The Nature of Physical Reality - Analyzing the Properties of Space-time
Strich.9
off. Here we analyze the properties of space-time as proposed by
Einstein. I start of with a definition of terminologies. This will
assure unambiguity in discussing the fundamental basis of reality
according to physics, which is measurement.
[While SR involves analyses of two arbitrary world points by two
arbitrary observers, one observer is usually taken to the
experimenter, and the other observer is usually taken to be at rest
with respect to the ‘motion’ defined by the two world points. Thus
while a pair of world points defining an invariant space-time interval
does not belong to any specific frame, it is simpler to place it in a
frame where it is at rest. In this regard, the following can be
defined. This is cross-posted to multiple groups, as this may have
important implications in mathematics, philosophy, logic, religion, as
well as physics.]
I. DEFINITIONS:
Co-inertial measurement refers to a measurement made within the same
reference frame*. Trans-inertial measurement refers to a measurement
made in one reference frame regarding a quantity in another frame*.
The terminologies refer to where a quantity being measured is, in
relation to where the observer is.
Native measurement refers to a measurement made by an observer in an
arbitrarily pre-selected reference frame. The frame is referred to as
the native frame, and the observer as the native observer. Foreign
measurement refers to a measurement made by an observer in any non-
selected reference frame.
Dirk Van de moortel
6df6ca54-20de-4586...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
> I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left
> off. Here we analyze the properties of space-time as proposed by
> Einstein. I start of with a definition of terminologies. This will
> assure unambiguity in discussing the fundamental basis of reality
> according to physics, which is measurement.
Troll alert:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourWaterloo.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DisprovenForGood.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImpossibleTask.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DictionaryPhysics.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TerminologyPanic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimplyAdmit.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Misquote.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CrapReconstruction.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotDeparting.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/StupidPremises.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ImbecileScience.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MoreBananas.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
> off.
Troll alert:
Uncle Al
>
> I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left
> off.
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Mark K. Bilbo
6df6ca54-20de-4586...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com,
"Strich.9" <stric...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will resume discussions in Special Relativity from where I left off.
It's not nice to threaten people.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Communism, like any other revealed religion,
is largely made up of prophecies."
- H. L. Mencken
Strich.9
floods the medium with his misquotes, and then posts a second reply as
his first reply mirrors back to alt.morons or alt.creeps for any
potential responders. He does not want to show his creepiness yet to
the other groups. Al posts his usual 'security blanket' reply,
without bothering to think through the process, a sign of the
conservatism of old age. PD does a line by line reply on the fly
without perusing the whole post. On the subject matter, two world
points defines a motion for the simple fact that to 'traverse' the
space-time interval between them requires a movement from one world
point to another. This should be obvious to any physicist who lives
and breathes relativity. All in all, aside from the petty bickering,
there is no major intellectual disagreement so far. All these cross
postings are justified. The alt.atheism may not seem at first glance,
but there are two reasons for that. First of all, there is a tendency
for intellectuals to linger in the atheistic domain. Second of all,
the characteristic of modern relativity physics to deny and suppress
criticism and dissent is tantamount to another a discipline based on
faith than reason. Now with an example.]
II. ILLUSTRATION
An observer O is on the ground and an observer M is on the train. When
the two observers are at rest with respect to each other, the meter
markings DO measured by O on the ground is equal to the meter markings
DM measured by M on the platform. When the train is moving at constant
velocity V, O notes that the
markings on the platform DM' are shorter compared to those on the
ground DO, while M notes that the markings on the ground DO' are
shorter compared to those on the platform DM.
Letting O be the native observer and M the foreign observer:
DO is a native co-inertial measurement
DM is a foreign co-inertial measurement
DM' is a native trans-inertial measurement
DO' is a foreign tran-inertial measurement
PD
> [As usual, we get the usual ad hominems from the 'mainstream'. Dirk
> floods the medium with his misquotes, and then posts a second reply as
> his first reply mirrors back to alt.morons or alt.creeps for any
> potential responders. He does not want to show his creepiness yet to
> the other groups. Al posts his usual 'security blanket' reply,
> without bothering to think through the process, a sign of the
> conservatism of old age. PD does a line by line reply on the fly
> without perusing the whole post.
On the contrary, I did what I always do. I read your whole post and
then replied by insertion where the reply was most appropriate. I
don't care whether you don't operate that way.
> On the subject matter, two world
> points defines a motion for the simple fact that to 'traverse' the
> space-time interval between them requires a movement from one world
> point to another.
Is that right? Let's take two events (world-points): A cuckoo emerges
from a clock at 2pm. A cuckoo emerges from the same clock at 3pm.
Where is the motion between those two world points?
Dirk Van de moortel
> [As usual, we get the usual ad hominems from the 'mainstream'. Dirk
> floods the medium with his misquotes,
Show me in what way these are misquotes:
Strich.9
related. However, since they occupy different time and space
coordinates, then they define a space-time interval, and the
translation from one world point to the other can be defined as a
motion through time and space. A cuckoo clock is not the best example
of a world point. Strictly speaking, from the time the cuckoo clock
emerges to the time it retracts consist of a series of world points.
Now a regular clock hitting 2:00 and then hitting 3:00 defines a
motion in space time. Assuming it is sitting on the equator, then it
has moved eastward by about 1000 miles and it has moved around the sun
by about 70000 miles and it has also moved forward in time by about 1
hour. As for misquotes, any quote when taken out of its original
context, is a misquote. Now back to the thread...]
II.B. EXERCISES
Exercise 1:
Dirk and Doug are at rest with one another. Each measure their right
forefinger at 10cm. They also measure each other’s average neural
transit time as 10Lm. (A lightmeter is defined as the time it takes
light to travel one meter, or 1/c seconds, or 3.3 x 10^-9 seconds.)
Now Dirk and Doug bid each other farewell and travel at relative
velocity of 0.995c. Gamma computes at 10. Dirk is designated as the
native observer and Doug as the foreign observer. Dirk measures his
appendage at 10cm and his neural transit time as 10Lm. Dirk also
observes the moving Doug and measures Doug’s appendage as 1cm and his
neural transit time as 100Lm. Dirk is obviously using his own
meterstick and lightclock to make these measurements.
Questions:
1. When Dirk measures his appendage at 10cm, this is a:
a) native co-inertial measurement
b) native trans-inertial measurement
c) foreign co-inertial measurement
d) foreign trans-inertial measurement
2. When Dirk measures Doug’s neural transit time as 100Lm, this is a:
a) native co-inertial measurement
b) native trans-inertial measurement
c) foreign co-inertial measurement
d) foreign trans-inertial measurement
PD
> [In the general case, two different world points are not necessarily
> related. However, since they occupy different time and space
> coordinates, then they define a space-time interval, and the
> translation from one world point to the other can be defined as a
> motion through time and space.
Maybe you'd better define motion.
If a person hiccups twice in a row while sitting in a chair, those two
events are different world points and there is a spacetime interval
between them.
Please describe the *motion* that occurs between those two points.
What is motion to you?
stric...@gmail.com
time. In physics, a specific problem often reduces to the special
case where an object is at world point A (coordinates x0,y0,z0,t0) and
then at world point B (coordinates x1,y1,z1,t1), and the object is
considered to have ‘moved’ from A to B. If the generalized meaning of
motion confuses you, then I’ll use the word ‘translation’ for this,
and reserve the word ‘motion’ for the classical case of an actual
movement through space. Also, try not to get mired in the non-
essential details. I noticed you did not do the exercises. Please do
them so I know we have a mutual understanding of the meaning of the
terms native and foreign, and co-inertial and trans-inertial as
defined in this thread. Now back to the thread…]
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWERS
In question 1, the answer is (a) native co-inertial measurement.
In question 2, the answer is (b) native trans-inertial measurement.
Any measurement that the native observer Dirk makes is a native
measurement. If performed on objects that are at rest in his inertial
frame, then it is a co-inertial measurement, and if performed on
objects that are at rest to a different inertial frame other than his
(and hence moving with respect to his frame), then it is a trans-
inertial measurement.
----------------------------------------------------------------
II.B EXERCISES (Continued)
In the same set-up above in II.B, Doug measures his appendage at 10cm
and his neural transit time as 10Lm. Doug also observes the moving
Dirk (v=0.995c) and measures Dirk’s appendage as 1cm and Dirk='s
neural transit time as 100Lm. Doug is obviously using his own
meterstick and lightclock.
3. When Doug measures his own appendage at 10cm, this is a:
a) native co-inertial measurement
b) native trans-inertial measurement
c) foreign co-inertial measurement
d) foreign trans-inertial measurement
4. When Doug measures Dirk’s neural transit time as 100Lm, this is a:
PD
> [In the general case, motion is simply a translation through space-
> time. In physics, a specific problem often reduces to the special
> case where an object is at world point A (coordinates x0,y0,z0,t0) and
> then at world point B (coordinates x1,y1,z1,t1), and the object is
> considered to have ‘moved’ from A to B. If the generalized meaning of
> motion confuses you, then I’ll use the word ‘translation’ for this,
> and reserve the word ‘motion’ for the classical case of an actual
> movement through space.
Well, "translation" is usually understood by physicists to be
relocation in space. Translation invariance is a key symmetry of many
physical laws, for example, and leads to momentum conservation via
Noether's theorem.
Motion is usually similarly defined as a change in spatial coordinate
as a function of time (although the latter may be reclarified to mean
proper time).
There is also the case where two world points occur at the same time
in a particular reference frame; for example, you sneezing over there
and me snapping my fingers over here. There is an invariant interval
between those two world points, but I'm a little hard-pressed to see
any "motion" between those two events, since they both happen at the
same time in my reference frame.
