| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John Tapper" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2004 07:07:52 AM |
| Object: |
My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light bouncing
vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more time.
The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed being
always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
experimentally verified).
Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and the
bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of plates/clock
and the round trips take the same time. No time dilation in the round
trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the "mass
clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock" but is
violating SR?
Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those decay-time
and atomic clocks all involve light).
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 02:09:54 AM |
|
|
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com...
| Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light bouncing
| vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
| course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
| round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more time.
| The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
| speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed being
| always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
| experimentally verified).
|
| Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and the
| bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of plates/clock
| and the round trips take the same time. No time dilation in the round
| trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the "mass
| clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock" but is
| violating SR?
|
| Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
|
| Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those decay-time
| and atomic clocks all involve light).
The simple facts you are missing is called "I, of course, agree with light
speed being always fixed" and "believe this has been repeatedly and fully
experimentally verified".
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 02:48:58 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6%xyc.2206$vj5.20267058@news-text.cableinet.net...
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com...
| Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light
bouncing
| vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
| course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
| round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more
time.
| The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
| speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed
being
| always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
| experimentally verified).
|
| Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and
the
| bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of
plates/clock
| and the round trips take the same time. No time dilation in the
round
| trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the
"mass
| clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock" but is
| violating SR?
|
| Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
|
| Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those
decay-time
| and atomic clocks all involve light).
The simple facts you are missing is called "I, of course, agree with
light
speed being always fixed" and "believe this has been repeatedly and
fully
experimentally verified".
In physics, there is no such thing as a postulate being "fully
verified".
In the case of light speed, there is excellent data in support of it,
and none whatsoever which negates it.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
13 Jun 2004 03:54:06 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<cafmn9$hk2$8@titan.btinternet.com>...
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6%xyc.2206$vj5.20267058@news-text.cableinet.net...
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com...
| Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light
bouncing
| vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
| course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
| round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more
time.
| The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
| speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed
being
| always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
| experimentally verified).
|
| Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and
the
| bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of
plates/clock
| and the round trips take the same time. No time dilation in the
round
| trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the
"mass
| clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock" but is
| violating SR?
|
| Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
|
| Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those
decay-time
| and atomic clocks all involve light).
The simple facts you are missing is called "I, of course, agree with
light
speed being always fixed" and "believe this has been repeatedly and
fully
experimentally verified".
In physics, there is no such thing as a postulate being "fully
verified".
In the case of light speed, there is excellent data in support of it,
and none whatsoever which negates it.
There is some astronomical data which may negate it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
14 Jun 2004 03:02:41 AM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0406131254.69d97b88@posting.google.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<cafmn9$hk2$8@titan.btinternet.com>...
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6%xyc.2206$vj5.20267058@news-text.cableinet.net...
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com...
| Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light
bouncing
| vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion.
Of
| course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for
the
| round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take
more
time.
| The key fact was that light does not get the additional
horizontal
| speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light
speed
being
| always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
| experimentally verified).
|
| Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock
and
the
| bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of
plates/clock
| and the round trips take the same time. No time dilation in
the
round
| trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the
"mass
| clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock"
but is
| violating SR?
|
| Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
|
| Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those
decay-time
| and atomic clocks all involve light).
The simple facts you are missing is called "I, of course, agree
with
light
speed being always fixed" and "believe this has been repeatedly
and
fully
experimentally verified".
In physics, there is no such thing as a postulate being "fully
verified".
In the case of light speed, there is excellent data in support of
it,
and none whatsoever which negates it.
There is some astronomical data which may negate it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Next time you post, check that what you post has not been negated
before you got to know about it.
That observation has been thorouoghly rubbished.
I suspect you know it, and you thought that I might not, so you
chanced your arm.
Either that, or you are not au fait with what you post about.
Which do you prefer?
Franz
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
14 Jun 2004 05:13:59 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
In physics, there is no such thing as a postulate being "fully
verified".
In the case of light speed, there is excellent data in support of
it,
and none whatsoever which negates it.
There is some astronomical data which may negate it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Next time you post, check that what you post has not been negated
before you got to know about it.
That observation has been thorouoghly rubbished.
I suspect you know it, and you thought that I might not, so you
chanced your arm.
Either that, or you are not au fait with what you post about.
Which do you prefer?
I did not know it. Could you please provide references to support your assertion?
Franz
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
15 Jun 2004 02:14:29 PM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0406141413.46adbf1f@posting.google.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
In physics, there is no such thing as a postulate being "fully
verified".
In the case of light speed, there is excellent data in support
of
it,
and none whatsoever which negates it.
There is some astronomical data which may negate it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Next time you post, check that what you post has not been negated
before you got to know about it.
That observation has been thorouoghly rubbished.
I suspect you know it, and you thought that I might not, so you
chanced your arm.
Either that, or you are not au fait with what you post about.
Which do you prefer?
I did not know it. Could you please provide references to support
your assertion?
No. I am not a walking encyclopaedia. My statement was based on a
number of notes which were very convincingly produced in this ng.
If you feel like torturing yourself, you will google on <"Paul Davies"
"Speed of light"> and wade through the 2080 entries. Most of them are
crap produced by so-called "creation sceientists", but you have to
look at all of them to find which are ***** and which are not.
The negation of the findings of Davies et al came essentially from at
least one other group who repeated their observations with a
differently selected set of astronomical objects and found a null
result.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
15 Jun 2004 11:34:42 AM |
|
|
(John Schoenfeld) wrote in message news:<a98beaaa.0406141413.46adbf1f@posting.google.com>...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
In physics, there is no such thing as a postulate being "fully
verified".
In the case of light speed, there is excellent data in support of
it,
and none whatsoever which negates it.
There is some astronomical data which may negate it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Next time you post, check that what you post has not been negated
before you got to know about it.
That observation has been thorouoghly rubbished.
I suspect you know it, and you thought that I might not, so you
chanced your arm.
Either that, or you are not au fait with what you post about.
Which do you prefer?
I did not know it. Could you please provide references to support your assertion?
