relative motion and aging
Curious
paradox, one twin is younger than the other when re-united?
Is it true that in any general case, if one twin moves faster than the
other, it predicts that they will be aged differently?
Is it also true that relativity applies in this way to any two bodies
moving wrt each other? No matter which body you pick as the 'at rest'
body?
If so, does relativity predict that both bodies will be younger than
each other, depending on which you view as moving wrt to the other?
qwerty
>paradox, one twin is younger than >the other when re-united?
only if one accelerate / decelerate
>Is it true that in any general case, if >one twin moves faster than
the
>other, it predicts that they will be >aged differently?
only if one brakes at a rate of it' s acceleration [1]
>Is it also true that relativity applies in >this way to any two bodies
>moving wrt each other? No matter >which body you pick as the 'at rest'
>body?
look [1]
>If so, does relativity predict that both >bodies will be younger than
>each other, depending on which you >view as moving wrt to the other?
look [1]
cadwgan...@yahoo.com
Curious wrote [in part]:
> Is it true that relativity predicts that, for example in
> the twin paradox, one twin is younger than the other when
> re-united?
Twins = Acceleration
Triplets = No Acceleration
Guess which one is better.
Guess which one you should be using.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Curious" <anthonyros...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1116515987.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Is it true that relativity predicts that, for example in the twin
> paradox, one twin is younger than the other when re-united?
Yes.
Because one twin remains in an inertial frame, while the
other must either
- jump on an outgoing rocket (frame),
then jump again on an incoming rocket,
and then jump of the rocket onto the Earth frame again,
or
- accelerate, decelerate, turn around, accelerate, decelerate, stop.
So the traveller does not remain in an inertial frame all
the time. He will end up younger when the twins are
reunited.
> Is it true that in any general case, if one twin moves faster than the
> other, it predicts that they will be aged differently?
You must specify faster with respect to what.
If you have triplets, the one who moves the fastest with
respect to the inertial frame, will, when reunited, be younger
than the one who moves less fast with respect to the inertial
frame of the stay at home.
When during the entire trip the velocity is known as a function
of the Earth time, the total travel time (proper time) can be
calculated with a simple integral.
> Is it also true that relativity applies in this way to any two bodies
> moving wrt each other? No matter which body you pick as the 'at rest'
> body?
See above.
> If so, does relativity predict that both bodies will be younger than
> each other, depending on which you view as moving wrt to the other?
The bodies will only be said (in a very sloppy way) to be "younger
than each other" when they are *not together*.
This is the same as when two people look at each other through a
small gap between their fingers. Each person says that the other
person is smaller than himself.
Age can only be meaningfully compared when they both are
either together, or not moving with respect to each other.
Dirk Vdm
Curious
>only if one brakes at a rate of it' s acceleration [1]
(Without appealing to an absolute frame of reference, such as the
universe, I mean.)
Curious
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Because one twin remains in an inertial frame, while the
> other must
> accelerate, decelerate, turn around, accelerate, decelerate, stop.
(Without appealing to an absolute frame, I mean)
>
> > Is it true that in any general case, if one twin moves faster than
the
> > other, it predicts that they will be aged differently?
>
> You must specify faster with respect to what.
> If you have triplets, the one who moves the fastest with
> respect to the inertial frame, will, when reunited, be younger
> than the one who moves less fast with respect to the inertial
> frame of the stay at home.
> When during the entire trip the velocity is known as a function
> of the Earth time, the total travel time (proper time) can be
> calculated with a simple integral.
>
choose to be the inertial frame? Or must there be a preferred frame for
it to work?
> > Is it also true that relativity applies in this way to any two
bodies
> > moving wrt each other? No matter which body you pick as the 'at
rest'
> > body?
>
> See above.
Ditto
>
> > If so, does relativity predict that both bodies will be younger
than
> > each other, depending on which you view as moving wrt to the other?
>
> The bodies will only be said (in a very sloppy way) to be "younger
> than each other" when they are *not together*.
> This is the same as when two people look at each other through a
> small gap between their fingers. Each person says that the other
> person is smaller than himself.
> Age can only be meaningfully compared when they both are
> either together, or not moving with respect to each other.
>
When can ages be compared? when they are "*not together*", as in
> The bodies will only be said (in a very sloppy way) to be "younger
> than each other" when they are *not together*.
or "together", as in:
> Age can only be meaningfully compared when they both are
> either together, or not moving with respect to each other.
Or are you saying that they are the same age when re-united?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Curious" <anthonyros...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1116519908.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > Because one twin remains in an inertial frame, while the
> > other must
> [snip]
> > accelerate, decelerate, turn around, accelerate, decelerate, stop.
> How do you know which one is accelerating?
> (Without appealing to an absolute frame, I mean)
We are together floating in space in our spaceships
and we feel nothing. We drift inside our ships and
little balls released inside the ship follow straight paths.
Suddenly you fire your thrusters. We both see (and
can measure with radar) that the other one accelerates
away, but *you* feel the effect of your thrusters and
I will feel nothing. I will keep on floating in my ship
but you will be pushed against the wall of yours.
Comparing our notes, we decide that you are really
accelerating and I am not.
> >
> > > Is it true that in any general case, if one twin moves faster than
> > > the other, it predicts that they will be aged differently?
> >
> > You must specify faster with respect to what.
> > If you have triplets, the one who moves the fastest with
> > respect to the inertial frame, will, when reunited, be younger
> > than the one who moves less fast with respect to the inertial
> > frame of the stay at home.
> > When during the entire trip the velocity is known as a function
> > of the Earth time, the total travel time (proper time) can be
> > calculated with a simple integral.
> >
> Is it true that relativity claims to work regardless of which frame you
> choose to be the inertial frame? Or must there be a preferred frame for
> it to work?
Perhaps the above helps you find the answer to this now.
If two frames are inertially moving with respect to each other,
it does not matter which frame you choose. You can choose
either one of them. There is no difference in the calculations.
But perhaps I don't really understand what you mean with
the phrase "which frame you choose to be the inertial frame".
In that case, can you be more specific?
>
> > > Is it also true that relativity applies in this way to any two bodies
> > > moving wrt each other? No matter which body you pick as the 'at
> > > rest' body?
> >
> > See above.
>
> Ditto
Ditto again :-)
> >
> > > If so, does relativity predict that both bodies will be younger
> > > than
> > > each other, depending on which you view as moving wrt to the other?
> >
> > The bodies will only be said (in a very sloppy way) to be "younger
> > than each other" when they are *not together*.
> > This is the same as when two people look at each other through a
> > small gap between their fingers. Each person says that the other
> > person is smaller than himself.
> > Age can only be meaningfully compared when they both are
> > either together, or not moving with respect to each other.