Perhaps you may want to invent a new term, like "pernification", which
you are free to define as some sort of relationship between two world-
points, a relationship you'd have to exposit, of course.
> Also, try not to get mired in the non-
> essential details. I noticed you did not do the exercises.
As you may have surmised, there is no point in working exercises if we
don't have basic terminology agreed upon. And as you can see, there
are a number of questions about your basic terms, as you seem to be
using terms that are commonly used in physics, but taking them to mean
something completely different than what scientists normally
understand them to mean.
Strich.9
between a 3D space + 1D time and a 4D space-time. That has always
been the problem with relativity. It tries to define a space-time
continuum and equate time as another dimension, but the discussion
always reduces to the classical mind set of separate space and time
dimensions. As I said earlier, two world points simply define a space-
time interval, and we can leave it at that. We can use your classical
definitions of the old terms without undue duress on the definitions
of my new terms. Now that we have that clear, you seem unable to
grasp the new terms I am proposing. If these are confusing to you,
let me know in what way, so I can explain them to your heart's
content. Now if you simply object to the introduction of new terms
for fear that the fallacy of relativity will be exposed, then simply
say so and I will spare you the heartache.]
stric...@gmail.com
earlier on about a *measurement* in one frame of a *quantity* in
another frame, which was the definition of one of those new terms.
Since the quantity in another frame is a result of a *measurement* in
the other frame, I'm not sure what your definition is supposed to
mean, and I asked for an example of this..."]
[At the risk of repeating myself, let me restate Part II. ILLUSTRATION
above. Let me know if this does not answer your question.]
-------------------------------------------------------------
spudnik
Minkowski blew it with the "concept" of spacetime,
which is nothing, other than phase-space,
as used previously by Hamilton and Lagrange.
thus:
dood, the quotient of your publishability would
go "up," if you simply edited your mathematical ****
to a suitable length; say, another proof of F"L"T. then,
Underword Dudley would read the penintimate section, and
put you in his second edition of his chapter, "Fermatistes,"
to replace another guy, who mysteriousy dropped out;
did the editor did it?
thus:
yeah, I finaly realized -- after a couple of years -- that
I've overstated the "inductive Hindoo zero," since
it is rahter more of a chicken-egg thing. at any rate,
save yourself a few steps & start with base-two,
to get to base-one.
so, it seems that the induction of the *digit* zero requires
the simultaneous *conception* of integral powers of the base,
beyond base-one (although it does "work" therein,
it just doesn't quite go any where .-)
and, of course, the mangled jungle-fowl laid the egg
that became the domesticated-jungle-fowl-qua-CHICKEN#ZERO;
"just sit there & lay yo eggs like yo momma --
don't even *think* about getting out of yo cage!".
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/2006_40-49/2006_40-49/2006...
> .. which in a way blends well with the discussion of zero in this
--Wells Fargo "volunteers" galloping to the rescue;
will H.O.P.E. and A.I.G. rack the e-vote,
covered-up by the enormous 527 slushfundies' "GO TV" !?!
http://shapeOFboxVOTE.org
Strich.9
thread, perhaps that means agreement and we shall proceed with the
next stage.]
III. NEW TERMINOLOGY - THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION EQUATIONS
Let
Xa : native co-inertial measurement of distance
Ta : native co-inertial measurement of time interval
Xa': native trans-inertial measurement of distance
Ta': native trans-inertial measurement of time interval
Xb : foreign co-inertial measurement of distance
Tb : foreign trans-inertial measurement of time interval
Xb': foreign co-inertial measurement of distance
Tb': foreign trans-inertial measurement of time interval
Assuming motion along the X-axis and measurements are made from the
origin, and gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2), then we have the following
standard LTE:
Xb' = Xa / gamma
Tb' = Ta * gamma
Xa' = Xb / gamma
Ta' = Tb * gamma
For example, the native observer measures his finger as Xa and his
neural time as Ta. The foreign observer, seeing the native observer
moving with velocity v, observes the native finger is contracted and
measures Xb' and observes the native neural time is dilated and
measures Tb'. This is shown by the first LTE above. Note that we
subscript the measurements according to who makes it, rather than
where it is. [The measurer, according to physics, determines the
reality, and is of more importance than the measuree.]
For the specific example wherein v=0.995c (gamma=10) and native
finger
Xa=10cm, native neural time Ta=10Lm
foreign measurement of native finger is: Xb'=Xa/gamma=10cm/10=1cm
foreign measurement of native neural time is:
Tb'=Ta*gamma=10LM*10=100Lm
Strich.9
topic at hand. Ad hominem? Let me give him the benefit of the doubt
and repost the scientific part that he seems to have missed.]
Strich.9
Let us review our variable and their meanings (note correction of
typographical errors for the sixth and seventh variable).
Xa : native co-inertial measurement of distance
Ta : native co-inertial measurement of time interval
Xa': native trans-inertial measurement of distance
Ta': native trans-inertial measurement of time interval
Xb : foreign co-inertial measurement of distance
Tb : foreign co-inertial measurement of time interval
Xb': foreign trans-inertial measurement of distance
Tb': foreign trans-inertial measurement of time interval
Assuming motion along the X-axis and measurements are made from the
origin, and gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2), the standard LTE:
Xb' = Xa / gamma
Tb' = Ta * gamma
Xa' = Xb / gamma
Ta' = Tb * gamma
What does this mean? Note that the co-inertial measurements are on
the right hand side of the equation. These do not change. Note also
that the trans-inertial measurements are on the left hand side of the
equation. These change. Specifically they change with gamma, which
changes with velocity.
A simple analyses of the LTE appropriately labeled reveals that co-
inertial measurements by an observer do not change at all, even with
velocity. The trans-inertial measurements do change with velocity.
What this means is that if I were to measure a moving rod, its length
would decrease trans-inertially with velocity. Yet, its length, as
measured by a co-inertial observer stays constant. The same argument
applies to clocks. Thus we have proved that length contraction and
time dilation are artifacts of trans-inertial measurements and that
length and time stay constant when measured co-inertially.
PD
> [It appears that PD would rather engage in petty bickering than the
> topic at hand. Ad hominem? Let me give him the benefit of the doubt
> and repost the scientific part that he seems to have missed.]
>
Copied and pasted from another thread, about this one.
=======================
I don't think so.
What you have done there is define a new set of terms that don't have
anything to do with the terms used in relativity, and you've made
some
statements based on your new terminology. You have further made some
statements about what is "real" and what is "not real" based on that
terminology.
I don't see anything in what you've said in the thread referenced
above where you have shown that:
a) relativity produces conclusions that do not follow from its own
premises, or
b) relativity makes two assertions that are contradictory to each
other.
Illogicality would mean showing one of the two things above, which
you
have not done.
What is your understanding of the meaning of the word "Illogical"?
PD
PD
I'm sorry, but please explain. Nothing that you've said here is in
contradiction with a statement that relativity makes.
What statement do you think relativity makes that is counter to what
you've written above? Perhaps the issue is that you have no idea what
relativity says.
Moreover, you've not shown any illogic in what relativity says. That
is, you've shown neither that:
a) relativity makes assertions that do not follow from the premises
assumed by relativity, or
b) relativity makes assertions that are contradictory to each other.
PD
Strich.9
posts in this thread. I also presume that aside from the implication
or interpretation of my proof, he does not object to any of the
terminology, and any of the reasoning, in the body of the proof. So I
repost the question to him, aside from the conclusions in the last
paragraph of section IV above, does PD agree to sections I, II, III
and IV (except the last paragraph)? I ask this, because this
relativist has been known to question concepts that had previously
been agreed upon when he starts losing an argument. Thank you.]
PD
> [PD states I have proved nothing.
Yes.
> I presume he has read my series of
> posts in this thread.
Yes.
> I also presume that aside from the implication
> or interpretation of my proof, he does not object to any of the
> terminology, and any of the reasoning, in the body of the proof.
On the contrary, I have objected to the terminology repeatedly, as you
will note. As a result, you backed off some of the terminology. I also
commented that there was no point in proceeding to the reasoning until
there was clarity in the terminology. You're not done with that yet.
> So I
> repost the question to him, aside from the conclusions in the last
> paragraph of section IV above, does PD agree to sections I, II, III
> and IV (except the last paragraph)? I ask this, because this
> relativist has been known to question concepts that had previously
> been agreed upon when he starts losing an argument. Thank you.]
I asked you a question:
Strich.9
and foreign. The definitions are above. What does PD object to in
the definitions? (Of note, the so-called terminologies you had
previously objected to were merely words used in the introduction and
had no real bearing on the discussion. That would be obvious to
someone who has read all the posts. I gave in to your nitpicking so
that we could proceed with the discussion. I can see that that has
not happened yet.)]
PD
I asked you a question:
stric...@gmail.com
relativity makes that is counter to what you've written above? Perhaps
[Strich replies: I need to know that you understand my terminologies
so I can explain the answer to you. Do you understand them?]
PD
I don't particularly care about what you need.
You've made a claim that you've disproven relativity by virtue of your
statements here.
Strich.9
virtue of your statements here. What statement do you think
relativity makes that is counter to what you've written above? Perhaps
[I have shown that time dilation does not occur. How? The time
dilation measured trans-inertially by an observer is not measured by
the co-inertial observer. The time stays constant for the co-inertial
observer. That is the dumbed down summary, but you still have to
understand the terminologies.]
Dirk Van de moortel
> [PD wrote: You've made a claim that you've disproven relativity by
> virtue of your statements here. What statement do you think
> relativity makes that is counter to what you've written above? Perhaps
> the issue is that you have no idea what relativity says.]
