556 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 23, 2019, 6:39:53 PM9/23/19

to

Disregarding gravitation:

Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.

Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

If not what is the simple rule that determines the difference in proper times in the most general case above?

Thanks,

Edgar

Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.

Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

If not what is the simple rule that determines the difference in proper times in the most general case above?

Thanks,

Edgar

Sep 23, 2019, 8:07:01 PM9/23/19

to

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:39:53 PM UTC-7, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Disregarding gravitation:

>

> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

>

> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.

>

> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

Yes. (Assuming I understand your question correctly.)
> Disregarding gravitation:

>

> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

>

> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.

>

> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

--

Jan

Sep 23, 2019, 8:56:25 PM9/23/19

to

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:39:53 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Disregarding gravitation:

Ok
> Disregarding gravitation:

> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe,

Or, A & B initially coincide.

> each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

Or, they coincide again.

> In general when they meet their clocks will read different

> elapsed proper times.

> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper

> time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its

> velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point?

You meant that their elapsed proper time will be equal to the

sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its

velocity RELATIVE to any chosen inertial frame.
>Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE

> to a clock at the eventual meeting point

> (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock

usually we talk of 'coordinate time' wrt an inertial frame, not a of a clock.

> as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

>

> If not what is the simple rule that determines the difference in

> proper times in the most general case above?

evaluating ∫√( 1 + b²)dt where b = d(x(t))/dt where x(t) is the trajectory

of the clock as described by F.

Sep 23, 2019, 11:02:43 PM9/23/19

to

OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.

But problem 2. is how could motion wrt a meeting point which may not yet even have been determined possibly determine the actual proper time rates of the twin's clocks during their separation before their meeting? That just doesn't make sense to me.

It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

Intuitively the only explanation that makes sense to me to explain the clearly actual proper time disparity would be that it's due to motion wrt some absolute frame (aggregate mass of universe) rather than motion wrt some arbitrary meeting point somehow controlling how their proper times varied during their separation.

Thoughts?

Edgar

But problem 2. is how could motion wrt a meeting point which may not yet even have been determined possibly determine the actual proper time rates of the twin's clocks during their separation before their meeting? That just doesn't make sense to me.

It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

Intuitively the only explanation that makes sense to me to explain the clearly actual proper time disparity would be that it's due to motion wrt some absolute frame (aggregate mass of universe) rather than motion wrt some arbitrary meeting point somehow controlling how their proper times varied during their separation.

Thoughts?

Edgar

Sep 23, 2019, 11:23:58 PM9/23/19

to

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:02:43 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> ...the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something

> That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming

> 'clocks always run at the same rate'.

This is where I see that you are a dishonest hypocrite.

I asked you a simple question relating to this concept and you have refused to answer. Why?

Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.

Which one ticked faster? Slower?

> ...the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something

> actual since both twins agree on it.

Yes.
> That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming

> 'clocks always run at the same rate'.

I asked you a simple question relating to this concept and you have refused to answer. Why?

Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.

Which one ticked faster? Slower?

Sep 24, 2019, 4:05:35 AM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:53:58 AM UTC+5:30, rotchm wrote:

> Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

> You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

> the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.

> Which one ticked faster? Slower?

Simple. Check them both w.r.t GPS atomic clocks.
> Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

> You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

> the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.

> Which one ticked faster? Slower?

Sep 24, 2019, 4:08:46 AM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM UTC+5:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.

>

> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.

>

> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

>

For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting.
>

+1 Amen!

Sep 24, 2019, 4:17:37 AM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 05:23:58 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:

> Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

> You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

> the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.

> Which one ticked faster? Slower?

For a sane guy it's obvious, the one of 2:31 has
> Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

> You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

> the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.

> Which one ticked faster? Slower?

ticked faster (assuming none of them was reset).

But you're a fanatic idiot following some mystical

bullshit; heavens only know what answer you'll

announce as the correct one.

Sep 24, 2019, 4:19:48 AM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, 24 September 2019 10:08:46 UTC+2, Engr. Ravi wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM UTC+5:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> > OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.

> >

> > It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

> >

>

> For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

Man, get conscious. Take a look around you.
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM UTC+5:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> > OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.

