such
> twins ages would differ once the astronaut returned to earth?
Because less time has elapsed for the travelling twin.
Unlike spatial dimensions, where the shortest distance between two point is
a straight line (and so a twisty path is longer) for the temporal dimension
the straight line is the longest temporal distance (elapsed time). The more
you move in your path from one event to another, the shorter the time taken.
Androcles
On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>
> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can
> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it,
> so if you go from London to New York you can do it
> twice without ever going from New York to London.
>
> He says
> quote/
> "We use 3 inertial reference frames.
> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin.
> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip".
> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip".
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>
> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
> 6 years.
> /unquote
I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion.
===========================================
You don't understand how Dork is a dork? I doubt anybody does.
===========================================
It
rubbishes relativity. Relativity says that both twins will perceive
the same effects, relative to their own frame of reference. If that is
true, then the astronaut cannot return younger than the homebody - it
cannot happen. Because if you change the analysis and have the
astronaut in the fixed frame of reference, and have the universe
accelerate around him, then by exactly the same logic the *homebody*
will be the younger twin when the astronaut returns to earth.
If the astronaut is younger when he returns, then either relativity is
false, or there is another factor in play that applies differently to
the astronaut than the homebody.
Incidentally, what evidence is there exactly to suggest that such
twins ages would differ once the astronaut returned to earth?
=========================================
Evidence? You want EVIDENCE? Bwhahahahahahaha!
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -- Paul Bigot Andersen
Note that the Andersen Transformations
tau = (t PLUS xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
differ from the Lorentz Transformations
tau = (t MINUS xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x - vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
when the frames are reversed.
Further note that Einstein was a fruitcake.
Inertial
Derr .. because v is in the opposite direction when you change frames, so
the opposite sign. You're such an idiot, Andy .. nice of you to confirm it
every so often.
Henry Wilson DSc
Time flows at 1 second (t1) per second (t2)
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
Inertial
news:pkkbj5da4m916llnn...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:28:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>>> earth?
>>
>>There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over
>>time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if
>>not all human languages).
>>
>>But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time)
>>and
>>compare the rates in different locations or at different relative
>>velocities.
>>
>>There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means)
>
> Time flows at 1 second (t1) per second (t2)
What a load of bullshit
Sue...
> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> earth?
<<invariance with respect to time translation
gives the well-known law of conservation of energy>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications
See also:
E. Noether's Discovery of the Deep Connection
Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws
Authors: Nina Byers
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
Sue...
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, precisely, so *how* do we know it is flowing forwards? It's a
pretty simple question to ask of physics.
And anyway I think I've just solved the twins paradox to explain why
the astronaut will indeed come back younger. More on that later.
Ste
I'm only asking the question rhetorically. My position is that time
does not move *at all*. It is other people who are saying time flows
forward (which introduces the nonsensical spectre of time standing
still, or flowing backwards).
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c6d4ea67-9711-4b79...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>
> >> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can
> >> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it,
> >> so if you go from London to New York you can do it
> >> twice without ever going from New York to London.
>
> >> He says
> >> quote/
> >> "We use 3 inertial reference frames.
> >> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin.
> >> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip".
> >> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip".
> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>
> >> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
> >> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
> >> 6 years.
> >> /unquote
>
> > I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion.
>
> He was using the Lorentz transforms of SR
But the same transformation applied with the astronaut in the fixed
frame of reference (which, according to relativity, is a perfectly
legitimate switch of frame) will yield *the opposite* result. Clearly
there is something wrong there - and I think the answer is in good ole
classical mechanics.
> > It
> > rubbishes relativity.
>
> Nope
If the argument is correct it does. Of course, really I think the
problem lies in the argument, not in relativity.
> > Relativity says that both twins will perceive
> > the same effects, relative to their own frame of reference.
>
> No .. it does not. This is something many novices stumble over. The two
> twins are no equivalent as one remains at rest in his initial frame of
> reference, the other twin changes frames of reference (ie does not remain at
> rest in his initial frame of reference).
An absurd position. Of course the astronaut remains at rest in his own
frame of reference. It is the *universe* that is accelerating around
the astronaut, according to relativity.
Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference
frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is
not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative
length (i.e. length contraction). And soon in separate post, I'll tell
you why length contraction is not the same for the homebody as it is
for the astronaut.
> In fact he changes inertial frames
> three times (given instantaneous acceleration) .. once when he leave his
> twin, one when re turns around to come back, and another when he stops when
> he gets back to the stay-at-home-twin. The stay-at-home twin stays at rest
> in his inertial frame of reference through out.
A ludicrous argument, that if true rubbishes relativity! Relativity
says that an astronaut accelerating through space, is
indistinguishable from space accelerating around the astronaut. If you
accept relativity, then you cannot deny this.
> NOTE: You can avoid two of the changes by starting the experiment the
> instance after the twin starts to move away, and finishing the instant
> before he stops .. then there is just one change in inertial frame.
>
> NOTE: You can also eliminate the instantaneous (infinite) acceleration
> altogether by having three 'twins' (triplets then). I'll explain if you
> like. What really makes a difference is the change of inertial frame of
> reference.
But according to relativity, there has been no change of reference
frame, because all reference frames are equal. There has only been a
change of reference frame relative to the other twin - both will say
the other twin's reference frame changed in the middle of the journey
(one will say the rocket turned around and came back, the other will
say the earth turned around and came back). If both reference frames
are equal, then we're left with the paradox. If both reference frames
are not equal, then we must discard relativity.
The question is, if we retain relativity, then what force or factor
does the astronaut suffer to a greater extent, that the homebody
suffers to a lesser extent?
> > If that is
> > true, then the astronaut cannot return younger than the homebody - it
> > cannot happen.
>
> Sorry .. it does
And therein lies the contradiction. We observe that the astronaut
comes back younger - the observation cannot be denied. We must
therefore deny the coherence of the explanation.
> > Because if you change the analysis and have the
> > astronaut in the fixed frame of reference, and have the universe
> > accelerate around him, then by exactly the same logic the *homebody*
> > will be the younger twin when the astronaut returns to earth.
>
> Nope .. you can do the analysis from either point of view, and you get the
> same result
That is not possible. You cannot possibly do an analysis that involves
the earth accelerating away from the astronaut, and still have the
astronaut come back younger, because by your own argument the *earth*
has changed reference frames at the turnaround, and the astronaut's
reference frame has remained constant.
Clearly, this "changing reference frame" business is a gratuitous
failure to grasp relativity.
> > If the astronaut is younger when he returns, then either relativity is
> > false, or there is another factor in play that applies differently to
> > the astronaut than the homebody.
>
> > Incidentally, what evidence is there exactly to suggest that such
> > twins ages would differ once the astronaut returned to earth?
>
> Because less time has elapsed for the travelling twin.
In other words, my question is "why is the twin younger", and your
answer is "because the twin has aged less". Thankyou for that dynamite
response.
I was actually looking for you to name studies that have proven the
effect. I presume astronauts themselves have not come back discernibly
any younger than their earth-bound families.
> Unlike spatial dimensions, where the shortest distance between two point is
> a straight line (and so a twisty path is longer) for the temporal dimension
> the straight line is the longest temporal distance (elapsed time). The more
> you move in your path from one event to another, the shorter the time taken.
Naturally. If I travel at 10mph, 1 mile of distance takes 6 minutes to
cover. If I travel at 60mph, 1 mile of distance takes 1 minute to
cover. That does not explain why, when I come back from my journey, I
will be any younger than my housebound family.
Ste
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:28:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> >> earth?
>
> >There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over
> >time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if
> >not all human languages).
>
> >But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time) and
> >compare the rates in different locations or at different relative
> >velocities.
>
> >There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means)
>
> Time flows at 1 second (t1) per second (t2)
So in other words, time can only be expressed as a factor relative to
some other frame. In other words, it is *impossible* to prove a
forward flow of time - the forward flow of time is an axiom of the
human mind, not a measurable quality of the physical world.
Dirk Van de moortel
In physics and in engineering (and in fact in every day life),
time is defined as what is read on clocks, as you can see in
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Armchair philosophers might have different ideas, but this is
a physics newsgroup.
Since counting events is what happens in a clock, our clocks
are designed to run forward, so time is defined to run forward.