> >
> When can ages be compared? when they are "*not together*", as in
> > The bodies will only be said (in a very sloppy way) to be "younger
> > than each other" when they are *not together*.
> or "together", as in:
> > Age can only be meaningfully compared when they both are
> > either together, or not moving with respect to each other.
During the trip (while moving w.r.t. each other) they could
have been saying in the sloppy (but unfortunately standard)
way: "Hey, your time 'runs slower' than mine, so you must
be younger than I am now". This is sloppy and actually bad
talk, for the reason that it implicitly uses the notion of
simultaneity, which is extremely problematic when they move
w.r.t. each other. When they get together (or stay apart
but just stop moving w.r.t. each other), the notion of
simultaneity makes sense again, so only *then* can their ages
be really and meaningfully compared. The result will perfectly
match the calculated (integrated) ages.
> Or are you saying that they are the same age when re-united?
They can have the same age on the reunion event, but that
depends on how they have been moving as seen in the frame
in which they will be eventually be reunited. If one triplet goes
East and the other West, and both behaved exactly the same
(but in opposite directions,) then they both end up younger
than the stay at home triplet, but they will both have the same
age at the reunion.
Dirk Vdm
[ps. when you quote text, can you please add blank lines
to separate the blocks? Thanks ]
Daryl McCullough
says...
>
>Is it true that relativity predicts that, for example in the twin
>paradox, one twin is younger than the other when re-united?
>Is it true that in any general case, if one twin moves faster than the
>other, it predicts that they will be aged differently?
Yes. If you follow a path given by functions
x = f(t)
y = g(t)
z = h(t)
(where x,y,z,t are coordinates as measured in an inertial
reference frame), then the amount of aging that you will
undergo between times t=0 and t=T is given by:
Tau = Integral from t=0 to T of square-root(1 - v^2/c^2) dt
where v^2 = (df/dt)^2 + (dg/dt)^2 + (dh/dt)^2
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Curious
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > How do you know which one is accelerating?
> > (Without appealing to an absolute frame, I mean)
>
> We are together floating in space in our spaceships
> and we feel nothing. We drift inside our ships and
> little balls released inside the ship follow straight paths.
> Suddenly you fire your thrusters. We both see (and
> can measure with radar) that the other one accelerates
> away, but *you* feel the effect of your thrusters and
> I will feel nothing. I will keep on floating in my ship
> but you will be pushed against the wall of yours.
> Comparing our notes, we decide that you are really
> accelerating and I am not.
Very helpful and clear - thank you
> > Is it true that relativity claims to work regardless of which frame
you
> > choose to be the inertial frame? Or must there be a preferred frame
for
> > it to work?
>
> Perhaps the above helps you find the answer to this now.
> If two frames are inertially moving with respect to each other,
> it does not matter which frame you choose. You can choose
> either one of them. There is no difference in the calculations.
> But perhaps I don't really understand what you mean with
> the phrase "which frame you choose to be the inertial frame".
> In that case, can you be more specific?
I think I misunderstood inertial frame - if a frame is accelerating wrt
another frame, then it is not inertial, right?
> During the trip (while moving w.r.t. each other) they could
> have been saying in the sloppy (but unfortunately standard)
> way: "Hey, your time 'runs slower' than mine, so you must
> be younger than I am now". This is sloppy and actually bad
> talk, for the reason that it implicitly uses the notion of
> simultaneity, which is extremely problematic when they move
> w.r.t. each other. When they get together (or stay apart
> but just stop moving w.r.t. each other), the notion of
> simultaneity makes sense again, so only *then* can their ages
> be really and meaningfully compared. The result will perfectly
> match the calculated (integrated) ages.
Excellent - very clear - thanks again.
> [ps. when you quote text, can you please add blank lines
> to separate the blocks? Thanks ]
Sure. Hopefully the software is not removing nul lines.
qwerty
Curious wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > > How do you know which one is accelerating?
> > > (Without appealing to an absolute frame, I mean)
> >
> > We are together floating in space in our spaceships
> > and we feel nothing. We drift inside our ships and
> > little balls released inside the ship follow straight paths.
> > Suddenly you fire your thrusters. We both see (and
> > can measure with radar) that the other one accelerates
> > away, but *you* feel the effect of your thrusters and
> > I will feel nothing. I will keep on floating in my ship
> > but you will be pushed against the wall of yours.
> > Comparing our notes, we decide that you are really
> > accelerating and I am not.
>
> Very helpful and clear - thank you
>
amazing, dirk can do an answer without calling people trolls, this is
quite a changing
Dr ***
This paradox is I hope resolved on my web site to some degree and is
explained as a faulty conceptual and misapplication of relativity.
--
Dr *** duration/distance/energy
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The turnips and leeks are coming up nicely. Ooh ah.{:-)
qwerty
who needs to know?
each guy in it's own rf can simply detect if they are accelerating or
not
you make things more complex then they are
>(Without appealing to an absolute frame of reference, such as the
>universe, I mean.)
right, the univers is responsable for the detecting
Dirk Van de moortel
"Curious" <anthonyros...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1116524755.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Almost. If a frame is accelerating wrt another *inertial*
frame, then it is certainly not inertial.
Otherwise we could accidentally find ourselves in the
case where you have your thrusters working, and you
see my frame to be accelerating, but I still am inertial.
> > During the trip (while moving w.r.t. each other) they could
> > have been saying in the sloppy (but unfortunately standard)
> > way: "Hey, your time 'runs slower' than mine, so you must
> > be younger than I am now". This is sloppy and actually bad
> > talk, for the reason that it implicitly uses the notion of
> > simultaneity, which is extremely problematic when they move
> > w.r.t. each other. When they get together (or stay apart
> > but just stop moving w.r.t. each other), the notion of
> > simultaneity makes sense again, so only *then* can their ages
> > be really and meaningfully compared. The result will perfectly
> > match the calculated (integrated) ages.
>
> Excellent - very clear - thanks again.
>
> > [ps. when you quote text, can you please add blank lines
> > to separate the blocks? Thanks ]
>
> Sure. Hopefully the software is not removing nul lines.
Almost perfect now.
Little detail, but that is a matter of taste... I set my
"automatic wrap" at 132 characters, which effectively
forces me to manually wrap lines. Most people set
autowrap at 72 characters, which unfortunately will
break quoted parts of other posters. That implies
that I must sometimes reformat large parts of the
quoted text. But never mind... that's self inflicted
trouble for myself :-)
Dirk Vdm
Jon Bell
You ask each of them whether he feels himself accelerating. It's the same
sensation that you feel when you step on the gas pedal in your Ferrari.
;-)
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
xx...@bellsouth.net
xnipped only for brevity.