> >

> > It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

> >

>

> For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

I'm sure you'll find some clocks with

different elepsed times without any

separation.

Sep 24, 2019, 5:08:35 AM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:49:48 PM UTC+5:30, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:

> Man, get conscious. Take a look around you.

> I'm sure you'll find some clocks with

> different elepsed times without any

> separation.

@maluw
> Man, get conscious. Take a look around you.

> I'm sure you'll find some clocks with

> different elepsed times without any

> separation.

A skeptic should be open to the possibility that the theory he is skeptical about, could after all be correct.

IF the experiment described in this post:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Hlc65UHLH2M

gives a NON-NULL result, in particular IF it turns out that:

[(B_end - A_0) - (M_end - M_0)] is NOT normally distributed with zero mean,

BUT instead,

(B_end - A_0) ≈ γ(M_end - M_0),

even after a thorough verification, clocks are not defective, battery packs are reliable, no confounding effects, etc., THEN, it is very likely that STR is actually correct.

However, as Tom himself has admitted, the experiment described has never been conducted, since it has been estimated that for attainable velocities, the "systemic errors would great outweigh the predicted effect".

Tom instead lists FIVE other experiments which we are supposed to take as equivalent to the described experiment:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Twin_paradox

Of these,

- Hafele & Keating is useless as it has too much variance and unfavorable results were omitted.

- gravity probe A is yet another frequency-shift experiment or a test of "time-dilation".

- the two experiments with muon's are unsatisfactory, since we do not know for sure if the muon disintegration mechanism is equivalent to a countdown timer.

So we are down to just ONE. If this is also carefully checked, it is highly likely there will be flaws.

=====================

C. Alley, “Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses,” in Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. Pierre Meystre and Marlan O. Scully, Proceedings Conf. Bad Windsheim 1981, 1983 Plenum Press New York, ISBN 0-306-41354-X, pg 363–427.

They flew atomic clocks in airplanes that remained localized over Chesapeake Bay, and also which flew to Greenland and back.

=====================

Sep 24, 2019, 6:50:10 AM9/24/19

to

Edgar L. Owen <elot...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different

> elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is

> clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time

> rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate

> times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming

> 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show

> different elapsed times they can only have been running at different

> proper time rates during their separation.

No, that’s where you are forcing a false dichotomy. There’s a third option.
> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different

> elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is

> clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time

> rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate

> times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming

> 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show

> different elapsed times they can only have been running at different

> proper time rates during their separation.

> That's problem 1.

>

> But problem 2. is how could motion wrt a meeting point which may not yet

> even have been determined possibly determine the actual proper time rates

> of the twin's clocks during their separation before their meeting? That

> just doesn't make sense to me.

in which the meeting point is at rest that matters.

>

> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates

> during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon

> meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

>

> Intuitively the only explanation that makes sense to me to explain the

> clearly actual proper time disparity would be that it's due to motion wrt

> some absolute frame (aggregate mass of universe) rather than motion wrt

> some arbitrary meeting point somehow controlling how their proper times

> varied during their separation.

>

> Thoughts?

> Edgar

>

Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Sep 24, 2019, 6:50:11 AM9/24/19

to

Sep 24, 2019, 6:50:11 AM9/24/19

to

Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM UTC+5:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

>> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the

>> different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon

>> meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both

>> proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to

>> coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm

>> claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to

>> show different elapsed times they can only have been running at

>> different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.

>>

>> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates

>> during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon

>> meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

>>

>

> For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have

> been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

False dichotomy. There’s a third option.
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:32:43 AM UTC+5:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

>> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the

>> different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon

>> meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both

>> proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to

>> coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm

>> claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to

>> show different elapsed times they can only have been running at

>> different proper time rates during their separation. That's problem 1.

>>

>> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates

>> during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon

>> meeting. Therefore it must be due to actual motion wrt something common to both twins.

>>

>

> For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have

> been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

> It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates

> during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting.

>

> +1 Amen!

>

Sep 24, 2019, 6:56:26 AM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 4:20:11 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have

> > been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

> > For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have

> > been running at different proper time rates during their separation.