So indeed "the forward flow of time is an axiom of the human
mind", if you wish.
But it *is* a measurable quality of the physical world - by
definition.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
> On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>>
>> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can
>> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it,
>> so if you go from London to New York you can do it
>> twice without ever going from New York to London.
>>
>> He says
>> quote/
>> "We use 3 inertial reference frames.
>> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin.
>> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip".
>> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip".
>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>>
>> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
>> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
>> 6 years.
>> /unquote
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion. I
You see how I arrived at it by looking at
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
If there is anything unclear about it, let me know - perhaps I
can explain.
Or if there's a mistake, I can correct it.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference
frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is
not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative
length (i.e. length contraction).
=============================================
You mean length expansion, surely?
xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where x' = x-vt, the length.
Dividing by something less than 1 INCREASES the quotient.
Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference
frames" is closer to utter bullshit than you hallucinate.
Evil's Toy
> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> earth?
Time does not physically exist. It is mathematical concept to
describe that something happens. Speed of happening is defined
by machine called clock, which is based on time needed
for Earth to make one revolution.
So we synchronize on Earth revolution and we call that time.
Greets
Ste
I'm afraid I don't immediately understand how this relates to my
question.
Ste
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26 Dec, 09:09, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:28:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> >>>> earth?
>
> >>> There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over
> >>> time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if
> >>> not all human languages).
>
> >>> But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time) and
> >>> compare the rates in different locations or at different relative
> >>> velocities.
>
> >>> There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means)
>
> >> Time flows at 1 second (t1) per second (t2)
>
> > So in other words, time can only be expressed as a factor relative to
> > some other frame. In other words, it is *impossible* to prove a
> > forward flow of time - the forward flow of time is an axiom of the
> > human mind, not a measurable quality of the physical world.
Just to clarify, the above text is not mine, even though you attribute
it to me.
> In physics and in engineering (and in fact in every day life),
> time is defined as what is read on clocks, as you can see in
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
> Armchair philosophers might have different ideas, but this is
> a physics newsgroup.
I'm an engineer to my very core. If you can't explain physics to me,
then there is probably a shortfall in your understanding of the world.
> Since counting events is what happens in a clock, our clocks
> are designed to run forward, so time is defined to run forward.
> So indeed "the forward flow of time is an axiom of the human
> mind", if you wish.
> But it *is* a measurable quality of the physical world - by
> definition.
I never said time isn't a measurable quantity - any more than I'm
saying length isn't a measurable quantity. I said *the forward flow*
of time is an unnecessary axiom. And like all unnecessary axioms, in
the end they turn out to obstruct proper understanding.
By incorporating a flow of time into physics, people appear to have
listened to Einstein's brilliant insight about relativity, and then
they immediately imparted absolutism into the equations again with
"constants", which expresses itself here as "the constant forward flow
of time".
It's a bit like "liberals" who react harshly against anyone who
doesn't share liberal values; they are simply absolutists in liberal's
clothing. And I'm afraid many physicists appear to be absolutists in
relativists' clothing.
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
You forgot to adjust the speed of light.
Ste
Oh how believers squirm.
I am not refuting the measure of time. My position is that it does not
flow ever-forward - and that, for all practical purposes, time is
standing still on Earth.
But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what
*rate* does it move ever-forward? Unless you can tell me the rate,
then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward.
And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely
accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth.
Ste
There is indeed a mistake. You disproved relativity; because
relativity says that no matter what the frame of reference, the
effects will be the same. The astronaut will perceive a slowing down
of events on earth on the out-bound journey, then simultaneity-with-
time-lag during the stop, and then a speeding up of events on Earth on
the in-bound journey. If special relativity holds, then when the
astronaut returns to Earth, his age should be the same as that of his
twin.
Incidentally, I know the answer to the assymmetry of ages in the twin
paradox. I'll give you a clue: it's because the proper frame of
reference is neither the Earth alone nor the rocket alone.
Androcles
=========================================
Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "adjusting speed of light"
is further from the truth than you might hallucinate. What changes is
not the reference frame. What remains the same is the idiot's answer.
You forgot to engage brain before opening mouth. Let's try
again. You mean length expansion, surely, idiot?
Ste
No, I don't mean length expansion.
If length contracts by a certain factor, then the speed of light
reduces (numerically) by the same factor (because the speed of light
is based on metres per second, and if the measured length of the metre
reduces, then necessarily the speed of light in existing equations
must reduce).
Incidentally, equations can be adjusted to take account of length
contraction, but keep the speed of light numerically constant - at the
moment however, equations are geared for time dilation instead (and,
you being an expert n'all, you know that time dilation and length
contraction are the two sides of the same coin).
Evil's Toy
> On 27 Dec, 01:47, Evil's Toy <brani...@maksimovic.com> wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>>> earth?
>> Time does not physically exist. It is mathematical concept to
>> describe that something happens. Speed of happening is defined
>> by machine called clock, which is based on time needed
>> for Earth to make one revolution.
>> So we synchronize on Earth revolution and we call that time.
>
> Oh how believers squirm.
>
> I am not refuting the measure of time. My position is that it does not
> flow ever-forward - and that, for all practical purposes, time is
> standing still on Earth.
Hm, since time does not exist,neither it can stand still,
neither it can move forward.
Events happen or not. When something happens we call
that, time passes. We grow old and eventually die.
Earth moves, clocks ticking... We notice
that we are hungry. This all proves that
something happens.
>
> But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what
> *rate* does it move ever-forward? Unless you can tell me the rate,
> then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward.
It does not move forward, it does not move backward.
It just happens that something happens before, something
after. Problem is how you determine that something happened
before or after or in same moment?
Since such information is not available in same moment
event happened, we simply cannot reliably determine
whether something happened in same moment, before or
after that moment.
If there are two observers in different positions related
to two objects, depending on position of observers, they can notice
different order of events because information
that something happened is not simultaneous
,rather information travels. Therefore, we cannot
determine that something happened in same moment
because information that something happened
is not same moment when something happened.
>
> And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely
> accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth.
There is no time, again. Earth definitely rotates, we notice
day and night change. Events happen, we count events.
Therefore "time" passes. We call that forward in time.
You cannot measure time if there is not something else to
synchronize on.
How we calculate speed? In school they thought me
speed depends on time. What distance you go in some
time. Since time on Earth is not same as time on
Mars, if we count Mars revolution, speed on Mars
would be expressed in different units than speed on Earth.
One Mars second is 1.03 Earth seconds.
So if I move 1 km per 10 Earth seconds.
On Mars I would move 1.03 km per 10 Mars seconds.
Which of course does not means that I move
at different speeds, rather that speed is same,
but synchronization object is different.
So if I use clock synchronized on Earth rotation,
I would measure same speed on Mars, based on that clock.
Greets
snapdragon31
By the very old definition, a 'day' was the basic unit of time. It
was then divided into 24 hours and then divided into 1440 minutes and
then 86400 seconds.
'Time flows' is just a way of describing how the time goes one point
in time to the other point in time. You are right. Time does not
flow but flies (to me).
Mathematically, rate of change of displacement = ds/dt = v
Rate of change of velocity = dv/dt = a
How about the rate of change of time?
Rate of change of time = dt/dt = 1 (no unit)
The result does not guarantee that the time is moving forward. It
only guarantee that when the time is moving forward, the rate is 1
second per second. If the time is moving backward, the rate is also 1
second per second.
I cannot give you a more basic proof that time is moving forward. I
can only say by normal definition that the flow of time from yesterday
to today is forward. From today to yesterday is backward. It is up
to you to say whether the time is moving forward or backward.
How about the case when the time is standing still? i.e. dt = 0
d?/dt = d? / 0 the result is undefined. That implies the rate of
change of anything is meaningless when dt = 0.
Inertial
> On 26 Dec, 03:28, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>> > earth?
>>
>> There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over
>> time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if
>> not all human languages).
>>
>> But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time)
>> and
>> compare the rates in different locations or at different relative
>> velocities.
>>
>> There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means)
>
> Yes, precisely, so *how* do we know it is flowing forwards?
That is a very different question
> It's a pretty simple question to ask of physics.
No .. its not simple at all. A simple answer, though, is that we define
'forwards' as whatever way it is that time 'flows'.