Still waiting.
Franz
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
19 Jun 2004 03:03:14 PM |
|
|
(John Schoenfeld) wrote in message news:<a98beaaa.0406150834.1d56d8e8@posting.google.com>...
(John Schoenfeld) wrote in message news:<a98beaaa.0406141413.46adbf1f@posting.google.com>...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
In physics, there is no such thing as a postulate being "fully
verified".
In the case of light speed, there is excellent data in support of
it,
and none whatsoever which negates it.
There is some astronomical data which may negate it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Next time you post, check that what you post has not been negated
before you got to know about it.
That observation has been thorouoghly rubbished.
I suspect you know it, and you thought that I might not, so you
chanced your arm.
Either that, or you are not au fait with what you post about.
Which do you prefer?
I did not know it. Could you please provide references to support your assertion?
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Franz
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
20 Jun 2004 03:07:10 AM |
|
|
"John Schoenfeld" <j.schoenfeld@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:a98beaaa.0406191203.718646c@posting.google.com...
j.schoenfeld@programmer.net (John Schoenfeld) wrote in message
news:<a98beaaa.0406150834.1d56d8e8@posting.google.com>...
j.schoenfeld@programmer.net (John Schoenfeld) wrote in message
news:<a98beaaa.0406141413.46adbf1f@posting.google.com>...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:
In physics, there is no such thing as a postulate being
"fully
verified".
In the case of light speed, there is excellent data in
support of
it,
and none whatsoever which negates it.
There is some astronomical data which may negate it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Next time you post, check that what you post has not been
negated
before you got to know about it.
That observation has been thorouoghly rubbished.
I suspect you know it, and you thought that I might not, so
you
chanced your arm.
Either that, or you are not au fait with what you post about.
Which do you prefer?
I did not know it. Could you please provide references to
support your assertion?
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Don't be a twit. I opened a thread in this ng especially for the
purpose of getting the details you asked for. It is all there. Read
it and grovel, moron.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Stein" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
19 Jun 2004 08:54:05 PM |
|
|
Some as that eh!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
19 Jun 2004 03:31:16 PM |
|
|
John Schoenfeld wrote:
There is some astronomical data which may negate it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
Too much error in the data related to the story you cited, John.
The speed of light (actually the fine structure constant alpha)
appears to be constant under finer scrutiny.
Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html#15Aug01
9 Jan 2004 - Chand et al. (2004) present data on the time variation
of the fine structure constant alpha that contradict previous claimed
detections of a variation. The latest result is -0.6+/-0.6 parts per
million for the change which is consistent with zero and much more
accurate than the claimed -5.4+/-1.2 parts per million variation. So
this constant appears to be constant.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306483
http://www.aip.org/pnu/1999/split/pnu410-1.htm
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2001/split/552-3.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
11 Jun 2004 08:20:12 AM |
|
|
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com...
Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light bouncing
vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more time.
The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed being
always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
experimentally verified).
(We of course know fully well that you do not
agree with that)
Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and the
bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of plates/clock
and the round trips take the same time.
Maybe this helps.
Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
Relative velocity = v
Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
{ t = g(t'+vx')
{ x = g(x'+vt')
{ y = y'
Event 1: shoot mass:
( t1', x1', y1' ) = ( 0, 0, 0 )
Event 2: mass bounces
( t2', x2', y2' ) = ( T, 0, uT )
Event 3: mass returns
( t3', x3', y3' ) = ( 2T, 0, 0 )
Round trip time:
delta(t') = 2T - 0 = 2T
Total distance covered:
delta(s') = uT + uT = 2uT
Average speed:
delta(s')/delta(t') = u
Transformation:
( t1, x1, y1 ) = ( 0, 0, 0 )
( t2, x2, y2 ) = ( gT, gvT, uT )
( t3, x3, y3 ) = ( 2gT, 2gvT, 0 )
Round trip time:
delta(t) = 2gT - 0 = 2gT
Total distance covered:
delta(s) = 2 sqrt( (gvT)^2 + (uT)^2 )
= 2gT sqrt( u^2+v^2-u^2v^2 )
Average speed:
delta(s)/delta(t) = sqrt( u^2+v^2-u^2v^2 )
Sanity check:
For the light clock we have u = 1, so this
becomes sqrt( u^2+v^2-u^2v^2 ) = 1 ==> okay
... No time dilation in the round
trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the "mass
clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock" but is
violating SR?
Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
Maybe you see it now?
Dirk Vdm
Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those decay-time
and atomic clocks all involve light).
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Tapper" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 01:41:04 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
Maybe this helps.
Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
Relative velocity = v
Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
{ t = g(t'+vx')
{ x = g(x'+vt')
All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
tranformations for the light clock?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 02:20:10 AM |
|
|
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c38f0627.0406112241.1fab4b35@posting.google.com...
| "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
| > Maybe this helps.
| >
| > Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
| > and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
| > Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
| > Relative velocity = v
| > Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
| >
| > Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
| > { t = g(t'+vx')
| > { x = g(x'+vt')
| > >
|
| All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
| was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
| cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
| transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
| its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
| tranformations for the light clock?
Pay no attention to moortel, he doesn't understand relativity himself.
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ImmortalFumble.htm
He certainly can't derive the transformations, nobody can.
Einstein wrote
"If we place x'=x-vt,....
.... then ....
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
and of course
"If we place x'=x+vt,....
.... then ....
xi = (x+vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and relativity is just a silly "If"
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 03:10:12 AM |
|
|
"John Tapper" <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c38f0627.0406112241.1fab4b35@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
Maybe this helps.
Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
Relative velocity = v
Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
{ t = g(t'+vx')
{ x = g(x'+vt')
All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
tranformations for the light clock?
Roughly speaking, this theory assumes the two well known
postulates about the form of the "laws" of physics and about the
"constancy" of light speed.
It also precisely defines how ultimately measurements of distance
are to be made, namely with clocks and light signals: with a clock
in your hand, send a signal at time t1, wait for the echo to arrive
at time t2, and then *define* for the event of reflection the time t
as (t2+t1)/2 and the distance s as c(t2-t1)/2.