>
> [I have shown that time dilation does not occur. How?
By claiming that showing that time dilation does not occur is
impossible:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/OnlyICan.html
IQ 200! Congratulations!
Dirk Vdm
PD
And what do you think the claim of relativity is, in contrast with
what you say you've shown?
That is, in terms of trans-inertial and co-inertial measurements, what
do you think relativity says?
PD
Strich.9
is unsure whether he is cognitively impaired, or is merely trolling.
PD cannot seem to grasp that if time dilation does not occur in the co-
inertial frame, then it does not occur at all. Let me explain.]
Times and lengths are constant in the co-inertial frame. This means
that a rod of length L and a time interval of length T will stay the
same length no matter what the velocity of any external body is. It
follows that any two lengths, be that distance or time, in any two
reference frames, once calibrated to be equal when at rest, will
remain equal at all other times. But during those other times, trans-
inertial observations may measure relativistic changes, but the
constancy of the co-inertial measurements guarantee that these
relativistic changes are only artifactual. These conclusions are more
readily shown by an example.
PD
> [Dirk shows capacity for misunderstanding things out of context. One
> is unsure whether he is cognitively impaired, or is merely trolling.
> PD cannot seem to grasp that if time dilation does not occur in the co-
> inertial frame, then it does not occur at all.
Well, that's odd. You *just got done saying* that it does occur in the
trans-inertial frame. Now you seem to be eager to explain why you
didn't mean that at all.
Now, you were going to explain how your previous statement was in
opposition to something you think relativity claims. But you haven't
said what that claim by relativity is, nor shown how that is different
than what you said.
Strich.9
inertial frame. Now you seem to be eager to explain why you didn't
[Perhaps an elementary example for the simple minds. If I had a
circular disk and I look at it from the edge, it will look like a
line. But though it may look like a line, it is not a line. It is
still a disk. So while a trans-inertial measurement will measure a
time dilation, the co-inertial will not. Note also that different
trans-inertial measurements from frames with different relative
velocities will yield different measurements of the trans-inertial
time. All this while the co-inertial observer notes no change in his
clock co-inertially. His clock has remained constant, and continues
to remain so for eternity. Later I will hand-hold you through an
analysis of the muon experiment. This way you will know whether time
dilation occurred on the muon or not. Do not let yourself be mislead
by the standard interpretation. Keep an open mind. You will need
it.]
Dirk Van de moortel
Self-strangulation in action.
Dirk Vdm
PD
> [PD wrote: You *just got done saying* that it does occur in the trans-
>
> inertial frame. Now you seem to be eager to explain why you didn't
> mean that at all.]
>
> [Perhaps an elementary example for the simple minds. If I had a
> circular disk and I look at it from the edge, it will look like a
> line. But though it may look like a line, it is not a line. It is
> still a disk. So while a trans-inertial measurement will measure a
> time dilation, the co-inertial will not. Note also that different
> trans-inertial measurements from frames with different relative
> velocities will yield different measurements of the trans-inertial
> time. All this while the co-inertial observer notes no change in his
> clock co-inertially. His clock has remained constant, and continues
> to remain so for eternity.
OK. Now I ask you once more:
What do you think that relativity claims that is different than what
you have said?
Strich.9
arguments claim and prove that time dilation does not represent real
changes. Now with a concrete example.]
V. Time Dilation and the Muon experiment
The Experiment: Muons are formed in the upper atmosphere. They move
with a velocity close to light at V=0.995c~300000000m/s. As
relativity folklore has it, the muon has a resting half-life of about
2 microseconds (measured by ‘stopping’ a speeding muon). But the muon
also reaches the earth, travelling up to D=6000 meters. With this
distance and speed, the muon lives for Te = D / V = 6000m / 300000000m/
s = 20 microseconds. This is easily measured by starting a fast stop
watch when the muon is at a 6000 meter elevation, and then stopping
the stop watch when the muon reaches an elevation of 0 meter. The
relativity conclusion is that the muon has been time dilated and
therefore lived 10x longer.
Let us first categorize this computed time Te=20us. It is measured by
an earth observer, with an earth clock. We let the earth be the
native frame and the muon be the foreign frame. Therefore Te is a
NATIVE CO-INERTIAL MNEASUREMENT. Let us pause at this juncture so any
questions can be addressed early.
Dirk Van de moortel
Dirk Van de moortel
Self-mutilation in action.
Dirk Vdm
PD
> [Relativity claims that time dilation represent real changes.
And in terms of trans-inertial measurements and co-inertial
measurements, what do you think "real changes" means?
> My
> arguments claim and prove that time dilation does not represent real
> changes.
Well, that's interesting in its own right. So you are saying that co-
inertial measurements are real, and trans-inertial measurements are
not real?
On what basis do you make that claim?
stric...@gmail.com
saying that co-inertial measurements are real, and trans-inertial
measurements are not real? On what basis do you make that claim?]
[Strich writes: I cannot help but notice your stupidity. We are in
the slow process of proving my claim. I am using the muon experiment
as a concrete example for proving that claim. Do you wish to proceed,
or do you wish to delay the discussion, for whatever reason you may
have?]
[Note PD will reply with another ad hominem, instead of engaging the
discussion, which is the muon experiment. Historically, a less
rigorous analyses in the past had traumatized Dirk (which is why he
has been trolling this thread):
I pose a simple question to Dirk:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dbc0459bee9fbf31?dmode=source
He suddenly develops computer problems:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c0ad30d8cf535b64?dmode=source
I repeat the question to him:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/079c44b8c67bff3b?dmode=source
He wants me to answer my own question:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/409ad42473725ba2?dmode=source
And never answers the question:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/263ffff6f1d0db4b?dmode=source
*These are google links and do not contain spyware, unlike the links
that Dirk provides with the .be extension. Since the time he was
embarrassed, he also diverts responses to him to alt.morons. He
cannot seem to accept defeat, yet does not use his brain. Thanks.]
PD
> [PD wrote: Well, that's interesting in its own right. So you are
>
> saying that co-inertial measurements are real, and trans-inertial
> measurements are not real? On what basis do you make that claim?]
>
> [Strich writes: I cannot help but notice your stupidity. We are in
>
> the slow process of proving my claim. I am using the muon experiment
> as a concrete example for proving that claim. Do you wish to proceed,
> or do you wish to delay the discussion, for whatever reason you may
> have?]
I've asked you a couple of simple questions:
Strich9: [Relativity claims that time dilation represent real
changes.
And in terms of trans-inertial measurements and co-inertial
measurements, what do you think "real changes" means?
Strich9: My arguments claim and prove that time dilation does not
represent real changes.
Well, that's interesting in its own right. So you are saying that co-
inertial measurements are real, and trans-inertial measurements are
not real? On what basis do you make that claim?
>
> [Note PD will reply with another ad hominem, instead of engaging the
> discussion, which is the muon experiment.
If you'd like to discuss the muon experiment, then of course tell what
you think relativity says about co-inertial and trans-inertial
measurements of muon lifetimes.
PD
Strich.9
you the step by step proof. Why are you so afraid to proceed? We
will get to the conclusion eventually. So I'll proceed when you are
ready.
Do not worry, you have all the time afterwards and in between to
refute the proof. Right now we have defined the terminologies. We
will use them to label measurements in the muon experiment. We will
not make any assumptions as to what the potential implications are of
the measurements. The implications will become obvious as we
proceed. I did tell you earlier what we are proving, because like a
child eager to see his present, you won't stop whining until I gave
you a peak. Now that you got the peak, you won't stop whining until
you get to play with the toy. Like any complicated toy, one must
first read the instructions to get the full potential of the toy.]
PD
> [PD is used to the conclusion coming before the proof. I am giving
> you the step by step proof. Why are you so afraid to proceed? We
> will get to the conclusion eventually. So I'll proceed when you are
> ready.
You said you'd already proved it. Now you say you haven't yet proved
it, and that we're in the middle of the proof. How about I wait until
you get to the point where you say the proof is complete, and then we
talk again?
>
> Do not worry, you have all the time afterwards and in between to
> refute the proof. Right now we have defined the terminologies. We
> will use them to label measurements in the muon experiment.
By all means, label away with your own terminology.
Strich.9
this thread. He cannot see it for some reason, though it is only
parts I, II, III and IV, not even two pages in total. So I take the
effort to hand hold him through the process. Currently I have hand
held him through the definition. He then refuses to go forward.
Maybe he is getting confused, or maybe he is getting scared. I don't
know. But I cannot force him so I shall wait until his confusion
clears, or until his fear subsides, whichever may be applicable.]
PD
> [PD asks for my proof against relativity. I tell him it is right in
> this thread.
Oh, Strich9, you are such a mess.
First you say that you've proved it.
Then you say that the proof is proceeding step by step and that we
haven't arrived at the conclusion.
Then you say that the proof is already there.
And still you cannot answer a simple question: What does relativity
claim, in terms of co-inertial measurements and trans-inertial
measurements (your terms), that is in conflict with what you are
saying?
Do you not see how transparent you are?
doug
Strich.9 wrote:
We are still waiting for you to tell us what you think is wrong
with relativity. So far, the thread shows nothing. Is that all
you have?
papa...@hotmail.com
So you are still showing the world how, an alleged IQ of 200 guy,
instead of been working to get that Nobel Prize, is here writing
nonsense after nonsense.
Gee...I feel amanzingly good in being just a normal IQ guy, compared
with you.