> > It seems clear the clocks must be running at different actual rates

> > during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting.

> > during their separation whose cumulative result is the disparity upon meeting.

> False dichotomy. There’s a third option.

3rd option, which is ???
Sep 24, 2019, 7:10:48 AM9/24/19

to

Sep 24, 2019, 7:43:16 AM9/24/19

to

Sep 24, 2019, 8:02:13 AM9/24/19

to

your being in denial.

Sep 24, 2019, 9:06:40 AM9/24/19

to

climatologists in denial of oil company propaganda. Sure, Mr FRAUD

Wozniak.

Sep 24, 2019, 9:11:45 AM9/24/19

to

common sense.

Sep 24, 2019, 9:36:25 AM9/24/19

to

sharing the same birthday date in a class of twenty people?

Sep 24, 2019, 9:55:29 AM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 9:36:25 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:

> What does common sense say about the likelihood of two people (or more)

> sharing the same birthday date in a class of twenty people?

My gut feeling tells me a little less that 50%.
> What does common sense say about the likelihood of two people (or more)

> sharing the same birthday date in a class of twenty people?

So my gut feeling is somewhere between 40% & 49%.

Sep 24, 2019, 10:44:02 AM9/24/19

to

helps. Geroch’s book on General Relativity from A to B is good as a start.

One way to explain it is that time is not a feature of the physical object,

ie the clock. Rather, the behavior of clocks (and in fact all objects) is

governed by the structure of spacetime. It is a habit of amateurs and

engineers steeped in classical physics to consider space and time to be

passive backgrounds in which physical things happen but which are not

active players in those processes. Where this prejudice comes from, I’m not

sure. Maybe it’s due to a related bias that only material things have

physical properties, which is also not true.

There are a number of arguments one can make to shake those prejudices

loose. One simple one is to note simply that time dilation affects all

processes exactly equally, no matter what the underlying physics of those

various processes are. It therefore can have nothing to do with the details

of how those devices or processes work.

Another one that seems difficult to absorb is that pairs of clocks

synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in any other relatively

moving frame, by any common synchronization test applied in both frames.

The immediate question an amateur is tempted to ask is, what happened to

those two clocks to throw them out of synch in the second synch test? The

answer is “nothing” because if you retest them in the original frame,

they’re still synched. This actually has more to do with time dilation and

length contraction than it first appears.

The usual reaction by the amateurs and engineers steeped in classical

physics to the concept of spacetime having a structure is to ask, what is

the mechanism by which that structure affects processes? This again

heartens back to the (unjustified) bias that this is a cogs-and-wheels

universe with material things effecting changes in other material things.

That is in fact off the mark. Physics aims to understand rules, not

cogs-and-wheels processes. As an example, it’s widely accepted that

momentum is conserved in closed systems (or in systems sufficiently close

to closed that the experimental difference is negligible). However, you’re

never going to find a process or mechanism for WHY momentum is conserved.

Momentum isn’t a “stuff”, for example, and so this can’t be shuffled off to

some “stuff is conserved” notion. Note that physicists are aware that

(thanks to Emmy Noether) momentum conservation has to do with a particular

symmetry of physical laws. But symmetry isn’t a mechanism, and physical

laws are not material things.

So abandoning some of the prejudices that corner you into making false

dichotomies is key here. Those prejudices do not work in physics and in

fact do not apply to physics, and attempts to reinstall them will only lead

to the barriers you are encountering.

Read. Read. Read.

--

Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Sep 24, 2019, 11:56:37 AM9/24/19

to

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:02:43 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their >separation. That’s problem 1.

The problem is that Einstein rejected the notion of absolute time. In doing so he embraced the notion that a clock second is a universal interval of time (absolute time).....it is not. Tom and Rotchm accept Einstein’s false notion of time that a clock second is a universal interval of time and that’s why they said that ‘clocks always run at the same rate’. This creates your confusion.
> OK, now here's what I don't understand. To me it seems that the different elapsed proper times when the twins compare clocks upon meeting is clearly something actual since both twins agree on it. Both proper time rates are now the same. The elapsed disparity is not due to coordinate times. That seems in clear contradiction to Tom and rotchm claiming 'clocks always run at the same rate'. For the two clocks to show different elapsed times they can only have been running at different proper time rates during their >separation. That’s problem 1.