>
> During the trip (while moving w.r.t. each other) they could
> have been saying in the sloppy (but unfortunately standard)
> way: "Hey, your time 'runs slower' than mine, so you must
> be younger than I am now". This is sloppy and actually bad
> talk, for the reason that it implicitly uses the notion of
> simultaneity, which is extremely problematic when they move
> w.r.t. each other. When they get together (or stay apart
> but just stop moving w.r.t. each other), the notion of
> simultaneity makes sense again, so only *then* can their ages
> be really and meaningfully compared. The result will perfectly
> match the calculated (integrated) ages.
>
> > Or are you saying that they are the same age when re-united?
>
> They can have the same age on the reunion event, but that
> depends on how they have been moving as seen in the frame
> in which they will be eventually be reunited. If one triplet goes
> East and the other West, and both behaved exactly the same
> (but in opposite directions,) then they both end up younger
> than the stay at home triplet, but they will both have the same
> age at the reunion.
> Dirk Vdm
>
> [ps. when you quote text, can you please add blank lines
> to separate the blocks? Thanks ]
xxein: "Problematic" is an understatement because simultaneity is
determined by the theory that describes how to determine it. If the
theory is wrong, then the notion of that simultaneity is wrong.
This is simple to realize with a twist of triplets.
Let's say that you observe the triplets moving inertially, from afar.
You determine that they are all traveling on the same line. A is
moving at .5c and catching up with B (.3c). But C is going in the
opposite direction at .3c. Hell, instead of you being off-line, let
you be on the line and observing these inertial velocities from some
place between (A, B) and C. Iow A(.5c)>,B(.3c)>, |you(0c)| <C(-.3c).
Clearly, from this, you will determine that the aging (intrinsic
timerates) of B and C are identical and that A's timerate is slower
than either B or C.
Now remember that it was |you| that determined this. This is your
physical theory.
I think that I will be B. What do I measure and formulate as the
timerates of others? I certainly will use your rules and determine
that C is coming toward me at a high rate of speed so that we cannot
have the same timerate! Who, then, will age more (or less)?
While I agree that a "coming together again" gives a correct result for
the inertial observer's clock and aging, it is all skewed and slewed to
that particular clock. If there was no "coming together again" there
would be no definitive amount of aging. There would be no way (except
for a theory) to determine who would age faster. Iow, if I remove the
requirement of your returning (for a clock comparison), I also remove
the need for you to accelerate to an opposite direction with a
different speed. The Relativity and covariance of the math of the
theory is lost. It was just a forced peculiarity of the observer's
clock vs. the "out and back" clock to make that comparison in a
relative fashion that supports the observer's measurement. There was
and is no physics there. It was all a circumstantial set of
mathematical prediction for what a clock will observe (of others) with
a timerate.
H. Lorentz understood this. I understand the sublties between
Einsteinian and the Lorentzian probably better than any poster that has
ever posted here since I started posting. You do use the
transformation, don't you? Why? Was it formulated wrongly?
Lorentz gives the correct result to the triplets (as I describe above).
Einstein can't. He decided to shorten the math considerations and
declare the ether superfluous for one clock in special conditions.
Other clocks observe events also (above). Any covariance is limited to
one clock only.
Go ahead and "read" the time on a moving clock. You will have no way
of knowing if it is a coordinate time because you base everything on
the assumption that light travels at c to reach you. c for your frame
or c for the other frame? It is neither. IT IS TWLS NOT
OWLS!!!!!!!!!!!
I independently developed the logic of Lorentz before I even heard of
him. Can you say that you could develop the Einsteinian on your own?
If yes, then Einstein was not special, was he? If not, then Einstein
is not physically logical. You are simply a believer lost in the
quagmire of believer-land.
Physics is not a follower of mathematics. It is the creator of
mathematics. Mathematics did not simply appear out of an emptiness,
you know. Math is an idea of counting --- by whom? Physics doesn't
count --- it compares. Like walking at 2:00 am down a nasty street.
You either understand it or you don't. Counting is as superfluous as
the ether - unless you include the ether into your counting.
You should have much more to consider than a belief that has somehow
become bestowed upon you. Do you even HAVE an original thought?
Dirk Van de moortel
<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1116557512.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Two events are DEFINED to be simultaneous in a frame, if
the time coordinates of the events are the same in that frame.
Time coordinates of events can be measured with a clock
and a radar, with the assumption that radar signal speed is
the same as radar echo speed.
Simultaneity is NOT DEFINED between frames in relative
movement.
This has nothing to do with any theory at all. This is a
definition. Definitions cannot be wrong and are not open
for debate.
If you have experimental reasons to believe that the light
speed assumption is wrong, you will become very famous.
>
> This is simple to realize with a twist of triplets.
You dont' have to hide your silly misunderstanding of physics
under a blanket. What you have to say is perfectly clear with
two clocks in relative motion.
>
> Let's say that you observe the triplets moving inertially, from afar.
> You determine that they are all traveling on the same line. A is
> moving at .5c and catching up with B (.3c). But C is going in the
> opposite direction at .3c. Hell, instead of you being off-line, let
> you be on the line and observing these inertial velocities from some
> place between (A, B) and C. Iow A(.5c)>,B(.3c)>, |you(0c)| <C(-.3c).
> Clearly, from this, you will determine that the aging (intrinsic
> timerates) of B and C are identical and that A's timerate is slower
> than either B or C.
>
> Now remember that it was |you| that determined this. This is your
> physical theory.
>
> I think that I will be B. What do I measure and formulate as the
> timerates of others? I certainly will use your rules and determine
> that C is coming toward me at a high rate of speed so that we cannot
> have the same timerate! Who, then, will age more (or less)?
Why don't you make the drawing and the calculations?
Publish them. If they are nicely done, I will check the results.
>
> While I agree that a "coming together again" gives a correct result for
> the inertial observer's clock and aging, it is all skewed and slewed to
> that particular clock. If there was no "coming together again" there
> would be no definitive amount of aging.
They don't have to come together. They can just stop moving
w.r.t. each other. When they do that, they have a the notion
of simultaneity and treir ages can be meaningfully compared.
> There would be no way (except
> for a theory) to determine who would age faster. Iow, if I remove the
> requirement of your returning (for a clock comparison), I also remove
> the need for you to accelerate to an opposite direction with a
> different speed.
This is nonsense.
> The Relativity and covariance of the math of the theory is lost.
More nonsense.
> It was just a forced peculiarity of the observer's
> clock vs. the "out and back" clock to make that comparison in a
> relative fashion that supports the observer's measurement.
And more nonsense.
> There was
> and is no physics there. It was all a circumstantial set of
> mathematical prediction for what a clock will observe (of others) with
> a timerate.
And the nonsense doesn't stop :-)
Do you think that your nonsense makes the fact go away
that the theory exactly matches what happens in the real
world? Try to design a particle accelerator or a CRT
according to another theory and you are in business.