With these postulates and this description the transformation (and
that poorly named thing called time dilation) can be deduced with
very simple algebra.
So you see that the measurements of distances of events intimately
depend on what happens (or is assumed to happen!) with light.
Whether it is a mass that moves and bounces, or light, it does
not matter, since the times and distances of *events* are in
principle measured with light and with the assumption (postulate)
that light speed is constant.
This was more or less the Einstein way of introducing the theory,
and there are other (perhaps more pedagogical) ways to do that
(JP gave a good hint). These other ways can be shown to be
fully and formally equivalent, but I took this one, to confuse
Androcles who already jumped on his donkey, to show the
world how frustrated it is if you don't understand simple things
like this ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 07:13:50 AM |
|
|
In article <c38f0627.0406112241.1fab4b35@posting.google.com>,
John Tapper <xixj_0@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
Maybe this helps.
Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
Relative velocity = v
Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
{ t = g(t'+vx')
{ x = g(x'+vt')
All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
tranformations for the light clock?
And you assumed Galilean transforms.
If we take it as a postulate that the speed of light is invariant, the
transforms for light is easy; the speed is invariant. That's why the
light clock is illuminating; you can apply the postulates easily to a
simple physical picture.
The postulates don't directly say anything about a massive particle, but
they lead to the Lorentz transformations. The Lorentz transformations
again don't directly say anything about massive versus massless particles,
but about positions and times in one frame when viewed from another frame.
The speeds of light and of massive particles are deduced when momentum
and energy are introduced, with the result being that massive particles
don't go the speed of light.
So the clock with the massive particle is really a problem of a
trajectory that in one frame is going slower than c, rather than a
trajectory that in one frame is going c.
If you just propose a massive particle bouncing back and forth, *and
nothing else*, you can't say anything at all about how it transforms. But
if you take the principle of relativity and the invariant c to be true,
the transformation rules follow several intermediate steps and are applied
as DvdM applied them. If you take the invariance of time and of lengths
to be true, then Galilean transformations follow. If you take the
invariance of lengths and the invariance of c to be true, something weird
will follow that probably won't form a group, and we all like our
transformations to form a group.
--
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JP" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 03:16:22 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:41:04 -0700, John Tapper wrote:
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
Maybe this helps.
Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
Relative velocity = v
Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
{ t = g(t'+vx')
{ x = g(x'+vt')
All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
tranformations for the light clock?
Nope. What Dirk has done is assume that the spacetime interval between two
events was the same no matter who was measuring it, and assuming the speed
of light was the same no matter who was measuring it.
The consequences are straightforward high school algebra: the time
measured changes depending on who measures it and the distance between the
plates depends on who measures it BUT THE SPACETIME INTERVAL (tau) IS THE
SAME).
Boring, straightforward Special Relativity experiment using its two
postulates.
Dirk did not assume time dilation. Time dilation is a consequence of
straightforward algebra, and replicated by extremely robust experimental
results over the last 100 years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 02:26:06 AM |
|
|
"JP" <JP@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.12.08.16.19.863425@nospam.net...
| On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:41:04 -0700, John Tapper wrote:
|
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
| >> Maybe this helps.
| >>
| >> Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
| >> and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
| >> Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
| >> Relative velocity = v
| >> Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
| >>
| >> Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
| >> { t = g(t'+vx')
| >> { x = g(x'+vt')
| >> >
| >
| > All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
| > was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
| > cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
| > transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
| > its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
| > tranformations for the light clock?
|
| Nope. What Dirk has done is assume that the spacetime interval between two
| events was the same no matter who was measuring it, and assuming the speed
| of light was the same no matter who was measuring it.
|
| The consequences are straightforward high school algebra: the time
| measured changes depending on who measures it and the distance between the
| plates depends on who measures it BUT THE SPACETIME INTERVAL (tau) IS THE
| SAME).
|
| Boring, straightforward Special Relativity experiment using its two
| postulates.
|
| Dirk did not assume time dilation. Time dilation is a consequence of
| straightforward algebra, and replicated by extremely robust experimental
| results over the last 100 years.
Oh? What experiments are you ranting about?
Spacetime interval (tau) indeed, you've been reading to much science
fiction.
The rest of the world calls such intervals "time". Get real.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "V ertner Vergon" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 11:24:41 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ieyyc.2210$iq5.20335838@news-text.cableinet.net>...
"JP" <JP@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.12.08.16.19.863425@nospam.net...
| On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:41:04 -0700, John Tapper wrote:
|
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
| >> Maybe this helps.
| >>
| >> Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
| >> and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
| >> Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
| >> Relative velocity = v
| >> Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
| >>
| >> Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
| >> { t = g(t'+vx')
| >> { x = g(x'+vt')
| >> >
| >
| > All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
| > was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
| > cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
| > transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
| > its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
| > tranformations for the light clock?
|
| Nope. What Dirk has done is assume that the spacetime interval between two
| events was the same no matter who was measuring it, and assuming the speed
| of light was the same no matter who was measuring it.
|
| The consequences are straightforward high school algebra: the time
| measured changes depending on who measures it and the distance between the
| plates depends on who measures it BUT THE SPACETIME INTERVAL (tau) IS THE
| SAME).
|
| Boring, straightforward Special Relativity experiment using its two
| postulates.
|
| Dirk did not assume time dilation. Time dilation is a consequence of
| straightforward algebra, and replicated by extremely robust experimental
| results over the last 100 years.
Oh? What experiments are you ranting about?
Spacetime interval (tau) indeed, you've been reading to much science
fiction.
The rest of the world calls such intervals "time". Get real.
Androcles.
Vergon:
"Oh what a tangled web we weave ..." especially when we deceive
ourselves.
Hopefully once and for all (but I doubt it) let me straighten you
gentlemen out.
First of all *there is no such thing as time dilation* -- at least not
as it is interpreted from SR, namely t' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) t.
Has it ever occured to you that the variation in time is the result of
a vector -- and that it should be vector sensitive?
Secondly, do you believe in empiricism?