In real life:

1. Absolute time exists. The rate of passage of absolute time is the same in all frames. This means that your twin will passed the same amount of absolute time between meetings.

2. But there is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frames. A clock second will represent a different amount of absolute time in different frames or in different gravitational potential.

3. This means that each twin will experience the same amount of absolute time between meetings. However, in terms of clock time: the clock that has a higher state of absolute motion or in lower gravitational potential will accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate.

4. I invite you to read the above concept time in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf

Also read my book in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Sep 24, 2019, 12:22:23 PM9/24/19

to

JanPB wrote:

>> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time

>> will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its

>> velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time

>> dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the

>> eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as

>> measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

>

> Yes. (Assuming I understand your question correctly.)

We never know. You could also be just guessing, with a fifty-fifty chance.
>> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time

>> will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its

>> velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time

>> dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the

>> eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as

>> measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

>

> Yes. (Assuming I understand your question correctly.)

Sep 24, 2019, 12:32:01 PM9/24/19

to

and Richard Hertz can readily admit that they have read almost nothing on

the subject matter of this group — aside from some news items on the

internet, Usenet posts, and maybe a high school book — and still think that

their opinions, thoughts, and ideas should be treated on the same level

playing field as those by others who have more seriously studied the

subject. It’s arrogance of the highest order.

I will say it again. If any if the following is true:

— You don’t know the meaning of terms used in physics, and are content to

either substitute colloquial meanings as found in the dictionary or just

GUESS what you think they mean,

— You don’t have the prerequisite math skills to follow physics

presentations or to generate numerical consequences of other people’s idea

of your own ideas,

— You are unaware of the corpus of experimental data that has been gathered

to test various physics ideas, and you have no idea how to find them to

read about them,

— You have not bothered to read textbook presentations of the material,

because you find it frustrating or it takes too long or it costs money or

you can’t make head nor tail of it,

If any of the above are true, then you simply don’t know enough about the

subject to discuss it intelligently. And any attempt on your part to

discuss it ANYWAY (because you crave the attention) is a waste of your

time, and the only outcome is that you will cement a reputation for idiocy.

Sep 24, 2019, 1:14:28 PM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:14:02 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>

Appreciate your effort to provide a deeper understanding.

> One way to explain it is that time is not a feature of the physical object,

> ie the clock. Rather, the behavior of clocks (and in fact all objects) is

> governed by the structure of spacetime. It is a habit of amateurs and

> engineers steeped in classical physics to consider space and time to be

> passive backgrounds in which physical things happen but which are not

> active players in those processes. Where this prejudice comes from, I’m not

> sure. Maybe it’s due to a related bias that only material things have

> physical properties, which is also not true.

spacetime is a concept that is being scheduled for retirement, for totally different reasons, by many physicists at the vanguard of physics.

> There are a number of arguments one can make to shake those prejudices

> loose. One simple one is to note simply that time dilation affects all

> processes exactly equally, no matter what the underlying physics of those

> various processes are. It therefore can have nothing to do with the details

> of how those devices or processes work.

This is required by the principle of relativity. If time dilation is real, then it must affect all mechanisms in the same proportion regardless of their individual intricate processes. However, the far more simpler argument, again from the principle of relativity, is there is no real time dilation [this is consistent with experiment], so no mechanism is affected in any way by mere uniform motion, when viewed from the frame it is in rest. Of course when the mechanism has to be viewed from a frame in which it is moving, this requires using signals, which can and will be affected by the motion.

Our understanding of physics becomes deeper if we can figure out the mechanism behind real time dilation [if it exists]. When it was first proposed, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald attempted to give a mechanism of action using the aether theory.

> Another one that seems difficult to absorb is that pairs of clocks

> synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in any other relatively

> moving frame, by any common synchronization test applied in both frames.

> The immediate question an amateur is tempted to ask is, what happened to

> those two clocks to throw them out of synch in the second synch test? The

> answer is “nothing” because if you retest them in the original frame,

> they’re still synched. This actually has more to do with time dilation and

> length contraction than it first appears.