> And anyway I think I've just solved the twins paradox to explain why
> the astronaut will indeed come back younger. More on that later.
Its been explained for a century
Inertial
It wasn't posed rhetorically
> My position is that time
> does not move *at all*.
How can time move? That makes no sense .. as motion is a change over time
> It is other people who are saying time flows
> forward (which introduces the nonsensical spectre of time standing
> still, or flowing backwards).
We perceive reality changing in our eternal 'now' and interpret that as time
'flowing forward'.
Dirk Van de moortel
> On 26 Dec, 23:02, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> e2b39ba1-e151-4bd3-8adb-b5f35af59...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Dec, 09:09, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:28:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>>>>>> earth?
>>
>>>>> There is no such thing as a rate of time, as 'rate' implies change over
>>>>> time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if
>>>>> not all human languages).
>>
>>>>> But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time) and
>>>>> compare the rates in different locations or at different relative
>>>>> velocities.
>>
>>>>> There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means)
>>
>>>> Time flows at 1 second (t1) per second (t2)
>>
>>> So in other words, time can only be expressed as a factor relative to
>>> some other frame. In other words, it is *impossible* to prove a
>>> forward flow of time - the forward flow of time is an axiom of the
>>> human mind, not a measurable quality of the physical world.
>
> Just to clarify, the above text is not mine, even though you attribute
> it to me.
See http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3dba684e9f80f45e
You did not write that?
Which "Ste" wrote it then?
Dirk Vdm
Inertial
> On 26 Dec, 04:03, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c6d4ea67-9711-4b79...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 26 Dec, 00:30, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>>
>> >> You should read Dork's twin paradox analysis. He can
>> >> pick up the origin of frame of reference and move it,
>> >> so if you go from London to New York you can do it
>> >> twice without ever going from New York to London.
>>
>> >> He says
>> >> quote/
>> >> "We use 3 inertial reference frames.
>> >> S: The frame of the "stay at home" twin.
>> >> S': The frame of the "outbound part of the trip".
>> >> S": The frame of the "inbound part of the trip".
>> >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
>>
>> >> So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
>> >> have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
>> >> 6 years.
>> >> /unquote
>>
>> > I'm afraid I don't understand how he arrives at that conclusion.
>>
>> He was using the Lorentz transforms of SR
>
> But the same transformation applied with the astronaut in the fixed
> frame of reference (which, according to relativity, is a perfectly
> legitimate switch of frame) will yield *the opposite* result.
No .. it does not
> Clearly
> there is something wrong there -
Yes .. you do not understand relativity well enough to know how / when to
apply the equations
> and I think the answer is in good ole
> classical mechanics.
Nope .. its good ole studying and learning
>> > It
>> > rubbishes relativity.
>>
>> Nope
>
> If the argument is correct it does.
It isn't
> Of course, really I think the
> problem lies in the argument, not in relativity.
Yeup
>> > Relativity says that both twins will perceive
>> > the same effects, relative to their own frame of reference.
>>
>> No .. it does not. This is something many novices stumble over. The two
>> twins are no equivalent as one remains at rest in his initial frame of
>> reference, the other twin changes frames of reference (ie does not remain
>> at
>> rest in his initial frame of reference).
>
> An absurd position.
Not at all .. it is clearly what happens in the scenario.
> Of course the astronaut remains at rest in his own
> frame of reference.
Nope.
> It is the *universe* that is accelerating around
> the astronaut, according to relativity.
Nope .. that's not what it says at all
> Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference
> frames" is closer to the truth than you might think.
I think I understand it far better than you.
> What changes is
> not the reference frame.
Yes .. it is
> What changes is the astronaut's relative
> length (i.e. length contraction).
Irrelevant in this example
> And soon in separate post, I'll tell
> you why length contraction is not the same for the homebody as it is
> for the astronaut.
That should be entertaining
>> In fact he changes inertial frames
>> three times (given instantaneous acceleration) .. once when he leave his
>> twin, one when re turns around to come back, and another when he stops
>> when
>> he gets back to the stay-at-home-twin. The stay-at-home twin stays at
>> rest
>> in his inertial frame of reference through out.
>
> A ludicrous argument,
No .. it is how relativity works. Please study it.
> that if true rubbishes relativity!
No .. it is how relativity works. Please study it.
> Relativity
> says that an astronaut accelerating through space, is
> indistinguishable from space accelerating around the astronaut.
Nope
> If you
> accept relativity, then you cannot deny this.
I just did.
>> NOTE: You can avoid two of the changes by starting the experiment the
>> instance after the twin starts to move away, and finishing the instant
>> before he stops .. then there is just one change in inertial frame.
>>
>> NOTE: You can also eliminate the instantaneous (infinite) acceleration
>> altogether by having three 'twins' (triplets then). I'll explain if you
>> like. What really makes a difference is the change of inertial frame of
>> reference.
>
> But according to relativity, there has been no change of reference
> frame,
Wrong
> because all reference frames are equal.
Nope
> There has only been a
> change of reference frame relative to the other twin - both will say
> the other twin's reference frame changed in the middle of the journey
Nope
> (one will say the rocket turned around and came back, the other will
> say the earth turned around and came back).
Nope
> If both reference frames
> are equal, then we're left with the paradox. If both reference frames
> are not equal, then we must discard relativity.
Nope .. you really need to understand SR better
> The question is, if we retain relativity, then what force or factor
> does the astronaut suffer to a greater extent, that the homebody
> suffers to a lesser extent?
The change in inertial refernece frame. I've already told you
>> > If that is
>> > true, then the astronaut cannot return younger than the homebody - it
>> > cannot happen.
>>
>> Sorry .. it does
>
> And therein lies the contradiction.
No contradiction
> We observe that the astronaut
> comes back younger - the observation cannot be denied.
Yeup
> We must
> therefore deny the coherence of the explanation.
It is perfectly coherent
>> > Because if you change the analysis and have the
>> > astronaut in the fixed frame of reference, and have the universe
>> > accelerate around him, then by exactly the same logic the *homebody*
>> > will be the younger twin when the astronaut returns to earth.
>>
>> Nope .. you can do the analysis from either point of view, and you get
>> the
>> same result
>
> That is not possible.
Yet it is the case. Clearly your idea of what is impossible is wrong
> You cannot possibly do an analysis that involves
> the earth accelerating away from the astronaut,
Because the earth never accelerates away from the astronaut. It is only the
astronaut that experiences acceleration
> and still have the
> astronaut come back younger, because by your own argument the *earth*
> has changed reference frames at the turnaround,
No .. it has now .. I never argued that .. nor does SR
> and the astronaut's
> reference frame has remained constant.
Wrong
> Clearly, this "changing reference frame" business is a gratuitous
> failure to grasp relativity.
The one failing to grasp here is you. Go study
>> > If the astronaut is younger when he returns, then either relativity is
>> > false, or there is another factor in play that applies differently to
>> > the astronaut than the homebody.
>>
>> > Incidentally, what evidence is there exactly to suggest that such
>> > twins ages would differ once the astronaut returned to earth?
>>
>> Because less time has elapsed for the travelling twin.
>
> In other words, my question is "why is the twin younger", and your
> answer is "because the twin has aged less". Thankyou for that dynamite
> response.
It is due to the change in simultaneity
> I was actually looking for you to name studies that have proven the
> effect.
There have been several experiments sowing time dilation etc
> I presume astronauts themselves have not come back discernibly
> any younger than their earth-bound families.
Such experiments have been performed .. it is known fact
>> Unlike spatial dimensions, where the shortest distance between two point
>> is
>> a straight line (and so a twisty path is longer) for the temporal
>> dimension
>> the straight line is the longest temporal distance (elapsed time). The
>> more
>> you move in your path from one event to another, the shorter the time
>> taken.
>
> Naturally.
If you think that is somehow intuitive, then you probably don't understand
> If I travel at 10mph, 1 mile of distance takes 6 minutes to
> cover. If I travel at 60mph, 1 mile of distance takes 1 minute to
> cover.
As expected .. you do not understand . Do you even know what 'event' means?
> That does not explain why, when I come back from my journey, I
> will be any younger than my housebound family.