>
> H. Lorentz understood this. I understand the sublties between
> Einsteinian and the Lorentzian probably better than any poster that has
> ever posted here since I started posting.
Boy, I already knew that your were an arrogant and ignorant
prat, but thanks for showing it so clearly :-)
> You do use the
> transformation, don't you? Why? Was it formulated wrongly?
Yes yes, and I also know that when you get excited, you start
talking incoherently, spouting nonsense.
>
> Lorentz gives the correct result to the triplets (as I describe above).
> Einstein can't. He decided to shorten the math considerations and
> declare the ether superfluous for one clock in special conditions.
Here's what your friend Lorentz had to say about that:
| "As to the ether (to return to it once more), though
| the conception of it has certain advantages, it must
| be admitted that if Einstein had maintained it he
| certainly would not have given us his theory, and so
| we are very grateful to him for not having gone along
| the old-fashioned roads."
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, "Problems of Modern Physics; a
course of lectures delivered in the California Institute
of Technology," Edited by H. Bateman, _Ginn_, 1927.
> Other clocks observe events also (above). Any covariance is limited to
> one clock only.
>
> Go ahead and "read" the time on a moving clock. You will have no way
> of knowing if it is a coordinate time because you base everything on
> the assumption that light travels at c to reach you.
The way of knowing that it is coordinate time, is by
*defining* it to be coordinate time.
I send at signal to the remote clock at my time t1.
The remote clock sends an echo that I receive at my time t2.
Together with the echo the remote clock can send its own
current time reading.
We *define* my coordinate time of the echo event as
t = 1/2 ( t2 + t1 )
We *define* the proper time of the clock as the value that
I receive together with the echo.
We *define* the coordinate distance of the echo event as
s = 1/2 c ( t2 - t1 ).
There is nothing that a religious fanatic ether addict like
you can do about these *definitions* and about the fact
that they *work*.
As soon as you come up with one single experiment that
shows you right, and with definitions that are consistent
with your experiment *and* with every other experiment
that has been carried out, someone might start listening to
you.
Again: if you have experimental reasons to believe that the
light speed assumption is wrong, you will become very
famous. They have a Nobel warmed up and ready for this.
> c for your frame
> or c for the other frame? It is neither. IT IS TWLS NOT
> OWLS!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I independently developed the logic of Lorentz before I even heard of
> him.
Sure ;-)
> Can you say that you could develop the Einsteinian on your own?
> If yes, then Einstein was not special, was he? If not, then Einstein
> is not physically logical. You are simply a believer lost in the
> quagmire of believer-land.
Oh boy :-)
>
> Physics is not a follower of mathematics. It is the creator of
> mathematics. Mathematics did not simply appear out of an emptiness,
> you know.
Lyrical thoughts :-)
> Math is an idea of counting --- by whom? Physics doesn't
> count --- it compares. Like walking at 2:00 am down a nasty street.
> You either understand it or you don't. Counting is as superfluous as
> the ether - unless you include the ether into your counting.
Armchair philosophy, right.
I vastly prefer Mike Hellynds's style over yours, you know.
>
> You should have much more to consider than a belief that has somehow
> become bestowed upon you. Do you even HAVE an original thought?
Sometimes, but I am constantly working to understand
other's original thoughts.
You seem to have stopped doing that somewhere at the
end of the 19th century. You know, you would already
have been a fossil in the early 20th century.
Do you realize how immensly pathetic you are?
Dirk Vdm
Harry
If you mean no definitive or absolute way of saying who is older, that's
correct and well known.
> There would be no way (except
> for a theory) to determine who would age faster. Iow, if I remove the
> requirement of your returning (for a clock comparison), I also remove
> the need for you to accelerate to an opposite direction with a
> different speed. The Relativity and covariance of the math of the
> theory is lost. It was just a forced peculiarity of the observer's
> clock vs. the "out and back" clock to make that comparison in a
> relative fashion that supports the observer's measurement. There was
> and is no physics there. It was all a circumstantial set of
> mathematical prediction for what a clock will observe (of others) with
> a timerate.
>
> H. Lorentz understood this. I understand the sublties between
> Einsteinian and the Lorentzian probably better than any poster that has
> ever posted here since I started posting. You do use the
> transformation, don't you? Why? Was it formulated wrongly?
>
> Lorentz gives the correct result to the triplets (as I describe above).
> Einstein can't.
Huh? I'm lost at what Einstein "can't". Could you be more precise?
Harald
Curious
Dr *** wrote:
> This paradox is I hope resolved on my web site to some degree and is
> explained as a faulty conceptual and misapplication of relativity.
I couldn't find it...
Dr ***
geraldk...@hotmail.com
How I miss Spaceman to keep you freaks honest, in any case there is are
some excellent views out there giving relativity the appropriate
comic treatment it deserves.
The Ghost In The Machine
<geraldk...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on 22 May 2005 03:29:33 -0700
<1116757773.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
I will suffice in that endeavor. While SR is in fact real enough,
the usual portrayals thereof have some real big problems.
[1] The "mosquito with a ladder" has some specification problems, but
really, if something is moving at 10^-8 c (3 m/s) the effects
are about the width of one proton per meter and the tick of
one second every 630 million years. Not all that noticeable.
[2] The twin paradox, as usually specified, would require ridiculous
amounts of fuel and will probably squash the poor rocketgoing
member of the pair into a bloody pulp, as usually portrayed.
In order to get close to lightspeed one would have to accelerate
at the rather brutal 100 N/kg (100 m/s/s), or 10 "g's", for
more than a month, or the more civilized 10 N/kg or 1 "g" for
somewhat less than a year. (1 year = 31556952 seconds, averaged
over 4 centuries in accordance with the Gregorian calendar.)
And even then, one won't achieve lightspeed. (See [5].)
[3] If a rod is accelerated instantaneously it will squish as well,
because of compression (Young's Modulus). Naive calculations
based on this effect won't work.
[4] Coordinates of spacetime don't expand or compress; they *twist*.
It's a hyperbolic rotation, in fact.
The standard Lorentz is along the lines of
x_A = (x_O - v*t_O)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_A = (t_O - v*x_O/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
as compared to the Newtonian
x_A = x_O - v * t_O
t_A = t_O
or the modified Newtonian, which tries to take lightspeed
into account:
x_A = x_O - v * t_O
t_A = t_O - v * x_O / c^2
One can rewrite the Lorentz in the following fashion.
x_A/c = (x_O/c - (v/c) * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_A = (t_O - (v/c) * (x_O/c)) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Or if one defines c = 1 by judicious unit-choosing, one gets:
x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2)
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O) / sqrt(1-v^2)
The usual rotation formula is admittedly
x' = x * cos theta - y * sin theta
y' = x * sin theta + y * cos theta
so something's amiss here. However, if one replaces y by ict
and y' by ict', one gets
x' = x * cos theta - ict * sin theta
ict' = x * sin theta + ict * cos theta
t' = t * cos theta - ix/c * sin theta
Tantalizingly close, especially since
e^(i*theta) = cos theta + i * sin theta.