The fable that if you were to observe a fast moving clock, you would
observe it to run slow at t' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)t -- is not true.
Astronomers observe fast moving clocks every night. And what do they
observe? Doppler time.
Time rates are Doppler rates.
A known constant frequency is a clock (a cesium atom emission is now
our standard).
If the frequency of that emission is observed to slow, then the
observation of time is observed to slow. If the frequency is observed
to increase, then the observation of time is observed to increase,
i.e., run faster.
Thus for recession, the time rate observed is
t' = t (1 – v/c)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
For approach it is t' = t (1 + v /c)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
In short, in recession time is dilated but at the Doppler rate.
In approach, time is condensed or contracted – also at the Doppler
rate.
That's how simple it really is.
Applying this knowledge to the Twins Paradox resolves it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 06:19:51 PM |
|
|
"V ertner Vergon" <vergon_enterprises@highstream.net> ha scritto nel
messaggio news:b337f5db.0406120824.49cb1e22@posting.google.com...
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<ieyyc.2210$iq5.20335838@news-text.cableinet.net>...
"JP" <JP@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.12.08.16.19.863425@nospam.net...
| On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:41:04 -0700, John Tapper wrote:
|
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
| >> Maybe this helps.
| >>
| >> Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
| >> and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
| >> Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
| >> Relative velocity = v
| >> Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
| >>
| >> Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
| >> { t = g(t'+vx')
| >> { x = g(x'+vt')
| >> >
| >
| > All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock
it
| > was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
| > cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
| > transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and
defining
| > its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
| > tranformations for the light clock?
|
| Nope. What Dirk has done is assume that the spacetime interval between
two
| events was the same no matter who was measuring it, and assuming the
speed
| of light was the same no matter who was measuring it.
|
| The consequences are straightforward high school algebra: the time
| measured changes depending on who measures it and the distance between
the
| plates depends on who measures it BUT THE SPACETIME INTERVAL (tau) IS
THE
| SAME).
|
| Boring, straightforward Special Relativity experiment using its two
| postulates.
|
| Dirk did not assume time dilation. Time dilation is a consequence of
| straightforward algebra, and replicated by extremely robust
experimental
| results over the last 100 years.
Oh? What experiments are you ranting about?
Spacetime interval (tau) indeed, you've been reading to much science
fiction.
The rest of the world calls such intervals "time". Get real.
Androcles.
Vergon:
"Oh what a tangled web we weave ..." especially when we deceive
ourselves.
Hopefully once and for all (but I doubt it) let me straighten you
gentlemen out.
First of all *there is no such thing as time dilation* -- at least not
as it is interpreted from SR, namely t' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) t.
Has it ever occured to you that the variation in time is the result of
a vector -- and that it should be vector sensitive?
Secondly, do you believe in empiricism?
The fable that if you were to observe a fast moving clock, you would
observe it to run slow at t' = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)t -- is not true.
Astronomers observe fast moving clocks every night. And what do they
observe? Doppler time.
Time rates are Doppler rates.
A known constant frequency is a clock (a cesium atom emission is now
our standard).
If the frequency of that emission is observed to slow, then the
observation of time is observed to slow. If the frequency is observed
to increase, then the observation of time is observed to increase,
i.e., run faster.
Thus for recession, the time rate observed is
t' = t (1 - v/c)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
For approach it is t' = t (1 + v /c)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
In short, in recession time is dilated but at the Doppler rate.
In approach, time is condensed or contracted - also at the Doppler
rate.
Yes, but what happen when the observers are orthogonal ?????
Then the Doppler effects vanish and the ratio between t/t' would be
sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / sqrt(1 - v'^2/c^2) being v and v' the absolute
of the observers.
If the observer O is at rest in the ether v=0 and O' moves at v'
then 1 / sqrt(1 - v'^2/c^2) is the time dilatation that the observer O'
clock undergoes.
That's how simple it really is.
Applying this knowledge to the Twins Paradox resolves it.
The only way to understand the twins paradox is to do without
the relative speed (as defined by SR) and consider a couple of
observers moving at two different absolute speeds (they would see
each other at two different relative speeds) done this then each
observer would have his clock slow down according to his absolute
speed and their ratio would be sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) / sqrt(1 - v'^2/c^2).
No reciprocity can be there: there is not any reciprocity neither in SR
arrangements if you try to figure out the forbidden knowledge of the
time rate of a single clock in the system K and the forbidden knowledge
of the time rate of a single clock in the system K', once you force
yourself to give an answer you would end up on assigning to clock in K
a time rate higher, lower or identical to the clock in K' never would you
succeed in having the clock seeing each other slowing: that is a business
that comes out of the way the frames are set.
SR doesn't say the time rate of the clocks at the origin of the two systems
K and K' nor of any clock in any place of the frames. That is a lot of a
theory.
best regards
beda pietanza
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 08:56:37 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:ieyyc.2210$iq5.20335838@news-text.cableinet.net...
"JP" <JP@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.12.08.16.19.863425@nospam.net...
| On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:41:04 -0700, John Tapper wrote:
|
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
| >> Maybe this helps.
| >>
| >> Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
| >> and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
| >> Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
| >> Relative velocity = v
| >> Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
| >>
| >> Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
| >> { t = g(t'+vx')
| >> { x = g(x'+vt')
| >> >
| >
| > All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
| > was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
| > cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
| > transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
| > its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
| > tranformations for the light clock?
|
| Nope. What Dirk has done is assume that the spacetime interval between two
| events was the same no matter who was measuring it, and assuming the speed
| of light was the same no matter who was measuring it.
|
| The consequences are straightforward high school algebra: the time
| measured changes depending on who measures it and the distance between the
| plates depends on who measures it BUT THE SPACETIME INTERVAL (tau) IS THE
| SAME).
|
| Boring, straightforward Special Relativity experiment using its two
| postulates.
|
| Dirk did not assume time dilation. Time dilation is a consequence of
| straightforward algebra, and replicated by extremely robust experimental
| results over the last 100 years.
Oh? What experiments are you ranting about?