Miguel Rios
Strich.9
V. Time Dilation and the Muon experiment
The Experiment: Muons are formed in the upper atmosphere. They move
with a velocity close to light at V=0.995c~300000000m/s. As
relativity folklore has it, the muon has a resting half-life of about
2 microseconds (measured by ‘stopping’ a speeding muon). But the muon
also reaches the earth, travelling up to D=6000 meters. With this
distance and speed, the muon lives for Te = D / V = 6000m / 300000000m/
s = 20 microseconds. This is easily measured by starting a fast
stopwatch when the muon is at a 6000 meter elevation, and then
stopping the stop watch when the muon reaches an elevation of 0
meter. The relativity conclusion is that the muon has been time
dilated and therefore lived 10x longer.
Let us first categorize this computed time Te=20us. It is measured by
an earth observer, with an earth clock. We let the earth be the
native frame and the muon be the foreign frame. Therefore Te is a
NATIVE CO-INERTIAL MEASUREMENT.
Now the earth observer also observes the muon clock during this time.
Since the observer is in the earth and the clock is in the muon, this
is a NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL MEASUREMENT Te'. This has never been done
experimentally, but according to Einstein's special relativity, this
will reflect a time dilation factor of 10, so Te'=2us.
In summary:
Te = 20us (native co-inertial measurement)
Te' = 2us (native trans-inertial measurement)
doug
Strich.9 wrote:
> Very well, let us continue...
>
> V. Time Dilation and the Muon experiment
>
> The Experiment: Muons are formed in the upper atmosphere. They move
> with a velocity close to light at V=0.995c~300000000m/s. As
> relativity folklore has it, the muon has a resting half-life of about
> 2 microseconds (measured by ‘stopping’ a speeding muon). But the muon
> also reaches the earth, travelling up to D=6000 meters. With this
> distance and speed, the muon lives for Te = D / V = 6000m / 300000000m/
> s = 20 microseconds. This is easily measured by starting a fast
> stopwatch when the muon is at a 6000 meter elevation, and then
> stopping the stop watch when the muon reaches an elevation of 0
> meter. The relativity conclusion is that the muon has been time
> dilated and therefore lived 10x longer.
>
> Let us first categorize this computed time Te=20us. It is measured by
> an earth observer, with an earth clock. We let the earth be the
> native frame and the muon be the foreign frame. Therefore Te is a
> NATIVE CO-INERTIAL MEASUREMENT.
>
> Now the earth observer also observes the muon clock during this time.
> Since the observer is in the earth and the clock is in the muon, this
> is a NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL MEASUREMENT Te'. This has never been done
> experimentally,
You just quoted the experimental result. Then you say it has never been
measured. We measure the decay time to be 20us and the muon measured
it to be 2us. This is what relativity predicts. There is no problem
here. Why don't you just tell us what you think the problem is?
Or are you hoping to find something as you go along?
but according to Einstein's special relativity, this
> will reflect a time dilation factor of 10, so Te'=2us.
>
> In summary:
>
> Te = 20us (native co-inertial measurement)
> Te' = 2us (native trans-inertial measurement)
How is the analysis of the experiments coming? Or are you
just admitting defeat and moving on? We understand that
your bluster got the better of you and made you look stupid.
Remember that you failed badly for both the experiments I
gave you and those that PD gave you. You must be getting
used to failure by now.
Strich.9
Let us do a some more illustrations. We'll use lengths as these are
easier for the mind to visualize. Suppose that somehow Doug was
riding along with the muon and his lover Dirk was standing on the
earth. Both Dirk and Doug had previously compared their index fingers
at X=10cm each. As Doug moves at 0.995c with the muon, Dirk measures
Doug's appendage at Xe'=1cm. Dirk is performing a NATIVE TRANS-
INERTIAL measurement (NTIM). Now Doug measures his own appendage,
performing a FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL measurement (FCIM). Doug obtains
Xm=10cm. The two measurements Xe' and Xm are related by the Lorentz
transformation equation Xe' = Xm / gamma where gamma=(1-V^2/
c^)^(-1/2). In our example, Xe'=1cm, Xm=10cm and gamma=10. Note that
the faster Doug moves, the shorter is the NTIM obtained by Dirk,
though Doug continues to obtain the same FCIM.
Here we have shown that the length contraction of the appendage of
Doug as measured by Dirk with an NTIM is NOT REAL, as the FCIM
obtained by Doug always remains CONSTANT at 10cm. Doug never feels
his appendage contract, though Dirk will swear it does. This is the
source of all the arguments in relativity. The relativists will argue
endlessly that the NTIM is as real as the FCIM.
But, if the NTIM was real, how come Doug does not know about it? Doug
should be the first person to know and feel what happens to his own
appendage.
This is the strange reality that Einstein would have is believe. He
would have us believe that our limbs and heads shrink to different
sizes in each instant as zillions of particles moving by us at high
speeds take our measurements. Worse, this interpretation of reality
and its implications are being tested in billion dollar experiments
such as the LIGO and the Gravity Probe B. Obviously, both experiments
have had negative results.
Owen Jacobson
"Real" has a fairly narrow meaning here: real means that the laws of
physics remain consistent for either observer.
One of the ways the measurement you refer to as the NTIM is real is
that if Dirk observed a pulse of light moving down Doug's finger, he
would see the wavefront propagate along Doug's 1 cm-long finger at
0.005c with respect to the finger (and at c with respect to himself),
taking 6.67 ns to do so. Doug, watching the same pulse travel down
his finger, would see the wavefront propagate along his 10 cm-long
finger at c, taking only 0.334 ns to do so. As you've already
observed, there are no local effects that can be used to decide that
one of those two times is "correct"; therefore, the only remaining
option (no matter how improbable) is that both durations are correct
(or neither are correct, which is equivalent) and therefore that time
is not flowing identically for Doug and Dirk.
You can describe this effect in your "trans-inertial" and "co-
inertial" terminology, if you like.
-o
unixops
I=w/g + / \ | (1-v^3/c^2) - (1-v^3/c^3) | ^ (-1/C+)
Fair work, in general relativity.
PD
> Very well, let us continue...
>
> V. Time Dilation and the Muon experiment
>
> The Experiment: Muons are formed in the upper atmosphere. They move
> with a velocity close to light at V=0.995c~300000000m/s. As
> relativity folklore has it, the muon has a resting half-life of about
> 2 microseconds (measured by ‘stopping’ a speeding muon). But the muon
> also reaches the earth, travelling up to D=6000 meters. With this
> distance and speed, the muon lives for Te = D / V = 6000m / 300000000m/
> s = 20 microseconds. This is easily measured by starting a fast
> stopwatch when the muon is at a 6000 meter elevation, and then
> stopping the stop watch when the muon reaches an elevation of 0
> meter.
This isn't the way it's done at all, but let's pass over that....
> The relativity conclusion is that the muon has been time
> dilated and therefore lived 10x longer.
Sorry... what is the relativity claim in terms of co-inertial and
trans-inertial measurements (your terms)?
>
> Let us first categorize this computed time Te=20us. It is measured by
> an earth observer, with an earth clock. We let the earth be the
> native frame and the muon be the foreign frame. Therefore Te is a
> NATIVE CO-INERTIAL MEASUREMENT.
>
> Now the earth observer also observes the muon clock during this time.
> Since the observer is in the earth and the clock is in the muon, this
> is a NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL MEASUREMENT Te'. This has never been done
> experimentally, but according to Einstein's special relativity, this
> will reflect a time dilation factor of 10, so Te'=2us.
>
> In summary:
>
> Te = 20us (native co-inertial measurement)
> Te' = 2us (native trans-inertial measurement)
And how does relativity differ from what it is you're saying?
PD
I'm sorry... let's hone in on this point here. Is it your claim that
co-inertial measurements are real and trans-inertial measurements are
not real? On what basis would you say that?
What does "real" mean to you? What do you think relativity says "real"
means?
Strich.9
and Doug's frame. This idea is summarized in Einstein's clock
paradox, which stated that the moving clock loses time with respect to
the stay at home clock. We analyze this below.]
VI. Analyzing the Clock Paradox
Let there be clocks O and M. Both are at rest and keep equal time.
Now clock M moves at V=0.995c for 100s, covering a distance of
3x10^10m. The clock then returns at the same speed. The observer in
O observes that the O clock registered To=200s between the departure
and arrival of the M clock. This is a NATIVE CO-INERTIAL
measurement. The observer in O also looked at the M clock and
observed that it has registered To'=20s. This is the NATIVE TRANS-
INERTIAL measurement. Special relativity analysis stops here and
concludes that the M clock has been running 10x slower during the
journey.
But this is only half the analysis. (This is the error of
relativity. It did not do the complete analysis.) An observer in M
has also been observing the M clock. During the journey the M
observer notes that the M clock has registered Tm=200s. This is the
FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL measurement. The times To' and Tm are related by
the Lorentz Transformation equation To' = Tm / gamma. (Also, the M
observer during the journey looked at the O clock and noted that it
has registered Tm'=20s. This is a FOREIGN TRANS-INERTIAL
measurement. The time To and Tm' are related by the LTE Tm' = To /
gamma.)
So when the two clocks are reunited O states that the M clock has
registered 20s to his 200s. Au contraire states the M observer. M
states he has been watching his clock all along, and it has registered
200s. To further confound O, M states he had observed the O clock
during the journey and the O clock should have registered only 20s.
But O disagrees and brings out the O clock with its 200s. This both
clocks actually registered 200s each.
Up to this point, the logic is irrefutable. It is when we move to the
conclusion that relativists cannot accept the implication...
So-called time dilation is only an artifact of measurement. The two
clocks observed co-inertially measured the actual passage of time and
showed no change whatsoever.