I don't think you understand enough of the fundamentals of SR yet to
understand the explanation
Dirk Van de moortel
I assume you understood everything about it, so, in which
line do you find the first mistake?
Dirk Vdm
Inertial
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d3a27fc-45ad-4711...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On 27 Dec, 06:07, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7dfc99f9-fbfa-4957...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> On 27 Dec, 00:04, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>>
>> > "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:5b346f59-142c-43de...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference
>> > frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is
>> > not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative
>> > length (i.e. length contraction).
>> > =============================================
>> > You mean length expansion, surely?
>> > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where x' = x-vt, the length.
>>
>> > Dividing by something less than 1 INCREASES the quotient.
>> > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference
>> > frames" is closer to utter bullshit than you hallucinate.
>>
>> You forgot to adjust the speed of light.
>> =========================================
>> Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "adjusting speed of light"
>> is further from the truth than you might hallucinate. What changes is
>> not the reference frame. What remains the same is the idiot's answer.
>> You forgot to engage brain before opening mouth. Let's try
>> again. You mean length expansion, surely, idiot?
>
> No, I don't mean length expansion.
Androcles continually lies about what Einstein says nad what SR predicts in
order to make it look silly. Don't listen to his nonsense .. its been
explainede to him countless times and his nonsese refuted over and over ..
he continues to lie and latches onto newbies like you to play his little
games with
Androcles
> On 27 Dec, 06:07, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7dfc99f9-fbfa-4957...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> On 27 Dec, 00:04, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>>
>> > "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:5b346f59-142c-43de...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference
>> > frames" is closer to the truth than you might think. What changes is
>> > not the reference frame. What changes is the astronaut's relative
>> > length (i.e. length contraction).
>> > =============================================
>> > You mean length expansion, surely?
>> > xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where x' = x-vt, the length.
>>
>> > Dividing by something less than 1 INCREASES the quotient.
>> > Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "moving reference
>> > frames" is closer to utter bullshit than you hallucinate.
>>
>> You forgot to adjust the speed of light.
>> =========================================
>> Believe it or not though, this contrivance of "adjusting speed of light"
>> is further from the truth than you might hallucinate. What changes is
>> not the reference frame. What remains the same is the idiot's answer.
>> You forgot to engage brain before opening mouth. Let's try
>> again. You mean length expansion, surely, idiot?
>
> No, I don't mean length expansion.
Then you obviously can't manage simple arithmetic.
>
> If length contracts by a certain factor, then the speed of light
> reduces (numerically) by the same factor (because the speed of light
> is based on metres per second, and if the measured length of the metre
> reduces, then necessarily the speed of light in existing equations
> must reduce).
Too bad is doesn't, moron. Whether you like it or not,
2 = 1/0.5,
2 is greater than 1 because 0.5 is less than 1.
Einstein's crap is length expansion.
>
> Incidentally, equations can be adjusted to take account of length
> contraction, but keep the speed of light numerically constant - at the
> moment however, equations are geared for time dilation instead (and,
> you being an expert n'all, you know that time dilation and length
> contraction are the two sides of the same coin).
What I know (me being an expert n'all) is you are babbling fuckin'
ignorant bullshit and forget to get a 7-year-old child's basic course
in arithmetic or a 13-year-old's basic course in algebra or you'd
know the difference between contraction and expansion.
Inertial
Nope
> You disproved relativity; because
> relativity says that no matter what the frame of reference, the
> effects will be the same.
That's right .. in every frame, one twin is younger than the other
> The astronaut will perceive a slowing down
> of events on earth on the out-bound journey, then simultaneity-with-
> time-lag during the stop, and then a speeding up of events on Earth on
> the in-bound journey. If special relativity holds, then when the
> astronaut returns to Earth, his age should be the same as that of his
> twin.
Nope. You don't undersatnd SR beyond the comic book / coffee table notions
> Incidentally, I know the answer to the assymmetry of ages in the twin
> paradox. I'll give you a clue: it's because the proper frame of
> reference is neither the Earth alone nor the rocket alone.
Rubbish
Inertial
Sue is notorious for doing copy/paste replies that are links to articles
that almost always have no relevance to the topic at hand. If you reply
back, you get more irrelevant copy/paste quotes
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
All states of the unverse exist.
We are falling down the absolute time axis at 1 second per second.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
Ste
> You did not write that?
> Which "Ste" wrote it then?
Sorry, my mistake! I think I just looked at my name at the top, and
saw that it had been trimmed back a number of indentations.
Ste
The mistake is with this "changing frame of reference" business. It's
not the frame of reference that changes, the time-lag is on account of
the fact that the astronaut accelerates more than the Earth, within a
reference frame that encompasses the Earth, the astronaut, and the
whole journey.
Ste
People are so bitter here!
Ste
And isn't that a contradiction?
Androcles
It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant
lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of lunacy.
George Hammond
<dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>> earth?
>
>
>I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells
>you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one
>clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity.
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
[Hammond]
If we're talking about "objective" time then yes, it is
the theory of Relativity.
However, if we are talking about "subjective" time, then
it is the theory of God.
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
Mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=======================================
George Hammond
wrote:
>
> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
>
>
[Hammond]
Fact of the matter is that God exists, and the hard
scientific proof has been published in the peer-reviewed
literature, by me in 2003.
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious
crime.... unless it is called atheism, in which case it is
only a harmless misdemeanor.
Inertial
> On 27 Dec, 01:47, Evil's Toy <brani...@maksimovic.com> wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>> > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>> > earth?
>>
>> Time does not physically exist. It is mathematical concept to
>> describe that something happens. Speed of happening is defined
>> by machine called clock, which is based on time needed
>> for Earth to make one revolution.
>> So we synchronize on Earth revolution and we call that time.
>
> Oh how believers squirm.
>
> I am not refuting the measure of time. My position is that it does not
> flow ever-forward - and that, for all practical purposes, time is
> standing still on Earth.
All of that makes no sense.
> But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what
> *rate* does it move ever-forward?
We can compare objectively how elapsed time and ticking rates compare in
different locations or frames of reference
> Unless you can tell me the rate,
> then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward.
Wrong. You don't need to know a rate .. only a direction
> And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely
> accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth.
It doesn't make sense to says it is moving, or that it is standing still.
both of those refer to change (or lack of it) over time. You can't talk
about how time changes over time.. its a nonsense.
Inertial
So .. you don't understand.
> It's
> not the frame of reference that changes,
No .. it IS the change in inertial frame of reference.
> the time-lag is on account of
> the fact that the astronaut accelerates more than the Earth, within a
> reference frame that encompasses the Earth, the astronaut, and the
> whole journey.
You really don't understand what a frame of reference is (let alone an
inertial one), nor what changing inertial frames means I suggest you learn
and become familiar with the basic terms of physics before posting further
Inertial
No.
Inertial
news:q96gj55rvpcp0g5s5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:17 GMT, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc)
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless
>> it's called god.
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> Fact of the matter is that God exists, and the hard
> scientific proof has been published in the peer-reviewed
> literature, by me in 2003.
Nope .. you proved nothing of the sort.
The fact of the matter is that you are psychologically disturbed and not at
all a scientist.
Inertial
"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
news:ev5gj5p40arv4n0mh...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:21:58 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> ee5c4ca0-faf6-46a8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>>> earth?
>>
>>
>>I suspect you won't like this answer, but every clock tells
>>you how its time advances, and the theory that relates one
>>clock's time to another clock's, is the theory of relativity.
>>
>>Dirk Vdm
>>
>>
> [Hammond]
> If we're talking about "objective" time then yes, it is
> the theory of Relativity.
> However, if we are talking about "subjective" time, then
> it is the theory of God.
What a load of shit.
Inertial
news:z7UZm.25511$SX6....@newsfe22.ams2...
Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he forgot
to add "blatant liar" to his self-description
Sue...
> On 26 Dec, 15:15, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > earth?
>
gives the well-known law of conservation of energy>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications
>
> > See also:
>
> > E. Noether's Discovery of the Deep Connection
> > Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws
> > Authors: Nina Byers
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
>
> I'm afraid I don't immediately understand how this relates to my
> question.
Consider that a gun and a metre stick is a clock.
Now, explain how you will maintain your point of view
without violating energy conservation.
You aren't a "free energy" nut are you?