Spacetime interval (tau) indeed, you've been reading to much science
fiction.
The rest of the world calls such intervals "time". Get real.
Androcles, you have proven to be too stupid to take part in
discussions like these. You have no idea about coordinates.
The only thing you can contribute, is showing that you are
even dumber than we already know you are.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "JP" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
12 Jun 2004 04:01:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:56:37 +0000, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:ieyyc.2210$iq5.20335838@news-text.cableinet.net...
"JP" <JP@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.12.08.16.19.863425@nospam.net...
| On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 23:41:04 -0700, John Tapper wrote:
|
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:<gkiyc.3497$_i3.3488@news.cpqcorp.net>...
| >> Maybe this helps.
| >>
| >> Mass Clock frame uses coordinates (t',x',y'),
| >> and mass has vertical speed u in y' direction.
| >> Other frame uses coordinates (t,x,y).
| >> Relative velocity = v
| >> Synchronize at (t,x,y) = (t',x',y') = (0,0,0)
| >>
| >> Transformation ( g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) , c = 1 )
| >> { t = g(t'+vx')
| >> { x = g(x'+vt')
| >> >
| >
| > All you have done is *assume* time dilation. But for a light clock it
| > was shown why speed of light being constant alone and itself would
| > cause different times and this was shown without assuming any
| > transformations. I was making a parallel clock using mass and defining
| > its "tick" to be time. How come you did not need to *begin* with
| > tranformations for the light clock?
|
| Nope. What Dirk has done is assume that the spacetime interval between two
| events was the same no matter who was measuring it, and assuming the speed
| of light was the same no matter who was measuring it.
|
| The consequences are straightforward high school algebra: the time
| measured changes depending on who measures it and the distance between the
| plates depends on who measures it BUT THE SPACETIME INTERVAL (tau) IS THE
| SAME).
|
| Boring, straightforward Special Relativity experiment using its two
| postulates.
|
| Dirk did not assume time dilation. Time dilation is a consequence of
| straightforward algebra, and replicated by extremely robust experimental
| results over the last 100 years.
Oh? What experiments are you ranting about?
Spacetime interval (tau) indeed, you've been reading to much science
fiction.
The rest of the world calls such intervals "time". Get real.
Androcles, you have proven to be too stupid to take part in
discussions like these. You have no idea about coordinates.
The only thing you can contribute, is showing that you are
even dumber than we already know you are.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk,
Better you than I say this, but my observation is that very few people
fall at the final hurdle of Relativity, but lots fall at the first.
I suspect that no explanation of spacetime or the empirical basis on
which Relativity rests would be sufficient to overcome such arrogant
stupidity as Androcles demonstrates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
13 Jun 2004 04:37:35 AM |
|
|
"JP" <JP@nospam.net> wrote in message news:pan.2004.06.12.21.01.52.473771@nospam.net...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:56:37 +0000, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:ieyyc.2210$iq5.20335838@news-text.cableinet.net...
[snip]
Oh? What experiments are you ranting about?
Spacetime interval (tau) indeed, you've been reading to much science
fiction.
The rest of the world calls such intervals "time". Get real.
Androcles, you have proven to be too stupid to take part in
discussions like these. You have no idea about coordinates.
The only thing you can contribute, is showing that you are
even dumber than we already know you are.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk,
Better you than I say this, but my observation is that very few people
fall at the final hurdle of Relativity, but lots fall at the first.
Absolutely. Almost all of them.
I think that 99% of popular science is responsible: they simply
fail to properly explain the basics. And the basics are so simple.
I suspect that no explanation of spacetime or the empirical basis on
which Relativity rests would be sufficient to overcome such arrogant
stupidity as Androcles demonstrates.
As far as I know, everything, and much more ;-) has been tried.
If he wasn't so utterly stupid, one would almost suspect he's
doing it on purpose. Sometimes he *pretends* he purposely
makes mistakes, and even *that* he manages to ***** up.
I think he is the only stupid person I have ever met who is
meta-stupid as well.
Anyway, trying to talk sense into this bigot is a waste of time.
Look at it as entertainment :-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "V ertner Vergon" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
20 Jun 2004 03:06:59 PM |
|
|
(John Tapper) wrote in message news:<c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com>...
Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light bouncing
vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more time.
The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed being
always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
experimentally verified).
Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and the
bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of plates/clock
and the round trips take the same time.
Vergon:
This is where you go wrong -- in the assumption the moving mass speeds
up.
Where would the additional energy come from?
If you want some additional thoughts on time dilation, read the
following.
My research determined that time dilation (specifically the rate) does
not exist -- and never has -- that the true time rate as observed
between coordinate systems is the Doppler rate. That is, the time rate
varies the same as the frequency rate.
Since Dr Taylor (co-author of Spacetime Physics) is considered one of
the foremost experts on Special Relativity, I thought I would share
the finding with him -- expecting he would announce it to the
community. Coming from him it would certainly have more credence and
impact than coming from me.
The following email dialog between he and I is self explanatory.
*************************************************************************
To Dr. Taylor
Greetings.
Re your text on Special Relativity.
I have a comment re section 38-5, TIME STRETCHING.
Please bear with me, I mean no disrespect but the exposition there is
in error.
I refer you to Fig 38.4. Please note that this illustration and your
description of it are definitely that of a *transverse* velocity.
You describe the observed system as going by us, not toward or away
from - which is the condition described in Einstein's paper.
Therefore, the time dilation result is that of transverse Doppler.
Now it so happens by some strange coincidence that transverse Doppler
is written
f' = f sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), the same as time dilation.
One must consider what the true time dilation is in the radial
velocity and approach velocity situations.
Regardless of the mechanics, a constant invariable frequency is a
clock. If we observe that frequency to slow, then the *observed* time
slows. If we observe the frequency to increase, then the *observed*
time increases - is faster.
Having said that, we keep in mind that clocks do not change rate in
their respective coordinate systems. Proper time never varies. It is
only the observation that changes.
That brings us to the description of Doppler as given in your text.