Ladies and gentleman, this analysis of the clock paradox has not been
performed over the past 100 years, simply because they did not have
the appropriate terminology to keep tabs on what was being measured.
Thank you for your interest.
MalKantent
<stric...@gmail.com> wrote:
>the stay at home clock. We analyze this below.]
>
>VI. Analyzing the Clock Paradox
>
>Let there be clocks O and M. Both are at rest and keep equal time.
>Now clock M moves at V=0.995c for 100s, covering a distance of
>3x10^10m.
Of course if there was such a thing as instantaneous velocity, in this
case from v=0 to v=.995c, you would have no time-dilation.
--
" If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears
in one of her books, I would have chosen a different
name for my character."
Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"
hagman
In order for the M clock to move *without* *acceleration* in such a
manner
that it returns to O after 200 seconds (as observed by O), the
situation
must be somewhat extreme, e.g. both orbiting around a non-rotating
black
hole near the Schwartzschild radius at approx. c/2 in opposite
directions.
Indeed, in this situation the clocks would agree when they meet again.
doug
So this is where you plan to spring your big surprise which you have
been hiding until now. Lets see what it is.
>
> So-called time dilation is only an artifact of measurement.
Oh, too bad, wrong again. With all that buildup, we were expecting
something more clever than such a simple mistake on your part. You
just showed your statement to not be true and then you make it anyway.
We measured the time of the muon decay to be 10usec. The muon measured
it to be 2usec. Those are correct. You are assuming that all
measurements must be the same for all quantities in different frames.
That is not the case. You just showed one example with the muon but
you did not even understand what you were presenting. If we want to
know the answer in some other of your demented viewpoints, we can
apply the appropriate transform equation. If we apply it to the muon
we can see that the muon sees a time of 2usec. But we knew that.
Do you really think you have done anything new? It is clear that all
your inflated claims about your intelligence is just to cover a lack
of degree and education. Had you actually read anything about
relativity, you would have come across the section that said "time
dilation is not an artifact of measurement" and then went on to
explain why. You really should read something about relativity.
The two
> clocks observed co-inertially measured the actual passage of time and
> showed no change whatsoever.
Exactly. There is no preferred frame.
>
> Ladies and gentleman, this analysis of the clock paradox has not been
> performed over the past 100 years,
No, wrong again. This mistake has been made countless times over the
last century.
simply because they did not have
> the appropriate terminology to keep tabs on what was being measured.
Only in your "logic" does terminology change reality. We measure what
we are measuring.
> Thank you for your interest.
That sure was a letdown. You claimed to be intelligent and claimed to
have done something interesting. You made a simple mistake and you
showed that you just need to study.
Strich.9
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/57fa63e8e0dc3388?dmode=source
When the traveling clock returns, we have the paradox of two readings,
to'=20s and tm=200s. Bear in mind at this juncture, both clocks and
and both observers are now in one reference frame. Thus it is
impossible for the clock to have two different readings. Between the
co-inertial measurement by M (which is easily verifiable) and the
trans-inertial measurement by O, which is theoretically postulated,
the co-inertial measurement stands, thereby disproving the notion of
time dilation.
[Now allow me to respond to the replies. Malkantent seems to be
invoking acceleration, which is not relevant in SR. More on this
later. Then there is an comment from a known troll John Jones. PD
quickly agrees with him. PD also mentions a few people who have also
seen the error in relativity. While these people have not been proven
wrong in their accusation of relativity, they have come up with their
own new theory to replace relativity, and this is where it gets
hairy. First of all, that relativity is wrong does not necessarily
imply a new theory. We already have a correct theory, which is
quantum mechanics, itself incompatible with relativity. By removing
relativity, quantum mechanics can not only stand on its own, it would
fare better. Secondly, PD fails to mention the other people like
Androcles and Ken Seto who disagree with relativity. These
individuals have more successfully chewed on the relativists, thus
PD's omission. Note that all these individuals, including myself, has
been subject to trolling and ad hominems, sometimes extreme, simply
because we disagree with a famous theory that happens to be wrong.
Finally we have the comment by Hagman. I have used a very simple
example of the clock paradox to illustrate the contradiction. But the
experiment is a gedanken one, and the time of 200s can easily be
extended to 200 years, and the velocity reduced from 0.995c to 0.014c,
or to any other combination of times and velocities, without affecting
the logic and the manner of calculation. Finally, Doug, in his
attempt to disrupt the thread
wants to refocus the discussion on the muon paradox. Note that his
heckling is his only argument, and he has not shown any error in my
logic in this thread so far. Nonetheless, I will complete the muon
analysis later in this thread to everyone's satisfaction.]
> Indeed, in this situation the clocks would agree when they meet again.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD
> Let me summarize my last post above:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/57fa63e8e0dc3388?dmode...
>
> When the traveling clock returns, we have the paradox of two readings,
> to'=20s and tm=200s. Bear in mind at this juncture, both clocks and
> and both observers are now in one reference frame. Thus it is
> impossible for the clock to have two different readings.
That's incorrect. It's impossible for them now to have different
*rates*. And they do not. They now have identical rates, but the
readings are different.
> Between the
> co-inertial measurement by M (which is easily verifiable) and the
> trans-inertial measurement by O, which is theoretically postulated,
> the co-inertial measurement stands, thereby disproving the notion of
> time dilation.
Ah, so let's see. You are saying that co-inertial measurements are to
be believed and trans-inertial measurements are not to be believed,
because you believe that for them to disagree should be impossible,
and therefore by fiat you choose one.
>
> [Now allow me to respond to the replies. Malkantent seems to be
> invoking acceleration, which is not relevant in SR. More on this
> later. Then there is an comment from a known troll John Jones. PD
> quickly agrees with him. PD also mentions a few people who have also
> seen the error in relativity.
Really, where did I say that?
> While these people have not been proven
> wrong in their accusation of relativity, they have come up with their
> own new theory to replace relativity, and this is where it gets
> hairy. First of all, that relativity is wrong does not necessarily
> imply a new theory. We already have a correct theory, which is
> quantum mechanics, itself incompatible with relativity.
I don't know where you got that notion. Ever heard of relativistic
quantum theory? Been around since Dirac, you know.
> By removing
> relativity, quantum mechanics can not only stand on its own, it would
> fare better. Secondly, PD fails to mention the other people like
> Androcles and Ken Seto who disagree with relativity.
Yes, they disagree with relativity. They are also demonstrated
goofballs who make basic errors.
Do you think that if you can must up enough goofballs who find
relativity wrong, that somehow it will become wrong?
Spaceman doesn't believe that (-1) x (-1) = +1. I'm sure you can find
a few more goofballs who agree with him. Does that make 4th grade math
wrong?
> These
> individuals have more successfully chewed on the relativists, thus
> PD's omission. Note that all these individuals, including myself, has
> been subject to trolling and ad hominems, sometimes extreme, simply
> because we disagree with a famous theory that happens to be wrong.
That would be determined by experiment. Got any experiments that
disagree with relativity?
doug
Strich.9 wrote:
> Let me summarize my last post above:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/57fa63e8e0dc3388?dmode=source
>
> When the traveling clock returns, we have the paradox of two readings,
> to'=20s and tm=200s. Bear in mind at this juncture, both clocks and
> and both observers are now in one reference frame. Thus it is
> impossible for the clock to have two different readings.
You are making an assumption.
Between the
> co-inertial measurement by M (which is easily verifiable) and the
> trans-inertial measurement by O, which is theoretically postulated,
> the co-inertial measurement stands, thereby disproving the notion of
> time dilation.
These words are not connected to anything. What do you think
your proof would consist of?
You do not understand logic at all. The muon clock showed 2 usec
to itself. Our measurement was 200usec. This shows that time
dilation exists. You attemps to confuse the issue by jumping
back and forth and claiming other thins is of no use. You are
just ignorant.
Nonetheless, I will complete the muon
> analysis later in this thread to everyone's satisfaction.]
>
There is no further analysis below.
stric...@gmail.com
1. The M and O clock reads at 0 seconds.
2. The M clock leaves.
3. The M clock returns.
4. M says the M clock is now at 200s.
5. O says the M clock is now at 20s.
6. There is only one M clock, and one reference frame.
7. M cannot have TWO readings in ONE reference frame.
Let us ask PD which one is the wrong statement above.]
John J
Wrong from 4 on, and #7 is not necessary.
Strich.9
Strich replies: "On what grounds?"]
PD
> [PD fails to grasp the reasoning...
>
> 1. The M and O clock reads at 0 seconds.
> 2. The M clock leaves.
> 3. The M clock returns.
> 4. M says the M clock is now at 200s.
> 5. O says the M clock is now at 20s.
No, O says the O clock is now at 200s. M says, by golly, the O clock
reads 200s, even though my clock says 20s.
M says the M clock is now at 20s. O says, by golly, the M clock reads
20s, even though my clock says 200s.
Are you having problems understanding what relativity says? Perhaps
you should just ask.
Strich.9
O clock reads 200s, even though my clock says 20s. M says the M clock
is now at 20s. O says, by golly, the M clock reads 20s, even though my
[Strich says: Excellent. PD gave us 4 readings of 2 clocks. I also
gave 4 readings of 2 clocks. Using our EXACT terminologies to
determine who is talking what, I clarify:
O: native reference frame; M: foreign reference frame
Native co-inertial measurement=200s
Native trans-inertial measurement=20s
Foreign co-inertial measurement=200s
Foreign trans-inertial measurement=20s
Now if PD would kindly* label his 4 readings so we know what he is
talking about.]