Considering only gravito-inertial effects:
Do guns work better on another planet?
Do guns work better in a different state of motion?
You are taking the position that 1000 atoms of lead
on earth is not a 1000 atoms of lead on Mars.
You are taking the position that a joule of gunpowder
on my ship is not a joule of gunpowder on your
relativity moving ship.
That is counter to accepted theory and experiment.
<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
[1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
an imaginary magnitude
sqrt(-1)
ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as
the three space co-ordinates. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
same in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
Inertial
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:00f359a3-7d3f-47be...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 11:21 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Dec, 15:15, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances
>> > > on
>> > > earth?
>>
> << invariance with respect to time translation
> gives the well-known law of conservation of energy>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications
>>
>> > See also:
>>
>> > E. Noether's Discovery of the Deep Connection
>> > Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws
>> > Authors: Nina Byers
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044
>>
>> I'm afraid I don't immediately understand how this relates to my
>> question.
>
> Consider that a gun and a metre stick is a clock.
You have a strange way of telling the time
> Now, explain how you will maintain your point of view
> without violating energy conservation.
Which point of view is that?
> You aren't a "free energy" nut are you?
>
> Considering only gravito-inertial effects:
> Do guns work better on another planet?
> Do guns work better in a different state of motion?
>
> You are taking the position that 1000 atoms of lead
> on earth is not a 1000 atoms of lead on Mars.
>
> You are taking the position that a joule of gunpowder
> on my ship is not a joule of gunpowder on your
> relativity moving ship.
Where did you get all that nonsense ???
> That is counter to accepted theory and experiment.
>
> << Einstein's relativity principle states that:
>
> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
> experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
> between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
> laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
> Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
> same form in all inertial frames. >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Yeup .. not really relevant to the question asked (as expected from a 'Sue'
post)
> [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
> theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
> properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
> three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
> In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
> however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
> an imaginary magnitude
>
> sqrt(-1)
>
> ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
> natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
> theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
> the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as
> the three space co-ordinates. >>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
Yeup .. not really relevant to the question asked (as expected from a 'Sue'
post)
> << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
> can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
> which involve measuring the force of attraction between
> two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
> wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
> must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
> inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
> same in all inertial frames. >>
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Yeup .. not really relevant to the question asked (as expected from a 'Sue'
post)
> Sue...
Again .. you clutter up threads with the exact same copy/pasted irrelevant
quotes that you always post (in order to appear as if you understand
physics, and on the off-chance that you might actually manage to post
something relevant)
Ste
Lol. Can you guess who said: if at first a theory is not absurd, then
there is no hope for it.
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e36f70a3-ce39-4d88...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Dec, 01:47, Evil's Toy <brani...@maksimovic.com> wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >> > I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> >> > earth?
>
> >> Time does not physically exist. It is mathematical concept to
> >> describe that something happens. Speed of happening is defined
> >> by machine called clock, which is based on time needed
> >> for Earth to make one revolution.
> >> So we synchronize on Earth revolution and we call that time.
>
> > Oh how believers squirm.
>
> > I am not refuting the measure of time. My position is that it does not
> > flow ever-forward - and that, for all practical purposes, time is
> > standing still on Earth.
>
> All of that makes no sense.
It does, insofar as I'm referring to "time" in the theoretical physics
sense. Obvious I retain such grasp of reality and language that I know
"time" is flowing forward according to the everyday definition.
> > But to those who say it *does* move ever-forward, I ask, and what
> > *rate* does it move ever-forward?
>
> We can compare objectively how elapsed time and ticking rates compare in
> different locations or frames of reference
Indeed, none of which proves the flow forward. All I can see is that
events that would have been simultaneous, either move ahead of or
astern. You can describe the ahead-ness or astern-ness in relative
terms, without requiring overall motion forwards. And indeed, by
comparing clocks in different reference frames, you are demonstrating
to me the possibility of moving events ahead or astern, you have not
demonstrated overall motion forwards. And unless you have demonstrated
overall motion forwards, then it is far easier to discard the concept
than wrestle with the notion of overall motion backwards (i.e.
travelling back in time).
So unless you can prove this concept of overall motion forwards by
*verifiable* scientific observation (for example, by demonstrating the
reversal of time), then I suggest you follow Hume's advice: commit it
to the flames.
> > Unless you can tell me the rate,
> > then you have no evidential basis to say it moves ever-forward.
>
> Wrong. You don't need to know a rate .. only a direction
So how do you describe time dilation in terms of "direction"?
> > And let me be clear: if you're a true relativist, you will freely
> > accept my proposition, that time is standing still on Earth.
>
> It doesn't make sense to says it is moving, or that it is standing still.
> both of those refer to change (or lack of it) over time. You can't talk
> about how time changes over time.. its a nonsense.
Exactly! So discard the concept. Accept that, for the purposes of
theoretical physics, time stands still when you are not moving in
space. Just like we accept that, for the purposes of theoretical
physics, chemistry, and biology, that matter does not have "free will"
or "God" in it anywhere.
Ste
Dear me.
Ste
There is a difference between being unfamiliar with physics, and
disagreeing with it. I've told you plain as day, this nonsense about
changing reference frames is just that: nonsense. It's an utter
contrivance to explain a simpler mechanism: the homebody on Earth did
not accelerate as much as the astronaut (no matter what the frame of
reference). That fact could be proven with two simple accelerometers -
unless you're going to tell me that SR dictates that both
accelerometers must read the same.
Ste
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
>
> >> People are so bitter here!
>
> > It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant
> > lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of lunacy.
>
> Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he forgot
> to add "blatant liar" to his self-description
Indeed. Why is this place so feral?
Inertial
That 'concept' is not really used in physics. We talk about events that
happen at a given time. There is very little that refers to a flow through
time.
> Accept that, for the purposes of
> theoretical physics, time stands still when you are not moving in
> space.
No .. it doesn't "stand still" .. nor does it "move". Both those concept
are nonsensical. Time just is .. like space just is. Events have a
position in spacetime. An object can exist as a set of events.
Also there is no such notion as 'not moving in space', as it all depends on
the frame of reference of the observer measuring your velocity. Every
inertial observer measures themselves as at rest in 'space'.
> Just like we accept that, for the purposes of theoretical
> physics, chemistry, and biology, that matter does not have "free will"
> or "God" in it anywhere.
Mmmhmmm
Inertial
Dear me what? Every frame will agree that one of the twins is younger than
the other .. ie that less time has elapsed for the 'travelling' twin as
opposed to that of the 'stay-at-home' twin. There is nothing contradictory
about that
Androcles
No, I don't guess and I don't claim expansion is contraction, either.
You forgot how to divide 1 by 2 and get 0.5 and your theory
is absurd at first, absurd at second and absurd at forever. There
is no hope for you.
The Lorentz contraction is L = L0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
whereas the Einstein expansion is xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
There is a slight difference between '*' and '/' that illiterate
arrogant idiots fail to notice because they can't read.
Inertial
It appears you are both
> I've told you plain as day, this nonsense about
> changing reference frames is just that: nonsense.
Then you don't understand the physics Your comments clearly show you do not
understand the notion of an inertial frame of reference.
> It's an utter contrivance to explain a simpler mechanism:
Nope
> the homebody on Earth did
> not accelerate as much as the astronaut (no matter what the frame of
> reference).
That's what I just finished telling you !!!!! So that means it is all
change of inertial frame of reference.
Note, one can get the same effect without any accelerations (the triplet
version) .. which shows actual acceleration of the object itself is not the
issue.
> That fact could be proven with two simple accelerometers -
> unless you're going to tell me that SR dictates that both
> accelerometers must read the same.
No .. though that does sound like something you were arguing before when you
says SR says the the at home observer does the same acceleration. Please
try to at least be consistent.
Androcles
===========================
Inertial describes himself nicely, he's totally inert.
He forgot to add "dead brain" to his self-description.
Inertial
Crackpots who have enormous egos, usually accompanied by a hatred for
Einstein.
Usually they are fail physics students who, rather than accept that they
failed physics, think physics must be wrong, and become convinced of that
fact.
Others think they are intelligent and yet they have not achieved the fame
the Einstein has (usually for good reason) and so therefore Einstein must be
some sort of con artist or charlatan .. and so therefore SR (as it was
something einstein was involved in) must (by association) be wrong.