Ok, this is the relativity of simultaneity, a corner stone for STR, and Einstein's aha moment.

> The usual reaction by the amateurs and engineers steeped in classical

> physics to the concept of spacetime having a structure is to ask, what is

> the mechanism by which that structure affects processes? This again

> heartens back to the (unjustified) bias that this is a cogs-and-wheels

> universe with material things effecting changes in other material things.

> That is in fact off the mark. Physics aims to understand rules, not

> cogs-and-wheels processes. As an example, it’s widely accepted that

> momentum is conserved in closed systems (or in systems sufficiently close

> to closed that the experimental difference is negligible). However, you’re

> never going to find a process or mechanism for WHY momentum is conserved.

> Momentum isn’t a “stuff”, for example, and so this can’t be shuffled off to

> some “stuff is conserved” notion. Note that physicists are aware that

> (thanks to Emmy Noether) momentum conservation has to do with a particular

> symmetry of physical laws. But symmetry isn’t a mechanism, and physical

> laws are not material things.

Physics aims at both, what the rules are, and also why they are the way they are. Sometimes we can only achieve the former, and that leaves us dissatisfied.

The conservation of momentum is traced back to Newton's third law that all forces between particles are equal and opposite, i.e., they are symmetrical. For each individual force, people have tried to understand why this is so. For example, Le Sage's theory of gravitation explains this for gravity and any emission/ballistic theory of electromagnetism explains this for electrical and magnetic forces via mechanisms.

The wholesale acceptance of Einstein's STR was indeed the death of deeper understanding in physics. Just read Maxwell's papers and the attention he gave to mechanisms. THAT was real physics. Now, even someone like Feynman says visualizing something like the EM field is simply impossible.

> So abandoning some of the prejudices that corner you into making false

> dichotomies is key here. Those prejudices do not work in physics and in

> fact do not apply to physics, and attempts to reinstall them will only lead

> to the barriers you are encountering.

Tom's proposed experiment for verifying real time dilation is possibly the simplest possible. In that experiment if a NON-NULL result is obtained it is unavoidable to interpret the result as showing that the moving clocks actually ran differently. There is not much scope for a dicotomy here. A NULL result would however be the death of spacetime.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Hlc65UHLH2M

>

Appreciate your effort to provide a deeper understanding.

> One way to explain it is that time is not a feature of the physical object,

> ie the clock. Rather, the behavior of clocks (and in fact all objects) is

> governed by the structure of spacetime. It is a habit of amateurs and

> engineers steeped in classical physics to consider space and time to be

> passive backgrounds in which physical things happen but which are not

> active players in those processes. Where this prejudice comes from, I’m not

> sure. Maybe it’s due to a related bias that only material things have

> physical properties, which is also not true.

> There are a number of arguments one can make to shake those prejudices

> loose. One simple one is to note simply that time dilation affects all

> processes exactly equally, no matter what the underlying physics of those

> various processes are. It therefore can have nothing to do with the details

> of how those devices or processes work.

Our understanding of physics becomes deeper if we can figure out the mechanism behind real time dilation [if it exists]. When it was first proposed, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald attempted to give a mechanism of action using the aether theory.

> Another one that seems difficult to absorb is that pairs of clocks

> synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in any other relatively

> moving frame, by any common synchronization test applied in both frames.

> The immediate question an amateur is tempted to ask is, what happened to

> those two clocks to throw them out of synch in the second synch test? The

> answer is “nothing” because if you retest them in the original frame,

> they’re still synched. This actually has more to do with time dilation and

> length contraction than it first appears.

> The usual reaction by the amateurs and engineers steeped in classical

> physics to the concept of spacetime having a structure is to ask, what is

> the mechanism by which that structure affects processes? This again

> heartens back to the (unjustified) bias that this is a cogs-and-wheels

> universe with material things effecting changes in other material things.

> That is in fact off the mark. Physics aims to understand rules, not

> cogs-and-wheels processes. As an example, it’s widely accepted that

> momentum is conserved in closed systems (or in systems sufficiently close

> to closed that the experimental difference is negligible). However, you’re

> never going to find a process or mechanism for WHY momentum is conserved.