(*At this point, let me make a prediction: he is not going to do
this. He will use some lame excuse to avoid getting cornered. Often
his alter-ego Doug or some other cohort will butt in and try to divert
the discussion.)
PD
> [PD says: No, O says the O clock is now at 200s. M says, by golly, the
> O clock reads 200s, even though my clock says 20s. M says the M clock
> is now at 20s. O says, by golly, the M clock reads 20s, even though my
> clock says 200s.]
>
> [Strich says: Excellent. PD gave us 4 readings of 2 clocks.
Two observers x 2 clocks = 4 readings, yes. Notice there are only two
different values of readings, and the reading on any given clock is
agreed upon by the two observers.
> I also
> gave 4 readings of 2 clocks. Using our EXACT terminologies to
> determine who is talking what, I clarify:
>
> O: native reference frame; M: foreign reference frame
>
> Native co-inertial measurement=200s
> Native trans-inertial measurement=20s
> Foreign co-inertial measurement=200s
> Foreign trans-inertial measurement=20s
>
> Now if PD would kindly* label his 4 readings so we know what he is
> talking about.]
They're your terms. The situation is exactly as I described it. You
are free to apply your terminology to the situation as I described it.
Now, what is it that you're claiming that is in disagreement with what
relativity is saying?
Other than the fact that you can't even accurately say what the clock
readings are, according to relativity, that is.
>
> (*At this point, let me make a prediction: he is not going to do
> this. He will use some lame excuse to avoid getting cornered.
Cornered? Are you hunting? I thought you were putting forward YOUR
ideas. And then we'll compare them to relativity. That seems like what
would be done in a discussion. Are you interested in discussion?
Strich.9
[Strich says: Excellent. PD gave us 4 readings of 2 clocks. Using
the EXACT terminologies to determine who is talking what, PD is asked
to kindly label his 4 readings. Strich predicts PD will weasel
out...]
[PD states: They're your terms...]
[Strich states: Prediction verified.]
papa...@hotmail.com
Hear hear....watch an alleged 200 IQ genius in action. Physics will
never be the same after this.
All physicists and relativists please prepare your resignation
letters.
Miguel Rios
PD
> [PD stated: No, O says the O clock is now at 200s...]
>
> [Strich says: Excellent. PD gave us 4 readings of 2 clocks. Using
> the EXACT terminologies to determine who is talking what, PD is asked
> to kindly label his 4 readings.
Why would you ask ME to apply YOUR labels to clock readings? I'm happy
to tell you how relativity labels those clock readings. You are
invited to use your own invented terminology to label whatever you'd
like. If you're not interested in doing that work yourself, I don't
know why you'd expect others to apply your terminology for you.
[PD predicts that Strich9 doesn't know how to describe events using
his own terminology, let alone the terminology of special relativity.
Furthermore, PD predicts that Strich9 will ONCE AGAIN avoid the
question of what exactly SR says, using his terminology, that is in
variance with what he is saying.]
Strich.9
[Let us quote from a "standard source", albeit a weak one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
"Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that
another's clock, which is physically identical to their own, is
ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. This is often
interpreted as time "slowing down" for the other clock, but that is
only true in the context of the observer's frame of reference. Locally
(i.e., from the perspective of any observer within the same frame of
reference, without reference to another frame of reference), time
always passes at the same rate."
Since PD cannot read more than one line, let me requote one line from
above:
"Locally time always passes at the same rate."]
Strich argues: So when PD states "M says, by golly, the O clock reads
200s, even though my clock says 20s", that is wrong, as M witnessed a
CO-INERTIAL or LOCAL slowing of time, which wikipedia states does not
happen (and no physicist would also agree with).
papa...@hotmail.com
I've submitted my resignation to the authorities of the University.
After reading the arguments of our God, 200 IQ Strich, I realized I
have been wrong all these years:Clock Rates and Readings ARE the same
thing!!! Thank you, Thank you,... Lord Strich. The world owes you too
much.
Miguel Rios
doug
Strich.9 wrote:
Yes, we predicted that strich would look stupid yet again. He
cannot even label clocks according to HIS OWN terminology.
We are waiting for him to try so we can see what else he
has misunderstood.
stric...@gmail.com
1. The M and O clocks are together and both read at 0 seconds.
2. The M clock leaves.
3. The M clock returns.
4. M observes the M clock is now at 200s (FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL).
5. O says the M clock is now at 20s (NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL).
6. There is only one M clock, and one reference frame.
7. The SINGLE clock M cannot have TWO readings in ONE reference frame.
8. Relativity is inconsistent.
The only response the relativists have been able to put forward is
that M reads the M clock at 20s, invoking a local time dilation,
clearly a violation of relativity itself.
If Special Relativity is flawed, then the whole castle of General
Relativity, which rests on SR, is flawed as well. What of physics?
Quantum mechanics remains. QM merely needs to be extended to
gravitation, without the erroneous intercession of relativity, to be
the complete theory of everything.
What about so called proofs of relativity? All circumstantial. Solid
proofs were supposed to come from the large LIGO and GPB experiments,
both solidly negative.
What about Einstein? He did discover the photoelectric effect. He
can be repackaged as the father of solar power, future of the green
earth. His relativity theory will become a smaller and smaller
footnote in the centuries to come.
stric...@gmail.com
[NOTE: Watch out for a deluge of ad-hominems. In the spirit of
brevity, I will ignore them. This thread has been around for more
than a week. Any meaningful refutation should have surfaced by now on
top of the other ad hominems. Thank you.]
doug
stric...@gmail.com wrote:
> THE CLOCK PARADOX. Let me recap this thread.
>
> 1. The M and O clocks are together and both read at 0 seconds.
> 2. The M clock leaves.
> 3. The M clock returns.
> 4. M observes the M clock is now at 200s (FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL).
> 5. O says the M clock is now at 20s (NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL).
This is a stupid statement on your part. Why would you think
this is true?
> 6. There is only one M clock, and one reference frame.
> 7. The SINGLE clock M cannot have TWO readings in ONE reference frame.
It does not have two readings.
> 8. Relativity is inconsistent.
Strich has lots of delusions.
>
> The only response the relativists have been able to put forward is
> that M reads the M clock at 20s, invoking a local time dilation,
> clearly a violation of relativity itself.
We are saying the clock reads what it reads. You saying something
else is clearly only your delusion.
>
> If Special Relativity is flawed,
It is not, so the rest of your statement is meaningless.
then the whole castle of General
> Relativity, which rests on SR, is flawed as well. What of physics?
> Quantum mechanics remains. QM merely needs to be extended to
> gravitation, without the erroneous intercession of relativity, to be
> the complete theory of everything.
>
> What about so called proofs of relativity? All circumstantial.
Wrong again. There is a century of experimental evidence. This
is direct evidence. Strich does not understand it but that does
not change the validity. Strich has been unable to refute any
of the experiments even though in his arrogance and empty boasts
he said he could.
Solid
> proofs were supposed to come from the large LIGO and GPB experiments,
> both solidly negative.
PD carefully explained this to you. Your lack of education makes it
hard for you to learn.
>
> What about Einstein? He did discover the photoelectric effect. He
> can be repackaged as the father of solar power, future of the green
> earth. His relativity theory will become a smaller and smaller
> footnote in the centuries to come.
>
>
> [NOTE: Watch out for a deluge of ad-hominems.
Yes you cetainly give out a lot of them. Your definition of ad-hominens
directed towards you is people pointing out your logical and scientific
errors. More of your delusions here.
In the spirit of
> brevity, I will ignore them.
Sure you will ignore anyone who points out your mistakes and empty
blustering. You figure if you ignore evidence, it will go away.
That is not science.
This thread has been around for more
> than a week. Any meaningful refutation should have surfaced by now on
> top of the other ad hominems. Thank you.]
Everything you have posted has been solidly and repeatedly refuted. Your
delusions are intact since they have nothing to do with reality.
John Baker
Scientists submit their ideas for peer review. Kooks post theirs on
Usenet.
PD
> THE CLOCK PARADOX. Let me recap this thread.
>
> 1. The M and O clocks are together and both read at 0 seconds.
> 2. The M clock leaves.
> 3. The M clock returns.
> 4. M observes the M clock is now at 200s (FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL).
No, you've fouled this up again. M observes that the M clock is now at
20s (foreign co-inertial).
Jeez, can't a guy with 200 IQ get *anything* right?
PD
> THE CLOCK PARADOX. Let me recap this thread.
>
> 1. The M and O clocks are together and both read at 0 seconds.
> 2. The M clock leaves.
> 3. The M clock returns.
> 4. M observes the M clock is now at 200s (FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL).
Whoops. Try again.
> 5. O says the M clock is now at 20s (NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL).
> 6. There is only one M clock, and one reference frame.
> 7. The SINGLE clock M cannot have TWO readings in ONE reference frame.
> 8. Relativity is inconsistent.
>
> The only response the relativists have been able to put forward is
> that M reads the M clock at 20s, invoking a local time dilation,
> clearly a violation of relativity itself.
>
> If Special Relativity is flawed, then the whole castle of General
> Relativity, which rests on SR, is flawed as well. What of physics?
> Quantum mechanics remains. QM merely needs to be extended to
> gravitation, without the erroneous intercession of relativity, to be
> the complete theory of everything.
>
> What about so called proofs of relativity? All circumstantial. Solid
> proofs were supposed to come from the large LIGO and GPB experiments,
> both solidly negative.
First sentence in preceding paragraph is wrong.
Second sentence is also wrong.
Third sentence is wrong twice.
>
> What about Einstein? He did discover the photoelectric effect. He
> can be repackaged as the father of solar power, future of the green
> earth. His relativity theory will become a smaller and smaller
> footnote in the centuries to come.