Of course, all physicists must be part of a cult or conspiracy to keep this
'truth' hidden. Anyone who disagrees with them if obviously one of the
runts of the Einsteinian religion.
In order to maintain these delusions, they deny the existence of all the
experiments that support SR, except those that also happen to not refute
their particular pet theory. They will make ridiculous claims about what
they mistakenly think SR says in order to 'prove' it wrong (and instead show
why it is they failed physics) and go on a character assassination vendetta
against Einstein.
Of course, this means each of them thinks they are the lone voice of reason
in a world that is out to get them and silence their voice.
Also those who DO understand physics (SR in particular) will point out the
mistaken ideas of the crackpots, and that truth makes the resent just about
everyone. PD, Eric, Tom (and myself) are amongst the few who understand SR
well.
Its rather sad.
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
Androcles shows his colours. Though he forgot to call me a 'lying cunt' ..
that's what he calls people who understand SR better than himself .. there
must be a lot of lying cunts around. He also "plonks" anyone who is not
fooled by his nonsense. So expect to be plonked yourself sometime soon, Mr
Ste :):)
Sue...
> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
> earth?
Know thy enemy.
=====================================================\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Later_activity_and_Current_Status
======================================================/
<< Einstein's relativity principle states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
same form in all inertial frames. >>
<< where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which
can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
same in all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
;-)
Sue...
Inertial
> On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>> earth?
>
> Know thy enemy.
What enemy?
> =====================================================\
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#Later_activity_and_Current_Status
>
>
> ======================================================/
Do you think LET is an enemy? And how is that link relevant .. silly
question, of course its not.
Now Sue copy and pastest the same old collection of quotes as always in the
hope they are relevant to the thread and to make herself look knowledgeable
[snip em]
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:17 GMT, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless it's called god.
>>
>>
>[Hammond]
> Fact of the matter is that God exists, and the hard
>scientific proof has been published in the peer-reviewed
>literature, by me in 2003.
>http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious
>crime.... unless it is called atheism, in which case it is
>only a harmless misdemeanor.
Oh, hello George...glad to see you read my messages occasionally...
Did you read about my birthday?
>========================================
>GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
> Primary site
>http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
> Mirror site
> http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
> HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
> http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
>=======================================
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Henry Wilson DSc
hey, don't you worry about George.... he's OK deep down...apart from his bomb
making obsession of course...
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Dirk Van de moortel
> not the frame of reference that changes, the time-lag is on account of
> the fact that the astronaut accelerates more than the Earth, within a
> reference frame that encompasses the Earth, the astronaut, and the
> whole journey.
Sure, if you like, you can use equations where no more
than the proper accelerations of both twins are used:
See for instance
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#Difference_in_elapsed_times:_how_to_calculate_it_from_the_ship
In this case however, a simplified *calculation* can be used,
with simple Lorentz transformations in simple inertial
reference frames.
In order to be able to use the transformations, we use
three of them. (Of course we ignore the fact that the stay
at home twin is not *really* inertial, since he is on the
surface of a rotating planet. It can be shown however
that the effect of this can be ignored, and of course we
can just as well put the stay at home twin somewhere
freely floating in space).
The twin who takes the trip can't possible stay in one
inertial reference frame, but in order to make the
calculations, we can use two different inertial frames
to model the trip in the most simplified case.
If you look at the PDF (1st paragraph of section A),
you will find a way to use the "proper-acceleration-way"
to model the simplified situation. It gives the same
result as the two-frame-jump way.
Don't you agree?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
> On 26 Dec, 23:02, "Dirk Van de moortel">> e2b39ba1-e151-4bd3-8adb-b5f35af59...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Dec, 09:09, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 14:28:03 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> I was just wondering, can anyone tell me at what rate time advances on
>>>>>> earth?
>>
>>>>> time. That is a problem with the English language (and I suspect most if
>>>>> not all human languages).
>>
>>>>> But one can compare the rates of ticking of clocks (which measures time) and
>>>>> compare the rates in different locations or at different relative
>>>>> velocities.
>>
>>>>> There is no absolute measure of 'rate' of time (whatever that means)
>>
>>>> Time flows at 1 second (t1) per second (t2)
>>
>>> So in other words, time can only be expressed as a factor relative to
>>> some other frame. In other words, it is *impossible* to prove a
>>> forward flow of time - the forward flow of time is an axiom of the
>>> human mind, not a measurable quality of the physical world.
>
> Just to clarify, the above text is not mine, even though you attribute
> it to me.
(this was cleared this up in the previous exchange)
>
>
>
>> In physics and in engineering (and in fact in every day life),
>> time is defined as what is read on clocks, as you can see in
>> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
>> Armchair philosophers might have different ideas, but this is
>> a physics newsgroup.
>
> I'm an engineer to my very core. If you can't explain physics to me,
> then there is probably a shortfall in your understanding of the world.
>
>
>
>> Since counting events is what happens in a clock, our clocks
>> are designed to run forward, so time is defined to run forward.
>> So indeed "the forward flow of time is an axiom of the human
>> mind", if you wish.
>> But it *is* a measurable quality of the physical world - by
>> definition.
>
> I never said time isn't a measurable quantity
But I did not say that you said that.
You said:
"The forward flow of time is [...] not a measurable quality of
the physical world"
and I merely said that the forwardness of the flow of time is solidly
baked in in our definition of time: time is something we *count*,
and we cannot "uncount". See
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Don't you agree that, at least for physicists and engineers, given
this definition, there is no other way than a "forward flow" of time?
Dirk Vdm
Ste
I should clarify. The explanations I've seen so far, about "changing
reference frames", I find quite inadequate and they contradict SR,
which says that an observer in any reference frame should perceive the
same effects. If one twin ends up younger, then there is clearly some
factor that applies differently to the astronaut than the homebody,
and I'm afraid I don't accept the explanation that it is because the
astronaut changes direction (because by definition in relativity, it
may as well be the earth that changes direction as far as the
astronaut is concerned).
Ste
And you have no grasp of proper grammar.
> The Lorentz contraction is L = L0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> whereas the Einstein expansion is xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> There is a slight difference between '*' and '/' that illiterate
> arrogant idiots fail to notice because they can't read.
Who cares? I wasn't referring specifically to either theory. If the
metre reduces to say half its normal length, then you apply a
correction factor of 0.5 to v and c, and to any other variable that
invovles a measurement of length.
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:55e687f7-b47e-4325...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 28 Dec, 03:55, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
>
> >> >> People are so bitter here!
>
> >> > It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant
> >> > lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of lunacy.
>
> >> Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he
> >> forgot
> >> to add "blatant liar" to his self-description
>
> > Indeed. Why is this place so feral?
>
> Crackpots who have enormous egos, usually accompanied by a hatred for
> Einstein.
>
> Usually they are fail physics students who, rather than accept that they
> failed physics, think physics must be wrong, and become convinced of that
> fact.
>
> Others think they are intelligent and yet they have not achieved the fame
> the Einstein has (usually for good reason) and so therefore Einstein must be
> some sort of con artist or charlatan .. and so therefore SR (as it was
> something einstein was involved in) must (by association) be wrong.
So which did you say you were?
> Of course, all physicists must be part of a cult or conspiracy to keep this
> 'truth' hidden. Anyone who disagrees with them if obviously one of the
> runts of the Einsteinian religion.
I actually think Einstein was on the right track. If he was wrong at
all, then he wasn't that wrong.
> In order to maintain these delusions, they deny the existence of all the
> experiments that support SR, except those that also happen to not refute
> their particular pet theory. They will make ridiculous claims about what
> they mistakenly think SR says in order to 'prove' it wrong (and instead show
> why it is they failed physics) and go on a character assassination vendetta
> against Einstein.
I claim to have solved the paradox within the terms of SR. The fact
is, the homebody does *not* accelerate as much as the astronaut, no
matter what reference frame you choose.
> Of course, this means each of them thinks they are the lone voice of reason
> in a world that is out to get them and silence their voice.
>
> Also those who DO understand physics (SR in particular) will point out the
> mistaken ideas of the crackpots, and that truth makes the resent just about
> everyone. PD, Eric, Tom (and myself) are amongst the few who understand SR
> well.