To go further one must develop cosh and sinh formulae, which
I won't bother to do here in the interests of time.
[5] Vector addition formula used in the computation of velocities
are fine but aren't compatible with the Lorentz. There
are also issues with third-party approach velocity (which is
[mis]calculated) versus true approach velocity (which can be
correctly calculated, if one has a marker in one's own
coordinate-space whose position is known).
Briefly put, if O, A, and B are three observers constrained
to a line, with A moving from O at velocity v and B moving
from O at velocity w, in opposite directions, A observes
B moving at (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2). This involves a frame shift,
and is compatible with the Lorentz. I've already ground
it out in another post, some time back; it's straightforward
if a bit messy.
[6] It is far from clear that the Lorentz compression or
twist is anything but a measurement or observational
artifact. Rods don't really twist in space-time, or
even directly measurable; at best, one can observe
photons bouncing off their surfaces. Since these
photons travel at lightspeed various anomalies ensue.
[7] The effects of the Lorentz have to be modified at lightspeed.
The problem of the radar gun bouncing off a car is
illustrative; the beam must be observed by the observer
at his *local origin*; it must move there. Fortunately,
it always moves at c in the theory (and has yet to be
measured in vacuo as moving at any other speed).
This leads to the rather pretty formula
f_A = f_O * sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c)
for approaching glowing items ("blue shift"), and
f_A = f_O * sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c)
for receding ones ("red shift"), where f_A is the
frequency observed by A, and f_O by O.
For the aforementioned "gun" the formula is applied twice.
[8] The notation "x" and "x'" is at best imprecise; this is why
I use x_A and x_O. Einstein's paper used x and chi, and
beta where today we use gamma. (Don't ask me who mutated it. :-) )
[9] Sagnac's effect is not SR. SR does not involve rotations
or accelerations, although a careful integration of the
Lorentz might be fruitful.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Acceleration.html
has some notational aspects I don't personally like
(he uses t and T where I'd use t_O and t_A) but is
otherwise readable enough.
[10] Clocks don't pay much attention to their movement,
if they're in an inertial reference frame. There's no
such thing as absolute time, though one can attempt
it in various ways, all of them fatally flawed.
[11] Absolute motion has problems similar to absolute time.
Briefly put, if one attempts a measurement of the
absolute velocity by some gizmo, the theory relevant
to that gizmo must show a difference if one assumes
that the absolute origin is moving in a different
fashion. SR does not postulate an absolute origin.
(FWIW, BaT/emissive theory doesn't, either.)
[12] SR and the luminiferous aether are orthogonal in some
respects. At best, the luminiferous aether is an
odd phantasm, and at the end of the day one can either
hypothesize that the planets, moons, satellites, asteroids,
smart rocks, brilliant pebbles, and superintelligent space
dust are pushed around by every deity, djinn, hamadryad,
zephyr, ghoul, and noble concept in accordance with
mathematical formulae, or just invoke the formulae and
be done with it.
[13] I can theorize as can you until I am blue in the face, but at
the end of the day the non-SRians are correct in one thing:
the data must be observed. The ancient Greeks never quite
understood that.
I conceptually like H. Wilson's experiment, though it
won't show anything if SR/GR is correct, and consider the
withdrawal of a paper based on a three-way time measurement
from the Cassini and Huygen spacecraft unfortunate.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
geraldk...@hotmail.com
Go back to that bit with Newtonian 'absolute time', now ghost,Newton
made a simple mistake or rather Flamsteed made the mistake and Newton
never picked up on it,he even built his entire ballistic agenda applied
to planetary motion on the wrong relationship between axial and orbital
motion.
Dirk,shine up the award for the golden fumble of the last
millenium,are you ready Dirk,it is astonishing for its simplicity.
The pre-Copernican 24 hour day translates into independent and constant
axial rotation at 24 hours /360 degrees in a Copernican/Keplerian
heliocentric system using the Equation of Time correction.
Poor Newton failed/did'nt know/never figured out the 24 hour/constant
axial rotation translation and went along with Flamsteed's erroneous
proof for constant axial rotation value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.
So,relativists and Newtonians are similiar by the degree of
stupidity,to be fair to Newton he was an out and out peevish banana
head and could'nt help himself but Albert is just plain funny.
Dirk Van de moortel
<geraldk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1116791059.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't know about Ghost, but putting me in the company of
Flamsteed, Newton and Einstein... I would really be honoured,
if only you wouldn't be such a sub-imbecile :-(
Dirk Vdm
The Ghost In The Machine
<1116791059.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Sidereal vs. Synodic. Easy to measure; take an arbitrary
star (preferably near the celestial equator) and note
its position at a certain time of ... well, night, since
most stars don't show up during the day, the very rare
supernova notwithstanding. (Make sure it's a star; planets
have their own agenda. :-) )
Now, when does it get to the exact same (or nearly exact same)
position the next night?
As for "absolute time", Lorent'z equations make it very clear: there
can't be such. The difference isn't much -- about 4.46 * 10^-10 --
for GPS (the delta is a combination of SR and GR), but it's there and
has to be dealt with.
As for Flamsteed's error -- perhaps you can clarify as to why (or,
for that matter, *what*)? It would be rather inconvenient for
sunrise to occur at 11 in the evening clocktime... :-)
Twittering One
;ook [2]
geraldk...@hotmail.com
You are just being silly over a simple matter of a principle that
links axial rotation as an independent motion to a standard pace,mind
you,Newton never picked up on the error and built his ballistics agenda
applied to planetary motion on that same error which severs the correct
relationship between axial and orbital motions.
It is easy to understand and correct so suit yourself if you wish to
remain with the Newtonian cartoon network,chances are that you are so
intellectually diseased that you possibly refuse to believe that such
a simple error occured.It did just as Hooke pulled Newton up over a
falling object on Earth but this particular one with clocks is
incredibly important.
Newton missed out on the principle that the average 24 hour day (which
he calls 'absolute time') translates into independent and constant
axial rotation within a Copernican/Keplerian heliocentric framework.The
guys in the early 20th century were working off the sidereal framework
and had'nt a clue what he was talking about in respect to
absolute/relative time but what really happened was that the tracks
Newton thought he had covered in 1687 by switching from the Equation
of Time format to the calendrical average sidereal format came back to
haunt theorists.
You now have the benefit of witnessing the exact location of the
Newtonian error and I am sure that it has slowly dawned on the now
absent participants just how obvious that error is.