>
> [NOTE: Watch out for a deluge of ad-hominems.
Is pointing out errors an ad-hominem?
MalKantent
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:46:35 -0800 (PST), stric...@gmail.com wrote:
--
MalKantent
<TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What about Einstein? He did discover the photoelectric effect. He
>> can be repackaged as the father of solar power, future of the green
>> earth.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strich.9
counterproof. But since I am coming from the anti-dogma side, I will
be be more patient and more instructive. Also note the Baker ad
hominem impugning all usenet posters with original ideas against
established dogma. I will repeat the proof in more detail.]
THE CLOCK PARADOX. Summary:
1. The M and O clocks are together and both read at 0 seconds.
2. The M clock leaves.
3. The M clock returns.
4. M observes the M clock is now at 200s (FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL).
5. O says the M clock is now at 20s (NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL).
6. There is only one M clock, and one reference frame.
7. The SINGLE clock M cannot have TWO readings in ONE reference frame.
8. Relativity is inconsistent.
The PROOF repeated:
Let there be clocks O and M. Both are at rest and keep equal time
[Statement 1 above]. Now clock M moves at V=0.995c for 100s, covering
a distance of 3x10^10m [Statement 2]. The clock then returns at the
same speed [Statement 3]. The observer in O observes that the O clock
registered To=200s between the departure and arrival of the M clock.
This is a NATIVE CO-INERTIAL measurement. The observer in O also
looked at the M clock and observed that it has registered To'=20s, a
NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL measurement [Statement 5]. Special relativity
analysis stops here and concludes that the M clock has been running
10x slower during the journey.
But this is only half the analysis. An observer in M has also been
observing the M clock. During the journey the M observer notes that
the M clock has registered Tm=200s, a FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL measurement
[Statement 4]. The times To' and Tm are related by the Lorentz
Transformation equation To' = Tm / gamma [Shows that Statements 4 and
5 satisfy the LTE]. (Also, the M observer during the journey looked
at the O clock and noted that it has registered Tm'=20s. This is a
FOREIGN TRANS-INERTIAL measurement. The time To and Tm' are related
by the LTE Tm' = To / gamma.)
So when the two clocks are reunited O states that the M clock has
registered 20s, while the M observer states he has been watching his
clock all along, and it has registered 200s [Statement 6].
As I said before, up to this point, the logic is irrefutable. It is
when we move to the
conclusion that relativists cannot accept the implication. So-called
time dilation is only an artifact of measurement. The two clocks
observed co-inertially measured the actual passage of time and showed
no change whatsoever.
This is Doug's response:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/ef5ef912598e04ed
Referring to statement 5, he said:
"This is a stupid statement on your part. Why would you think this is
true? "
Notice that he does not use any logic. Further, the time to'=20s is
the O reading of the M clock derived from the LTE To'=Tm/gamma, which
is standard relativity.
Finally, Doug concludes with the tautology:
PD
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:28:02 -0800 (PST), PD
>
>
> >> What about Einstein? He did discover the photoelectric effect. He
> >> can be repackaged as the father of solar power, future of the green
> >> earth.
Actually, I didn't write that. Please be careful.
PD
> [Doug uses the relativity trick of hand waving without actual
> counterproof. But since I am coming from the anti-dogma side, I will
> be be more patient and more instructive. Also note the Baker ad
> hominem impugning all usenet posters with original ideas against
> established dogma. I will repeat the proof in more detail.]
>
> THE CLOCK PARADOX. Summary:
>
> 1. The M and O clocks are together and both read at 0 seconds.
> 2. The M clock leaves.
> 3. The M clock returns.
> 4. M observes the M clock is now at 200s (FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL).
Still repeating this error?
Why?
Strich.9
[Strich states: PROVE THE ERROR. (Merely ignoring the proof several
times and coming back after several ad hominems and suddenly
concluding an error is made is not a valid counter-proof). Note: PD
will say that he has already shown his proof several times, supported
by no specific posting or argument.]
[In fact, PD has argued incorrectly:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/8fab7701f6bc1406
that the M observer sees the M clock LOCALLY as slow at 20s, thereby
invoking the existence of time dilation in the LOCAL frame, clearly in
violation of relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
MalKantent
papa...@hotmail.com
Boy you are hard....are you sure you IQ is 200?
The traveling clock for the traveling observer did run as usual and he
did not notice any change on its rate (still one click per each
second or per each heart bit).
The stay at home clock and its stay at home observer had the same
experience, that is, the stay at home clock did run as usual and its
observer did not notice any change on its rate (still one click per
heart bit).
Did the observers, when they met again, after exchanging information
notice any discrepancies on both clock rates? No!!!, they continue to
run
at one click per each second, or heart bit.
Did the observers, when they met again, after exchanging information
notice any discrepancies on both clock readings? Yes!!!, the stay at
home
observer's clock is reading 200 while the traveling observer's clock
is reading 20.
Are these observations and measurements contradictory or wrong? No!!!,
they follow from the traveling observer and his clock being moving
inertially at a very high speed for a time and then accelerate to
brake and then to return to the original point of departure at a very
high speed.
Are you with your very high IQ able to understand any of this? Not in
a million years!! It is too simple for such a complex mind. May be if
the way nature works was far more complex you would have less problems
in catching its way.
Miguel Rios
doug
Strich.9 wrote:
> [Doug uses the relativity trick of hand waving without actual
> counterproof.
I pointed out that the clocks read what they read. You seemed
to consider that handwaving. You claim the clocks read two
things at the same time and somehow you think that is logic.
But since I am coming from the anti-dogma side, I will
> be be more patient and more instructive.
We have been very patient with your mistakes.
Also note the Baker ad
> hominem impugning all usenet posters with original ideas against
> established dogma.
Baker made a true statement. You, kenseto, noeinstien, spaceman,
Henri Wilson, winn and others are excellent examples of the truth
of that statement.
I will repeat the proof in more detail.]
You will repeat your mistakes again below.
>
>
>
> THE CLOCK PARADOX. Summary:
>
> 1. The M and O clocks are together and both read at 0 seconds.
> 2. The M clock leaves.
> 3. The M clock returns.
> 4. M observes the M clock is now at 200s (FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL).
> 5. O says the M clock is now at 20s (NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL).
This is wrong no matter how many times you repeat it. Since O looking
at the M clock sees it read 20s, it would not be logical for him to
say it reads 200s. You have refused to say why you have this delusion
that the clock will say two things at the same time. You need to
work on learning logic.
> 6. There is only one M clock, and one reference frame.
> 7. The SINGLE clock M cannot have TWO readings in ONE reference frame.
No, it does not have two readings and relativity does not predict that.
If you were trying to publish something instead of being a crank posting
on usenet, you would work out predictions based on the actual math
content of relativity and present those. That would be the logic
approach. Making handwaving claims like you are doing, particularly
when the do not represent reality or the predictions of relativity
is not science nor logic.
> 8. Relativity is inconsistent.
Relativity is perfectly consistent and has the support of a century
of experiments which you have been unable to refute in any way in
spite of your empty boasts.
>
> The PROOF repeated:
It is wrong above and is wrong below.
>
> Let there be clocks O and M. Both are at rest and keep equal time
> [Statement 1 above]. Now clock M moves at V=0.995c for 100s, covering
> a distance of 3x10^10m [Statement 2]. The clock then returns at the
> same speed [Statement 3]. The observer in O observes that the O clock
> registered To=200s between the departure and arrival of the M clock.
> This is a NATIVE CO-INERTIAL measurement. The observer in O also
> looked at the M clock and observed that it has registered To'=20s, a
> NATIVE TRANS-INERTIAL measurement [Statement 5]. Special relativity
> analysis stops here and concludes that the M clock has been running
> 10x slower during the journey.
>
> But this is only half the analysis. An observer in M has also been
> observing the M clock. During the journey the M observer notes that
> the M clock has registered Tm=200s, a FOREIGN CO-INERTIAL measurement
> [Statement 4]. The times To' and Tm are related by the Lorentz
> Transformation equation To' = Tm / gamma [Shows that Statements 4 and
> 5 satisfy the LTE]. (Also, the M observer during the journey looked
> at the O clock and noted that it has registered Tm'=20s. This is a
> FOREIGN TRANS-INERTIAL measurement. The time To and Tm' are related
> by the LTE Tm' = To / gamma.)
So you are claiming that this somehow changes the clock reading?
That is a pretty bizare claim.
>
> So when the two clocks are reunited O states that the M clock has
> registered 20s,
No, the O observer sees that the truth is that the M clock reads
200s. It would not be logical for him to say that the M clock
says anything other than what it says. Since this has been
experimentally verified using cesium clocks, we know the
conclustions to be correct that the clocks will read differently
and still be running at the same rate.
while the M observer states he has been watching his
> clock all along, and it has registered 200s [Statement 6].
No, M says his clock says 20s. That is what it says on the
face of the clock. Why would he say it reads anything else?
>
> As I said before, up to this point, the logic is irrefutable.
Except, of course, for the fact that you are wrong on a number
of points and thus the argument refutes itself.
It is
> when we move to the
> conclusion that relativists cannot accept the implication. So-called
> time dilation is only an artifact of measurement. The two clocks
> observed co-inertially measured the actual passage of time and showed
> no change whatsoever.
>
> This is Doug's response:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/msg/ef5ef912598e04ed
> Referring to statement 5, he said:
> "This is a stupid statement on your part. Why would you think this is
> true? "
> Notice that he does not use any logic. Further, the time to'=20s is
> the O reading of the M clock derived from the LTE To'=Tm/gamma, which
> is standard relativity.
