| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
06 Oct 2005 11:01:12 AM |
| Object: |
The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 11:02:54 AM |
|
|
In article <1128614472.003708.184190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
Newton would have taught his zombies the same thing. The simplest case is
two observers at rest on a rotating platform. Newton illustrated a
difference between that rest frame and an inertial rest frame by spinning
a bucket filled with water, and noting the concave shape of the water.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
How in the world do you conclude that there's any kind of taboo regarding
accelerated motion in special relativity. You didn't look, did you? You
didn't even try to find anything on it.
You could start at scholar.google.com with the search phrase
"accelerated reference frame" "special relativity"
--
"Yes, I revere you much, honored ones, and wish to fart in response." --
Aristophanes, Clouds
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
08 Oct 2005 07:01:38 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1128614472.003708.184190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
Newton would have taught his zombies the same thing. The simplest case is
two observers at rest on a rotating platform. Newton illustrated a
difference between that rest frame and an inertial rest frame by spinning
a bucket filled with water, and noting the concave shape of the water.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
Time dilation is either "time contraction" or "time lengthening". And
I have not noticed a taboo about this before. It is just that no
explanation has been given for the paradox where all observers see both
clocks running slow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
08 Oct 2005 08:26:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1128770096.107229.139700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
TomGee <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1128614472.003708.184190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
Newton would have taught his zombies the same thing. The simplest case is
two observers at rest on a rotating platform. Newton illustrated a
difference between that rest frame and an inertial rest frame by spinning
a bucket filled with water, and noting the concave shape of the water.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
Time dilation is either "time contraction" or "time lengthening". And
I have not noticed a taboo about this before. It is just that no
explanation has been given for the paradox where all observers see both
clocks running slow.
The explanation is basically that there's nothing to explain until the
observers bring their clocks together and have to agree on which one is
ahead of the other. If the clocks are moving toward each other, there's
no synchronization procedure for widely separated clocks that observers in
all states of motion can agree on. If the clocks synchronize when they
pass, to bring them together again requires acceleration, which has an
effect similar to gravitational red/blueshifting. The whole story can't
be told with just uniform motion.
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
09 Oct 2005 04:23:22 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1128770096.107229.139700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
TomGee <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1128614472.003708.184190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
Newton would have taught his zombies the same thing. The simplest case is
two observers at rest on a rotating platform. Newton illustrated a
difference between that rest frame and an inertial rest frame by spinning
a bucket filled with water, and noting the concave shape of the water.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
Time dilation is either "time contraction" or "time lengthening". And
I have not noticed a taboo about this before. It is just that no
explanation has been given for the paradox where all observers see both
clocks running slow.
The explanation is basically that there's nothing to explain until the
observers bring their clocks together and have to agree on which one is
ahead of the other.
That is so basically, but the OP makes it clear that his point is
beyond the basic SR resolution that there are time differences between
the twins. His point asks for the cause of that instead of ga-ga-ing
at scientist's silly avowals that science doesn't look for the why of
things.
So there is something to explain which science has for the longest
blown it off by saying the why is out of science's domain, and that
some things about nature are inexplicable, ha ha, and nature is funny
that way. Since the speeds for the experiment are way below c
(although some keep saying they are near c or much faster than
necessary for the experiment to hold), it seems possible to imagine
that cameras on Earth and in the ship's cockpit could show each twin
the other's time shown on the clocks.
Relativists claim that at some point during the trip time dilates to an
earlier time for the astronaut twin. Where and when that occurs is
completely arbitrary, and much ado has been made to show where/when it
happens, to no avail. Pentcho has looked for the answer to that to no
avail too of course, and so he has concluded, rightfully in one sense,
I think, that it is a taboo subject in science. Only it's not taboo,
it's just that no one could come up with the answer to the secondary
paradox in SR's thought experiment.
If the clocks are moving toward each other, there's
no synchronization procedure for widely separated clocks that observers in
all states of motion can agree on.
What ever are you babbling about? The clocks are moving in a closed
circle wrt each other so at some point they will move toward each other
and at other times they will be moving away from each other.
If the clocks synchronize when they
pass,
They don't pass! Whatever makes you think that? They separate when
the ship leaves Earth and they come together again when the ship
returns.
to bring them together again requires acceleration, which has an
effect similar to gravitational red/blueshifting.
Total nonsense.
The whole story can't
be told with just uniform motion.
More babbling. There is no uniform motion involved in the experiment!
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Lordy, I hope I'm not talking to a sot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
09 Oct 2005 08:10:48 PM |
|
|
In article <1128849802.489352.320750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
TomGee <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1128770096.107229.139700@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
TomGee <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1128614472.003708.184190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
Newton would have taught his zombies the same thing. The simplest case is
two observers at rest on a rotating platform. Newton illustrated a
difference between that rest frame and an inertial rest frame by spinning
a bucket filled with water, and noting the concave shape of the water.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
Time dilation is either "time contraction" or "time lengthening". And
I have not noticed a taboo about this before. It is just that no
explanation has been given for the paradox where all observers see both
clocks running slow.
The explanation is basically that there's nothing to explain until the
observers bring their clocks together and have to agree on which one is
ahead of the other.
That is so basically, but the OP makes it clear that his point is
beyond the basic SR resolution that there are time differences between
the twins. His point asks for the cause of that instead of ga-ga-ing
at scientist's silly avowals that science doesn't look for the why of
things.
Scientific explanation stops at the point where we feel no further
questions need to be asked. The OP is probably perfectly comfortable with
Newtonian mechanics without ever asking why clocks *should* stay
synchronized, or why lengths should be preserved under transformations.
Why should anyone expect the twins to be the same age when they reunite?
The reasons are the postulates of the theory. The aging of the twins can
be deduced from the postulates of special relativity, and those postulates
are well known. If the postulates of any theory had an explanation, they
wouldn't be postulates. What could an explanation possibly look like?
Would we ask why relativity seems to be true when we know it REALLY isn't?
Is that the question?
So there is something to explain which science has for the longest
blown it off by saying the why is out of science's domain, and that
some things about nature are inexplicable, ha ha, and nature is funny
that way. Since the speeds for the experiment are way below c
(although some keep saying they are near c or much faster than
necessary for the experiment to hold), it seems possible to imagine
that cameras on Earth and in the ship's cockpit could show each twin
the other's time shown on the clocks.
Relativists claim that at some point during the trip time dilates to an
earlier time for the astronaut twin. Where and when that occurs is
completely arbitrary, and much ado has been made to show where/when it
happens, to no avail. Pentcho has looked for the answer to that to no
avail too of course, and so he has concluded, rightfully in one sense,
I think, that it is a taboo subject in science. Only it's not taboo,
it's just that no one could come up with the answer to the secondary
paradox in SR's thought experiment.
Pentcho didn't look. If he had, he'd have found the answer. To say it's
completely arbitrary is the mark of asking a question on the newsgroups
and calling that scholarly research.
It's discussed in most texts on relativity. MTW, for instance, gives you
the mathematical technology to work out the answer by working out half of
the question-- speed versus time and distance versus time from the Earth
frame and the frame of a uniformly accelerating rocket. Or you can find
it worked explicitly in, e.g.,
"The twin paradox in special relativity", Muller, AJP 60, 966 (1972).
The following reference works out the accelerated reference frame in great
detail, and gives the conceptual tools needed to understand the physics
related to the OP's question of clocks stationary relative to each other
and moving in a closed curve (i.e. accelerating).
"Uniformly accelerated reference frames in special relativity", Desloge
and Philpott, Am J Phys 55, 252 (1987).
For the rotating reference frames (the special case of the two clocks in
circular motion) look, e.g., to
"Speed of light on rotating platforms", Rizzi and Tartaglia, Foundations
of Physics 28, 1663 (1998).
And, in general, before declaring it a taboo topic, at least do a search
on scholar.google.com to see if anyone has actually written about it.
"special relativity" acceleration -- 3,030 hits
"special relativity" "accelerated reference frame" -- 70 hits
"twin paradox" -- 461 hits
"special relativity" "sagnac effect" 226 hits
(Naturally you'd get more hits on regular Google, e.g. "special
relativity" "accelerated reference frame" -- 270 hits, but you'd get more
junk, too.)
If the clocks are moving toward each other, there's
no synchronization procedure for widely separated clocks that observers in
all states of motion can agree on.
What ever are you babbling about? The clocks are moving in a closed
I think it's time to take a break. You can exchange insults with Uncle Al
or someone.
--
"Then they placed the ark of the Lord on the cart; along with the box
containing the golden mice and the images of the hemorrhoids."
-- 1 Samuel 6:11
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 11:08:00 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper.
You have misunderstood the 1905 paper. When two observers are in motion
with respect to reach other, each measures the other's clock to run
slower than his own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 11:26:40 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:AZb1f.401328$x96.357681@attbi_s72...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper.
You have misunderstood the 1905 paper. When two observers are in motion
with respect to reach other, each measures the other's clock to run
slower than his own.
Hard to break the news to you, but on this point Pentcho is right: your
claim is only valid for straight line motion. And *why* this is so, is at
the heart of the debate. ;-)
Best regards,
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 10:06:08 AM |
|
|
Harry wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:AZb1f.401328$x96.357681@attbi_s72...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper.
You have misunderstood the 1905 paper. When two observers are in motion
with respect to reach other, each measures the other's clock to run
slower than his own.
Hard to break the news to you, but on this point Pentcho is right: your
claim is only valid for straight line motion. And *why* this is so, is at
the heart of the debate. ;-)
To wit:
If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two
synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant
velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by
the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival
at A will be (1/2)tv^2/c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a
balance-clock(7) at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 11:32:31 AM |
|
|
Harry wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:AZb1f.401328$x96.357681@attbi_s72...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper.
You have misunderstood the 1905 paper. When two observers are in motion
with respect to reach other, each measures the other's clock to run
slower than his own.
Hard to break the news to you, but on this point Pentcho is right: your
claim is only valid for straight line motion. And *why* this is so, is at
the heart of the debate. ;-)
But Pentcho is wrong to claim that the 1905 paper (I presume
the first one) says anything explicit about closed-curve
motion. Of course it does provide all the tools needed for
analyzing such motion correctly; the word "taboo" is
laughable in this context.
.
|
|
|
| User: "harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
08 Oct 2005 04:19:05 AM |
|
|
Russell wrote:
Harry wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:AZb1f.401328$x96.357681@attbi_s72...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper.
You have misunderstood the 1905 paper. When two observers are in motion
with respect to reach other, each measures the other's clock to run
slower than his own.
Hard to break the news to you, but on this point Pentcho is right: your
claim is only valid for straight line motion. And *why* this is so, is at
the heart of the debate. ;-)
But Pentcho is wrong to claim that the 1905 paper (I presume
the first one) says anything explicit about closed-curve
motion. Of course it does provide all the tools needed for
analyzing such motion correctly; the word "taboo" is
laughable in this context.
- But see PD's quote (did you really read that paper?):
"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with
constant
velocity until it returns to A".
- Sure it's not a "Taboo": it was extensively discussed and debated
("Twin Paradox").
Cheers,
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 08:18:54 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper.
You have misunderstood the 1905 paper. When two observers are in motion
with respect to reach other, each measures the other's clock to run
slower than his own.
xxein: Have you ever heard of transverse velocity? Pick a referrence
frame. Assumption!!!
Clocks orbiting at > 1.5 Earth radii run faster. Don't they have a
velocity wrt to the surface?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 10:58:50 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper.
You have misunderstood the 1905 paper. When two observers are in motion
with respect to reach other, each measures the other's clock to run
slower than his own.
xxein: Have you ever heard of transverse velocity? Pick a referrence
frame. Assumption!!!
Clocks orbiting at > 1.5 Earth radii run faster. Don't they have a
velocity wrt to the surface?
Transverse for how long, bubba?
I see you want to add some gravity well predicted by general relativity
to the mix.
Don't forget one observer could be topocentric and not geocentric.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 11:23:02 AM |
|
|
Hi Sam Going with Bohr,and Heisenberg they told us position and
momentum could not be simultaneously determined. Further they concluded
that a subatomic particle did not have any definite momentum or position
except when the particle is observed. This is the key to what they are
telling us "The properties of such a particle have no objective
reality,except when they are measured". (go figure) Reality of micro
world is not the same as in the macro. Its no wonder GR can't fit in
Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 01:59:33 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Sam Going with Bohr,and Heisenberg they told us position and
momentum could not be simultaneously determined.
of a particle...
Further they concluded
that a subatomic particle did not have any definite momentum or position
except when the particle is observed. This is the key to what they are
telling us "The properties of such a particle have no objective
reality,except when they are measured". (go figure) Reality of micro
world is not the same as in the macro. Its no wonder GR can't fit in
Bert
This comment seems more appropriate in a different thread, Herb.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 07:04:23 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper.
You have misunderstood the 1905 paper. When two observers are in motion
with respect to reach other, each measures the other's clock to run
slower than his own.
xxein: Have you ever heard of transverse velocity? Pick a referrence
frame. Assumption!!!
Clocks orbiting at > 1.5 Earth radii run faster. Don't they have a
velocity wrt to the surface?
Transverse for how long, bubba?
I see you want to add some gravity well predicted by general relativity
to the mix.
Don't forget one observer could be topocentric and not geocentric.
xxein: Not even a good try. You would have to eliminate the notion of
geocentric. Besides, it is NOT what is measured by mortals; it is what
a correct physical conceptualization and its math provides. An
incorrect conceptualization will provide a different math. I am sorry
I skirted Pentcho's point, though.
Pentcho's statement is true. The rotating disk with a clock on the
perimeter and another at the axis? What is it that you could argue?
Even if the axis is in inertial motion, you still get a sine function
with a net slower clockrate of the perimeter clock and the axis clock
is still (net) faster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 08:55:30 PM |
|
|
Hi Sam I think your right,but they were talking about an observer,so I
jumped on that. I happen to like stuff that are relative to each
other(fit) Seems Bohr,and Heisenberg went with a fuzzy type micro world
of probabilities,uncertainties,and the probe(act) of measuring upset the
apple cart. Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 09:09:19 PM |
|
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Sam I think you[']r[e] right,[ ]but they were talking about an observer,[ ]so I
jumped on that. I happen to like stuff that are relative to each
other(fit) Seems Bohr,and Heisenberg went with a fuzzy type micro world
of probabilities,[ ]uncertainties,[ ]and the probe(act) of measuring upset the
apple cart. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
08 Oct 2005 07:30:20 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
you have posted about a secondary paradox revealed by SR's Twin Paradox
thought experiment which is that all parties will observe the clocks of
the twins as moving slower. Intuitively, they should run as you note
above, in the case where the astronaut should see his twin's clock
running faster than his instead of slower. SR clearly claims that does
not happen, but it offers no explanation as to why not, and that
constitutes what I call the secondary paradox produced by the
experiment.
Just like the other posters, I see no taboo about this paradox. It may
seems that way to you because no one ever talks about it, as far as I
have seen here. I have wondered about it too, and I have come up with
a model that resolves both paradoxes in the only way possible.
First of all, it has been accepted for a long time that the secondary
paradox will indeed occur along with the primary one during the trip.
But I have never read or heard anyone talk about the secondary one let
alone try to explain it. So I'm glad you brought it up!
How is it possible that both twins would see the clock of the other
moving slower than theirs? That is counterintuitive and defies
explanation, but SR assures us that is what would occur if both could
see each other's clocks during the trip. You argue that it means at
one point at least, time must dilate, warp, or fold to account for the
illusion. It is an illusion because we know time is running slower for
one than the other going by the end result of the trip, therefore, the
claim that both clocks will appear to the two observers to be running
slower than the other MUST be an illusion or else, as you propose, at
some point during the trip one of the clocks must speed up.
No one has yet offered an explanation for that phenomenon, AFAIK, and
so I had to come up with my own. It is a simple matter to infer from
SR's conclusion that there will be time differences between the twins
upon the completion of the trip, that the only essential difference
between the twins during the trip is that one went faster than the
other. One had to do that in order to leave and then return. That one
was the astronaut twin, who at the end is younger which shows time
passed slower for him during the trip. Since speed is the essential
difference duringthe trip between the two, time must pass at different
rates dependent upon speed.
Since one went faster and his time passed slower, it must be that time
passes at varying rates for discrete objects inversely proportional to
their states of motion. If so, SR is correct in its discovery that one
twin will age less than the other at the end of the trip, as explained
by my model. Thus, there is no real paradox, only an effect of time
dilation. An appearance that time has "dilated, warped, folded, or
bent" according to SR.
That explains the primary paradox, but what about the secondary one? I
have thought about the principle of relative motion, and that would
explain why each twin would see the other's clock moving slower because
both are in motion relatively to each other and so it cannot be
established which one is moving in the relationship. Therefore, we
have only one way to explain it: Just like the time dilation effect is
only an illusion (because time cannot physically dilate, warp, fold,
bend, etc.), so is the view each twin will have of the other's clock.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peri of Pera" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 09:00:05 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho, Einstein himself declared that relativity does NOT apply to
accellerated systems.
Peter Riedt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 09:24:51 PM |
|
|
Peri of Pera wrote:
[snip]
Pentcho, Einstein himself declared that relativity does NOT apply to
accellerated systems.
Hoo ha! What drugs are you taking? And where can I get some?
Look up the Bondi space traveller. You can find it in such
publications as _Gravitation_ by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
Special relativity is perfectly capable of handling acceleration.
What it can't handle is gravity.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peri of Pera" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
09 Oct 2005 07:52:59 PM |
|
|
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
[snip]
Pentcho, Einstein himself declared that relativity does NOT apply to
accellerated systems.
Hoo ha! What drugs are you taking? And where can I get some?
Look up the Bondi space traveller. You can find it in such
publications as _Gravitation_ by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
Special relativity is perfectly capable of handling acceleration.
What it can't handle is gravity.
Socks
Puppet, I was wrong, he said it does not apply to curvilinear motion,
only systems in rectilinear motion.
Peter Riedt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
09 Oct 2005 08:13:40 PM |
|
|
In article <1128905579.022500.193470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Peri of Pera <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Puppet_Sock wrote:
Peri of Pera wrote:
[snip]
Pentcho, Einstein himself declared that relativity does NOT apply to
accellerated systems.
Hoo ha! What drugs are you taking? And where can I get some?
Look up the Bondi space traveller. You can find it in such
publications as _Gravitation_ by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
Special relativity is perfectly capable of handling acceleration.
What it can't handle is gravity.
Socks
Puppet, I was wrong, he said it does not apply to curvilinear motion,
only systems in rectilinear motion.
Peter Riedt
Rotations are part of the Lorentz group-- special relativity applies.
--
"What's another word for thesaurus?" -- Steven Wright
"Let me look in my synonymicon." -- Thaddeus Stout
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
09 Oct 2005 08:18:19 PM |
|
|
"What's another word for thesaurus?" -- Steven Wright
**************
Which dinosaur had the largest vocabulary?
The Thesaurus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 11:23:28 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
SR proper refers to pairs of reference systems having INERTIAL
relative motion. If one of them is traveling anything but a straight
line, then it's not taveling inertially, it's accelerating.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 07:42:00 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
According to the traditional interpretation, if an observer compares a
clock passing with constant speed with TWO SYNCHRONIZED clocks in his
own inertial system, he sees the passing clock run slower than the two
synchronized clocks. This statement is reduced to: The observer sees
the passing clock run slow.
Yet, if the observer belongs to a system moving with constant speed in
a closed curve, he sees the clock at rest (which, for this observer, is
a passing clock) run FAST by a factor of gamma, according to Einstein's
1905 paper. Einstein has taught his zombies how to "explain" this: they
should always refer to the fact that at least once, for a very short
time, the system moving in a closed curve experiences acceleration.
However he failed to tell them how to modify the
two-synchronized-clocks setup so that time contraction (passing clock
runs fast) can be demonstrated just as convincingly as time dilation
(passing clock runs slow). Accordingly, the two-synchronized-clocks
setup has become the most rigid taboo for an observer moving with
constant speed in a closed curve.
SR proper refers to pairs of reference systems having INERTIAL
relative motion. If one of them is traveling anything but a straight
line, then it's not taveling inertially, it's accelerating.
-Mark Martin
xxein: And you can define a straight line in a curved spacetime where
SR assumes a limit (special case)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 08:30:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
xxein: And you can define a straight line in a curved spacetime where
SR assumes a limit (special case)?
Yes. SR is GR at the limit of zero curvature; SR is contained within
GR as a special case. Within a continuously curved space, SR holds
strictly only within an infinitesimally small region.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 09:02:01 PM |
|
|
Mark Martin wrote:
xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
xxein: And you can define a straight line in a curved spacetime where
SR assumes a limit (special case)?
Yes. SR is GR at the limit of zero curvature; SR is contained within
GR as a special case. Within a continuously curved space, SR holds
strictly only within an infinitesimally small region.
-Mark Martin
xxein: Then SR denies the consideration of anything but straight lines
(an inertialness).
I respect SR in its limited domain, but I cannot understand the
influence that this limited domain (set) has on the general 'whole' of
the universe. I can construct a set within a whole but I cannot
construct a whole from a limited set.
Iow, it appears that a lot of people are trying to 'make' the 'set'
(SR) dictate the properties of the 'whole' (in this case, GR). There
is no *****-backwards logic to this except for a primative belief system.
And since this primative belief system (SR) has influenced the creation
and acceptance of GR, I hold no hope that GR is a definitive
explanation of how this universe operates. GR must also be a subset to
the whole.
Do you get the point?
If and when you are willing and able to release c from being anything
but a subjectively observable constant, then some spark of logic will
ensue. This means that there is no such thing as a rest frame from
which to derive laws (except the subset of GR 'relativity' and its
variations). It also means that there are familiar relations that are
prime. Not everything is disguised in the subjective mode. As a
matter of consideration though, every point in the universe is a rest
frame if you ignore all others (at your peril).
There are tidbits of almost every theory that are truly objective povs.
It is the job of science through the interaction of the various
disciplines to identify them. It doesn't help that the math of any
wrong concept obscures the reality.
Math is but a tool. It is not the physic. Logic is a tool (like math)
that relies upon the concept behind it. They are guesses. They make
the most they can out of subjective observation .
Look for those observations that can be converted into the 'objective'
physic and make a continuation of sense. Don't restrict yourself to a
set that cannot be complete without a force of belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
07 Oct 2005 09:04:43 PM |
|
|
Math is but a tool. It is not the physic. Logic is a tool (like math)
that relies upon the concept behind it. They are guesses. They make
the most they can out of subjective observation .
*************
And you are nothing but a tool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
08 Oct 2005 04:33:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Math is but a tool. It is not the physic. Logic is a tool (like math)
that relies upon the concept behind it. They are guesses. They make
the most they can out of subjective observation .
*************
And you are nothing but a tool.
Then we may suspect that also you are nothing but a tool - and useless
so far.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
08 Oct 2005 06:01:08 AM |
|
|
Yes, Mark, I agree. And GR did not come in until much later than 1905.
If Pentcho is correct in his quote, AE was wrong then about that. If
P is wrong, then he is mixing the two Rs. However, that may not
necessarily be a wrong statement on his part about one system being
seen to have a clock moving faster than the "stationary" clocks.
The Twin Paradox experiment does include a closed curve, and yet both
clocks are seen to be slower than the other by the respective
observers. There is no way to resolve that paradox (not the Twin
Paradox but the one posed by it in that both clocks are observed to be
slower so long as the two are not at constant velocity.
The trip is a GR trip which is resolved by my model with the notion of
varying time rates, but the paradox of the clocks can only be resolved
in SR where they are at constant velocity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: The Most Rigid Taboo in Relativity |
06 Oct 2005 09:27:17 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
[acceleration confuses Pentcho]
Pentcho my old gym sock. If you want to understand acceleration
in special relativity you have to read further than _Relativity
Simplified for Especially Retarded Monkies_. Curved paths are
clearly not inertial, and so require the acceleration to be
understood. Try, just as an example, the Bondi Space Traveller.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