Go to the 'Black Hole' thread and do the simple exercise of trying to
fit Kepler's second law into the Newtonian/Flamsteed astronomical
monstrosity.If Dirk was anyway sensible he would be famous for exposing
these huge fumbles and insofar as life is so short before the majesty
of visible creation I would not wish to spend my time supporting dead
physicists who lived for their own celebrity.In this respect it is not
about Newton/Albert being wrong,it is a matter of how to present the
magnificence of creation to the rest of humanity rather than who
presents it.
Funny enough,Dirk has a better chance than you just as Speicher was
previously in my estimation.
The Ghost In The Machine
<1116840465....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
I have no idea what you're getting on about here, but I'll respond
anyway. :-) Envision a caveman. (Admittedly, we're still discovering
some interesting things that they did in primitive times -- for
starters, that women hunted.) What's more important to him,
where the stars are, or where the sun is?
I suspect at least part of Newton's bias is because of a very primitive
instinct and/or highly traditional timekeeping issue here: the Sun is
the dominant thing in the sky. The stars came later, when the
caveman decided to forego hunting and start agricultural pursuits,
on the road to civilization, time zones, popping ears, and jet lag.
You're right in that Earth revolves one too few times a year (the
revolution around the Sun accounts for the missing one). However,
"absolute time" is ridiculous anyway, even were one to hypothesize
that Newton got it exactly right when viewing the stars and everyone
accepted sidereal time as the One True Standard.
As far as my cursory research indicates, Newton and Flamsteed weren't
exactly on the best of terms; presumably this doesn't help.
Cursory research also indicates that clocks were accurate to
within 1 second per day as early as 1721, which is just before
Newton's death in 1727.
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/time.html
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/revol.html
It's not clear to me at this time when the second was defined exactly
(the Babylonians were keen on 60, though) but it's clear the
accuracy was there.
I'll have to get back to you regarding the "Black Hole" thread; I
don't have time now. :-)
geraldk...@hotmail.com
I give you the only education you will ever need and I Do realise that
you do not have the faintest idea what I am relating even though it is
extremely clear where Newton made the mistake via Flamsteed.
> You're right in that Earth revolves one too few times a year (the
> revolution around the Sun accounts for the missing one).
I suppose you imagined I said that but that is just part and parcel of
your indoctrination but for genuine people,the equable 24 hour day is
required to determine the annual orbit of 365.25 days calculated by 24
hour equable days.The Equation of Time is an annual loop system that
extracts the equable 24 hour day from the asymmetric natural day and
subsequently determines independent and constant axial rotation at 15
deg per hour and 24 hours/360 deg exactly.There are no leap adjustments
in the Equation of Time format.
You are just using Flamsteed's reasoning for the sidereal value by
combining axial and orbital motion into a calendrical average,great if
you wish to be a celestial peeping Tom or for reducing celestial
coordinates to terrestial longitude coordinates (Flamsteed's reason).It
does not prove the Earth rotates constantly at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
and that is the error which Newton or you cannot grasp.
Destroying the relationship between axial and orbital motion is a huge
error,the worst I have ever seen and frankly you are priviledged to
see where the error occured unlike thousands of other who remain
ignorant of it.
However,
> "absolute time" is ridiculous anyway, even were one to hypothesize
> that Newton got it exactly right when viewing the stars and everyone
> accepted sidereal time as the One True Standard.
>
I suppose I could repeat this and you would still never get the
exquisite principle which translates the pre-Copernican equable 24
hour day into the Copernican/Keplerian Independent and Constant axial
rotation .The Equation of Time principles keep the 24 hour/360 deg
equivalency for axial rotation intact regardless if the Earth axial
rotation is slowing down,speeding up or remaining constant but you
would'nt know that because the 18th century cataloguing crowd trumped
up the analemma to fudge the exquisite Equation of Time principles into
their weird sidereal world/celestial sphere where it remains ever
since.
> As far as my cursory research indicates, Newton and Flamsteed weren't
> exactly on the best of terms; presumably this doesn't help.
> Cursory research also indicates that clocks were accurate to
> within 1 second per day as early as 1721, which is just before
> Newton's death in 1727.
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/time.html
> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/revol.html
>
> It's not clear to me at this time when the second was defined exactly
> (the Babylonians were keen on 60, though) but it's clear the
> accuracy was there.
>
> I'll have to get back to you regarding the "Black Hole" thread; I
> don't have time now. :-)
>
> --
> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
> It's still legal to go .sigless.
Suit yourselves,I am doing the job of these big institutions such as
NIST,NASA,NMM ect while the guys in these institutions are not doing
their jobs,if they were I would'nt have to wade through 300 years of
empirical garbage to explain to YOU where exactly Newtion went wrong
and why destroying the actual relationship of axial and orbital motion
has crippled the progress of astronomy and geology.
Come here tommorrow and speak the same aetherist/relativist nonsense
but you would hardly know that the real substance is back at Newton and
the astonishingly simple error but with major consequences in
principle.
I have made an exception and came back to relativity for a visit,it is
good to see that you and your colleagues are no better or worse than 3
years ago and in some perverted way you constitute a parish or comfort
zone for each other.Ultimately you are all Newtonian puppets,even
Albert but it takes a real genius to know why.
The Ghost In The Machine
<1116872247.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
OK, time to engage my pedantic side.
[1] What is the air velocity of an unladen swallow?
[2] How many times is procedure A called by procedure B in
a certain computer program that one is trying to optimize?
[3] How does one cook rigatoni?
[4] A driver is to your left as you and he are both
approaching a 4-way stop signed intersection.
Assuming there are no pedestrians about and you both
wish to go straight, what should happen next?
[5] A field mouse is captured and trapped by a slightly sadistic
experimenter in a hermetically sealed room of size 1 m^3
which is initially full of air (at 1 atm pressure). How
long does the mouse have left to live if nobody rescues
the poor little guy?
(If one prefers, substitute a candle for the mouse.)
[6] Popping noises occur somewhere in your immediate vicinity while
you're walking along an otherwise quiet street. What should you do?
[7] A nursery is selling roses in full bloom. One wishes to plant
them. What else will one need, and when?
[8] Amalgamated Widgets has charged you, a top-notch
product designer, to design a futuristic flashlight
that doesn't need batteries, but instead relies on
wind-up power to power white LED's. Assuming that the
flashlight is about the size of a small coffee cup,
how long can one expect the windup "charge" to last,
and how bright should it be?
[9] Your computer, running Microsoft Windows, is getting a bit on
the sluggish side and exhibiting some odd behavior at times.
What should you do?
[10] A flood is forecast nearby. Should you:
[a] ignore it entirely?
[b] grab every available sandbag you can and pile them
up higher than your house?