> Momentum isn’t a “stuff”, for example, and so this can’t be shuffled off to

> some “stuff is conserved” notion. Note that physicists are aware that

> (thanks to Emmy Noether) momentum conservation has to do with a particular

> symmetry of physical laws. But symmetry isn’t a mechanism, and physical

> laws are not material things.

The conservation of momentum is traced back to Newton's third law that all forces between particles are equal and opposite, i.e., they are symmetrical. For each individual force, people have tried to understand why this is so. For example, Le Sage's theory of gravitation explains this for gravity and any emission/ballistic theory of electromagnetism explains this for electrical and magnetic forces via mechanisms.

The wholesale acceptance of Einstein's STR was indeed the death of deeper understanding in physics. Just read Maxwell's papers and the attention he gave to mechanisms. THAT was real physics. Now, even someone like Feynman says visualizing something like the EM field is simply impossible.

> So abandoning some of the prejudices that corner you into making false

> dichotomies is key here. Those prejudices do not work in physics and in

> fact do not apply to physics, and attempts to reinstall them will only lead

> to the barriers you are encountering.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Hlc65UHLH2M

Sep 24, 2019, 2:56:23 PM9/24/19

to

> Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

> You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

> the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31.

> Which one ticked faster? Slower?

This question is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with proper time always running at the same rate. It's just inaccurate mechanisms. I see no point to it.

Edgar

Sep 24, 2019, 3:00:21 PM9/24/19

to

Edgar

Sep 24, 2019, 3:44:55 PM9/24/19

to

Den 24.09.2019 00.39, skrev Edgar L. Owen:

> Disregarding gravitation:

>

> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

>

> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.

>

> Thanks,

> Edgar

>

See:

https://paulba.no/div/AnswerOwen.pdf

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

> Disregarding gravitation:

>

> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

>

> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed proper times.

>

> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

>

> If not what is the simple rule that determines the difference in proper times in the most general case above?
> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

>

>

> Thanks,

> Edgar

>

See:

https://paulba.no/div/AnswerOwen.pdf

https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf

--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

Sep 24, 2019, 4:18:00 PM9/24/19

to

Sep 24, 2019, 4:34:17 PM9/24/19

to

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 2:56:23 PM UTC-4, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> > Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

> > You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

> > the Left one indicates 2:23pm and the other 2:31 pm.
> > Here it is again: You buy two el-cheapo watches at the dollar store.

> > You set them at the same time, one on each arm. Some time later,

> > Which one ticked faster? Slower?

>

> Rotchm,

>

> This question is irrelevant.

No it is not irrelevant. Its that you just dont see it. Try to think about it. Try to answer it.
>

> Rotchm,

>

> This question is irrelevant.

> It has nothing to do with proper time always running at the same rate.

> It's just inaccurate mechanisms.

> I see no point to it.

Sep 24, 2019, 5:05:56 PM9/24/19

to

Sep 24, 2019, 6:03:51 PM9/24/19

to

On 9/23/19 5:39 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

> Disregarding gravitation:

>

> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each

> take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

>

> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed

> proper times.

>

> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time

> will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its

> velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz

> time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the

> eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as

> measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

This is true IF AND ONLY IF there exists an inertial frame in which the
> Disregarding gravitation:

>

> Twins A and B separate from any possible point in the universe, each

> take any separate path, then meet again at any possible location.

>

> In general when they meet their clocks will read different elapsed

> proper times.

>

> Is it true that in all possible cases each twin's elapsed proper time

> will be equal to the sum of its Lorentz time dilation due to its

> velocity RELATIVE to the eventual meeting point? Where the Lorentz

> time dilation is of their own proper time RELATIVE to a clock at the

> eventual meeting point (i.e. the coordinate time of their clock as

> measured relative to a clock at the eventual meeting point)?

clock at the eventual meeting point is always at rest, and that frame is

used to calculate all of the "time dilations".