There you proclaim that that relativistic Doppler is caused by
the movement of consecutive vibrations (requiring more time for
light to transmit the event) which is further altered by time
dilation.
This description tacitly states that time is altered in the frame of
Emitter. That is contrary to the above mentioned fact that proper time
does not vary. Again, coincidence.
I could describe what does happen but that would go beyond the scope
of what we are covering here and enters new territory.
In summary, it is clear that the variation in observed time is that of
Doppler. I call it the time-frequency rate.
Below is an article I posted in Sci.physics.relativity. You may find
it of interest.
Best regards,
Vertner Vergon
* * * * * *
There is a saying, "If he fell in a sewer, he'd come up with a gold
coin.
Einstein (whom I admire) was such an individual.
He was 25 when he wrote his theory, 26 when it was published.
His concept was impeccable, his mathematics correct. However, he
fumbled
in the interpretation of the mathematical results.
This created a mystique haunting a theory that was basically correct
but that played havoc with our intuitive concept of the universe --
one that was neatly categorized by Newton.
Rather than dealing only with the relativity of moving bodies he
brought in the electrodynamics also -- to some brilliant conclusions.
Had he interpreted correctly, what would have transpired was the
creation of a theory that neatly packaged various concepts of the
*principle* of relativity that had been around for a while. People
would say, "That's nice." and put it on the shelf along with other
accepted theories of how our universe works. And he would have taken
his place in equal standing alongside many other brilliant physicists.
But Einstein misfired. He made interpretive errors that made his
theory -- and him -- super famous because the concepts were bizarre
and resolution elusive.
Perhaps the main one was the interpretation that led to the Twin
Paradox -- the concept of time dilation. How many millions of hours
have been spent discussing that?
He discusses two identical clocks, one of which goes on a journey and
returns to the stationary one. He notes the clock that journeyed was
behind the stationary clock, showed less time.
Error number one. He assumed that the moving clock had kept slower
time.
This led physicists, great and small to recount that if one were to
observe a space ship at high velocities, one would observe the on
board clock to run
at dilation time -- t' = t sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) .
This we know is not so. Astronomers observe moving emitters every
night -- and what they see is Doppler time.
Any known constant emitter is a clock. The variation of its frequency
is the variation of *observed* time. In recession, the time is slower
than norm -- in approach the time is faster than norm. Following this
precept, the Twin Paradox never appears.
The correct explanation of the "behind" clock is that it traveled a
world-line shorter than that of the stationary clock.
Keeping the same time rate over a shorter course results in less time
on the clock.
Another oversight by Einstein was that he did not make perfectly clear
that mass increase and longitudinal foreshortening were *hypothetical
observations* only, and not real.
He was also stymied when his mathematics showed infinite requirements
for momentum and energy as a body approached c.
Rather than just forge ahead and toss that on the public, he should
have realized that his work was not done and that he had to go back to
the drawing board to get it right.
He might have cogitated that since longitudinal length seemed to
contract, that maybe velocity along that path might contract also.
In which case it could be assumed that Newtonian infinite velocity was
possible -- and as that velocity approached infinity, its
*measurement* approached c. This would account for the inordinate
energy and momentum that accompany the *measured* velocities.
It will be found that those parameters fit exactly the Newtonian
velocities.
This would lay to rest the bugaboo "relativistic mass" because that
was created to explain the excess momentum.
There were other mistakes in aberration but they were not serious and
were quietly patched up by those who came after him.
All in all, he can be forgiven for in the final analysis SR is a
brilliant piece of work -- and no one is infallible.
V. Vergon
Dear Mr. Vergon:
The effect of the transverse Doppler shift is exactly that of time
dilation. This is because the sequence of pulses travel effectively
the same distance from clock to observer, so the shortening or
lengthening of the path length with motion effectively does not take
place, as it does for an approaching or receding source.
As a result it is NOT true that "This description tacitly states that
time is altered in the frame of Emitter." You are right, proper time
does not vary with the observer.
Regards, Edwin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your prompt reply which is appreciated because I know
you must be very busy.
However, I believe this matter to be of some importance.
Unless I am horribly mistaken, your first paragraph is diametrically
opposed to your second.
In the transverse velocity case there is no component of velocity
between emitter and observer (as you stated). In that case, there
should be no variation in the observation of the pulse sequence.
Therefore, the only way a variation can be observed is if time in the
frame of the emitter varied, i.e.., underwent time dilation.
This seems to bolster the correctness of your illustration. However,
bear with me.
The observation of the transverse velocity is IN FACT a Doppler
observation -- and it does by rare coincidence yield the same rate as
time dilation.
However, we must necessarily tie this in with the fact that conditions
set forth in Einstein's paper are those of approaching or receding
motion.
If we are to accept the transverse Doppler reading as the true time
dilation, then we must accept Doppler readings also for approaching
and receding emitters -- where it is no longer t' = t sqrt(v^2/c^2).
It is my contention that the Doppler rate is the true time observation
rate. Consider the following:
Time observation is a result of velocity. Velocity is a vector.
Therefore, time rate should be direction responsive -- which time
dilation is not, and Doppler rate is.
If one goes through the exercise of the Twin Paradox utilizing Doppler
rates, they find there is no paradox. However, the net time
differential at the end is the same as dilation rate. They will also
find that there is a parity of time observation -- both twins
observe the same time rate of the other. (A detailed description is
given in a book I wrote 25 years ago.)
Any invariant oscillator is a clock. Astronomers view them every
night. The observations of these "clocks" varies according to Doppler
rates.
The counter argument to this is that the Doppler rate -- Newtonian
Doppler rate -- is modified by time dilation yielding the observed
Doppler rate.
The answer to this incorrect argument is as follows.
We make a comparison by considering a rod of known length embedded in
a moving system. We calculate the observed length of this rod by
applying the Lorentz transform.
Likewise we consider a clock embedded in a moving system. We observe
the Newtonian variation of this clock's time keeping (oscillations)
and then apply
the Lorentz transformation to obtain the observed result -- same as we
did with the rod.
The key and crux to this comparison is that in BOTH cases we are
simply applying the LORENTZ TRANSFORM -- in the case of the clock it
is not time dilation but the usual Lorentz transform between moving
reference frames.
It is no longer correct to say that if we observe a clock in a space
ship we will observe it to slow down according to t' = t
sqrt(c^2/v^2).
What we will observe is a clock keeping time according to Doppler
rate.
Please excuse the length of this reply. I kept it as short as I could.
Best regards,
Vertner H. Vergon
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mr Vergon: It is pretty clear that we are not going to get
anywhere in our discussion. I will try once more, but that will be it.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Since Dr. Taylor closed the door of communication and so had the last
word, I thought I would put elucidating comments in red.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The traveling clock emits two pulses separated by t' = 1 second.
determined by the atomic vibrations of cesium.
These two pulses travel equal distances to the laboratory observer
because they are received in the transverse direction for that
observer. The laboratory observer compares the time t between these
pulses to his cesium clock. He determines that the time t is greater
than 1 second.
These observations and the relations between them are consistent with
and accounted for by the Lorentz transformation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.V.
They are accounted for by transverse Doppler which utilizes the
Lorentz transformation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is NOT true that the conditions set forth in Einstein's paper are
limited to approaching or receding motion, whatever that means. The
transverse travel of pulses in the lab frame are completely describeed
by Einstein's analysis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.V.
I would think "approaching" or "receding" would be perfectly clear. We
could add the adjective "directly" to further describe the movement as
coming toward or going away from.
Einstein describes two coordinate systems, k and k' located on the x
axis. As x increases or decreases, it seems perfectly clear to me that
the movement is directly away from or toward k.
As for transverse travel of pulses in the lab being described in
Einstein's work, I must confess I have not seen it. I would have
appreciated a reference. It has no bearing here because I don't know
what it says.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have little idea what you mean by Doppler rate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.V.
Perhaps I didn't but I thought I made that clear in the quoted article
above. If the Doppler rate is twice norm (emitted frequency) then the
clock is running twice as fast as proper time. If the Doppler rate is
one half the emitted frequency then the clock is running one half the
rate of proper time, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course every exchange of signals between obvservers in relative
motion can be correctly described using the RELATIVISTIC Doppler
equations. If you choose to interpret what is happening in the other
frame in terms of these Doppler equations, no one can stop you and you
will correctly interpret experimental results, as far as I can see,
including the twin paradox.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.V.
Here you seem to agree with me. Running through the time scenario with
the twins - and using the Doppler rates for time - we have slower time
on recession and faster than normal (proper) time on approach. The
result is both twins observe the same time rate of the other, yet when
they are joined, there is a net time differential between them. That
is because the duration of those observations are different.
I am surprised you agree because the spacetime diagram solution you
have in your book certainly doesn't. There, you use the now defunct
time dilation rate - and simply toss in the missing 46.08 years to
account for missing time. That sort of bookkeeping was done by Enron
but has no place in science.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the other hand, every single one of these interchanges of signals
and experimental results are described correctly by the Lorentz
transformation using scalar time lapses in each frame.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.V.
I think you missed the point here. Time might be scalar, but the rate
of that time is a consequence of velocity which is a vector.
Therefore, the time rate is direction responsive. Not according to
special relativity which states a clock runs slower regardless of
direction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
These transformations and Doppler equations are strictly relativistic.
The phrase "Newtonian Doppler rate" has no meaning in this situation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
V.V.
Everyone knows there are two basic kinds of Doppler equations, the
Newtonian (otherwise known as non-relativistc) and the Relativistic,
the difference being the employment of the Lorentz transformation.
I was merely illustrating that transposing both length and time from
the Newtonian situation to the relativistic required the Lorentz
transformation. I think that was perfectly clear to
anyone with an open mind who was not seeking obfuscation as a tool to
avoid granting a perfectly obvious concept.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOU SAY
QUOTE
Likewise we consider a clock embedded in a moving system. We observe
the Newtonian (HUH?) variation of this clock's time keeping
(oscillations) and then apply the Lorentz transformation to obtain the
observed result -- same as we did with the rod.
The key and crux to this comparison is that in BOTH cases we are
simply applying the LORENTZ TRANSFORM -- in the case of the clock it
is not time dilation but the usual Lorentz transform between moving
reference frames.
UNQUOTE
Everything is fine (except Newtonian?) until the last phrase. Time
dilation is an essential consequence of the Lorentz transformation.
This will not satisfy you. So I guess this is the end of it. Sorry,
Edwin Taylor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Dr. Taylor,
I accept your willingness to go no further and wish to express my
thanks for your time and input.
********************************************
Again, thank you for your time and consideration.
Vertner H. Vergon
THE BOTTOM LINE AND ESSENCE OF THIS ENTIRE DIALOG.
It is no longer correct to give an illustration where if one observes
the clock on a fast moving spaceship, they will observe it to run slow
by t' = t sqrt(v^2/c^2).
(This is called "Dilation time")
It is now known that time dilation (the name includes the rate) does
not exist and was an ill begotten concept.
The correct replacement is that the time rate observed is the same as
Doppler rate (shift). (This is called Doppler time.)
The substantiation of this assertion is that we must bow to
empiricism. An invariable frequency is a clock. When we observe these
clocks out in space we observe their frequency -- time rate -- to vary
by the Doppler rate, not time dilation rate.
So when the illustration using Dilation time is put to the empirical
test, it fails.
Since you are renowned as an expert on special relativity - and your
book, "Spacetime Physics" is widely recognized as an epitome on the
subject, I thought I could get you to officially announce the revised
concept because many are still quoting time dilation.
Your response, unfortunately merely states in general terms that "Time
dilation is an essential consequence of the Lorentz transformation."
On the whole I find your response evasive, vague and not addressing
the issue straight on. So I shall do that now - with a question:
Do you agree that "Time Dilation" is a defunct concept and does not
exist - that it should no longer be discussed - and that Doppler time
should take its place?
What say you, Sir?