[c] move to your grandmother's house up in the mountains
for the duration of the emergency?
[d] rent a canoe?
[e] call the police?
[f] wire up an Etch-a-Sketch, a Speak-and-Spell, and a lot
of other miscellany together to call an interplanetary
spacecraft to come pick you up?
>
>
>
>> You're right in that Earth revolves one too few times a year (the
>> revolution around the Sun accounts for the missing one).
>
> I suppose you imagined I said that but that is just part and parcel of
> your indoctrination but for genuine people,the equable 24 hour day is
> required to determine the annual orbit of 365.25 days calculated by 24
> hour equable days.The Equation of Time is an annual loop system that
> extracts the equable 24 hour day from the asymmetric natural day and
> subsequently determines independent and constant axial rotation at 15
> deg per hour and 24 hours/360 deg exactly.There are no leap adjustments
> in the Equation of Time format.
>
> You are just using Flamsteed's reasoning for the sidereal value by
> combining axial and orbital motion into a calendrical average,great if
> you wish to be a celestial peeping Tom or for reducing celestial
> coordinates to terrestial longitude coordinates (Flamsteed's reason).It
> does not prove the Earth rotates constantly at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec
> and that is the error which Newton or you cannot grasp.
>
> Destroying the relationship between axial and orbital motion is a huge
> error,the worst I have ever seen and frankly you are priviledged to
> see where the error occured unlike thousands of other who remain
> ignorant of it.
There is no simple relationship anyway (at least, that I know of).
Unless one wants to get into fiddlybit details such as the
Milankovitch cycle (which is a hugely complicated motion from
the moon, Jupiter, Mars, and a few other things, distorting
the Earth's orbit and doing nasty things to our climate, over
the space of hundreds of thousands if not millions of years).
For starters, we need leap years; this is an elementary proof
that #days / #years is not integral.
Of course one reason we do have 86400 seconds a day is because
some nitwit made the wrong decision. Ideally, a second would
be slightly shorter -- or if one wants to go away from
ancient Babylonia, one could use a variant of Swatch time,
except based on sidereal considerations instead of the
current synodic ones. (It didn't last all that long as a
fad but for awhile we could watch Swatch go through 1,000
intervals a day.)
>
>
>
>
> However,
>> "absolute time" is ridiculous anyway, even were one to hypothesize
>> that Newton got it exactly right when viewing the stars and everyone
>> accepted sidereal time as the One True Standard.
>>
>
> I suppose I could repeat this and you would still never get the
> exquisite principle which translates the pre-Copernican equable 24
> hour day into the Copernican/Keplerian Independent and Constant axial
> rotation .The Equation of Time principles keep the 24 hour/360 deg
> equivalency for axial rotation intact regardless if the Earth axial
> rotation is slowing down,speeding up or remaining constant but you
> would'nt know that because the 18th century cataloguing crowd trumped
> up the analemma to fudge the exquisite Equation of Time principles into
> their weird sidereal world/celestial sphere where it remains ever
> since.
It's more fundamental than that. SR in particular gives us the
Lorentz transformation; moving clocks will not show compatible time.
GR is just as bad.
>
>
>> As far as my cursory research indicates, Newton and Flamsteed weren't
>> exactly on the best of terms; presumably this doesn't help.
>> Cursory research also indicates that clocks were accurate to
>> within 1 second per day as early as 1721, which is just before
>> Newton's death in 1727.
>>
>> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/time.html
>> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Time/revol.html
>>
>> It's not clear to me at this time when the second was defined exactly
>> (the Babylonians were keen on 60, though) but it's clear the
>> accuracy was there.
>>
>> I'll have to get back to you regarding the "Black Hole" thread; I
>> don't have time now. :-)
>>
>> --
>> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>> It's still legal to go .sigless.
>
> Suit yourselves,I am doing the job of these big institutions such as
> NIST,NASA,NMM ect while the guys in these institutions are not doing
> their jobs,if they were I would'nt have to wade through 300 years of
> empirical garbage to explain to YOU where exactly Newtion went wrong
> and why destroying the actual relationship of axial and orbital motion
> has crippled the progress of astronomy and geology.
Astronomy, maybe. But geology? What do rocks (and the analysis
thereof) have to do with anything here?
>
> Come here tommorrow and speak the same aetherist/relativist nonsense
> but you would hardly know that the real substance is back at Newton and
> the astonishingly simple error but with major consequences in
> principle.
>
> I have made an exception and came back to relativity for a visit,it is
> good to see that you and your colleagues are no better or worse than 3
> years ago and in some perverted way you constitute a parish or comfort
> zone for each other.Ultimately you are all Newtonian puppets,even
> Albert but it takes a real genius to know why.
>
Yes, of course we are. That is why we all still believe in a
rigid luminiferous aether and that the sky demons are responsible
for pushing the lights around. :-P Oh, and the shutter lanterns
actually showed that the speed of light is infinite.
geraldk...@hotmail.com
I am enjoying my short visit back to the relativity forum and I am in
no way put about by the relativistic myths fabricated on Newtonian
definitions of time,space and motion and your adherence to these
things,again,Dirk stands a better chance of comprehending the
Newton/Flamsteed error which combines axial and orbital motion into a
sidereal calendrical average that works off the Earth's axis.Don't
worry about it,it is out of your league .
As for the relationship between the astronomical motions of the Earth
and the evolution of terrestial surface features through plate movement
on one side and the changing relationship between axial and orbital
motion during ice ages on the other,well that is an intricate story
that you are not suited to discuss,astronomically,geologically and
bottom line.
I can however leave a hint for those who enjoy the outlines of an
emerging concept.,you otoh can go back to Albert and aether or whatever
you feel inclined to.
The Earth Equatorial bulge is a result of diffential rotation in the
semi-fluid mantle at Equatorial and polar regions,an analogy can be
drawn from similar rotations where something other than a solid crust
is involved,the differential rotation on the Sun's surface for
instance.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/sun-rotation.gif
Considering that the Equatorial bulge is a terrestial surface feature
included in the planetary umbrella of component tectonic plates,it is
important that a stationary Earth/Convection cells be dropped* as a
concept in order to facilitate the emergence of differential rotation
acting on the component tectonics planets in generating terrestial
surface features,Earthquakes ect.
* http://geology.csupomona.edu/drjessey/class/Gsc101/models.gif
Now Ghost,I have not even mentioned the change in the relationship
between axial and orbital motion during an ice age and the reason why
the Earth's orbit changes shape yet retains Kepler's second law .You
Newtonian freaks have designated the Earth's axial and orbital motions
as a combined sidereal alendrical average and you cannot work with the
indepedent axial and orbital motions as I can.