Perhaps. But then no one doubts that theologians know their subject.
Inertial
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
news:utsgj5d4pt2605930...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:53:36 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"George Hammond" <Nowh...@notspam.com> wrote in message
>>news:q96gj55rvpcp0g5s5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:17 GMT, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless
>>>> it's called god.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> [Hammond]
>>> Fact of the matter is that God exists, and the hard
>>> scientific proof has been published in the peer-reviewed
>>> literature, by me in 2003.
>>
>>Nope .. you proved nothing of the sort.
>>
>>The fact of the matter is that you are psychologically disturbed and not
>>at
>>all a scientist.
>
> hey, don't you worry about George.... he's OK deep down...apart from his
> bomb
> making obsession of course...
I think maybe he's just a comedian doing physics jokes.
Ste
>
> In this case however, a simplified *calculation* can be used,
> with simple Lorentz transformations in simple inertial
> reference frames.
> In order to be able to use the transformations, we use
> three of them. (Of course we ignore the fact that the stay
> at home twin is not *really* inertial, since he is on the
> surface of a rotating planet. It can be shown however
> that the effect of this can be ignored, and of course we
> can just as well put the stay at home twin somewhere
> freely floating in space).
>
> The twin who takes the trip can't possible stay in one
> inertial reference frame, but in order to make the
> calculations, we can use two different inertial frames
> to model the trip in the most simplified case.
> If you look at the PDF (1st paragraph of section A),
> you will find a way to use the "proper-acceleration-way"
> to model the simplified situation. It gives the same
> result as the two-frame-jump way.
> Don't you agree?
Let me be clear I didn't actually disagree with your model within its
own mathematical terms. What I disagree with is the approach which you
say is mathemetically more simple and yet is in fact less intuitive.
The fact that this supposed paradox has not been laid to bed yet
surely proves that's it's in want of a simple explanation.
And indeed the explanation does seem to be simple: the astronaut
accelerates more. If the universe *had* accelerated around the
astronaut, then the astronaut would end up *older* than his twin - but
in fact, a simple accelerometer *proves* that the universe did not in
fact accelerate around the astronaut - the astronaut accelerated
around the universe, and that is why the astronaut returns to Earth
younger.
Inertial
Please do
> The explanations I've seen so far, about "changing
> reference frames", I find quite inadequate and they contradict SR,
No .. they do not
> which says that an observer in any reference frame should perceive the
> same effects.
I think you mean 'the same events'. Yes they do.
That the will measure everything as the same .. no it does not
> If one twin ends up younger, then there is clearly some
> factor that applies differently to the astronaut than the homebody,
Yes .. the younger one changed from being at rest in one inertial frame to
moving in that frame and becoming at rest in another inertial reference
frame (ie he changed velocity)
> and I'm afraid I don't accept the explanation that it is because the
> astronaut changes direction (because by definition in relativity, it
> may as well be the earth that changes direction as far as the
> astronaut is concerned).
No. You do not understand what SR says. In SR acceleration is 'absolute'
in that all observers agree as to what object is accelerating and what is
not. An object moving with constant velocity in SR is measured as moving at
a constant velocity for all inertial observers (but not necessarily the SAME
constant velocity) And object that changes velocity will be measured as
changing velocity by all inertial observers.
Inertial
Note that this is one of Androcles repeated lies. He tries to convince
others that SR predicts an expansion where as the Lorentz predicts a
contraction. Of course .. that is nonsense, as Lorentz transforms ARE the
math of SR .. so must (by definition) predict the same things. He simply
tries to show his lie by misapplying Lorentz transforms.
> Who cares? I wasn't referring specifically to either theory. If the
> metre reduces to say half its normal length, then you apply a
> correction factor of 0.5 to v and c, and to any other variable that
> invovles a measurement of length.
No .. you don't. Clearly you don't understand SR and Lorentz transforms.
Inertial
> On 28 Dec, 05:59, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:55e687f7-b47e-4325...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On 28 Dec, 03:55, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> People are so bitter here!
>>
>> >> > It's not a question of emotion, it's a question of teaching arrogant
>> >> > lunatics like you the basics. You forgot to adjust the speed of
>> >> > lunacy.
>>
>> >> Androcles described himself nicely .. an arrogant lunatic. Though he
>> >> forgot
>> >> to add "blatant liar" to his self-description
>>
>> > Indeed. Why is this place so feral?
>>
>> Crackpots who have enormous egos, usually accompanied by a hatred for
>> Einstein.
>>
>> Usually they are fail physics students who, rather than accept that they
>> failed physics, think physics must be wrong, and become convinced of that
>> fact.
>>
>> Others think they are intelligent and yet they have not achieved the fame
>> the Einstein has (usually for good reason) and so therefore Einstein must
>> be
>> some sort of con artist or charlatan .. and so therefore SR (as it was
>> something einstein was involved in) must (by association) be wrong.
>
> So which did you say you were?
None of the above
>> Of course, all physicists must be part of a cult or conspiracy to keep
>> this
>> 'truth' hidden. Anyone who disagrees with them if obviously one of the
>> runts of the Einsteinian religion.
>
> I actually think Einstein was on the right track. If he was wrong at
> all, then he wasn't that wrong.
Indeed .. though he was wrong about some things (particularly later in life)
.. he was, after all, only human.
>> In order to maintain these delusions, they deny the existence of all the
>> experiments that support SR, except those that also happen to not refute
>> their particular pet theory. They will make ridiculous claims about what
>> they mistakenly think SR says in order to 'prove' it wrong (and instead
>> show
>> why it is they failed physics) and go on a character assassination
>> vendetta
>> against Einstein.
>
> I claim to have solved the paradox within the terms of SR.
Its already been solved for a century.
> The fact
> is, the homebody does *not* accelerate as much as the astronaut, no
> matter what reference frame you choose.
Of course .. that's what *I* have been telling *you* .. and you've been
arguing that the acceleration is the same.
>> Of course, this means each of them thinks they are the lone voice of
>> reason
>> in a world that is out to get them and silence their voice.
>>
>> Also those who DO understand physics (SR in particular) will point out
>> the
>> mistaken ideas of the crackpots, and that truth makes the resent just
>> about
>> everyone. PD, Eric, Tom (and myself) are amongst the few who understand
>> SR
>> well.
>
> Perhaps. But then no one doubts that theologians know their subject.
They are not theologians. Just because you do not understand science, that
does not mean it is a religion.
Ste
Indeed. So why does it persist (if only amongst non-physicists)?
> > The fact
> > is, the homebody does *not* accelerate as much as the astronaut, no
> > matter what reference frame you choose.
>
> Of course .. that's what *I* have been telling *you* .. and you've been
> arguing that the acceleration is the same.
I was saying that relativity, or at least the interpretations that I'd
read, all said that all reference frames are equal. And I know a guy
with a PhD who suggests to me that the paradox does not exist, because
the astronaut returns to Earth the same age as his homebody twin. So
clearly there is a lot of popular misconception about an issue that
should be incredibly simple to explain (and trust me, I'd trawled the
internet and couldn't find any easy and intuitive refutation of this
paradox).
Inertial
its been laid to bed for many many decades.
> And indeed the explanation does seem to be simple:
It is
> the astronaut
> accelerates more.
That's part of it .. but you can eliminate acceleration and still get the
effect. So its nto a good answer.
> If the universe *had* accelerated around the
> astronaut,
It doesn't
> then the astronaut would end up *older* than his twin - but
> in fact, a simple accelerometer *proves* that the universe did not in
> fact accelerate around the astronaut - the astronaut accelerated
> around the universe, and that is why the astronaut returns to Earth
> younger.
The more general answer is that the travelling twin changed which inertial
frame of reference it was at rest in. As I've said, you can modify the
scenario to remove any acceleration and still get the effect. So
acceleration of an object is not itself the answer.
Androcles
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:38:34 -0800, George Hammond <Nowh...@notspam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:17 GMT, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious crime....unless
>>> it's called god.
>>>
>>>
>>[Hammond]
>> Fact of the matter is that God exists, and the hard
>>scientific proof has been published in the peer-reviewed
>>literature, by me in 2003.
>>http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html
>> Selling something that doesn't exist is a serious
>>crime.... unless it is called atheism, in which case it is
>>only a harmless misdemeanor.