As a prominent figure in the field of relativity, I believe it is your
duty to set the matter straight.
**********************************************
Since Dr, Taylor has chosen to not make *any* announcement -- one way
or the other -- I felt it my duty to make the dialog public,
presenting both sides of the issue, and let the public decide for
itself.
V.V.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
13 Jun 2004 08:53:46 AM |
|
|
(John Tapper) wrote in message news:<c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com>...
Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light bouncing
vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more time.
The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed being
always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
experimentally verified).
Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and the
bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of plates/clock
and the round trips take the same time. No time dilation in the round
trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the "mass
clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock" but is
violating SR?
Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those decay-time
and atomic clocks all involve light).
Simple fact indeed: the development of relativity theory _started_
with the observed behaviour of a moving mass - the electron, and
atomic clocks involve electrons. Their inertia (m) increases with
speed, so that their movement slows down. Relativity theory can not do
else but describe these effects correctly.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
13 Jun 2004 11:49:45 AM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3bff5641.0406130553.455d2f73@posting.google.com...
xixj_0@yahoo.com (John Tapper) wrote in message
news:<c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com>...
Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light bouncing
vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more time.
The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed being
always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
experimentally verified).
Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and the
bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of plates/clock
and the round trips take the same time. No time dilation in the round
trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the "mass
clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock" but is
violating SR?
Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those decay-time
and atomic clocks all involve light).
Simple fact indeed: the development of relativity theory _started_
with the observed behaviour of a moving mass - the electron, and
atomic clocks involve electrons. Their inertia (m) increases with
speed, so that their movement slows down. Relativity theory can not do
else but describe these effects correctly.
Harald
How can a theory that deny the absolute (the increment of (m) is relative to
the frame of reference) predict the slowing of the clock due to mass
increase ????
The derivation of the time dilatation is a result of the cinematic contained
in the way the two systems are compared to each other via the Lorentz
Transform:
SR doesn't tell us anything about the value of a single mass,
nor about the time rate of a single clock nor about a single ruler of any of
the
two systems.
The time dilation, the increase of mass, the reduction of the ruler just
happen to
be a cinematic effect that comes out of nothingness.
If a object undergoes to a effect because of the movement, it must be
absolute either
the effect either the cause.
It much easier to think that a moving object is affected by its absolute
movement
and that all derives from that, even though it is difficult to detect the
absolute speed
for practical reasons, SR has worthlessly messed up things, as the phony
reciprocity
of time dilation, which of course takes place due to the frames arrangements
but
what is the advantage of such absurdity: in the real two clocks don't slow
down
reciprocally, they do so only in the SR manipulated frames, again what is
the use ???
best regards
beda pietanza
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
14 Jun 2004 06:31:34 AM |
|
|
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message
news:JA%yc.107606$Qc.4126011@twister1.libero.it...
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3bff5641.0406130553.455d2f73@posting.google.com...
xixj_0@yahoo.com (John Tapper) wrote in message
news:<c38f0627.0406110407.36e1af09@posting.google.com>...
Consider the classic "light clock" i.e. one that has light bouncing
vertically between two plates and is set in horizontal motion. Of
course, in one frame it has to travel more distance now for the
round-trip (but with fixed light speed) and we have it take more time.
The key fact was that light does not get the additional horizontal
speed of the plates/clock. (I, of course, agree with light speed being
always fixed and believe this has been repeatedly and fully
experimentally verified).
Except that I used a MASS instead of light to build my clock and the
bouncing mass DOES get the additional horizontal speed of plates/clock
and the round trips take the same time. No time dilation in the round
trip is expected from the calculations and none occurs in the "mass
clock". Now I have a clock that parallels the "light clock" but is
violating SR?
Please explain what simple fact I am missing here.
Has time dilation ever been seen for a "mass clock?" (Those decay-time
and atomic clocks all involve light).
Simple fact indeed: the development of relativity theory _started_
with the observed behaviour of a moving mass - the electron, and
atomic clocks involve electrons. Their inertia (m) increases with
speed, so that their movement slows down. Relativity theory can not do
else but describe these effects correctly.
Harald
How can a theory that deny the absolute (the increment of (m) is relative
to
the frame of reference) predict the slowing of the clock due to mass
increase ????
Very simple again, didn't you ever hear about relativistic length
contraction, time dilation and mass increase?!
- Relativistic effects are determined relative to the chosen frame of
reference. Relativity theory denies that any absolute speed is measurable,
and a physics theory cannot make pertinent statements about what is not
measurable.
- Electron mass (inertia) was verified to increase as function of speed,
exactly like Lorentz (and later Einstein) predicted. Recently it has become
less popular to present it that way, therefore it is possible that you
missed it. Fashion can reduce understanding...
SNIP
The time dilation, the increase of mass, the reduction of the ruler just
happen to be a cinematic effect that comes out of nothingness.
I never saw such a claim based on nothingness before. Cinematic ->
Kinematic?
If a object undergoes to a effect because of the movement, it must be
absolute either the effect either the cause.
I agree with cause and effect; however, SRT does not cover that subject.
It much easier to think that a moving object is affected by its absolute
movement
and that all derives from that, even though it is difficult to detect the
absolute speed
for practical reasons, SR has worthlessly messed up things, as the phony
reciprocity
of time dilation, which of course takes place due to the frames
arrangements
but
what is the advantage of such absurdity: in the real two clocks don't slow
down
reciprocally, they do so only in the SR manipulated frames, again what is
the use ???
I suggest that you read:
- a basic paper on relativity that discusses predictions and measurements,
especially with moving clocks.
- a paper about the SRT interpretation of Lorentz and Poincare (or of
Poincare himself; I daresay he saw things clearer than Lorentz).
For example, Builder's paper of 1958 on Ether and Relativity, in which he
re-engineered the stationary ether hypothesis.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "beda pietanza" |
|
| Title: Re: My clock refuses to obey SR's time dilation! |
14 Jun 2004 04:50:35 PM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:40cd8bc5$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@libero.it> wrote in message
news:JA%yc.1076 | | | | |