The change in shape of the Earth's orbit has nothing to do with local
conditions,it is a galactic orbital change in the solar system's
trajectory affecting the Earth's independent heliocentric orbital
trajectory.An analogy is a boat circling a buoy in a lake where there
is no current,its orbit will be circular,a boat circling a buoy with a
variation in current acting on it generates a greater elliptical shape
as the boat (Earth) moves with and against the current (solar system's
orbital trajectory) nothwithstanding that the buoy (Sun) is moving with
the current also.It is not as simple as the analogy but it certainly
ain't Newtonian ballistics applied to planetary motion.It is a way out
to a new type of vision of planetary motion by incorporating a greater
axis,the Milky Way axis rather than going the other way to relativistic
homocentricity which does away with all the cosmological axis.
Carry on in the musty early 20th century atmosphere of Albert and Co,I
am enjoying formulating the conceptual changes arising from independent
planetary motions working off a greater axis and I would'nt waste
another second with the absurd relativistic cartoon nonsense,after
all,it now only serves an isolated cult of individuals.
Richard Hachel
Curious a écrit :
>
> Is it true that relativity predicts that, for example in the twin
> paradox, one twin is younger than the other when re-united?
> Is it true that in any general case, if one twin moves faster than the
> other, it predicts that they will be aged differently?
> Is it also true that relativity applies in this way to any two bodies
> moving wrt each other? No matter which body you pick as the 'at rest'
> body?
> If so, does relativity predict that both bodies will be younger than
> each other, depending on which you view as moving wrt to the other?
Try like what.
If you can read french.
http://hachel.chez.tiscali.fr/stella.htm
R.H.
Bilge
>
>OK, time to engage my pedantic side.
>
>[1] What is the air velocity of an unladen swallow?
With or without the shot?
>[2] How many times is procedure A called by procedure B in
> a certain computer program that one is trying to optimize?
Is the program supposed to work?
>[3] How does one cook rigatoni?
Give it to a cook.
>[4] A driver is to your left as you and he are both
> approaching a 4-way stop signed intersection.
> Assuming there are no pedestrians about and you both
> wish to go straight, what should happen next?
I wait for a pedestrian.
>[5] A field mouse is captured and trapped by a slightly sadistic
> experimenter in a hermetically sealed room of size 1 m^3
> which is initially full of air (at 1 atm pressure). How
> long does the mouse have left to live if nobody rescues
> the poor little guy?
Depends on whether you left him a book on yoga.
> (If one prefers, substitute a candle for the mouse.)
>
>[6] Popping noises occur somewhere in your immediate vicinity while
> you're walking along an otherwise quiet street. What should you do?
Look for the party.
>[7] A nursery is selling roses in full bloom. One wishes to plant
> them. What else will one need, and when?
A gardner; before the store closes.
>[8] Amalgamated Widgets has charged you, a top-notch
> product designer, to design a futuristic flashlight
> that doesn't need batteries, but instead relies on
> wind-up power to power white LED's. Assuming that the
> flashlight is about the size of a small coffee cup,
> how long can one expect the windup "charge" to last,
> and how bright should it be?
Depends on how much I'm paid to design it.
>
>[9] Your computer, running Microsoft Windows, is getting a bit on
> the sluggish side and exhibiting some odd behavior at times.
> What should you do?
Give it ti nick.
>[10] A flood is forecast nearby. Should you:
>
> [a] ignore it entirely?
> [b] grab every available sandbag you can and pile them
> up higher than your house?
> [c] move to your grandmother's house up in the mountains
> for the duration of the emergency?
> [d] rent a canoe?
> [e] call the police?
> [f] wire up an Etch-a-Sketch, a Speak-and-Spell, and a lot
> of other miscellany together to call an interplanetary
> spacecraft to come pick you up?
What about building an ark?
The Ghost In The Machine
<dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
wrote
on Wed, 25 May 2005 09:11:47 GMT
<slrnd98j5p....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>:
> The Ghost In The Machine:
>
> >
> >OK, time to engage my pedantic side.
> >
> >[1] What is the air velocity of an unladen swallow?
>
> With or without the shot?
Depends on whether we're talking Monty Python or Elmer Fudd.
Of course in the latter case we might have to specify a
duck, instead. I've never heard a coconut being described
as "shot", though one might make a case therefor (think
catapults).
>
> >[2] How many times is procedure A called by procedure B in
> > a certain computer program that one is trying to optimize?
>
> Is the program supposed to work?
Define "work". :-)
>
> >[3] How does one cook rigatoni?
>
> Give it to a cook.
A thought.
>
> >[4] A driver is to your left as you and he are both
> > approaching a 4-way stop signed intersection.
> > Assuming there are no pedestrians about and you both
> > wish to go straight, what should happen next?
>
> I wait for a pedestrian.
And meanwhile the line of cars behind you becomes a mile long
and starts to beep noisily. Shades of New York... :-)
>
> >[5] A field mouse is captured and trapped by a slightly sadistic
> > experimenter in a hermetically sealed room of size 1 m^3
> > which is initially full of air (at 1 atm pressure). How
> > long does the mouse have left to live if nobody rescues
> > the poor little guy?
>
> Depends on whether you left him a book on yoga.
I did say slightly sadistic. :-)
>
> > (If one prefers, substitute a candle for the mouse.)
> >
> >[6] Popping noises occur somewhere in your immediate vicinity while
> > you're walking along an otherwise quiet street. What should you do?
>
> Look for the party.
I suppose one might call it a "drive-by champagne" affair, at that.
>
> >[7] A nursery is selling roses in full bloom. One wishes to plant
> > them. What else will one need, and when?
>
> A gardner; before the store closes.
Hmm...supplies?
>
> >[8] Amalgamated Widgets has charged you, a top-notch
> > product designer, to design a futuristic flashlight
> > that doesn't need batteries, but instead relies on
> > wind-up power to power white LED's. Assuming that the
> > flashlight is about the size of a small coffee cup,
> > how long can one expect the windup "charge" to last,
> > and how bright should it be?
>
> Depends on how much I'm paid to design it.
True. :-)
>
> >
> >[9] Your computer, running Microsoft Windows, is getting a bit on
> > the sluggish side and exhibiting some odd behavior at times.
> > What should you do?
>
> Give it ti nick.
It's a thought.
>
> >[10] A flood is forecast nearby. Should you:
> >
> > [a] ignore it entirely?
> > [b] grab every available sandbag you can and pile them
> > up higher than your house?
> > [c] move to your grandmother's house up in the mountains
> > for the duration of the emergency?
> > [d] rent a canoe?
> > [e] call the police?
> > [f] wire up an Etch-a-Sketch, a Speak-and-Spell, and a lot
> > of other miscellany together to call an interplanetary
> > spacecraft to come pick you up?
>
> What about building an ark?
>
Might work. :-)