>
> Oh, hello George...glad to see you read my messages occasionally...
>
> Did you read about my birthday?
Responding to Hammond is a capital offence punishable by
plonking, but in your case I'll grant clemency. I'll make a note...
Jeezuus H. Wilson's birthday - 25/12/0000.
Dirk Van de moortel
Yes, perhaps, to some.
But intuition is rather personal and not really measurable.
> The fact that this supposed paradox has not been laid to bed yet
> surely proves that's it's in want of a simple explanation.
"Simple" for one person can be "complicated" or even
"downright impossible" for other people.
>
> And indeed the explanation does seem to be simple: the astronaut
> accelerates more. If the universe *had* accelerated around the
> astronaut, then the astronaut would end up *older* than his twin - but
> in fact, a simple accelerometer *proves* that the universe did not in
> fact accelerate around the astronaut - the astronaut accelerated
> around the universe, and that is why the astronaut returns to Earth
> younger.
I don't agree with your usage of "why". I don't see physics as
a provider of answers to the "why"-question. I leave that to
the philopsophers and theologists.
Phrases like "If the universe *had* accelerated" are meaningless
to me.
The age difference can be calculated with relative velocities
and it can be calculated with proper acceleratins. The results
are the same. There it ends for me.
Dirk Vdm
Inertial
You just answered it .. because they are non-physicist and haven't (bothered
to) learn about the solution. Or they are student physicists who are just
learning about it, or do not yet understand SR to apply it correctly.
Its a very useful (and well known) puzzle to use when teaching physics, of
course.
>> > The fact
>> > is, the homebody does *not* accelerate as much as the astronaut, no
>> > matter what reference frame you choose.
>>
>> Of course .. that's what *I* have been telling *you* .. and you've been
>> arguing that the acceleration is the same.
>
> I was saying that relativity, or at least the interpretations that I'd
> read, all said that all reference frames are equal.
No .. they aren't. The inertial frames are equivalent in that if you
perform an experiment at rest in one inertial frame, and then perform the
same experiment at rest in another inertial frame, then you'll get the same
results (because the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames).
That principle has been around for centuries.
> And I know a guy
> with a PhD who suggests to me that the paradox does not exist, because
> the astronaut returns to Earth the same age as his homebody twin.
Then he's wrong. Obviously he doesn't properly understand that particular
are of physics.
> So
> clearly there is a lot of popular misconception about an issue that
> should be incredibly simple to explain (and trust me, I'd trawled the
> internet and couldn't find any easy and intuitive refutation of this
> paradox).
It doesn't need refuting, because it is not a paradox.
There are many explanations of how it works, however (and so why it is not
paradoxical, just surprising).
Androcles
People that live in glass houses shouldn't begin a sentence with a
conjunction.
Main Entry: coordinating conjunction
Function: noun
Date: 1916
: a conjunction (as 'and' or 'or') that joins together words or word groups
of equal grammatical rank
>> The Lorentz contraction is L = L0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> whereas the Einstein expansion is xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>> There is a slight difference between '*' and '/' that illiterate
>> arrogant idiots fail to notice because they can't read.
>
> Who cares?
Obviously not you or any other fuckwitted illogical ignoramus.
How would like your pocket money halved instead of doubled,
little punk?
"Who cares?"-- Ste.
> I wasn't referring specifically to either theory. If the
> metre reduces to say half its normal length,
You'd be less than three feet tall!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
In hypothetical sentences introduced by 'if' and referring to
past time, where conditions are to be deemed 'unfulfilled',
the verb will regularly be found in the pluperfect subjunctive,
in both protasis and apodosis.
-- Donet, "Principles of Elementary Latin Syntax"
> then you apply a
> correction factor of 0.5 to v and c, and to any other variable that
> invovles a measurement of length.
So that you can be 12 feet tall?
You may have some difficulty walking through doorways.
You do talk a load of idiotic and insane shit, don't you?
See a psychiatrist, maybe therapy can help your mental disorder.
You forgot to adjust the speed of the metre. "Who cares?"-- Ste.
Ste
Lol. I think you have an anger problem. Vindictiveness reigns. Insults
are just vomited out.
Like I said before, lengths of accelerated objects do not expand with
increasing velocity. They contract. You must learn to understand this.
papa...@gmail.com
> On 28 Dec, 11:03, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> Let me be clear I didn't actually disagree with your model within its
> own mathematical terms. What I disagree with is the approach which you
> say is mathemetically more simple and yet is in fact less intuitive.
> The fact that this supposed paradox has not been laid to bed yet
> surely proves that's it's in want of a simple explanation.
>
> And indeed the explanation does seem to be simple: the astronaut
> accelerates more. If the universe *had* accelerated around the
> astronaut, then the astronaut would end up *older* than his twin - but
> in fact, a simple accelerometer *proves* that the universe did not in
> fact accelerate around the astronaut - the astronaut accelerated
> around the universe, and that is why the astronaut returns to Earth
> younger.
I always cite the clear and simple explanation of Landau and Lifshitz
for this "symmetric" behavior, which goes like this:
"Suppose some clocks are moving in uniform rectilinear motion,
relative to an inertial system K. A reference frame K' linked to the
latter is also inertial. Then from the point of view of an observer in
the K system the clocks in the K' system fall behind. And conversely,
from the point of view of the K' system, the clocks in K lag. To
convince ourselves that there is no contradiction, let us note the
following. In order to establish that the clocks in the K' system lag
behind those in the K system, we must proceed in the following
fashion. Suppose that at a certain moment the clock in K' passes by
the clock in K, and at that moment the readings of the two clocks
coincide. To compare the rates of the two clocks in K and K', we must
once more compare the readings of the same moving clock in K' with the
clocks in K. But now we compare this clock with different clocks in K
with those past, which the clock in K' goes at this new time. Then we
find that the clock in K' lags behind the clocks in K with which it is
being compared. We see that to compare the rates of clocks in two
reference frames we require several clocks in one frame and one in the
other, and that therefore this process is not symmetric with respect
to the two systems. The clock that appears to lag is always the one
which is being compared with different clocks in the other system. If
we have two clocks, one of which describes a closed path returning to
the starting point (the position of the clock which remained at rest),
then clearly the moving clock appears to lag relative to the one at
rest. The converse reasoning, in which the moving clock would be
considered to be at rest (and vice versa) is now impossible, since the
clock describing a closed trajectory does not carry out a uniform
rectilinear motion, so that a coordinate system linked to it will not
be inertial.
Since the laws of nature are the same only for inertial reference
frames, the frames linked to the clock at rest (inertial frame) and to
the moving clock (non-inertial) have different properties, and the
argument which leads to the result that the clock at rest must lag is
not valid."
Miguel Rios
Androcles
=================================================
Lol. I know you have a mental disorder, you are an imbecile and
a bigot. Stupidity reigns. Idiocies are just vomited out.
Nothing expands or contracts, you are not capable of learning
to understand this, but "Who cares?"-- Ste.
Goodbye.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and fuck off.
Inertial
Yeup .. a lot of anger there .. not sure what about. I think I'd read
somewhere that he had a child that died some years ago .. i don't know the
details. maybe that has something to do with it. But basically, its the
same reasons I posted earlier for why crackpots behave as they do. They are
flogging a dead horse (as the saying goes), the truth shows their position
to be wrong over and over .. their ego and pride won't let them admit they
are wrong, and so it jsut makes them angry
> Like I said before, lengths of accelerated objects do not expand with
> increasing velocity. They contract. You must learn to understand this.
He won't. He's had this pointed out, explained and proven to him over and
over, and he continues to lie about it.
Inertial
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
I told you you'd get plonked soo :):) Androcles is basically a coward and a
bully. When he knows he's lost an argument and that you won't be fooled by
his tricks and lies, he plonks you.
He also sets reply group to alt.morons, so that you'll appear in that group
and he then think that makes him smarter than you.
Henry Wilson DSc
An inceasing velocity in one frame can be a decreasing velocity in another.
So does a rod expand or shrink during an acceleration?...or was Einstein a
dickhead....like his followers?
>
>He won't. He's had this pointed out, explained and proven to him over and
>over, and he continues to lie about it.
>
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm