Can SR and LET make identical physical predictions?
Jan Gooral
$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
....
> Using real clocks and real rulers to construct real coordinate systems,
> LET predicts that the relationships between those real coordinate
> systems are _precisely_ the same as SR predicts. So even though SR and
> LET take different viewpoints about the description of phenomena (and
> perhaps the meanings of words), for actual _measurements_ they make
> precisely the same predictions, and are therefore experimentally
> indistinguishable.
SR and LET use the same transformation equations. It seems not
surprising then that their numerical predictions would be identical.
But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
Recently, using 'Yahoo search', I was looking for papers on quantum
gravity in which Mercury's perihelion shift would be addressed. I've
found a few interesting papers. One of the links listed by Yahoo
(www.physicsdeconstructed.com) leads to a paper entitled: "Gravity -
Based on Wave Mechanics and on Substantival Space Physics". This
paper discusses also, in sections 5.2 and 5.3, the difference between
SR and LET.
It is contended in this paper that SR can't predict physical effects
of motion, because in SR the only motion that matters is relative
motion. To be short: Let's say we have many observers who are all
in motion relative to one another. Velocity of a given clock will
obviously depend on relative to which observer it is measured. If
relative motion was to be causing retardation of clocks, this clock
would have to be running at many different rates at the same time.
It's hard to avoid the conclusion, therefore, that the physical
retardation of clocks cannot depend on relative motion. But this
means that SR cannot make a prediction of a physical (causal) effect
of motion on clocks. The author of this paper concludes that LET is
the only viable theory which can explain the physical retardation of
clocks - observed in the centrifuge experiments, the Hafele-Keating
experiment, e.t.c.
To me this argument seems to be correct, but I'm not a physicist;
so have I misunderstood something? I would be very interested to
learn what physicists (like Tom Roberts, John Baez or Ilja
Schmelzer) think about sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this paper.
Thanks in advance.
Jan G.
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: You mean to say that "that the physical retardation of clocks
cannot depend on relative motion" >alone<. That is logical.
There IS such a thing as gravitational time dilation.
'Nuff said, at this point. If you want more, then ask me.
Bill Hobba
"Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
news:4404...@news.sentex.net...
He is wrong - such experiments are perfectly explainable by standard
relativity - providing gravity is absent one does not even need GR. However
there are some extensions of LET that reduce to LET in the limit that are
distinguishable in principle from standard GR and would provide evidence for
LET if proven true eg Ijilja's GLET:
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/
Thanks
Bill
Bilge
>$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> ....
>> Using real clocks and real rulers to construct real coordinate systems,
>> LET predicts that the relationships between those real coordinate
>> systems are _precisely_ the same as SR predicts. So even though SR and
>> LET take different viewpoints about the description of phenomena (and
>> perhaps the meanings of words), for actual _measurements_ they make
>> precisely the same predictions, and are therefore experimentally
>> indistinguishable.
>
> SR and LET use the same transformation equations.
No, they do not. Special relativity is poincare invariant. The
lorentz transforms are only a subset.
>It seems not
>surprising then that their numerical predictions would be identical.
>But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
Since LET defines simultaneity to be absolute, it either cannot make
the same predictions or else it is inconsistent. If simultaneity is
absolute, every event above and below the plane of simultaneity
is timelike rather than only the events inside the light cone.
Here are two papers describing an epr measurement done with
moving beam splitters which demonstrates that spacelike events
have no intrinsic time ordering, ruling out any absolute
simultaneity. In LET, the absolute simultaneity implies that
one of the two measurements must occur first, in contradiction
to the results.
quant-ph/0311004
Physical Review. A, volume 67, 042115.
André Stefanov, Hugo Zbinden, Nicolas Gisin and Antoine Suarez.
Martin Hogbin
> $dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> ....
> > Using real clocks and real rulers to construct real coordinate systems,
> > LET predicts that the relationships between those real coordinate
> > systems are _precisely_ the same as SR predicts. So even though SR and
> > LET take different viewpoints about the description of phenomena (and
> > perhaps the meanings of words), for actual _measurements_ they make
> > precisely the same predictions, and are therefore experimentally
> > indistinguishable.
>
> SR and LET use the same transformation equations. It seems not
> surprising then that their numerical predictions would be identical.
> But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
>
> Recently, using 'Yahoo search', I was looking for papers on quantum
> gravity in which Mercury's perihelion shift would be addressed. I've
> found a few interesting papers. One of the links listed by Yahoo
> (www.physicsdeconstructed.com) leads to a paper entitled: "Gravity -
> Based on Wave Mechanics and on Substantival Space Physics". This
> paper discusses also, in sections 5.2 and 5.3, the difference between
> SR and LET.
This is nothing more than a rehash of the arguments rehearsed
many times on this newsgroup. The reference to quantum gravity
is a vain attempt to add an air of seriousness to the subject.
> It is contended in this paper that SR can't predict physical effects
> of motion, because in SR the only motion that matters is relative
> motion.
SR also requires inertial frames. These can be observed and
detected experimentally. LET asserts the existence of a
preferred inertial frame, the aether frame; there is no evidence
for this.
Martin Hogbin
Hexenmeister
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrne0asu7...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
What would you know, cunt?
You are still an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
cunt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.
Modern physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg
High school algebra:
x² + y² + z² = c²t² Einstein
xi² + eta² + zeta² = c²tau² Einstein
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) Einstein
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) Androcles
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Androcles
Right or wrong, dumbfuck?
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are,
pathetic shithead.
For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is
sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c
Right or wrong, shitforbrains?
Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he did not know how to move sideways or up,
anencephalous cretin.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab.
Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
BA = -AB,
2AB = AC,
[AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0
Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid).
In agreement with experience and without any assumption,
you remain an arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical,
incompetent cunt without a scrap of logic in you,
you whining little toad.
You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics
and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever,
Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and
doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini
time.
Modern physics:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm
Fuck off, useless tord!
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.
Personally I prefer three witches:
Double double, toil and trouble,
Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop!
Hexenmeister.
>
Harry
There was a confusion from the start about "relative motion" - notably in
the introduction of Einstein's 1905 paper. That confusion never ends: in SR
the motion that matters is NOT relative motion between object and observer.
Such relativity indeed doesn't work. What matters is motion relative to
inertial frames (possibly that debunks 5.3, but I didn't read it).
Many people use LET to mean SRT with the physical explanation of "Space" or
"absolute frame". "Spacetime" is an alternative physical explanation. A
number of physicists such as G. Builder and H. Ives concluded that SRT
implies an absolute frame; strangely enough I have not found any articles
that make the case for physical Spacetime. You can find publications by
Builder in the Aus. J. Ph., and by Ives in the JOSA.
BTW, the way you put it has also been forwarded by Dingle, but he didn't do
a good job in explaining it well; see the dialogue between him and McCrea in
Nature 216 (1967), pp.119-121 and 122-124.
About 5.2: "According to Einstein - there are no effects of absolute motion,
and that's why we don't see them." I have not seen such a statement by
Einstein - quite to the contrary.
Harald
sal
> Jan Gooral:
> >"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:BZeHf.46787
> >$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > ....
> >> Using real clocks and real rulers to construct real coordinate
> >> systems, LET predicts that the relationships between those real
> >> coordinate systems are _precisely_ the same as SR predicts. So
> >> even though SR and LET take different viewpoints about the
> >> description of phenomena (and perhaps the meanings of words),
> >> for actual _measurements_ they make precisely the same
> >> predictions, and are therefore experimentally indistinguishable.
> >
> > SR and LET use the same transformation equations.
>
> No, they do not. Special relativity is poincare invariant. The
> lorentz transforms are only a subset.
>
> >It seems not surprising then that their numerical predictions
> >would be identical. But can predictions of SR and LET be really
> >identical physically?
>
> Since LET defines simultaneity to be absolute, it either cannot make
> the same predictions or else it is inconsistent.
But LET _doesn't_ define simultaneity to be "absolute", in the sense
that all observers agree on it, does it?
As you said, it uses the Lorentz transforms, which force the
conclusion that simultaneity is relative.
In LET it's assumed that there is an absolute "ether" frame (or,
rather, there is an equivalence class of frames in which the "ether"
is stationary; that class is referred to rather sloppily as "the ether
frame"). However, events which are "absolutely simultaneous"
because they're simultaneous in the ether frame may still be perceived
as non-simultaneous in other inertial frames which are in motion
relative to the ether frame.
Or at any rate, that's how I understood it -- since the ether is an
unbelievable construct to start with I haven't invested a lot of time
in reading papers on ether theory.
> If simultaneity is
> absolute, every event above and below the plane of simultaneity is
> timelike rather than only the events inside the light cone.
>
> Here are two papers describing an epr measurement done with moving
> beam splitters which demonstrates that spacelike events have no
> intrinsic time ordering, ruling out any absolute simultaneity. In
> LET, the absolute simultaneity implies that one of the two
> measurements must occur first, in contradiction to the results.
>
> quant-ph/0311004
Well this is an adequately weird article, I must say. First sentence
from the abstract:
> It is argued that recent experiments testing Multisimultaneity
> prove that quantum entanglement occurs without the flow of time.
Haven't gotten through the last one you recommended yet, tho, it'll be
a while before I can do more than gawk at the title on this one.
> Physical Review. A, volume 67, 042115. André Stefanov, Hugo Zbinden,
> Nicolas Gisin and Antoine Suarez.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
Harry
"sal" <pragm...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.01....@nospam.org...
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 08:12:12 +0000, Bilge wrote:
>
> > Jan Gooral:
> > >"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:BZeHf.46787
> > >$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > > ....
> > >> Using real clocks and real rulers to construct real coordinate
> > >> systems, LET predicts that the relationships between those real
> > >> coordinate systems are _precisely_ the same as SR predicts. So
> > >> even though SR and LET take different viewpoints about the
> > >> description of phenomena (and perhaps the meanings of words),
> > >> for actual _measurements_ they make precisely the same
> > >> predictions, and are therefore experimentally indistinguishable.
> > >
> > > SR and LET use the same transformation equations.
> >
> > No, they do not. Special relativity is poincare invariant. The
> > lorentz transforms are only a subset.
> >
> > >It seems not surprising then that their numerical predictions
> > >would be identical. But can predictions of SR and LET be really
> > >identical physically?
> >
> > Since LET defines simultaneity to be absolute, it either cannot make
> > the same predictions or else it is inconsistent.
>
> But LET _doesn't_ define simultaneity to be "absolute", in the sense
> that all observers agree on it, does it?
You are very right about that, but months (years?) of trying to explain that
to Bilge were in vain...
> As you said, it uses the Lorentz transforms, which force the
> conclusion that simultaneity is relative.
Exactly: it's _observation_-relative.
Harald
Jan Gooral
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:du3p40$2gg$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...> > ....
> > SR and LET use the same transformation equations. It seems not
> > surprising then that their numerical predictions would be identical.
> > But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
> >
> > Recently, using 'Yahoo search', I was looking for papers on quantum
> > gravity in which Mercury's perihelion shift would be addressed. I've
> > found a few interesting papers. One of the links listed by Yahoo
> > (www.physicsdeconstructed.com) leads to a paper entitled: "Gravity -
> > Based on Wave Mechanics and on Substantival Space Physics". This
> > paper discusses also, in sections 5.2 and 5.3, the difference between
> > SR and LET.
>
> This is nothing more than a rehash of the arguments rehearsed
> many times on this newsgroup. The reference to quantum gravity
> is a vain attempt to add an air of seriousness to the subject.
>
> > It is contended in this paper that SR can't predict physical effects
> > of motion, because in SR the only motion that matters is relative
> > motion.
>
> SR also requires inertial frames. These can be observed and
> detected experimentally. LET asserts the existence of a
> preferred inertial frame, the aether frame; there is no evidence
> for this.
>
> Martin Hogbin
>
Hi Martin,
Have you read sections 5.2 and 5.3 of "Gravity..."
(www.physicsdeconstructed.com)?
It seems to me that it is demonstrated there that all experiments in which
clocks are affected by motion provide evidence for the preferred inertial
frame. If effects of motion on clocks were to be caused by motion relative
to SR's inertial frames, each clock would have to be running at many
different rates at the same time, because there are many of these frames.
Isn't this correct?
Jan G.
Martin Hogbin
"Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message news:4406...@news.sentex.net...
How is this preferred frame identified?
> If effects of motion on clocks were to be caused by motion relative
> to SR's inertial frames, each clock would have to be running at many
> different rates at the same time, because there are many of these frames.
You need to understand what SR says before you can criticise it
in this way. SR does not say that each clock runs at more than one
rate. SR says that observers in different inertial frames will measure
the same clock to run at different rates.
Martin Hogbin
Jan Gooral
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:4405aaea$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > ...
It cannot possibly debunk 5.3 because no matter whether you consider
clock retardation as due to motion relative observers or relative to
inertial
frames, there are many of each. And hence motion of any given clock has
many different magnitudes depending on relative to which reference frame
you measure them. If these motion were causing retardation of clocks
then each clock would run at many different rates at the same time; as you
will see in 5.3 when you read it.
> Many people use LET to mean SRT with the physical explanation of "Space"
or
> "absolute frame". "Spacetime" is an alternative physical explanation. A
> number of physicists such as G. Builder and H. Ives concluded that SRT
> implies an absolute frame;
SRT is incompatible with an absolute frame; so I don't believe that Ives,
who was an expert in the field, would contend that SRT implies an absolute
frame. Where did you read it?
> strangely enough I have not found any articles
> that make the case for physical Spacetime.
Not surprisingly, because SRT is incompatible with an absolute frame, no
matter whether you call it ether, Spacetime, or whatever else. When you
read 5.3 you'll see what I mean.
> You can find publications by
> Builder in the Aus. J. Ph., and by Ives in the JOSA.
> BTW, the way you put it has also been forwarded by Dingle, but he didn't
do
> a good job in explaining it well; see the dialogue between him and McCrea
in
> Nature 216 (1967), pp.119-121 and 122-124.
>
> About 5.2: "According to Einstein - there are no effects of absolute
motion,
> and that's why we don't see them." I have not seen such a statement by
> Einstein - quite to the contrary.
I have not seen such a statement by Einstein either. But would you imply
that
according to Einstein:
a) there are effects of absolute motion but we don't observe them? or that
b) there are effects of absolute motion and we observe them?
Jan G.
>
> Harald
>
>
Spaceman
> You need to understand what SR says before you can criticise it
> in this way. SR does not say that each clock runs at more than one
> rate. SR says that observers in different inertial frames will measure
> the same clock to run at different rates.
The problem with SR is it also states that both clocks ticked
at the proper rate, and that is the wrong part of SR.
If they are not ticking at the same rate, they did not tick at the
proper rate they both should have.
At least one failed it's proper operation.
SR does correctly predict how much the moving clock malfunctioned,
but sadly, SR gives no cause for such and calls it time changing itself.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Aetherist
>
>"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>news:4405aaea$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
[Snip...]
>>> To me this argument seems to be correct, but I'm not a physicist;
>>> so have I misunderstood something? I would be very interested to
>>> learn what physicists (like Tom Roberts, John Baez or Ilja
>>> Schmelzer) think about sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this paper.
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> Jan G.
>>
>> There was a confusion from the start about "relative motion"
>> - notably in the introduction of Einstein's 1905 paper. That
>> confusion never ends: in SR the motion that matters is NOT
>> relative motion between object and observer. Such relativity
>> indeed doesn't work. What matters is motion relative to inertial
>> frames (possibly that debunks 5.3, but I didn't read it).
Clarification, 'inertial frames' is a concept and is defined as
a physical state free from measurable effects of acceleration.
It is almost exclusively applied to objects and observers.
> It cannot possibly debunk 5.3 because no matter whether you
> consider clock retardation as due to motion relative observers
> or relative to inertial frames, there are many of each. And hence
> motion of any given clock has many different magnitudes depending
> on relative to which reference frame you measure them.
This is true... But so?
> If these motion were causing retardation of clocks then each clock
> would run at many different rates at the same time; as you will
> see in 5.3 when you read it.
All clocks run at the same rate in their own 'local' inertial
'rest frame'. It is the question of, what can one in another
local rest frame, move at some v relative to the clock see.
Because, the only way to 'see' and thus 'measure' the values
on 'the' clock 'from' the other 'frame' is by some sort of
signal transmission. Therein lies the whole quandry.
>> Many people use LET to mean SRT with the physical explanation
>> of "Space" or "absolute frame". "Spacetime" is an alternative
>> physical explanation. A number of physicists such as G. Builder
>> and H. Ives concluded that SRT implies an absolute frame; SRT
>> is incompatible with an absolute frame; so I don't believe that
>> Ives, who was an expert in the field, would contend that SRT
>> implies an absolute frame. Where did you read it?
>
>> strangely enough I have not found any articles that make the case
>> for physical Spacetime. Not surprisingly, because SRT is
>> incompatible with an absolute frame, no matter whether you call
>> it ether, Spacetime, or whatever else. When you read 5.3 you'll
>> see what I mean.
Sorry but I don't see how you get incompatibility of an universal
framework from SRT. In fact, the very notably LACK! of any
causality violations is very strong evidence FOR just such a
universal framework & the ordering of events. What anyone
'see' and/or 'measures' in their own 'local' FOR is irrelevant
to such event timing. Everything propagates at c. All non contact
physical processes are ruled by this. Measurement by 'observers'
has no relevance to the underlying processes, just how the will
'perceive' an ordering from their peculiar perspective. Not to
mention the issue of known non-inertial effects being so-called
absolute. I'd say that the independence of signal speed guarantees
an absolute framework and 'relative' perceived simultaneity from
and arbitrary inertial frame.
[Snip of rest...]
Paul Stowe
Jan Gooral
"Aetherist" <TheAet...@best.net> wrote in message
news:2mdc02l4sreadj7fo...@4ax.com...
> > would run at many different rates at the same time; as you will
> > see in 5.3 when you read it.
>
> All clocks run at the same rate in their own 'local' inertial
> 'rest frame'. It is the question of, what can one in another
> local rest frame, move at some v relative to the clock see.
> Because, the only way to 'see' and thus 'measure' the values
> on 'the' clock 'from' the other 'frame' is by some sort of
> signal transmission. Therein lies the whole quandry.
OK, sorry if I did not make it clear that my quandry was about
SR being inadequate for explaining physical/causal effects of motion
on clocks, which was observed for example in Hafele-Keating
experiment.
[for some reason mine and Harry's words in the text that follows, got
joined, so I separated them below. - J.G.]
> >> Many people use LET to mean SRT with the physical explanation
> >> of "Space" or "absolute frame". "Spacetime" is an alternative
> >> physical explanation. A number of physicists such as G. Builder
> >> and H. Ives concluded that SRT implies an absolute frame;
> > SRT is incompatible with an absolute frame; so I don't believe that
> > Ives, who was an expert in the field, would contend that SRT
> > implies an absolute frame. Where did you read it?
> >
> >> strangely enough I have not found any articles that make the case
> >> for physical Spacetime.
> > Not surprisingly, because SRT is incompatible with an absolute
> > frame, no matter whether you call it ether, Spacetime, or whatever
> > else. When you read 5.3 you'll see what I mean.
>
> Sorry but I don't see how you get incompatibility of an universal
> framework from SRT.
Sorry if my words misled you, but I did not mean to imply what you
wrote above. The fact is that I am in agreement with your words below.
> In fact, the very notably LACK! of any
> causality violations is very strong evidence FOR just such a
> universal framework & the ordering of events. What anyone
> 'see' and/or 'measures' in their own 'local' FOR is irrelevant
> to such event timing. Everything propagates at c. All non contact
> physical processes are ruled by this. Measurement by 'observers'
> has no relevance to the underlying processes, just how the will
> 'perceive' an ordering from their peculiar perspective. Not to
> mention the issue of known non-inertial effects being so-called
> absolute. I'd say that the independence of signal speed guarantees
> an absolute framework and 'relative' perceived simultaneity from
> and arbitrary inertial frame.
>
> [Snip of rest...]
>
> Paul Stowe
Jan Gooral.
Jan Gooral
>
> "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
news:4406...@news.sentex.net...
> >
> > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > news:du3p40$2gg$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > >
> > > SR also requires inertial frames. These can be observed and
> > > detected experimentally. LET asserts the existence of a
> > > preferred inertial frame, the aether frame; there is no evidence
> > > for this.
> > >
> > > Martin Hogbin
> > >
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> > Have you read sections 5.2 and 5.3 of "Gravity..."
> > (www.physicsdeconstructed.com)?
> > It seems to me that it is demonstrated there that all experiments in
which
> > clocks are affected by motion provide evidence for the preferred
inertial
> > frame.
>
> How is this preferred frame identified?
Even if our technology doesn't allow us to identify it, its existence is
necessary for the explanation of causal effects of motion.
> > If effects of motion on clocks were to be caused by motion relative
> > to SR's inertial frames, each clock would have to be running at many
> > different rates at the same time, because there are many of these
frames.
>
> You need to understand what SR says before you can criticise it
> in this way. SR does not say that each clock runs at more than one
> rate.
I did not write that SR says so. I wrote that it would have to be so if
clocks were to be physically affected by relative motion. It's clear then
that SR cannot explain physical (causal) effects of motion on clocks,
because according to SR relative motion is the only meaningful motion.
> SR says that observers in different inertial frames will measure
> the same clock to run at different rates.
Yes, and the fact is that SR can explain ONLY this apparent retardation of
clocks, and not the physical retardation of clocks which was observed in
many experiments (for example in Hafele-Keating experiment).
The apparent retardation of clocks does not need a causal explanation.
But imagine two (or more) clocks of identical construction and running at
the same rate (if they are under the same conditions). We synchronize
them and then we separate them and set them in motion relative to each
other. After some time they are brought back to the same place so that
they are at rest relative to each other. And we see that they show
different times. The difference in their readings needs a causal
explanation,
and in this case it does not matter how different observers viewd (or
measured) their rates in the meantime. And SR cannot explain this causal
desynchronization.
> Martin Hogbin
Jan Gooral.
Harry
Inserted from next message:
[> OK, sorry if I did not make it clear that my quandry was about
> SR being inadequate for explaining physical/causal effects of motion
> on clocks, which was observed for example in Hafele-Keating
> experiment.]
OK, but that was never meant to be! SRT is a principle theory, just like QM.
It doesn't pretend to explain. That is both the beauty and the weakness of
such theories: they simply do the job for experimental physics, without
postulating anything that is unnecessary *for the calculations*.
> > Many people use LET to mean SRT with the physical explanation of "Space"
> or
> > "absolute frame". "Spacetime" is an alternative physical explanation. A
> > number of physicists such as G. Builder and H. Ives concluded that SRT
> > implies an absolute frame;
>
> SRT is incompatible with an absolute frame; so I don't believe that Ives,
> who was an expert in the field, would contend that SRT implies an absolute
> frame. Where did you read it?
I read in Builder 1958's paper "ether and relativity" how SRT implies an
absolute frame (Australian Journal of Physics 11, p.279).
I know that Ives knew that too. His 1940 paper "The measurement of velocity
with atomic clocks" (Science vol.91, p.65) is regarded as one of the
historical experimental SRT papers, but in that and other papers he
emphasized that the effects are due to "absolute" physical motion (but I
forgot the exact words that he used).
Thus Sherwin, 1960: "One is led therefore to the conclusion that clocks
having a velocity in an inertial frame are literally slowed down by the
speed itself. It is this very deduction which makes the generally accepted
prediction regarding the "clock paradox" unacceptable to Dingle, but which
has led both Ives and Builder to consider interpretations of special
relativity in which an ether plays an important role, at least from the
philosophical point of view."
- "Some recent Experimental Tests of the "Clock Paradox"", Physical Review
120 no.1 (1960), p.17-21.
> > strangely enough I have not found any articles
> > that make the case for physical Spacetime.
> Not surprisingly, because SRT is incompatible with an absolute frame, no
> matter whether you call it ether, Spacetime, or whatever else. When you
> read 5.3 you'll see what I mean.
It probably depends on what you mean with "SRT"...
> > You can find publications by
> > Builder in the Aus. J. Ph., and by Ives in the JOSA.
> > BTW, the way you put it has also been forwarded by Dingle, but he didn't
> do
> > a good job in explaining it well; see the dialogue between him and
McCrea
> > in Nature 216 (1967), pp.119-121 and 122-124.
> >
> > About 5.2: "According to Einstein - there are no effects of absolute
> motion,
> > and that's why we don't see them." I have not seen such a statement by
> > Einstein - quite to the contrary.
> I have not seen such a statement by Einstein either. But would you imply
> that according to Einstein:
> a) there are effects of absolute motion but we don't observe them? or
that
> b) there are effects of absolute motion and we observe them?
Neither: he rejected absolute motion, but what Einstein really thought is a
bit of a mystery. In his 1905 and 1911/1916 papers he suggested that all
effects are "real" - but I'm not sure what "reality" meant for him. It looks
like he thought that our "reality" is god-given, personal experience - a bit
like in the movie The Matrix.
I prefer option b) , as probably first elaborated by Langevin in 1911.
Harald
kenseto
You need to explain why the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running
slow compared to the ground clock. This is a real phenomenon not just an
observed one.
Martin Hogbin
"Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message news:44068a64$1...@news.sentex.net...
>
> "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:du56ib$na8$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
> news:4406...@news.sentex.net...
> > >
> > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > > news:du3p40$2gg$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > > > .....
> > > >
> which
> > > clocks are affected by motion provide evidence for the preferred
> inertial
> > > frame.
> >
> > How is this preferred frame identified?
>
> Even if our technology doesn't allow us to identify it, its existence is
> necessary for the explanation of causal effects of motion.
No, the existence of inertial frames is necessary.
> > > If effects of motion on clocks were to be caused by motion relative
> > > to SR's inertial frames, each clock would have to be running at many
> > > different rates at the same time, because there are many of these
> frames.
> >
> > You need to understand what SR says before you can criticise it
> > in this way. SR does not say that each clock runs at more than one
> > rate.
>
> I did not write that SR says so.
In that case, what theory are you criticising?
>I wrote that it would have to be so if
> clocks were to be physically affected by relative motion. It's clear then
> that SR cannot explain physical (causal) effects of motion on clocks,
> because according to SR relative motion is the only meaningful motion.
No, there is also the concept of an inertial frame in SR.
>
> > SR says that observers in different inertial frames will measure
> > the same clock to run at different rates.
>
> Yes, and the fact is that SR can explain ONLY this apparent retardation of
> clocks, and not the physical retardation of clocks which was observed in
> many experiments (for example in Hafele-Keating experiment).
> The apparent retardation of clocks does not need a causal explanation.
> But imagine two (or more) clocks of identical construction and running at
> the same rate (if they are under the same conditions). We synchronize
> them and then we separate them and set them in motion relative to each
> other. After some time they are brought back to the same place so that
> they are at rest relative to each other. And we see that they show
> different times. The difference in their readings needs a causal
> explanation,
What do you mean by 'causal explanation'?
It seems that you have made your mind up on SR
without properly understanding it.
Martin Hogbin
Jan Gooral
>
> "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
> news:4406...@news.sentex.net...
> >
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:4405aaea$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > >
Do you mean SRT is only about calculating predictions and not
about trying to understand how nature really works?
It is a common knowledge that we don't understand quantum
mechanics. Physicists are not happy about this lack of
understanding, and a lot of effort is invested in attempts to
understand it. However, I'm not aware of complaints that we
don't understand special relativity physics.
[ snip ]
>
> > > strangely enough I have not found any articles
> > > that make the case for physical Spacetime.
>
> > Not surprisingly, because SRT is incompatible with an absolute frame,
no
> > matter whether you call it ether, Spacetime, or whatever else. When you
> > read 5.3 you'll see what I mean.
>
> It probably depends on what you mean with "SRT"...
For me SRT is what Eistein described in "The Meaning of
relativity" and in "Relativity - The Special and General Theory",
and what was brought more up to date by E. F. Taylor and J. A.
Wheeler in "Spacetime Physics". But I have to admit that I have
no idea what SRT is according to you. For example, I have no
clue on how you imagine that an absolute and physical frame is
compatible with SRT.
Jan Gooral
Jan Gooral
>
> "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
news:44068a64$1...@news.sentex.net...
> >
> > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > news:du56ib$na8$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > >
> > > "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
> > news:4406...@news.sentex.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > > > news:du3p40$2gg$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > > > > .....
> > > > >
> > > > It seems to me that it is demonstrated there that all experiments
in
> > which
> > > > clocks are affected by motion provide evidence for the preferred
> > inertial
> > > > frame.
> > >
> > > How is this preferred frame identified?
> >
> > Even if our technology doesn't allow us to identify it, its existence
is
> > necessary for the explanation of causal effects of motion.
>
> No, the existence of inertial frames is necessary.
Do inertial reference frames have physical existence? To affect
anything they would have to, because abstract concepts cannot have
any physical implications. I these frames are equal then they all affect
clocks moving relative to them. (or would you believe that there is
only one special?) Hence, the total effect would have to be the sum
of effects exerted by each frame. In such a case an effect of motion
relative to one chosen by us reference frame could not be considered
as a significant factor in retardation of any given clock. Unless you
believe what follows.
>
> > > > If effects of motion on clocks were to be caused by motion relative
> > > > to SR's inertial frames, each clock would have to be running at many
> > > > different rates at the same time, because there are many of these
> > frames.
> > >
> > > You need to understand what SR says before you can criticise it
> > > in this way. SR does not say that each clock runs at more than one
> > > rate.
> >
> > I did not write that SR says so.
>
> In that case, what theory are you criticising?
I am criticising SR, but not for saying that clocks must run at many
different rates at the same time, but for implying that relative motion
is the only physically meaningful motion. And I'm trying to convey to
you that motion relative to any chosen by us reference frame cannot
be considered as causing physical effects .
> >I wrote that it would have to be so if
> > clocks were to be physically affected by relative motion. It's clear
then
> > that SR cannot explain physical (causal) effects of motion on clocks,
> > because according to SR relative motion is the only meaningful motion.
>
> No, there is also the concept of an inertial frame in SR.
Again, explain whether according to you there is only one inertial
frame or multitude of them; and whether it, or they, exist as physical
entities which can cause physical effects?
> > > SR says that observers in different inertial frames will measure
> > > the same clock to run at different rates.
> >
> > Yes, and the fact is that SR can explain ONLY this apparent retardation
of
> > clocks, and not the physical retardation of clocks which was observed in
> > many experiments (for example in Hafele-Keating experiment).
> > The apparent retardation of clocks does not need a causal explanation.
> > But imagine two (or more) clocks of identical construction and running
at
> > the same rate (if they are under the same conditions). We synchronize
> > them and then we separate them and set them in motion relative to each
> > other. After some time they are brought back to the same place so that
> > they are at rest relative to each other. And we see that they show
> > different times. The difference in their readings needs a causal
> > explanation,
>
> What do you mean by 'causal explanation'?
By causal explanation I mean - giving a physical cause for the physical
effect.
> It seems that you have made your mind up on SR
> without properly understanding it.
I do not consider myself an expert, but I have to admit that your
comments make me wonder if you really understand SR well. Just
because you accept it uncritically, does not prove that you understand
it.
Consider this: Tylor and Wheeler wrote in "Spacetime Physics"
(1992) on pp. 76-7 that clcocks are not affected physically by
motion. (This text is also cited in section 5.3 of "Gravity..."
www.physicsdeconstructed.com). Read what Wheeler wrote and
tell me: Was it that Wheeler also could not understant SR?
> Martin Hogbin
Jan Gooral
Martin Hogbin
"Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message news:4407...@news.sentex.net...
>
> "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:du7ilt$p2n$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
> news:44068a64$1...@news.sentex.net...
> > >
> > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > > news:du56ib$na8$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:4406...@news.sentex.net...
> > > > >
> >
>
> Do inertial reference frames have physical existence? To affect
> anything they would have to, because abstract concepts cannot have
> any physical implications.
Inertial motion certainly exists. You can not only tell if you
are in inertial motion but you can measure the degree to
which your motion is non-inertial. In contrast, you cannot
tell if you are in the aether rest frame or moving with constant
velocity with respect to the aether.
> I these frames are equal then they all affect
> clocks moving relative to them. (or would you believe that there is
> only one special?) Hence, the total effect would have to be the sum
> of effects exerted by each frame. In such a case an effect of motion
> relative to one chosen by us reference frame could not be considered
> as a significant factor in retardation of any given clock. Unless you
> believe what follows.
No , it is the changing of frames, that is to say the non-inertial
aspect of motion that distinguishes one clock from another.
>
> I am criticising SR, but not for saying that clocks must run at many
> different rates at the same time, but for implying that relative motion
> is the only physically meaningful motion.
This is your misunderstanding then. In SR, only inertial motion
is relative. You keep ignoring this essential point.
>And I'm trying to convey to
> you that motion relative to any chosen by us reference frame cannot
> be considered as causing physical effects .
Yes, of course. That is agreed. But the difference between
inertial and non-inertial frames is physically measurable.
> >
> > No, there is also the concept of an inertial frame in SR.
>
> Again, explain whether according to you there is only one inertial
> frame or multitude of them; and whether it, or they, exist as physical
> entities which can cause physical effects?
This is clearly an infinite number of inertial frames. Inertial motion
is real and physically identifiable. Inertial frames are abstractions,
based on this motion, which can be used for calculations.
> > What do you mean by 'causal explanation'?
>
> By causal explanation I mean - giving a physical cause for the physical
> effect.
You still have not made clear what you mean by 'physical cause'.
This is a really important point and I would appreciate it if you
could try to explain exactly what you mean by words such as
'physical' and 'causal'.
> > It seems that you have made your mind up on SR
> > without properly understanding it.
>
> Consider this: Tylor and Wheeler wrote in "Spacetime Physics"
> (1992) on pp. 76-7 that clcocks are not affected physically by
> motion. (This text is also cited in section 5.3 of "Gravity..."
> www.physicsdeconstructed.com). Read what Wheeler wrote and
> tell me: Was it that Wheeler also could not understant SR?
Why do you not yourself read what Wheeler wrote, rather than
quoting a tiny excerpt, quoted out of context, by a crackpot
web site?
I guess that the point Wheeler is making here is that a notional
perfect clock continues to measure (proper) time along its
worldline regardless of its state of motion.
Or possible he could mean that there are no detectable changes
to a (perfect) clock in its own rest frame.
Martin Hogbin
Harry
For some reason most physicists who are involved in SRT either don't care
about that ("only predictions matter, one shouldn't try to understand
nature"), or they imagine some science fiction like space-time warping that
they can't understand but that gives them a great feeling (I suppose).
> [ snip ]
> >
> > > > strangely enough I have not found any articles
> > > > that make the case for physical Spacetime.
> >
> > > Not surprisingly, because SRT is incompatible with an absolute frame,
> no
> > > matter whether you call it ether, Spacetime, or whatever else. When
you
> > > read 5.3 you'll see what I mean.
> >
> > It probably depends on what you mean with "SRT"...
>
> For me SRT is what Eistein described in "The Meaning of
> relativity" and in "Relativity - The Special and General Theory",
That is not where he defined SRT. He did that in his 1916 paper on GRT, in
which he gave the label "SRT" to the then existing *principle* theory of
physics, which was developed by Lorentz, Poincare and himself.
How would you call that theory whcih he labled SRT, if instead you use "SRT"
to mean Einstein's interpretation of that theory?
> and what was brought more up to date by E. F. Taylor and J. A.
> Wheeler in "Spacetime Physics". But I have to admit that I have
> no idea what SRT is according to you. For example, I have no
> clue on how you imagine that an absolute and physical frame is
> compatible with SRT.
Easy, SRT is defined as a principle theory; similarly classical mechanics is
compatible with Newton's theory.
To put it schematically:
- Classical mechanics+ Newton's explanation = Newton's theory
- Classical mechanics+ no explanation = textbook mechanics
- SRT+ no explanation = relativistic textbook mechanics
- SRT+ Lorentz's explanation= Lorentz's theory
- SRT+ Einstein's explanation= Einstein's theory
- SRT+ Minkowski's explanation= Minkowski's theory
Etc.
As people lack distinguishing these things, there is an endless confusion.
Cheers,
Harald
cou...@centurytel.net
it seems to fit all of data i have.
The atom radiates gravity.
it seems we are only effected by the positive cycle,
planets to pismires.
what you see is what you get even if you close your eyes, it still
happens.
there is no such thing as a paradoxie.
1. gravity causes conceptual distance.
2. gravity/distance causes time
3. when the famous electron makes it's leap it happens during the
"negative" cycle of radiated gravity on the atomic level of that
atom
(no time to us)
I have offered no proofs or qualification (s) , I would a discussion
not a pronouncement
Cougar4
Tom Roberts
> Jan Gooral:
>
> No, they do not. Special relativity is poincare invariant. The
> lorentz transforms are only a subset.
Lorentz was writing with the usual physicist's casual attitude toward
mathematical rigor. He was fully aware of the possibility of offsetting
the origin of one's coordinate system. The other elements of the
Poincare' group absent from the Lorentz group are unphysical (time
reversal, parity inversion, and products involving them).
For measurements of _real_ phenomena using _real_ tools, SR and LET are
completely and utterly indistinguishable, within their common domain of
electromagnetism. This is so independent of one's choice of LET's ether
frame.
> Since LET defines simultaneity to be absolute, [...]
AFAIK Lorentz never discussed simultaneity. No matter, because in LET
the coordinates of any inertial frame are the same as those of SR.
Simultaneity is naturally determined by equality of time coordinates,
and it is manifestly _not_ absolute (in any useful sense).
> Here are two papers describing an epr measurement [...]
LET has no delusions of dealing with quantum phenomena. Neither does SR.
You must add additional physical postulates to deal with them, and that
means you are using some different theory.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jan Gooral
>
> "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
news:4407...@news.sentex.net...
> >
> > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > news:du7ilt$p2n$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
[snip]
> > > No, the existence of inertial frames is necessary.
> >
> > Do inertial reference frames have physical existence? To affect
> > anything they would have to, because abstract concepts cannot have
> > any physical implications.
>
> Inertial motion certainly exists. You can not only tell if you
> are in inertial motion but you can measure the degree to
> which your motion is non-inertial. In contrast, you cannot
> tell if you are in the aether rest frame or moving with constant
> velocity with respect to the aether.
You have not answered the question.
> > I these frames are equal then they all affect
> > clocks moving relative to them. (or would you believe that there is
> > only one special?) Hence, the total effect would have to be the sum
> > of effects exerted by each frame. In such a case an effect of motion
> > relative to one chosen by us reference frame could not be considered
> > as a significant factor in retardation of any given clock. Unless you
> > believe what follows.
>
> No , it is the changing of frames, that is to say the non-inertial
> aspect of motion that distinguishes one clock from another.
You avoid addressing the issue.
> >
> > I am criticising SR, but not for saying that clocks must run at many
> > different rates at the same time, but for implying that relative motion
> > is the only physically meaningful motion.
>
> This is your misunderstanding then. In SR, only inertial motion
> is relative. You keep ignoring this essential point.
You lost me on this one.
> >And I'm trying to convey to
> > you that motion relative to any chosen by us reference frame cannot
> > be considered as causing physical effects .
>
> Yes, of course. That is agreed. But the difference between
> inertial and non-inertial frames is physically measurable.
>
>
> > >
> > > No, there is also the concept of an inertial frame in SR.
> >
> > Again, explain whether according to you there is only one inertial
> > frame or multitude of them; and whether it, or they, exist as physical
> > entities which can cause physical effects?
>
> This is clearly an infinite number of inertial frames. Inertial motion
> is real and physically identifiable. Inertial frames are abstractions,
> based on this motion, which can be used for calculations.
Abstractions cannot cause anything, and therefore your
inertial frames exist only in our imagination.
> > > What do you mean by 'causal explanation'?
> >
> > By causal explanation I mean - giving a physical cause for the physical
> > effect.
>
> You still have not made clear what you mean by 'physical cause'.
> This is a really important point and I would appreciate it if you
> could try to explain exactly what you mean by words such as
> 'physical' and 'causal'.
For me 'physical' is oposite of 'abstract'. By 'physical cause'
I mean something that is necessary to produce a physical effect.
> > > It seems that you have made your mind up on SR
> > > without properly understanding it.
> >
> > Consider this: Tylor and Wheeler wrote in "Spacetime Physics"
> > (1992) on pp. 76-7 that clocks are not affected physically by
> > motion. (This text is also cited in section 5.3 of "Gravity..."
> > www.physicsdeconstructed.com). Read what Wheeler wrote and
> > tell me: Was it that Wheeler also could not understant SR?
>
> Why do you not yourself read what Wheeler wrote, rather than
> quoting a tiny excerpt, quoted out of context, by a crackpot
> web site?
I'm lost. I did not quote anything.
> I guess that the point Wheeler is making here is that a notional
> perfect clock continues to measure (proper) time along its
> worldline regardless of its state of motion.
>
> Or possible he could mean that there are no detectable changes
> to a (perfect) clock in its own rest frame.
Why are you guessing. Don't you have "Spacetime Physics" in
your home library? I gave you the pages where the subject is
discussed so that you could read in context. I did not tell you
to read the text from "a crackpot web site".
Besides, what reason(s) do you have to call this web site
"crackpot"? I posted about this web site because I wanted
experts to explain what is wrong with it, so that I don't believe
in what is incorrect. So far they are silent (maybe they need more
time to read it). But, if you already spotted some errors in the
paper, why don't you tell me?
> Martin Hogbin
Jan Gooral
Jan Gooral
[snip]
> > For me SRT is what Eistein described in "The Meaning of
> > relativity" and in "Relativity - The Special and General Theory",
>
> That is not where he defined SRT. He did that in his 1916 paper on GRT, in
> which he gave the label "SRT" to the then existing *principle* theory of
> physics, which was developed by Lorentz, Poincare and himself.
>
> How would you call that theory whcih he labled SRT, if instead you use
"SRT"
> to mean Einstein's interpretation of that theory?
>
> > and what was brought more up to date by E. F. Taylor and J. A.
> > Wheeler in "Spacetime Physics". But I have to admit that I have
> > no idea what SRT is according to you. For example, I have no
> > clue on how you imagine that an absolute and physical frame is
> > compatible with SRT.
>
> Easy, SRT is defined as a principle theory; similarly classical mechanics
is
> compatible with Newton's theory.
> To put it schematically:
> - Classical mechanics+ Newton's explanation = Newton's theory
> - Classical mechanics+ no explanation = textbook mechanics
> - SRT+ no explanation = relativistic textbook mechanics
> - SRT+ Lorentz's explanation= Lorentz's theory
To me SRT means: Special Relativity Theory. And as far as I
know, this name is associated with Einstein's theory. So your
equation above seems to me like an oxymoron.
> - SRT+ Einstein's explanation= Einstein's theory
> - SRT+ Minkowski's explanation= Minkowski's theory
> Etc.
Maybe I'm dumm, but I really don't know what SRT means for
you. And as far as the definition of this term in Einstein's 1916
paper on GRT, it is not much of a help either. Because it is
only the first one and a half peges that contain some generalities
about SRT. So I don't really know what SRT means for you.
Is this SRT of yours a theory which depicts reality as 3- or
4-dimensional?
> As people lack distinguishing these things, there is an endless confusion.
This is true, but I think that the biggest confusion is caused
by making an impression that there is not much difference between
SR and LET, and that SR can explain physical effects of motion.
> Cheers,
> Harald
Cheers,
Jan
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:BZeHf.46787
> $dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> LET predicts that the relationships between those real coordinate
>> systems are _precisely_ the same as SR predicts. So even though SR and
>> LET take different viewpoints about the description of phenomena (and
>> perhaps the meanings of words), for actual _measurements_ they make
>> precisely the same predictions, and are therefore experimentally
>> indistinguishable.
>
> surprising then that their numerical predictions would be identical.
Yes. Indeed it is not only "not surprising", it is absolutely required
for consistency.
> But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
I don't know what that means, and I doubt you do either.
SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable, and that is enough.
> Recently, using 'Yahoo search', I was looking for papers on quantum
> gravity in which Mercury's perihelion shift would be addressed.
Quantum gravity is only expected to have significant effects in regions
with strong gravity, such as near the singularities of black holes and
such. The solar system has rather weak gravity, with a dimensionless
strength ~0.001 or less (strong gravity would be >1).
> It is contended in this paper that SR can't predict physical effects
> of motion,
Hmmm. In the sense that SR contains no dynamics this is true -- given
the force applied to an object SR can quite accurately predict its
motion. But SR itself cannot determine what the force is.
> because in SR the only motion that matters is relative
> motion.
But that's no reason or explanation at all.
> To be short: Let's say we have many observers who are all
> in motion relative to one another. Velocity of a given clock will
> obviously depend on relative to which observer it is measured. If
> relative motion was to be causing retardation of clocks, this clock
> would have to be running at many different rates at the same time.
In SR the clocks are not "physically retarded" at all. In SR the
different observers measure different tick rates for a given clock
because of geometric projection -- the _same_ principle that permits a
long rod to fit through a narrow doorway in some orientations but not in
others.
That is, different observers _observe_ the clock differently, but their
observations have no power to "physically affect" the clock itself in
any way.
Analogy: When your friend walks away from you she appears to
get smaller -- do you think that she really does shrink?
Does your looking at her have any power over the size of
her body?
Tom Robets tjro...@lucent.com
Martin Hogbin
"Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message news:4409...@news.sentex.net...
>
> "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:du93lb$o8d$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
> news:4407...@news.sentex.net...
> > >
> > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > > news:du7ilt$p2n$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
[Snip]
> You avoid addressing the issue.
[Snip]
> You lost me on this one.
> [Snip]
> I'm lost. I did not quote anything.
You are clearly not interested in understanding this subject.
Martin Hogbin
kenseto
> Jan Gooral wrote:
>
> > To be short: Let's say we have many observers who are all
> > in motion relative to one another. Velocity of a given clock will
> > obviously depend on relative to which observer it is measured. If
> > relative motion was to be causing retardation of clocks, this clock
> > would have to be running at many different rates at the same time.
>
> In SR the clocks are not "physically retarded" at all. In SR the
> different observers measure different tick rates for a given clock
> because of geometric projection -- the _same_ principle that permits a
> long rod to fit through a narrow doorway in some orientations but not in
> others.
>
> That is, different observers _observe_ the clock differently, but their
> observations have no power to "physically affect" the clock itself in
> any way.
>
> Analogy: When your friend walks away from you she appears to
> get smaller -- do you think that she really does shrink?
> Does your looking at her have any power over the size of
> her body?
But some of your SR experts (PD and Randy) say that length contraction is
REAL.....not just a geometric effect.
Ken Seto
PD
Length is defined as the result of a measurement procedure and
measurement is as real as it gets. It is also observer-dependent.
Moreover, there is no physical spatial length that is measurable and
not observer-dependent. Therefore, length contraction is real in any
sense of the word you want to attribute to it.
PD
Erops
properly applied yields the same results as STR.
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm
"Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
news:4404...@news.sentex.net...
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:BZeHf.46787
> $dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> ....
>> Using real clocks and real rulers to construct real coordinate systems,
>> LET predicts that the relationships between those real coordinate
>> systems are _precisely_ the same as SR predicts. So even though SR and
>> LET take different viewpoints about the description of phenomena (and
>> perhaps the meanings of words), for actual _measurements_ they make
>> precisely the same predictions, and are therefore experimentally
>> indistinguishable.
>
> SR and LET use the same transformation equations. It seems not
> surprising then that their numerical predictions would be identical.
> But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
>
> Recently, using 'Yahoo search', I was looking for papers on quantum
> gravity in which Mercury's perihelion shift would be addressed. I've
> found a few interesting papers. One of the links listed by Yahoo
> (www.physicsdeconstructed.com) leads to a paper entitled: "Gravity -
> Based on Wave Mechanics and on Substantival Space Physics". This
> paper discusses also, in sections 5.2 and 5.3, the difference between
> SR and LET.
> It is contended in this paper that SR can't predict physical effects
> of motion, because in SR the only motion that matters is relative
> motion. To be short: Let's say we have many observers who are all
> in motion relative to one another. Velocity of a given clock will
> obviously depend on relative to which observer it is measured. If
> relative motion was to be causing retardation of clocks, this clock
> would have to be running at many different rates at the same time.
PD
Jan Gooral wrote:
> "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> news:du56ib$na8$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > "Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
> news:4406...@news.sentex.net...
> > >
> > > "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
> > > news:du3p40$2gg$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> > > > .....
> > > >
> > > > SR also requires inertial frames. These can be observed and
> > > > detected experimentally. LET asserts the existence of a
> > > > preferred inertial frame, the aether frame; there is no evidence
> > > > for this.
> > > >
> > > > Martin Hogbin
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Martin,
> > > Have you read sections 5.2 and 5.3 of "Gravity..."
> > > (www.physicsdeconstructed.com)?
> > > It seems to me that it is demonstrated there that all experiments in
> which
> > > clocks are affected by motion provide evidence for the preferred
> inertial
> > > frame.
> >
> > How is this preferred frame identified?
>
> Even if our technology doesn't allow us to identify it, its existence is
> necessary for the explanation of causal effects of motion.
I don't think so. The *presence* of time, argued from the point of view
of causality, is no guarantee that time is in any way *quantitatively*
observer-independent. Specifically, the fact that time is one of the
four dimensions that we sense does not mean there is an
observer-independent time scale according to which all things run. In
the same way, the fact that there are (at least) three spatial
dimensions does not mean that any physical process relies on a
universal x-axis separate from the others.
Spaceman
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141481520....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Length is defined as the result of a measurement procedure and
> measurement is as real as it gets. It is also observer-dependent.
ROFLOL
length is observer-dependant?
LOL
You truly are lost in rubber ruler land PD.
LOL
Sam Wormley
> length is observer-dependant?
> LOL
As a matter of fact!
Spaceman
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_1jOf.801265$x96.764416@attbi_s72...
No
Only fools can actually believe such crap.
If I am far enough away from anything,
I can fit it in my pocket now right?
LOL
Sam Wormley
Not distance spaceshit, velocity! Try not to be
so stooopid, spaceshit.
Spaceman
Sam,
You have no physical proof of length being observer dependant.
I think you should stop being a complete freakin moron some day.
Sam Wormley
> Sam,
> You have no physical proof of length being observer dependant.
> I think you should stop being a complete freakin moron some day.
>
>
Spaceshit also wrote:
> Sam,
> you seem to have some complex that thinks I do not think SR makes
> predictions correctly using it's math and such.
> I have never ever said it does not do such.
> Never!
Which is it spaceshit?
Spaceman
Wow,
now because I said animals eat other animals
now you think I said ALL animals eat animals.
Sad for you Sam.
Do all relativity worhsipped twist likeyou do..
Oh ya.. Yes, they do..
Now,
make up your mind Sam,
Is length a physical length that would be the same
for all if they measure it correctly, or is length a relative length
and no actual length can ever be determined?
Sam Wormley
Pretty hard to weasel out of, eh spaceshit!
Spaceman
It is pretty hard for you to weasel out of your
length being relative joke you are backing up..
LOL
Sam Wormley
>
> It is pretty hard for you to weasel out of your
> length being relative joke you are backing up..
> LOL
>
>
Space Interferometry Mission as a Test of Lorentz Length Contraction
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/simiee2/simiee2.stm
Abstract--A basic tenet of special relativity is the concept of
length contraction seen by an observer in motion. Lorentz
contraction, which changes the apparent location of a light source,
combines with aberration, which changes the apparent direction to the
source, producing a variety of effects. While aberration has been
confirmed, Lorentz contraction has never been tested directly, due to
the generally negligible size of the effect. As the earth orbits the
sun, Lorentz contraction offsets the apparent position of a distant
source by as much as 18 micro-arcseconds (mas) per degree of
separation. This offset is in addition to that caused by aberration.
The Space Interferometry Mission, due for launch in 2005, promises a
resolution of +/- 1 mas in a field of view of one degree, allowing
for the first time the direct confirmation of Lorentz length
contraction, one-hundred years after the introduction of
Einstein's special theory of relativity in 1905.
Space Interferometry Mission
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim_index.cfm
Spaceman
Ooo,
proof of malfunctioning clocks creating a change in length?
ROFLOL
Sam Wormley
Get ready to eat your hat!
Spaceman
With a constant lightspeed that is not truly constant,
you will of course come up with length contraction
because you are merely playing with variable meters and
variable seconds.
You will be aeting your hat and the hat of every relative observer
when lightspeed is found as a relative speed just as it would have to be
if it is a motion of a wave or motion of a particle at all.
So,
I am not worried Sam,
you should simply because no tranforms should be needed
to show lightspeed as constant.. yet.. you need them to prove
c is constant to all observers...
ROFLOL
Sam Wormley
>
> With a constant lightspeed that is not truly constant...
Ah, but you are wrong from the get go... constant light speed
is constant, by definition, and prior to that empirically so.
Spaceman
The ignorance you show must give you headaches sometimes huh?
Sam,
why do you need a transform to prove lightspeed is constant to
all observers?
Too stupid to realize what the transform does huh?
Too stupid to realize it is simply a self speed limiting trick
of math huh?
Poor Sam,
Fooled by a silly math trick!
LOL
Sam Wormley
> The ignorance you show must give you headaches sometimes huh?
> Sam,
> why do you need a transform to prove light speed is constant to
> all observers?
> Too stupid to realize what the transform does huh?
> Too stupid to realize it is simply a self speed limiting trick
> of math huh?
> Poor Sam,
> Fooled by a silly math trick!
> LOL
>
>
Nobody have ever measured c to be anything other than the constant
it is now defined to be. Transforms are not needed to define the
speed of light, spaceshit.
Take a look at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpeedofLight.html
Spaceman
> Nobody have ever measured c to be anything other than the constant
> it is now defined to be. Transforms are not needed to define the
> speed of light, spaceshit.
Sam proves yet again, he is simply a parrot and has forgotten
that a transform is needed for proof of c being relative to all
observers..
LOL
Sam Wormley
Ref: http://dichionary.reference.com/search?q=parrot
par·rot
1. One who teaches or instructs; one whose business or occupation
is to instruct others; an instructor; a tutor.
2. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences,
especially a natural or physical science.
Source: The American Heritige® Dichionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghtin Mifflen Company.
Published by Houghtin Mifflen Company. All rights reserved
shuba
Jan Gooral wrote:
> Besides, what reason(s) do you have to call this web site
> "crackpot"?
No author information. Typical claims by an unknown "researcher"
to have single-handedly invalidated large chunks of modern
physics. No links to anything except the author's own 538(!)
page pdf file. There are no reasons to think that the author is
even marginally legitimate.
> I posted about this web site because I wanted
> experts to explain what is wrong with it, so that I don't believe
> in what is incorrect.
More likely, you posted about it because you wrote it.
> So far they are silent (maybe they need more
> time to read it).
Maybe they need a *reason* to read it. The html page doesn't
even come close to providing such a reason. If you're interested
in alternative ideas, there are places to look, such as arxiv.org.
---Tim Shuba---
Tom Roberts
> But some of your SR experts (PD and Randy) say that length contraction is
> REAL.....not just a geometric effect.
You have a pun on the word "real". Geometric effects can indeed be
"real" -- a long rod will fit through a narrow doorway in some
orientations but not others. This is a _real_ consequence of a purely
geometric relationship.
Ditto for "time dilation" and "length contraction" in SR, because they
are _the_same_ effect as that rod and doorway -- geometric projection.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jan Gooral
> Jan Gooral wrote:
[snip]
> > But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
>
> I don't know what that means, and I doubt you do either.
>
> SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable, and that is enough.
I dare to disagree: SR can only predict apparent effects of
motion. But there are many experiments in which clocks are
indisputably affected by motion physically. And this can only
be predicted by LET. So clearly these two theories are not
only experimentally distinguishable, but it's easy to know
which one is correct.
> > Recently, using 'Yahoo search', I was looking for papers on quantum
> > gravity in which Mercury's perihelion shift would be addressed.
>
> Quantum gravity is only expected to have significant effects in regions
> with strong gravity, such as near the singularities of black holes and
> such. The solar system has rather weak gravity, with a dimensionless
> strength ~0.001 or less (strong gravity would be >1).
Everything depends on what you consider as quantum gravity effect.
If you read at least "Abstract" and what follows it you should have
an idea what I'm saying. If you didn't bother reading even this then
I don't think you will read if I try to explain it here, because it
would take a few pages of text; hence, you would have an excuse for
not reading it anyways.
> > It is contended in this paper that SR can't predict physical effects
> > of motion,
>
> Hmmm. In the sense that SR contains no dynamics this is true -- given
> the force applied to an object SR can quite accurately predict its
> motion. But SR itself cannot determine what the force is.
This is irrelevant. You know very well that I was talking about
predicting effects of motion on rates of clocks and not about
predicting motion of clocks under the influence of force.
(Is it an intended diversion?)
> > because in SR the only motion that matters is relative
> > motion.
>
> But that's no reason or explanation at all.
>
>
> > To be short: Let's say we have many observers who are all
> > in motion relative to one another. Velocity of a given clock will
> > obviously depend on relative to which observer it is measured. If
> > relative motion was to be causing retardation of clocks, this clock
> > would have to be running at many different rates at the same time.
>
> In SR the clocks are not "physically retarded" at all. In SR the
> different observers measure different tick rates for a given clock
> because of geometric projection -- the _same_ principle that permits a
> long rod to fit through a narrow doorway in some orientations but not in
> others.
>
> That is, different observers _observe_ the clock differently, but their
> observations have no power to "physically affect" the clock itself in
> any way.
And this was my point, SR's claim that the rate of a moving
clock depends on magnitude of its motion relative to an
arbitrary observer is a myth.
> Analogy: When your friend walks away from you she appears to
> get smaller -- do you think that she really does shrink?
> Does your looking at her have any power over the size of
> her body?
No, and this proves my point. Observers' perceptions do not
affect rates of moving clocks.
Analogy: When I speed up relative to a given clock, its rate
cannot change because of this, and I will see that the clock was
not slowed down just because it was in motion relative to me,
when I return back to the clock. But when the clock is set into
motion and returned back, I will see effects of its being
retarded by motion. According to relativity theory there should
be no difference between the two cases, because "Velocity
produces a universal time dilation; acceleration does not."
("Gravitation" - Misner et al., p.393). And if (as you wrote)
'clocks are not "physically retarded" at all' by motion either,
then why do clocks stay behind after experiencing motion?
Physical retardation of clocks is experimentally proven, so what
causes it? (And please don't mix apparent retardation with real
retardation.)
Jan Gooral
Jan Gooral
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:90hOf.923$9I5...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
If length contraction does not take place predictions based on
Lorentz transformation equations cannot be satisfied, Einstein's
aberration formula cannot be correct, and addition of velocities
formula cannot always be correct.
If you want to know why, see section 5.9 and 5.9.1 of Gravity..."
(www.physicsdeconstructed.com). If you are not interested: forget
it and you may believe in whatever you wish, it's not my problem.
Jan Gooral
Jan Gooral
news:0_ydnRnK98tbc5TZ...@comcast.com...
More than two years ago it was experimentally proven that
the speed of light is not constant in all directions and in
every inertial frame. For more details and references see
section 5.7 of Gravity..." (www.physicsdeconstructed.com).
Jan Gooral
Jan Gooral
Four-dimensionality is another can of worms. To avoid changing
the subject, I reply in a thread: "Is our Universe 4-dimensional?"
Jan Gooral.
Jan Gooral
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-0F77C...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> *---* crosspost to sci.physics removed *---*
>
> Jan Gooral wrote:
>
> > Besides, what reason(s) do you have to call this web site
> > "crackpot"?
>
> No author information. Typical claims by an unknown "researcher"
> to have single-handedly invalidated large chunks of modern
> physics. No links to anything except the author's own 538(!)
> page pdf file. There are no reasons to think that the author is
> even marginally legitimate.
This reminds me something. In countries under communist
governments, if you wrote something, it did not matter whether you
were right. If you were a prominent communist you were always
right, if you were in opposition to them you were always wrong.
So who you were, and what your name was, was of primary
importance. One would think that in science only correctness of
ideas should matter. Who cares whether an idea was conceived by a
"legitimate" author or not? I don't. For me a good idea is a
good idea, it doesn't matter whether its author got a degree or
not, whether he is white or black, etc.
> > I posted about this web site because I wanted
> > experts to explain what is wrong with it, so that I don't believe
> > in what is incorrect.
>
> More likely, you posted about it because you wrote it.
I'm not going to address this implication at all. The reason
is very simple. If I denied that I wrote it, you would write
that I lied, and start speculating why. If I answered that I
wrote it, you would also say that I lied. In today's world it's
not that difficult to find out details about somebody's
education. Then you would write that my education is not up to
the task, and that I could not have written the paper; and
therefore, I am a liar. It is evident to me that you are trying
to change the subject to personal matters to divert attention
from physics to other things. Not so hard to guess why.
> > So far they are silent (maybe they need more
> > time to read it).
>
> Maybe they need a *reason* to read it. The html page doesn't
> even come close to providing such a reason.
According to me, more than one reason is given there.
> If you're interested
> in alternative ideas, there are places to look, such as arxiv.org.
Do you really believe that anybody interested in science does
not know this?
> ---Tim Shuba---
Jan Gooral
Sam Wormley
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cD9Of.65669$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Jan Gooral wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
>>
>>I don't know what that means, and I doubt you do either.
>>
>>SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable, and that is enough.
>
>
> I dare to disagree: SR can only predict apparent effects of
> motion. But there are many experiments in which clocks are
> indisputably affected by motion physically. And this can only
> be predicted by LET. So clearly these two theories are not
> only experimentally distinguishable, but it's easy to know
> which one is correct.
>
Your "apparent effects" are required for particle accelerators
and the Global Positioning System to work.
Your paper at http://www.physicsdeconstructed.com is contradicted
by empirical data.
Submitted to crank dot net.
Jeff_Яelf
SR cannot make a prediction of
a physical ( causal ) effect of motion on clocks.
Moutains of empirical evidence tells us that _All_ the laws of physics,
-- including the speed of light in a virtual vacuum --,
are _Observed_ to be, -- Locally --, the same everwhere.
We call that: Einstein's Principle_of_Relativity.
As I recently wrote in another thread...
Imagine a triangle where the side opposite
is a function of how fast the cosmic ray, for example, is traveling.
Moving near the speed of light, black body radiation from the nucleus,
-- a standard clock --, would take that much longer to reach us.
That is to say, we _Observe_ that it's standard clock is ticking slower.
Locally, of course, the clock ticks at the same rate was it would here.
Because the time dialtion at a given gravitational potentional
is a function of special relativity and the escape velocity,
it seems reasonable to me that we are, in fact, moving that fast ourselves,
but in a cyclical fashion... and in more dimensions.
So... time is _Observed_ to be local, parochial. Best theory says that
time is, intrinsically, the fourth _Spatial_ dimension.
It's only unknowns, so_called randomness, that makes it seem otherwise.
But far too many here are drunk on religion, feeding on unknowns,
hating the certainty of their own eventual deaths... their dissipation.
All is, you are, confined as much temporally as spatially.
And that, of course, is what bothers so many here.
It's a topic more adult, more sober, than most can handle.
Religious people just aren't sober enough.
I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
What's worse, for these drunks here,
is that Entorpy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, a.k.a. cosmic time.
Counting light ticks of super cooled masers are how we define time.
Why did I mention black body radiation ? Because the rest is noise.
Atomic clocks are super cooled for a reason, as you know.
Lasers/Masers/Atom_Lasers are Bose_Einstein condensates... very cold.
At the picosecond level,
ambient heat and the lack of a true vacuum introduce _Huge_ errors.
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Entropy says:
The SI unit of entropy is J/K ( joule per kelvin ),
which is the same unit as heat capacity.
So... entropy goes to infinity at absolute zero,
-- e.g. at a virtual vacuum --,
and it approches zero when the temperature is infinite,
-- e.g. at a virtual singularity, such as the start of the big bang --.
But there never was such a start because
entropy is, most probably, an intrinsic property of all Mass_Energy,
the universe has just _Always_ been dissipating.
Should any find the strength to sober up, ha ha, I suggest they ponder this:
_ I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
_ All meaning is local, here and now, the rest is inane.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Jan Gooral" <es...@sentex.ca> wrote in message
news:440a...@news.sentex.net...
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cD9Of.65669$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> Jan Gooral wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> > But can predictions of SR and LET be really
>> > identical physically?
>>
>> I don't know what that means, and I doubt you
>> do either.
>>
>> SR and LET are experimentally
>> indistinguishable, and that is enough.
>
> I dare to disagree: SR can only predict apparent
> effects of motion.
Including differences in "elapsed time" for different inertial
frames.
> But there are many experiments in which
> clocks are indisputably affected by motion
> physically.
Sure. Pendulum clocks swing at different rates, if at all. But
atomic clocks for the most part don't care.
> And this can only
> be predicted by LET.
Absolutely not. It is also predicted by "apparent predictions of
SR".
> So clearly these two theories are not
> only experimentally distinguishable, but it's
> easy to know which one is correct.
So clearly you don't have a clue. Nor want one.
David A. Smith
shuba
> I'm not going to address this implication at all.
</begin Jan Gooral addressing the implication>
> The reason
> is very simple. If I denied that I wrote it, you would write
> that I lied, and start speculating why. If I answered that I
> wrote it, you would also say that I lied. In today's world it's
> not that difficult to find out details about somebody's
> education. Then you would write that my education is not up to
> the task, and that I could not have written the paper; and
> therefore, I am a liar. It is evident to me that you are trying
> to change the subject to personal matters to divert attention
> from physics to other things. Not so hard to guess why.
</end Jan Gooral addressing the implication>
> > > So far they are silent (maybe they need more
> > > time to read it).
> >
> > Maybe they need a *reason* to read it. The html page doesn't
> > even come close to providing such a reason.
>
> According to me, more than one reason is given there.
Yes, of course. Thanks for the clarification.
---Tim Shuba---
kenseto
It doesn't have to be real physical length contraction of a rod. It can be
that the light path length of a physical rod is different in different
frames. This interpretation gives a new theory of relativity called IRT
(improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity.
A description of IRT is in the following link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
kenseto
> measurement is as real as it gets. It is also observer-dependent.
Funny that every observer measures that their meter stick to be one meter
long. So how is that observer dependent?
> Moreover, there is no physical spatial length that is measurable and
> not observer-dependent.
Funny that we use physical ruler to measure physical length every day. An
observer sees a moving rod to be shorter because its light path length is
longer. So I guess your assertion is just that an ASSERTION.
>Therefore, length contraction is real in any
> sense of the word you want to attribute to it.
Therefore length contraction is not real but an apparent (geometric) effect.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > But some of your SR experts (PD and Randy) say that length contraction
is
> > REAL.....not just a geometric effect.
>
> You have a pun on the word "real". Geometric effects can indeed be
> "real" -- a long rod will fit through a narrow doorway in some
> orientations but not others. This is a _real_ consequence of a purely
> geometric relationship.
No it is you who has a pun on the word "real". Clearly a long rod fit
through a narrow doorway in some orientation did not change its real
physical length.
>
> Ditto for "time dilation" and "length contraction" in SR, because they
> are _the_same_ effect as that rod and doorway -- geometric projection.
Except that the so called "time dilation" and "length contraction" is not
reciprocal. For example: the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running
slow compared to the ground clock. For sure from the GPS point of view the
SR effect on the ground clock is not 7 us/day running slow compared to the
GPS clock.
There is no time dilation. The observed effect of a moving clock accumulates
less elapsed time is due to the moving clock is running at a lesser rate.
IOW, Time dilation is due to a moving clock second contains a greater amount
of absolute time. BTW, that's the reason why the speed of light is a
constant math ratio as measured by all inertial observer as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
There is no physical length contraction. The physical length of a rod
remains the same in all frames. However, the light path length of a rod is
different in different frames.
These new interpretations give rise to a new theory of relativity called
IRT. A description of IRT is in the following link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cD9Of.65669$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> Jan Gooral wrote:
>>> But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
>
> I dare to disagree: SR can only predict apparent effects of
> motion.
Hmmm. You need to be more precise about what you mean by "apparent effects".
SR does indeed predict that unstable particles moving in the lab can
live much longer than their proper lifetimes. Is this an "apparent
effect"? -- I don't know what you mean by that.
It _does_ have practical consequences: we can construct
pion beamlines over a kilometer long even though the
pion's lifetime*speed is only 7.8 meters -- without the
effects of "time dilation" they would all decay long
before they reached the end of the beamline; they don't.
The fraction of surviving pions is in good agreement with
the prediction of SR.
> But there are many experiments in which clocks are
> indisputably affected by motion physically.
I know of none (and I have looked extensively for experiments verifying
and refuting SR). References, please.
In particular, for the above-mentioned pion beams we get the observed
performance if we assume that the intrinsic decay of the pion is _NOT_
affected by its motion relative to the lab. Ditto for literally hundreds
of other experiments [see the FAQ for references].
> And this can only
> be predicted by LET.
I think you have a pun on "predicted".
In physics, the result of a measurement is predicted by a given theory
by applying the conditions of the experiment to a theorem of the theory
selected so the result of the measurement is given. As SR and LET share
the same set of theorems, it is not possible for either of them to
predict any result not also predicted by the other.
> So clearly these two theories are not
> only experimentally distinguishable, but it's easy to know
> which one is correct.
No. You definitely have some puns in there. And/or some mistakes.
> You know very well that I was talking about
> predicting effects of motion on rates of clocks and not about
> predicting motion of clocks under the influence of force.
No, I do not know "very well" what you were talking about, because as I
said your words are ambiguous and/or include important puns.
SR can indeed predict how different observers will measure the rate of a
given clock.
>> That is, different observers _observe_ the clock differently, but their
>> observations have no power to "physically affect" the clock itself in
>> any way.
>
> And this was my point, SR's claim that the rate of a moving
> clock depends on magnitude of its motion relative to an
> arbitrary observer is a myth.
Clearly you do not understand SR. SR says no such thing. SR says that
different observers will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be
different from its proper rate. But it says nothing at all about "rate
depending on motion" (where implicitly _proper_ rate is meant). Indeed,
in SR any inertially-moving clock ticks with its normal rate in its rest
frame.
>> Analogy: When your friend walks away from you she appears to
>> get smaller -- do you think that she really does shrink?
>> Does your looking at her have any power over the size of
>> her body?
>
> No, and this proves my point. Observers' perceptions do not
> affect rates of moving clocks.
Right. That's what SR predicts.
> Analogy: When I speed up relative to a given clock, its rate
> cannot change because of this, and I will see that the clock was
> not slowed down just because it was in motion relative to me,
> when I return back to the clock.
Sure. And yet the clock you carried will display less elapsed proper
time than the clock you returned to (assume _it_ was at rest in some
inertial frame). This is so because in order to return to the clock you
must have accelerated somewhere, and your path through spacetime is
different from that other clock's; your path is not inertial, and the
other clock's as (with my stipulation).
> But when the clock is set into
> motion and returned back, I will see effects of its being
> retarded by motion.
Your writing lacks the necessary precision. In particular, the clock is
not "retarded by motion", it's just that you and the clock had different
paths through spacetime, and those different paths have different
elapsed proper times, and _that_ is what is observed.
> According to relativity theory there should
> be no difference between the two cases, because "Velocity
> produces a universal time dilation; acceleration does not."
Clearly you do not understand SR. Different paths through spacetime can
have different elapsed proper times between their meetings. In
particular, if one path is inertial then the other cannot possibly be
inertial and still meet the first more than once; the inertial path
between a given pair of points on the path necessarily has the longest
elapsed proper time between those points.
> "Velocity
> produces a universal time dilation; acceleration does not."
> ("Gravitation" - Misner et al., p.393).
You have to read their entire argument, not just the sound bite at the end.
> And if (as you wrote)
> 'clocks are not "physically retarded" at all' by motion either,
> then why do clocks stay behind after experiencing motion?
Again you speak too loosely. In all cases where one "clock stayed
behind", you'll find that the clocks being compared followed different
paths through spacetime with different elapsed proper times between
meetings. This is _different_ from merely saying "motion".
> Physical retardation of clocks is experimentally proven, so what
> causes it?
I repeat: you are confused, and no experiment of which I am aware
"proves physical retardation of clocks".
All such experiments are explained by the fact that the different clocks
were following different paths through spacetime with different elapsed
proper times between a given pair of points on both trajectories.
Perhaps you are confused by the word "relativity". As many authors have
pointed out, the theory of "relativity" is really more concerned with
things that do not change (aka invariance, aka symmetries) than with
relative effects. In particular, the philosophical approach known as
relativism is _very_different_.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
brian a m stuckless
$$ Least-Squares-Adjustmemnt is due to "observer dependent" error.
$$ Which "use to be" exactly WHY "to do" Least-Squares-Adjustment.
$$ But since the Ph.Tivity coup (silent p), it's sort of GR PROOF.
$$ [i.e. "GR-PROOF" of "length dilation" & "time dilation", even].
$$ Wow.!! <snicker>. ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity).
kenseto wrote: > > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > kenseto wrote: > > > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote
> > > > Jan Gooral wrote: > > > > > > > > > To be short: -=- -=-
> Funny that every observer measures that their meter stick to be
> one meter long. So how is that observer dependent? > Ken Seto
Re: Can SR and LET make identical physical predictions?
Re: Observer Error (Least-Squares) Adjustment.
Sam Wormley
No it wasn't.
Sam Wormley
>
> There is no physical length contraction. The physical length of a rod
> remains the same in all frames. However, the light path length of a rod is
> different in different frames.
>
This is not true. The measured length is always observer dependent.
brian a m stuckless
Several GR-Tivity observers SiMULTANEOUSLY *observe* a train
SPEEDiNG along the track AWAY from some POiNT A on the track.
Then ONE GR-observer FiRES a TRiGGER-signal which is RECiEVED
by transmitter/receiver (transceiver) located aTOP the train.
This transceiver iMMEDiATELY re-FiRES the signal to the LASER
GUN (conveniently located UNDER the train) which, iMMEDiATELY
re-FiRES jUST ONE (1), very strong, SiNGLE laser PULSE and SO
ONLY engraving jUST ONE (1) very DiSTiNCT TRACK-mark (..at a
POiNT B on the track).!!
Now SURELY, even though ONLY ONE (1) SiNGLE distinct TRACKMARK
has been STRUCK (at track POiNT B), each GR-Tivity OBSERVER
will have each ..most CERTAiNLY, calculated a SiGNiFiCANTLY
different LENGTH ..AB.!!
$$ Sincerely, ```Brian ; p.s.
COReL WordPerfect 7 File: < TheMARK.wpd > ><> ><> End of rePOST.
kenseto
> Jan Gooral wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:cD9Of.65669$PL5....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> >> Jan Gooral wrote:
> >>> But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
> >> SR and LET are experimentally indistinguishable, and that is enough.
> >
> > I dare to disagree: SR can only predict apparent effects of
> > motion.
>
> Hmmm. You need to be more precise about what you mean by "apparent
effects".
>
> SR does indeed predict that unstable particles moving in the lab can
> live much longer than their proper lifetimes. Is this an "apparent
> effect"? -- I don't know what you mean by that.
>
> It _does_ have practical consequences: we can construct
> pion beamlines over a kilometer long even though the
> pion's lifetime*speed is only 7.8 meters -- without the
> effects of "time dilation" they would all decay long
> before they reached the end of the beamline; they don't.
> The fraction of surviving pions is in good agreement with
> the prediction of SR.
That's because the proper lifetime for a moving pion is worth [gamma*the
proper life time for a muon in the lab].
There is no time dilation.
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> That's because the proper lifetime for a moving pion is worth [gamma*the
> proper life time for a muon in the lab].
> There is no time dilation.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
For an observer in a different frame (with relative motion), there
is time dilation. Predicted by special relativity and confirmed
empirically.
Bilge
>"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
>news:tim.shuba-0F77C...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> *---* crosspost to sci.physics removed *---*
>>
>> Jan Gooral wrote:
>>
>> > Besides, what reason(s) do you have to call this web site
>> > "crackpot"?
>>
>> No author information. Typical claims by an unknown "researcher"
>> to have single-handedly invalidated large chunks of modern
>> physics. No links to anything except the author's own 538(!)
>> page pdf file. There are no reasons to think that the author is
>> even marginally legitimate.
>
> This reminds me something. In countries under communist
>governments, if you wrote something, it did not matter whether you
>were right. If you were a prominent communist you were always
>right, if you were in opposition to them you were always wrong.
>So who you were, and what your name was, was of primary
>importance. One would think that in science only correctness of
>ideas should matter.
Given that I don't have time to read at least 29,900+ of those
articles even if I wanted to, I have to be somewhat selective and
narrowing down the topic only goes so far. So, what is a reasonable
set of criteria? Well, assuming I have to choose from among a lot
of articles that fit into the category of interest, the next most
important one is, did the author write something in the abstract that
that leads me to believe the rest of the paper is going to be worth
reading - like, does the author appear to know something about the
subject?
With kooks, the answer is almost invariable no and that is obvious
from reading only a few lines. Kooks are always long on analogies,
metaphors and philosophical jive, but never discuss any real physics.
They almost always make grandiose claims and demostrate early on
that they lack both the physics and mathematical background to even
be conversant on the subject. Since it's impossible to even read all
of the good papers published, I see no reason to slog through one
which appears to be written by a kook just in case he/she pulls out
a miracle in the last paragraph. If an author wants to get the attention
of his/her readers, he/should say something up front which not only
gets their attention, but indicates the article is more than wishful
thinking.
>Who cares whether an idea was conceived by a
>"legitimate" author or not? I don't. For me a good idea is a
>good idea, it doesn't matter whether its author got a degree or
>not, whether he is white or black, etc.
1000 pages of text is not going to save an idea which was wrong
as stated in the first paragraph. If anything, it only demonstrates
the extent to which someone will go to hold on to their philosophical
preconceptions. I can't think of a single ground breaking paper in physics
that is more than a few tens of pages long (and most are probaly less
than 10 pages). Another dead giveaway for a kook paper is that kooks
spend lots and lots of pages re-deriving simple results which any
physicist has proably done him/herself, countless times. That tends
to indicate the person really has no idea of the level of the physics
he is attempting to address.
brian a m stuckless
$$ You wiggle past bigoted louts to get a Ph.D.
$$ Which student will get past Bilge and score a Ph.D?
$$ Lubos Motl (Motley Loop-holes), or Yab-a-dab-a-doo?
$$ Get out ..while you're still considered salvagable.
$$ Come on, FRiED-day.!! ```Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T.
PD
You'll note those are two different sticks measured in the same state
of relative motion -- at rest with respect to the observer.
How about taking a look at the same stick with measurements made by two
different observers?
>
> > Moreover, there is no physical spatial length that is measurable and
> > not observer-dependent.
>
> Funny that we use physical ruler to measure physical length every day.
That works in an excellent approximation, because the objects we
measure from day to day are usually moving very, very slowly (much less
than thousands of miles per second). This approximation does not mean
that it is a reliable assumption at all speeds.
> An
> observer sees a moving rod to be shorter because its light path length is
> longer.
Gee, that sounds like an ASSERTION to me.
PD
Note that two different observers, for whom the pion is moving at two
different relative speeds, will come to two different measurements of
the pion. How does the pion know which lifetime it should increase its
longevity to?
>
> Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:NprOf.18731$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> But some of your SR experts (PD and Randy) say that length contraction
> is
>>> REAL.....not just a geometric effect.
>> You have a pun on the word "real". Geometric effects can indeed be
>> "real" -- a long rod will fit through a narrow doorway in some
>> orientations but not others. This is a _real_ consequence of a purely
>> geometric relationship.
>
> through a narrow doorway in some orientation did not change its real
> physical length.
Yes. Clearly the length of the rod _projected_ onto the width of the
doorway is what determines whether or not the rod fits through. And just
as clearly, "length contraction" in SR is a _projection_ of the moving
rod's length onto the observer's ruler. In neither case does the rod
change in any way; what changes is the _projection_ of the rod onto a
measuring apparatus (doorway or ruler).
>> Ditto for "time dilation" and "length contraction" in SR, because they
>> are _the_same_ effect as that rod and doorway -- geometric projection.
>
> Except that the so called "time dilation" and "length contraction" is not
> reciprocal.
In SR it is: A clock at rest in inertial frame A is observed to "tick
slowly" when measured by an observer in inertial frame B (using 2
clocks, because frame B is moving wrt frame A). Similarly, a clock at
rest in inertial frame B is observed to "tick slowly" when measured by
an observer in inertial frame A (using 2 clocks, because frame B is
moving wrt frame A). Moreover, the "amount of slowing" is the same.
Note that these are two _different_ measurements of two
_different_ but symmetrical physical situations.
> For example: the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running
> slow compared to the ground clock. For sure from the GPS point of view the
> SR effect on the ground clock is not 7 us/day running slow compared to the
> GPS clock.
Those cases are not reciprocal, because they are not inertial frames (in
the sense of SR).
> There is no time dilation. [...]
Your assertions are model dependent. In the model known as SR they are
just plain wrong. In the model known as LET your statement about no time
dilation is correct (to within your loose way of speaking); your
statement about length contraction is wrong. There can, of course, be
other models....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> More than two years ago it was experimentally proven that
> the speed of light is not constant in all directions and in
> every inertial frame. For more details and references see
> section 5.7 of Gravity..." (www.physicsdeconstructed.com).
Your section 5.7 quotes Ives, showing a very basic misunderstanding of
SR. In SR, the speed of light is c _only_ in inertial frames, and the
rotating Sagnac interferometer is not at rest in any inertial frame.
Your paper is incredibly naive, and useless AFAICT.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jan Gooral
It makes me wonder: Do you just pretend that you did not
understand what you read there, or you really were not able to
understand it? I feel sorry for you in any case.
Jan Gooral
Hexenmeister
Ask him how many accretion disks near black holes he's seen and
he'll tell you he isn't an astronomer and refer you to amazon.com.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 17:57:18 GMT
Local: Sat, Sep 17 2005 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Does the 'Curvature of Spacetime' cause gravity?
"Yes, tests of strong fields are few and far between, but there are
some:
the binary pulsars, and observations of accretion disks near black
holes"
He thinks the lines in the Nazca desert are UFO runways, Von Daniken
said so and you'll find that at amazon.com too.
Androcles.
kenseto
No there is no time dilation.....a clock second in the moving frame contains
a higher amount of absolute time (longer duration) than a clock second in
the stationary clock and you call this "time dilation".
Ken Seto
kenseto
Sigh....gamma has a different value for the two observers.
PD
Right. And how does the pion know which value of gamma to choose to
alter its proper lifetime by?
Ah, you must mean to say that the proper lifetime of the pion doesn't
change at all, only the lifetime as measured by the observers. Is that
what you mean?
PD
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:NprOf.18731$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> But some of your SR experts (PD and Randy) say that length contraction
> > is
> >>> REAL.....not just a geometric effect.
> >> You have a pun on the word "real". Geometric effects can indeed be
> >> "real" -- a long rod will fit through a narrow doorway in some
> >> orientations but not others. This is a _real_ consequence of a purely
> >> geometric relationship.
> >
> > Clearly a long rod fit
> > through a narrow doorway in some orientation did not change its real
> > physical length.
>
> Yes. Clearly the length of the rod _projected_ onto the width of the
> doorway is what determines whether or not the rod fits through. And just
> as clearly, "length contraction" in SR is a _projection_ of the moving
> rod's length onto the observer's ruler. In neither case does the rod
> change in any way; what changes is the _projection_ of the rod onto a
> measuring apparatus (doorway or ruler).
OK so we agree that length contraction is apparent. The physical length of a
moving rod remains the same but the geometric projected length of the moving
rod is dependent on its relative motion wrt the observer. I can agree to
that.
>
>
> >> Ditto for "time dilation" and "length contraction" in SR, because they
> >> are _the_same_ effect as that rod and doorway -- geometric projection.
> >
> > Except that the so called "time dilation" and "length contraction" is
not
> > reciprocal.
>
> In SR it is: A clock at rest in inertial frame A is observed to "tick
> slowly" when measured by an observer in inertial frame B (using 2
> clocks, because frame B is moving wrt frame A). Similarly, a clock at
> rest in inertial frame B is observed to "tick slowly" when measured by
> an observer in inertial frame A (using 2 clocks, because frame B is
> moving wrt frame A). Moreover, the "amount of slowing" is the same.
This SR assertion is based on the assumption that each observer (A or B)
considers himself to be at rest. IOW when A is the observer he assumes that
B is doing the moving and when B is the observer he assumes that A is doing
the moving. No such assertion have been observed experimentally.
>
> Note that these are two _different_ measurements of two
> _different_ but symmetrical physical situations.
Again this is an assumption.
>
>
> > For example: the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running
> > slow compared to the ground clock. For sure from the GPS point of view
the
> > SR effect on the ground clock is not 7 us/day running slow compared to
the
> > GPS clock.
>
> Those cases are not reciprocal, because they are not inertial frames (in
> the sense of SR).
So then we agree that on earth reciprocity is not observed. Why? Because all
frames on earth or orbit around the earth are not inertial frames.
>
>
> > There is no time dilation. [...]
>
> Your assertions are model dependent. In the model known as SR they are
> just plain wrong. In the model known as LET your statement about no time
> dilation is correct (to within your loose way of speaking); your
> statement about length contraction is wrong. There can, of course, be
> other models....
It is not wrong in the model known as SR. The SR interpretation is not
written in stone.
So you are not open to discuss other model even though SR is incomplete?
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
> OK so we agree that length contraction is apparent. The physical length of a
> moving rod remains the same but the geometric projected length of the moving
> rod is dependent on its relative motion wrt the observer. I can agree to
> that.
>
Ken you seem to argue that because "proper" time, mass and length
are not changed, that relativistic time dilation, mass increase,
and length contraction are somehow not real.
They as real as anything else in this universe is real. Muons
make it to the ground. Stronger magnetic fields are required in
particle accelerators and the Global Navigation Satellite Systems
(GNSS) work well only because the real relativistic effects are
taken into account.
The universe is correctly modeled by SR and GTR. It is empirically
so.
kenseto
Are you really that stupid? The pion doesn't alter its proper lifetime. He
(it) will determine a gamma value for each observer and mutliply that
observer's gamma value with its proper lifetime.
>
> Ah, you must mean to say that the proper lifetime of the pion doesn't
> change at all, only the lifetime as measured by the observers. Is that
> what you mean?
No I mean that the life time of the moving pion is worth [gamma*lifetime of
the lab pion]. IOW, a clock second in the moving muon's frame is worth
(gamma seconds) in the lab frame.
PD
The pion does that? How clever of it, considering that it has no brain!
How does it know what observers are looking at it?
> >
> > Ah, you must mean to say that the proper lifetime of the pion doesn't
> > change at all, only the lifetime as measured by the observers. Is that
> > what you mean?
>
> No I mean that the life time of the moving pion is worth [gamma*lifetime of
> the lab pion].
What is the "worth" of a lifetime?
> IOW, a clock second in the moving muon's frame is worth
> (gamma seconds) in the lab frame.
Is there a transaction here, a trade of seconds? What does that mean, a
second in one frrame is "worth" something else in another frame?
PD
Martin Hogbin
"Hexenmeister" <vanq...@broom.Mickey> wrote in message news:V2VOf.118294$YJ4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Roberts is all troll. He bluffs constantly and is a lying shit.
> Ask him how many accretion disks near black holes he's seen and
> he'll tell you he isn't an astronomer and refer you to amazon.com.
Androcles is a stupid troll. Ask him how he would measure the
speed of a passing train and he not got a clue.
Martin Hogbin
Hexenmeister
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMO...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:duht4a$8he$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Hey phuckwit troll! What's the speed of a passing Catalina Island?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
You don't have a clue.
Fuck off, you dumb cunt.
Androcles
>
>
Tom Roberts
>> Yes. Clearly the length of the rod _projected_ onto the width of the
>> doorway is what determines whether or not the rod fits through. And just
>> as clearly, "length contraction" in SR is a _projection_ of the moving
>> rod's length onto the observer's ruler. In neither case does the rod
>> change in any way; what changes is the _projection_ of the rod onto a
>> measuring apparatus (doorway or ruler).
>
> OK so we agree that length contraction is apparent.
No. The word "apparent" implies "not real", and that implies "no
physical consequences". But there _ARE_ real physical consequences: the
rod _does_ fit through the doorway when oriented properly, the rod _is_
measured to have a shorter length by an observer with respect to whom
the rod is moving, and pions _do_ traverse a beamline a kilometer long.
> The physical length of a
> moving rod remains the same but the geometric projected length of the moving
> rod is dependent on its relative motion wrt the observer. I can agree to
> that.
If by "physical length" you mean the rod's length as measured in its
rest frame, then yes.
>> In SR: A clock at rest in inertial frame A is observed to "tick
>> slowly" when measured by an observer in inertial frame B (using 2
>> clocks, because frame B is moving wrt frame A). Similarly, a clock at
>> rest in inertial frame B is observed to "tick slowly" when measured by
>> an observer in inertial frame A (using 2 clocks, because frame B is
>> moving wrt frame A). Moreover, the "amount of slowing" is the same.
>
> This SR assertion is based on the assumption that each observer (A or B)
> considers himself to be at rest.
No. In SR there is no "rest" (in the sense you used the term). What each
observer does is construct an inertial coordinate system in which he or
she is not moving (for which the words "at rest" are often used, but
with a _different_meaning_ than you used above).
> IOW when A is the observer he assumes that
> B is doing the moving and when B is the observer he assumes that A is doing
> the moving. No such assertion have been observed experimentally.
Nonsense. Sit in a train and watch the telephone poles move past; sit on
a telephone pole and watch the train move past.
> [bouncing back to A and B measuring the rate of the other's clock]
>> Note that these are two _different_ measurements of two
>> _different_ but symmetrical physical situations.
>
> Again this is an assumption.
No. The physical situations are _quite_clearly_ different -- the
measurement by A uses _different_events_ than the measurement by B. The
stated symmetry is obvious in SR because of the equivalence of inertial
frames.
>> Those cases [GPS] are not reciprocal, because they are not inertial frames (in
>> the sense of SR).
>
> So then we agree that on earth reciprocity is not observed.
No. On earth one could use locally-inertial frames that are inertial to
better than one's measurement accuracy, and could in principle observe
"reciprocity". The issue is inertial frames, not the presence of the earth.
>>> There is no time dilation. [...]
>> Your assertions are model dependent. In the model known as SR they are
>> just plain wrong. In the model known as LET your statement about no time
>> dilation is correct (to within your loose way of speaking); your
>> statement about length contraction is wrong. There can, of course, be
>> other models....
>
> It is not wrong in the model known as SR.
Yes, your assertion "there is no time dilation" is wrong in SR. <shrug>
> The SR interpretation is not
> written in stone.
Of course not. But it is one of the few (out of myriad possibilities)
that is both self-consistent and in accord with observations.
> So you are not open to discuss other model even though SR is incomplete?
What do you think I do around here every day?
But I see no point in discussing models that are self-inconsistent or
directly in conflict with well-known observations and experiments. Your
model fails on both counts.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bilge
>Bilge wrote:
>> Jan Gooral:
>> > SR and LET use the same transformation equations.
>>
>> No, they do not. Special relativity is poincare invariant. The
>> lorentz transforms are only a subset.
>
Im going to answer the last comments first.
>> Here are two papers describing an epr measurement [...]
>
>LET has no delusions of dealing with quantum phenomena. Neither does SR.
If you had read the references, then you would know that the epr
experiment referenced is not an explanation of quantum phenomena, per se.
The experiment was designed to distinguish between interpretations of
quantum mechanics which differ by precisely by the issue of simultaneity
being discussed. In particular, they assume that there is _some_ frame
in which the two measurements have a real time ordering and that one
measurement really does happem first. They even allow for multiple
definitions of simultaneity, so as to permit the measurements to switch
their time orders consistent with the assumption that one really does occur
first.
I also beg to differ regarding what you call an illusion of dealing
with quantum mechanics, with respect to special relativity. It is quite
unnecessary to invoke quantum mechanics until you want to quantize the
classical theory. I can derive the qed lagrangian quite easily without
quantizing anything and without imposing anything that isn't already
required in deriving the doppler shift for light. Recall that the doppler
shift is derived by imposing invariance under a change of phase.
>You must add additional physical postulates to deal with them, and that
>means you are using some different theory.
Sure. I'm using a theory to which relativity can be applied and LET
cannot. That happens to be the point. If the two were equivalent by
virtue of your argument that both are really poincare invariant, then
LET would solve the problem of compatibility with a preferred frame.
But, it doesn't.
-----
>Lorentz was writing with the usual physicist's casual attitude toward
>mathematical rigor.
Actually, I think it is you that are taking a casual attitude toward
rigor. Sometimes, I think you really picture the universe with a galilean
perspective. The ether fills all of a _euclidean_ space, not minkowski
space, so for every constant time slice, every point in the ether must
be in the future or the past of the ether on a different time slice[1].
It would be complete sophistry, not to mention missing the entire point,
to try and equivocate every point in the ether with all of the events
in minkowski space. Obviously, that would allow the nonsensical possibility
of having the different points in the ether located at the same point
in spacetime.
[1] The only alternative is that the so-called ``ether frame'' is the
lightcone, which isn't a frame, but fulfills the metaphysics. Then at
least, points which which have lightlike separations would really
be the same point in the ether, since ds^2 = 0.
> He was fully aware of the possibility of offsetting
>the origin of one's coordinate system.
While he may have been ``fully aware of the possibility,'' he did not
bother to elaborate on that possibility. Every place in which he uses
the term ``translation'' in his 1904 paper, he is referring to systems
which are _translating_, i.e., boosted, with respect to an origin.
>The other elements of the Poincare' group absent from the Lorentz
>group are unphysical (time reversal, parity inversion, and products
>involving them).
Those are obviously _not_ unphysical. Are you now going to claim that
discrete symmetries are unphysical just to try and prop up this notion
you have about relativity and LET being equivalent? Last time I checked,
a light ray incident on a mirror is a reflection of the incident ray.
>For measurements of _real_ phenomena using _real_ tools, SR and LET are
>completely and utterly indistinguishable, within their common domain of
>electromagnetism. This is so independent of one's choice of LET's ether
>frame.
Only if you selectively ignore everything in LET other than the
lorentz transforms (and apparently only proper lorentz transforms)
and insert whatever else you need to fit your notion of equivalence
on behalf of lorentz.
>> Since LET defines simultaneity to be absolute, [...]
>
>AFAIK Lorentz never discussed simultaneity.
Sure he did. Merely by postulating the existence of a physical
thing which fills all space, that physical entity must have an
absolute past and asolute future.
>No matter, because in LET
>the coordinates of any inertial frame are the same as those of SR.
>Simultaneity is naturally determined by equality of time coordinates,
>and it is manifestly _not_ absolute (in any useful sense).
Then the theory is inconsistent with its premises. If there is an
ether, then there must be an affine time function that describes its
evolution in time, as a physical thing. You are going out of your way
to avoid the issue of the ether so you don't have to deal with the
inconsistency your so-called equivalence requires.
Ilja Schmelzer
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> schrieb
> Jan Gooral:
> > SR and LET use the same transformation equations.
>
> No, they do not. Special relativity is poincare invariant. The
> lorentz transforms are only a subset.
For observables there is also a Poincare symmetry in LET.
> >It seems not
> >surprising then that their numerical predictions would be identical.
> >But can predictions of SR and LET be really identical physically?
>
> Since LET defines simultaneity to be absolute, it either cannot make
> the same predictions or else it is inconsistent.
Nonsense.
> If simultaneity is
> absolute, every event above and below the plane of simultaneity
> is timelike rather than only the events inside the light cone.
If you choose such a definition of timelike, your choice.
Physics does not depend on words.
> Here are two papers describing an epr measurement done with
> moving beam splitters which demonstrates that spacelike events
> have no intrinsic time ordering, ruling out any absolute
> simultaneity.
Nonsense. You cannot rule our absolute simultaneity by experiment
without falsifying standard QFT, because standard QFT is compatible
with a preferred frame.
Ilja
kenseto
>
> kenseto wrote:
> > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1141656272.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1141602314.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >
> > >
> > > alter its proper lifetime by?
> >
> > Are you really that stupid? The pion doesn't alter its proper lifetime.
He
> > (it) will determine a gamma value for each observer and mutliply that
> > observer's gamma value with its proper lifetime.
>
> The pion does that? How clever of it, considering that it has no brain!
> How does it know what observers are looking at it?
No idiot....the observer says that the pion's lifetime is worth (gamma*his
pion life time)
>
> > >
> > > Ah, you must mean to say that the proper lifetime of the pion doesn't
> > > change at all, only the lifetime as measured by the observers. Is that
> > > what you mean?
> >
> > No I mean that the life time of the moving pion is worth [gamma*lifetime
of
> > the lab pion].
>
> What is the "worth" of a lifetime?
Worth means duration (absolute time). The observer says that the pion's
clock second will have the duration (absolute time) content of [gamma*lab
clock second]
>
> > IOW, a clock second in the moving muon's frame is worth
> > (gamma seconds) in the lab frame.
>
> Is there a transaction here, a trade of seconds? What does that mean, a
> second in one frrame is "worth" something else in another frame?
What that mean is that a clock second is not a univsersal interval of time.
It does not respresent the same interval of time in different frames. That
means that you can't compared clock seconds in different frames directly. In
the twin situation the traveling twin's 1/gamma second is equivalent to 1
full second in the stay at home clock.
Ken Seto
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:X%LOf.18902$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> >> Yes. Clearly the length of the rod _projected_ onto the width of the
> >> doorway is what determines whether or not the rod fits through. And
just
> >> as clearly, "length contraction" in SR is a _projection_ of the moving
> >> rod's length onto the observer's ruler. In neither case does the rod
> >> change in any way; what changes is the _projection_ of the rod onto a
> >> measuring apparatus (doorway or ruler).
> >
> > OK so we agree that length contraction is apparent.
>
> No. The word "apparent" implies "not real", and that implies "no
> physical consequences".
There is no physical consequences
>But there _ARE_ real physical consequences: the
> rod _does_ fit through the doorway when oriented properly,
Neither the door way or the rod change length and therefore that's not
physical consequences.
> the rod _is_
> measured to have a shorter length by an observer with respect to whom
> the rod is moving,
The rod was never measured to have a shorter length. It is calculated to
have a shorter length.
and pions _do_ traverse a beamline a kilometer long.
That's because the traveling pion is in a higher state of motion than the
lab pion.
>
>
> > The physical length of a
> > moving rod remains the same but the geometric projected length of the
moving
> > rod is dependent on its relative motion wrt the observer. I can agree to
> > that.
>
> If by "physical length" you mean the rod's length as measured in its
> rest frame, then yes.
>
>
> >> In SR: A clock at rest in inertial frame A is observed to "tick
> >> slowly" when measured by an observer in inertial frame B (using 2
> >> clocks, because frame B is moving wrt frame A). Similarly, a clock at
> >> rest in inertial frame B is observed to "tick slowly" when measured by
> >> an observer in inertial frame A (using 2 clocks, because frame B is
> >> moving wrt frame A). Moreover, the "amount of slowing" is the same.
> >
> > This SR assertion is based on the assumption that each observer (A or B)
> > considers himself to be at rest.
>
> No. In SR there is no "rest" (in the sense you used the term). What each
> observer does is construct an inertial coordinate system in which he or
> she is not moving (for which the words "at rest" are often used, but
> with a _different_meaning_ than you used above).
When an observer construct such an inertial coordinate system in which he
sees all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the rods moving
wrt him are contracted then he is assuming that he is in a state of rest
with respect to all these clocks and rods. You can claim that he is not in a
state of absolute rest but so what?
>
>
> > IOW when A is the observer he assumes that
> > B is doing the moving and when B is the observer he assumes that A is
doing
> > the moving. No such assertion have been observed experimentally.
>
> Nonsense. Sit in a train and watch the telephone poles move past; sit on
> a telephone pole and watch the train move past.
But I bet that the clock on the telephone pole is running at a faster rate
than a clock in a train.
>
>
> > [bouncing back to A and B measuring the rate of the other's clock]
> >> Note that these are two _different_ measurements of two
> >> _different_ but symmetrical physical situations.
> >
> > Again this is an assumption.
>
> No. The physical situations are _quite_clearly_ different -- the
> measurement by A uses _different_events_ than the measurement by B. The
> stated symmetry is obvious in SR because of the equivalence of inertial
> frames.
You keep on using the word measurement and n yet no measurement other than
the properties of incoming light are made. Don't you mean that you calculate
the rate of thew other clock?
>
>
> >> Those cases [GPS] are not reciprocal, because they are not inertial
frames (in
> >> the sense of SR).
> >
> > So then we agree that on earth reciprocity is not observed.
>
> No. On earth one could use locally-inertial frames that are inertial to
> better than one's measurement accuracy, and could in principle observe
> "reciprocity". The issue is inertial frames, not the presence of the
earth.
So you are saying that: Just becasue we can't detect inertial frame on earth
that does not mean that inertial frame doesn't exist.
Didn't you guy use the same arguement to reject the existence of ether.
>
>
> >>> There is no time dilation. [...]
> >> Your assertions are model dependent. In the model known as SR they are
> >> just plain wrong. In the model known as LET your statement about no
time
> >> dilation is correct (to within your loose way of speaking); your
> >> statement about length contraction is wrong. There can, of course, be
> >> other models....
> >
> > It is not wrong in the model known as SR.
>
> Yes, your assertion "there is no time dilation" is wrong in SR. <shrug>
Time dilation is just term to describe that a clock second contain a
different amount of TIME (duration) in different frames.
>
>
> > The SR interpretation is not
> > written in stone.
>
> Of course not. But it is one of the few (out of myriad possibilities)
> that is both self-consistent and in accord with observations.
So are the correct ether theories. They are both self-consistent and in
accord with observations.
>
>
> > So you are not open to discuss other model even though SR is incomplete?
>
> What do you think I do around here every day?
>
> But I see no point in discussing models that are self-inconsistent or
> directly in conflict with well-known observations and experiments. Your
> model fails on both counts.
You never read my model so how can you say that my model is not self
consistent and in conflict with well-known observations and experiments?? In
fact the opposite is true. My theory contains SR as a subset. However,
unlike SR the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including
gravity.
Ken Seto
PD
kenseto wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141662191.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1141656272.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > > "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1141602314.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right. And how does the pion know which value of gamma to choose to
> > > > alter its proper lifetime by?
> > >
> > > Are you really that stupid? The pion doesn't alter its proper lifetime.
> He
> > > (it) will determine a gamma value for each observer and mutliply that
> > > observer's gamma value with its proper lifetime.
> >
> > The pion does that? How clever of it, considering that it has no brain!
> > How does it know what observers are looking at it?
>
> No idiot....the observer says that the pion's lifetime is worth (gamma*his
> pion life time)
Ah, so what he *measures* will be different than what someone
stationary with respect to the same pion would *measure*.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Ah, you must mean to say that the proper lifetime of the pion doesn't
> > > > change at all, only the lifetime as measured by the observers. Is that
> > > > what you mean?
> > >
> > > No I mean that the life time of the moving pion is worth [gamma*lifetime
> of
> > > the lab pion].
> >
> > What is the "worth" of a lifetime?
>
> Worth means duration (absolute time). The observer says that the pion's
> clock second will have the duration (absolute time) content of [gamma*lab
> clock second]
Ah, so what he *measures* will be a different lifetime than what he
would *measure* if he were moving along with the pion.
> >
> > > IOW, a clock second in the moving muon's frame is worth
> > > (gamma seconds) in the lab frame.
> >
> > Is there a transaction here, a trade of seconds? What does that mean, a
> > second in one frrame is "worth" something else in another frame?
>
> What that mean is that a clock second is not a univsersal interval of time.
> It does not respresent the same interval of time in different frames. That
> means that you can't compared clock seconds in different frames directly. In
> the twin situation the traveling twin's 1/gamma second is equivalent to 1
> full second in the stay at home clock.
>
Ah, so the two *measured* intervals of time will be different.
That's called time dilation.
PD
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts:
>
> with quantum mechanics,
I said "delusion", not "illusion". Neither SR nor LET includes any
quantum phenomena whatsoever.
> I can derive the qed lagrangian [...]
Sure. That is _QED_, not SR. <shrug>
> >You must add additional physical postulates to deal with them, and that
> >means you are using some different theory.
>
> Sure. I'm using a theory to which relativity can be applied and LET
> cannot. That happens to be the point.
No, it is not the point being endlessly discussed -- just look up at the
Subject of this thread. _Of_course_ SR is a better theory on which to
base other theories. I have said that repeatedly around here. But still,
SR and LET themselves are experimentally indistinguishable,
> >Lorentz was writing with the usual physicist's casual attitude toward
> >mathematical rigor.
>
> Actually, I think it is you that are taking a casual attitude toward
> rigor. Sometimes, I think you really picture the universe with a galilean
> perspective.
Certainly, _When_I_am_discussing_a_Galilean_theory_. But that is
completely inappropriate when discussing SR or GR.
In physics, one must be able to adopt any one of several theoretical
contexts. <shrug>
> > [Lorentz] was fully aware of the possibility of offsetting
> >the origin of one's coordinate system.
>
> While he may have been ``fully aware of the possibility,'' he did not
> bother to elaborate on that possibility.
Sure. Why should he bother with elementary concepts every schoolboy in
1904 knew?
Einstein's 1905 paper did not bother with them, either, IIRC.
> Every place in which he uses
> the term ``translation'' in his 1904 paper, he is referring to systems
> which are _translating_, i.e., boosted, with respect to an origin.
Yes. terminology was a bit different back then. <shrug>
> >The other elements of the Poincare' group absent from the Lorentz
> >group are unphysical (time reversal, parity inversion, and products
> >involving them).
>
> Those are obviously _not_ unphysical.
Sure they are -- how can you possibly apply either one to a _real_
physical situation?
They are of theoretical interest, but cannot be physically applied to
any real system.
> Are you now going to claim that
> discrete symmetries are unphysical just to try and prop up this notion
> you have about relativity and LET being equivalent?
There's no need.
To use the word "equivalent" you must define what you mean by it. SR and
LET are "equivalent" in that they are experimentally indistinguishable.
That is all the equivalence encompasses. The things you repeatedly
mention are not within that boundary. <shrug>
> Last time I checked,
> a light ray incident on a mirror is a reflection of the incident ray.
But you have not applied a parity transform to the world.
> >For measurements of _real_ phenomena using _real_ tools, SR and LET are
> >completely and utterly indistinguishable, within their common domain of
> >electromagnetism. This is so independent of one's choice of LET's ether
> >frame.
>
> Only if you selectively ignore everything in LET other than the
> lorentz transforms
No. This is so because the way one compares theory to experiment is to
select a theorem of the theory that corresponds to the measurement, and
one puts the experimental values in for the various parameters of the
theory. As SR and LET share the same set of theorems, they are
experimentally indistinguishable.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> OK so we agree that length contraction is apparent.
>> No. The word "apparent" implies "not real", and that implies "no
>> physical consequences".
>
> There is no physical consequences
The rod _does fit through the doorway in some orientations, and not in
others. that is certainly a physical consequence of the geometric
relationship between rod and doorway.
>> But there _ARE_ real physical consequences: the
>> rod _does_ fit through the doorway when oriented properly,
>
> Neither the door way or the rod change length and therefore that's not
> physical consequences.
Yes, neither changes it proper length. But fitting through or not
fitting through is indeed a physical consequence.
>> Nonsense. Sit in a train and watch the telephone poles move past; sit on
>> a telephone pole and watch the train move past.
>
> But I bet that the clock on the telephone pole is running at a faster rate
> than a clock in a train.
That obviously depends on precisely _who_ is doing the comparison (i.e.
in which frame she is at rest). This is so because it requires
_two_clocks_ to measure the rate of a moving clock, and that is a
physical difference that has physical consequences.
> [...overly repetitive]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >
> > There is no physical length contraction. The physical length of a rod
> > remains the same in all frames. However, the light path length of a rod
is
> > different in different frames.
> >
>
> This is not true. The measured length is always observer dependent.
>
> Space Interferometry Mission as a Test of Lorentz Length Contraction
> http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/simiee2/simiee2.stm
>
> Abstract--A basic tenet of special relativity is the concept of
> length contraction seen by an observer in motion. Lorentz
> contraction, which changes the apparent location of a light source,
> combines with aberration, which changes the apparent direction to the
> source, producing a variety of effects. While aberration has been
> confirmed, Lorentz contraction has never been tested directly, due to
> the generally negligible size of the effect. As the earth orbits the
> sun, Lorentz contraction offsets the apparent position of a distant
> source by as much as 18 micro-arcseconds (mas) per degree of
> separation. This offset is in addition to that caused by aberration.
> The Space Interferometry Mission, due for launch in 2005, promises a
> resolution of +/- 1 mas in a field of view of one degree, allowing
> for the first time the direct confirmation of Lorentz length
> contraction, one-hundred years after the introduction of
> Einstein's special theory of relativity in 1905.
>
> Space Interferometry Mission
> http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/SIM/sim_index.cfm
- Interesting! But, regretfully, I don't think that they intend to do such
an experiment - right?
Harald
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:rO5Pf.31787$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> OK so we agree that length contraction is apparent.
> >> No. The word "apparent" implies "not real", and that implies "no
> >> physical consequences".
> >
> > There is no physical consequences
>
> The rod _does fit through the doorway in some orientations, and not in
> others. that is certainly a physical consequence of the geometric
> relationship between rod and doorway.
Right it is a geomatric relationship but it is not a physical relationship.
The rod didn't realy contracted when it pass through the door way.
>
>
> >> But there _ARE_ real physical consequences: the
> >> rod _does_ fit through the doorway when oriented properly,
> >
> > Neither the door way or the rod change length and therefore that's not
> > physical consequences.
>
> Yes, neither changes it proper length. But fitting through or not
> fitting through is indeed a physical consequence.
It seems that you have a different meaning for "physical consequence". For
most people physical length contraction means that the physical length of
the rod is changed.
>
>
> >> Nonsense. Sit in a train and watch the telephone poles move past; sit
on
> >> a telephone pole and watch the train move past.
> >
> > But I bet that the clock on the telephone pole is running at a faster
rate
> > than a clock in a train.
>
> That obviously depends on precisely _who_ is doing the comparison (i.e.
> in which frame she is at rest). This is so because it requires
> _two_clocks_ to measure the rate of a moving clock, and that is a
> physical difference that has physical consequences.
Why do you need two clocks? Why not use the LT and the inverse LT??
Ken Seto
kenseto
Sigh....if you want to compare lifetime you must convert that someone
stationary wrt the same pion would measure into your frame using SR or IRT
before you make the comparison. The conversion factor is gamma.
>
> > >
> >
> > Worth means duration (absolute time). The observer says that the pion's
> > clock second will have the duration (absolute time) content of
[gamma*lab
> > clock second]
>
> Ah, so what he *measures* will be a different lifetime than what he
> would *measure* if he were moving along with the pion.
No the clock value will be the same but the TIME (duration or absolute time)
content for this same clock value will be different.
>
> > >
> > > > IOW, a clock second in the moving muon's frame is worth
> > > > (gamma seconds) in the lab frame.
> > >
> > > Is there a transaction here, a trade of seconds? What does that mean,
a
> > > second in one frrame is "worth" something else in another frame?
> >
> > What that mean is that a clock second is not a univsersal interval of
time.
> > It does not respresent the same interval of time in different frames.
That
> > means that you can't compared clock seconds in different frames
directly. In
> > the twin situation the traveling twin's 1/gamma second is equivalent to
1
> > full second in the stay at home clock.
> >
>
> Ah, so the two *measured* intervals of time will be different.
> That's called time dilation.
NO....the two measured intervals of time will be the same....eg. all muons
will measure to gave the same 2.2 us at its rest frame. But the absolute
time content for 2.2 us in the traveling muon frame is worth gamma*2.2 us in
your clock. That's not TIME Diletion.
Ken Seto