No, it is not standard relativity, it is your complete misunderstanding
of relativity. Relativity is consistent, you are not.
>
> Finally, Doug concludes with the tautology:
> "We are saying the clock reads what it reads."
You are the one saying that the clock reads something other than what
it reads.
And the next tautology is that strich does not understand relativity.
MalKantent
>Did the observers, when they met again, after exchanging information
>notice any discrepancies on both clock rates? No!!!, they continue to
>run
>at one click per each second, or heart bit.
I knew they pronounced "beat" like "bit" and "bit" like "beat," but I
didn't know they spelled it wrong too.
Why should anybody believe you if you can't even spell?
John J
<stric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60326a7e-1eb8-4494...@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> [PD fails to grasp the reasoning...
>
> 2. The M clock leaves.
> 3. The M clock returns.
> 5. O says the M clock is now at 20s.
> 6. There is only one M clock, and one reference frame.
>
> Let us ask PD which one is the wrong statement above.]
#1 - There are two identical clocks, one for M and one for O
The single reference frame is O and M observing when each are in the same
intertial frameword. "M returns"
Presumably, a human in the same framework reads each.
When O reads M's clock, it reads the same to both O and M. And visa-versa.
The times are not the same.
BTW, M's clock would be slower than O's.
So, the chain fails at #1, and if #1 was a typo, then it fails at #4.
stric...@gmail.com
[Miguel's reply is fallacious. Note that he states the clock rates do
not change, but the clock readings do. Why would the reading change
if the rates did not? We ask Miquel why. Let us see if he can
justify that idiotic claim.]
[Doug states similarly, in so many words, that the clock rates do not
change but the readings do. There is more. Doug states that O reads
M clock at 200s, and M reads M clock at 20s. Doug reverses the numbers
I gave him. Even if assuming this is right, we are back on the same
paradox that a single clock has 2 readings.]
doug
stric...@gmail.com wrote:
> [PD has been quiet about my specific request for a counter-proof]
>
> [Miguel's reply is fallacious. Note that he states the clock rates do
> not change, but the clock readings do. Why would the reading change
> if the rates did not? We ask Miquel why. Let us see if he can
> justify that idiotic claim.]
If you actually look at what relativity says, you would understand.
>
> [Doug states similarly, in so many words, that the clock rates do not
> change but the readings do.
Yes, see the lines you quoted from wikipedia.
There is more. Doug states that O reads
> M clock at 200s, and M reads M clock at 20s. Doug reverses the numbers
> I gave him. Even if assuming this is right, we are back on the same
> paradox that a single clock has 2 readings.]
Your tortured scenarios make it hard to follow since you are trying
to hide your mistakes. The clock that was moving reads 20s, the
clock that was still measures 200s. This is what they have. Why
would you think they have two readings at the same time? You
are trying to do a calculation to make them say something
different but that is because you do not understand what the
calculation means.
Your mistakes have been pointed out line by line in the posts
you have made but you always snip the posts since you know they
show you to be wrong. This is lying on your part.
papa...@hotmail.com
> [PD has been quiet about my specific request for a counter-proof]
>
> [Miguel's reply is fallacious. Note that he states the clock rates do
> not change, but the clock readings do. Why would the reading change
> if the rates did not? We ask Miquel why. Let us see if he can
> justify that idiotic claim.]
>
Well your extremely high IQ for sure is not helping you to understand.
The answer is in the very same Wiki page you cited, but which you are
unable to understand. You need to deeply study this subject before
attempting to attack it.
For a more formal treatment you can check a good book on special
relativity (such as the first 10 pages of the Landau and Lifshitz
book, and specially equations 3.1 and 3.2 and the text following those
equations).
Miguel Rios
MalKantent
>[PD has been quiet about my specific request for a counter-proof]
Dude, you're not Einstein.
stric...@gmail.com
to slip out of my argument via your smokescreen.]
Doug states:
> Your tortured scenarios make it hard to follow since you are trying
> to hide your mistakes. The clock that was moving reads 20s, the
> clock that was still measures 200s. This is what they have.
Strich asks: Relativity is reciprocal. From the frame of M, O is
moving. M expects to see the O clock to be time dilated and slow by a
factor of 10. M expects the O clock to read 2s, compared to the M
clock of 20s. And we can forever cross over to the other frame and
invoke the same reasoning until both clocks are reading
infinitesimally small intervals of time. As I said, logic only allows
O to see O at 200s, M to see M at 200s, and O to see M at 20s and M to
see O at 20s, with the latter 2 readings being apparent than actual.
[Let me illustrate in painful detail. Let there be Jim and Joe each
of height 6 ft. Jim sees Joe in the distance and measures a height of
3 feet. Joe also sees Jim in the distance and measures a height of 3
feet. No problem. But now Jim starts to believe Joe is really 3
feet. To avoid conflict, Joe agrees, then measures Jim as half his
height of 3 feet, making Jim 1.5 feet. Jim continues with his theory,
and measures Joe as half his height at 0.75 feet. Etc. The phenomenon
of height contraction with distance is an artifact, as is the
phenomenon of time dilation with a trans-inertial observation. To
invoke otherwise leads to a reality that is at best schizophrenic.]
stric...@gmail.com
[Strich states:Here is that wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
Here is the quote:
"Time dilation is the phenomenon whereby an observer finds that
another's clock, which is physically identical to their own, is
ticking at a slower rate as measured by their own clock. This is often
interpreted as time "slowing down" for the other clock, but that is
only true in the context of the observer's frame of reference. Locally
(i.e., from the perspective of any observer within the same frame of
reference, without reference to another frame of reference), time
always passes at the same rate. The time dilation phenomenon applies
to any process that manifests change over time."
Where does it say that clock readings change while clock rates stay
the same?]
doug
stric...@gmail.com wrote:
> [For Doug: I shall wrap just this one really quick. I do not want PD
> to slip out of my argument via your smokescreen.]
Yes, you admit you are wrong so that PD does not have to point it
out yet again.
>
> Doug states:
>
>>Your tortured scenarios make it hard to follow since you are trying
>>to hide your mistakes. The clock that was moving reads 20s, the
>>clock that was still measures 200s. This is what they have.
>
>
> Strich asks: Relativity is reciprocal.
Except of course that you are wrong again. Look at the twin "paradox"
and you will see this explained in great detail to you. You have set
up this situation and the explaination has been around for a century
and there are no problems with it so you lose again.
doug
stric...@gmail.com wrote:
> [For Doug: I shall wrap just this one really quick. I do not want PD
> to slip out of my argument via your smokescreen.]
>
> Doug states:
>
>>Your tortured scenarios make it hard to follow since you are trying
>>to hide your mistakes. The clock that was moving reads 20s, the
>>clock that was still measures 200s. This is what they have.
>
>
> Strich asks: Relativity is reciprocal.
In case you would actually read something, look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
This was settled a century ago.
doug
stric...@gmail.com wrote:
You notice that it says that "Locally (i.e., from the perspective of
any observer within the same frame of reference, without reference to
another frame of reference), time always passes at the same rate."
This says the clocks are running at the same rate in their frame.
There is no requirement that they be seen as running at the same
rate from another frame. GPS is an example of experimental proof
of that. It is your misunderstanding of frames of reference that
is causing you trouble here.
papa...@hotmail.com
Wow....you should re-check your IQ...
The quote mentions TWO observers: your stay at home observer O and the
traveling observer M. Measurements performed by O (by using several
synchronized clocks along the path of M) the quote says, makes him
conclude observer's M clock is slowing down. Observer M, on the other
hand, is moving with his clock (sharing its frame of reference) and
for him the clock is ticking as usual, the quote says.
If you read the book from Landau and Lifshitz the explanation is as
follows:
"...The time read by a clock moving with a given object is called the
proper time for this object. Formulas (3.1) and (3.2) express the
proper time in terms of the time for a system of reference from which
the motion is observed. As we see from (3.1) or (3.2), the proper time
of a moving object is always less than the corresponding interval in
the rest system. In other words, moving clocks go more slowly than
those at rest.
Suppose some clocks are moving in uniform rectilinear motion relative
to an inertial system K. A reference frame K' linked to the latter is
also inertial. Then from the point of view of an observer in the K
system the clocks in the K' system fall behind. And conversely, from
the point of view of the K' system, the clocks in K lag. To convince
ourselves that there is no contradiction, let us note the following.
In order to establish that the clocks in the K' system lag behind
those in the K system, we must proceed in the following fashion.
Suppose that at a certain moment the clock in K' passes by the clock
in K, and at that moment the readings of the two clocks coincide. To
compare the rates of the two clocks in K and K' we must once more
compare the readings of the same moving clock in K' with the clocks in
K. But now we compare this clock with different clocks in K with those
past which the clock in K' goes at this new time. Then we find that
the clock in K' lags behind the clocks in K with which it is being
compared. We see that to compare the rates of clocks in two reference
frames we require several clocks in one frame and one in the other,
and that therefore this process is not symmetric with respect to the
two systems. The clock that appears to lag is always the one which is
being compared with different clocks in the other system. If we have
two clocks, one of which describes a closed path returning to the
starting point (the position of the clock which remained at rest),
then clearly the moving clock appears to lag relative to the one at
rest. The converse reasoning, in which the moving clock would be
considered to be at rest (and vice versa) is now impossible, since the
clock describing a closed trajectory does not carry out a uniform
rectilinear motion, so that a coordinate system linked to it will not
be inertial...."
Miguel Rios
stric...@gmail.com
[Strich writes: I know. Otherwise I'd agree with relativity.]