Speed "relative to a point" is meaningless. Speed can only be measured

relative to some coordinate system, and is only simple if that

coordinate system is an inertial frame. So it makes no sense for a point

to be at rest in an inertial frame. But it does make sense for a clock.

So the "time dilations" are relative to that inertial frame of the

clock, not the eventual meeting point.

Tom Roberts

Sep 24, 2019, 6:08:46 PM9/24/19

to

Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:14:02 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>

>

> Appreciate your effort to provide a deeper understanding.

>

>> One way to explain it is that time is not a feature of the physical object,

>> ie the clock. Rather, the behavior of clocks (and in fact all objects) is

>> governed by the structure of spacetime. It is a habit of amateurs and

>> engineers steeped in classical physics to consider space and time to be

>> passive backgrounds in which physical things happen but which are not

>> active players in those processes. Where this prejudice comes from, I’m not

>> sure. Maybe it’s due to a related bias that only material things have

>> physical properties, which is also not true.

>

> spacetime is a concept that is being scheduled for retirement, for

> totally different reasons, by many physicists at the vanguard of physics.

Only in the same sense that Newtonian gravity has been “retired” by general
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 8:14:02 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>>

>

> Appreciate your effort to provide a deeper understanding.

>

>> One way to explain it is that time is not a feature of the physical object,

>> ie the clock. Rather, the behavior of clocks (and in fact all objects) is

>> governed by the structure of spacetime. It is a habit of amateurs and

>> engineers steeped in classical physics to consider space and time to be

>> passive backgrounds in which physical things happen but which are not

>> active players in those processes. Where this prejudice comes from, I’m not

>> sure. Maybe it’s due to a related bias that only material things have

>> physical properties, which is also not true.

>

> spacetime is a concept that is being scheduled for retirement, for

> totally different reasons, by many physicists at the vanguard of physics.

relativity or that Maxwell’s equations have been “retired” by quantum

electrodynamics. Much mistaken ado has been made of the comments by those

physicists. They are not saying that spacetime was a mistake or a blind

alley. They are saying that an even deeper and almost certainly stranger

model will come to the fore, with spacetime being the effective limit when

some parameter in the new system is small.

>

>> There are a number of arguments one can make to shake those prejudices

>> loose. One simple one is to note simply that time dilation affects all

>> processes exactly equally, no matter what the underlying physics of those

>> various processes are. It therefore can have nothing to do with the details

>> of how those devices or processes work.

>

> This is required by the principle of relativity. If time dilation is

> real, then it must affect all mechanisms in the same proportion

> regardless of their individual intricate processes.

physics concept like Lorentz symmetry or spacetime with measurable

properties. In other words, I don’t think there’s more value in saying

“required by relativity” as opposed to “due to the structure of spacetime”.

At least with the latter, you can quantify and point to mathematically

expressed foundations for why.

> However, the far more simpler argument, again from the principle of

> relativity, is there is no real time dilation [this is consistent with

> experiment], so no mechanism is affected in any way by mere uniform

> motion, when viewed from the frame it is in rest. Of course when the

> mechanism has to be viewed from a frame in which it is moving, this

> requires using signals, which can and will be affected by the motion.

affects physical mechanisms.

Let me put it to you this way. If I view a tree while standing on the

ground, the tree’s kinetic energy is zero. If I view the same tree from out

in space and watch the tree get dragged along with the earth’s surface

moving at 600 mph as the earth rotates, that tree now has a lot of kinetic

energy. Now ask yourself whether this difference is “real”. If the

conclusion is that it’s not real, is it the claim that only one of those

values is real? Or that kinetic energy itself is not real?

>

> Our understanding of physics becomes deeper if we can figure out the

> mechanism behind real time dilation [if it exists]. When it was first

> proposed, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald attempted to give a mechanism of

> action using the aether theory.

interactions accounted for ALL physical mechanisms, that there was one and

only one interaction responsible for all processes. We of course now know

that was a bad gamble. And since there is not one single interaction that

is responsible for all physical processes, then the “reality” of time

dilation must be attributable to something other than a common physical

interaction.

>

>> Another one that seems difficult to absorb is that pairs of clocks

>> synchronized in one frame are not synchronized in any other relatively

>> moving frame, by any common synchronization test applied in both frames.

>> The immediate question an amateur is tempted to ask is, what happened to

>> those two clocks to throw them out of synch in the second synch test? The

>> answer is “nothing” because if you retest them in the original frame,

>> they’re still synched. This actually has more to do with time dilation and

>> length contraction than it first appears.

>

> Ok, this is the relativity of simultaneity, a corner stone for STR, and

> Einstein's aha moment.

root of other stuff like length contraction. To see this, length has an

OPERATIONAL meaning. Can you figure out what that is? Let me ask how you

would measure the length of a car moving relative to you?

>

>> The usual reaction by the amateurs and engineers steeped in classical

>> physics to the concept of spacetime having a structure is to ask, what is

>> the mechanism by which that structure affects processes? This again

>> heartens back to the (unjustified) bias that this is a cogs-and-wheels

>> universe with material things effecting changes in other material things.

>> That is in fact off the mark. Physics aims to understand rules, not

>> cogs-and-wheels processes. As an example, it’s widely accepted that

>> momentum is conserved in closed systems (or in systems sufficiently close

>> to closed that the experimental difference is negligible). However, you’re

>> never going to find a process or mechanism for WHY momentum is conserved.

>> Momentum isn’t a “stuff”, for example, and so this can’t be shuffled off to

>> some “stuff is conserved” notion. Note that physicists are aware that

>> (thanks to Emmy Noether) momentum conservation has to do with a particular

>> symmetry of physical laws. But symmetry isn’t a mechanism, and physical

>> laws are not material things.

>

> Physics aims at both, what the rules are, and also why they are the way

> they are. Sometimes we can only achieve the former, and that leaves us dissatisfied.

has a broader scope and so is more fundamental than the prior rule. A good

example of this is that conservation of momentum is a rule that explains

both Newton’s first and third law. It is not a mechanism; it’s just a

deeper rule.

>

> The conservation of momentum is traced back to Newton's third law that

> all forces between particles are equal and opposite, i.e., they are

> symmetrical. For each individual force, people have tried to understand

> why this is so. For example, Le Sage's theory of gravitation explains

> this for gravity and any emission/ballistic theory of electromagnetism

> explains this for electrical and magnetic forces via mechanisms.

spatial translational invariance of the laws of physics (Noether). This of

course does not answer why nature has this particular symmetry.

>

> The wholesale acceptance of Einstein's STR was indeed the death of deeper

> understanding in physics. Just read Maxwell's papers and the attention he

> gave to mechanisms. THAT was real physics. Now, even someone like Feynman

> says visualizing something like the EM field is simply impossible.

>

about material mechanisms. Particularly, in the last 70 years, there have

been several key, profound changes. A couple are:

1. That all material things and interactions have quantum fields as their

underlying reality.

2. That the nature of the interactions (quantum fields exchanging quantum

fields) is completely governed by local symmetries found in nature.

What I’ve described is what has been thought of as real physics for a half

dozen decades, even though it is much different than what you describe as

real physics.

>> So abandoning some of the prejudices that corner you into making false

>> dichotomies is key here. Those prejudices do not work in physics and in

>> fact do not apply to physics, and attempts to reinstall them will only lead

>> to the barriers you are encountering.

>

> Tom's proposed experiment for verifying real time dilation is possibly

> the simplest possible. In that experiment if a NON-NULL result is

> obtained it is unavoidable to interpret the result as showing that the

> moving clocks actually ran differently. There is not much scope for a

> dicotomy here. A NULL result would however be the death of spacetime.

>

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Hlc65UHLH2M

>

Sep 24, 2019, 6:08:47 PM9/24/19

to

perhaps because you don’t know what science is.

> This mean that current physics is wrong or incomplete.

Why do you think that unless science has come up with an answer for

everything then it is wrong?

> It’s time for new physics like Model Mechanics that includes a valid

> unified theory and a new theory of gravity.

Unfortunately, you are incapable of generating the new physics because: you

don’t have the requisite skills to do physics, you don’t know the meaning

of the terms used in physics, and you’ve read nothing about physics.

You say that those things are not needed to do new physics, and that’s the

thought of a nut job.