| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2006 01:21:43 PM |
| Object: |
The SRians are making contradictory claims |
The SRians (specifically PD) are making the following contradictory
claims:
Claim #1
PD said: When two observers A and B are in relative motion the passage
of a clock second on A's clock does not coincide with the passage of a
clock second in B's clock.
Claim #2
PD (SR) also said that in the twin paradox situation the elapsed clock
seconds in B's clock (the traveling clock) can be compared directly
with the elapsed clock seconds in A's clock when B return after a
journey.
It seems that the SRians will go to the extend of making contradictory
claims to explain their theory. Go figure.
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
30 Apr 2006 01:49:17 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:1146421303.780887.70490@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
The SRians (specifically PD) are making the following contradictory
claims:
Claim #1
PD said: When two observers A and B are in relative motion the passage
of a clock second on A's clock does not coincide with the passage of a
clock second in B's clock.
Claim #2
PD (SR) also said that in the twin paradox situation the elapsed clock
seconds in B's clock (the traveling clock) can be compared directly
with the elapsed clock seconds in A's clock when B return after a
journey.
It seems that the SRians will go to the extend of making contradictory
claims to explain their theory. Go figure.
Where does one begin to explain this stuff to someone who
doesn't know the difference between
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/coincide
and
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/compare
?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
06 May 2006 02:06:40 PM |
|
|
Hi KenSeto, The Twins_Paradox is really about
why the more accelerated twin aged less.
Special_Relativity can be used to explain it,
provided you use the same two _Inerial_ frames of reference throughout
the _Entire_ duration of the GedankenExperiment,
-- never switching, modifying or adding frames --. See:
Faraday.Physics.UToronto.CA/PVB/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/TwinParadox.swf
Just like the speed of sound is always the same in a particular medium,
so too is the speed of light. And, because a vacuum has no wind,
and nothing is faster than a photon, no signal can travel faster than c.
c in a vacuum is constant for all observers,
irregardless of anyone's reative speed or acceleration.
_Standard_ ticks and rulers, -- e.g. the SI second and meter --,
are _Both_ observed to be elongated
in objects moving near the speed of light relative to us humans
or in more accelerated frames, e.g. at lower alitudes.
i.e. ticks slow to a halt and length shrinks to a dimentionless point.
For example, suppose I met up with you one day and I hopped into my spacecraft,
hovered above you and accelerated myself to the speed of light,
firing my thrusters to maintain a low orbit despite my great velocity.
Sure, it's absurd, the infinite acceleration would
consume more directed energy than exists in the cosmos,
....and I'd be instantly vaporized.
Anywho... ignoring such _Minor_ details, suppose that fifty years later,
with you still in the same spot, posting to Sci.Physics,
I terminated my orbit and descended to meet you.
I would've experienced almost no proper time compared to your 50 years,
....if I had infinite energy at my disposal and I survived it... ha ha.
General Relativity explains _Exactly_ how
a clock with, e.g., 10 ^ -16 second accuracy
ticks faster with a minute increase in altitude.
See: Time Too Good to Be True,
PhysicsToday.ORG/vol-59/iss-3/p10.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
07 May 2006 08:27:37 PM |
|
|
[...]
Except it is not true that the "more accelerated" twin ages less. While
that is correct in many cases, it is not universal.
It is universally true that an _inertial_ twin will "age
the most" between any given pair of events on her worldline;
in SR it is not possible for the other twin to be present at
any such pair of events without accelerating somewhere
between them.
Here's a simple counterexample to the claim in the Subject:
Construct two rotating circular tables with edges tangential and both
centers at rest in some inertial frame. Label them A and B, and put a
clock at the edge of each such that they periodically join and rejoin
each other (so the periods of their rotations are a rational multiple of
the ratio of their radii). Note the tables are not identical. Pick any
pair of their joinings to be the "twin scenario".
One can apply an SR analysis in the inertial frame. For practical
situations, all velocities are very much less than c, and Newtonian
mechanics applies. So the acceleration of each clock is v^2/R, where v
is the tangential speed of the clock (wrt the inertial frame), and R is
its radius. The time dilation factor, however, is purely a function of
v^2 [=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]. It is an elementary exercise to find values of
R and v such that
v_A^2/R_A > v_B^2/R_B
and
v_A^2 < v_B^2
The first means that A is the "more accelerated" clock, while the second
says that B will display less elapsed proper time between joinings (i.e.
will "age less").
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The more _Energized_ twin aged less. |
07 May 2006 09:01:38 PM |
|
|
Hi Tom_Roberts, You told me:
It is not true that the "more accelerated" twin ages less.
While that is correct in many cases, it is not universal.
Here's a simple counterexample to the claim in the Subject...
Good point: The more _Energized_ twin aged less.
An ideal top, -- i.e. one with no friction --
consumes no energy to maintain it's angular velocity,
while the the traveling twin consumes a near infinite amount of energy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tomgee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
08 May 2006 07:18:19 PM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
[...]
Except it is not true that the "more accelerated" twin ages less. While
that is correct in many cases, it is not universal.
It is universally true that an _inertial_ twin will "age
the most" between any given pair of events on her worldline;
in SR it is not possible for the other twin to be present at
any such pair of events without accelerating somewhere
between them.
Unless, that is, the speed and direction of motion of the non-inertial
twin is toward the inertial twin such that they meet again. The TP
scenario resolves your obstacle by having the twins meet again.
But you miss the main point, I think, which is that the discrepancy in
the passage of time between the twins happens even if they never
meet again. They meet again in the TP only as a most simple way
to show that the time dilation effect has ocurred.
The reason it happens is not because they meet again, but because
time rates accrue to objects inversely proportional to their absolute
speeds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: All information is a comparison... how could it be otherwise ? |
10 May 2006 10:30:56 AM |
|
|
Hi TomGee, and Tom_Roberts,
The rate at which your clock ticks _Compared_ to
the rate at which something else's ticks depends on
the energy field you are under _Compared_ to
the energy field the other object is under.
All information is a comparison... how could it be otherwise ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: All information is a comparison... how could it be otherwise ? |
10 May 2006 10:35:19 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi TomGee, and Tom_Roberts,
The rate at which your clock ticks _Compared_ to
the rate at which something else's ticks depends on
the energy field you are under _Compared_ to
the energy field the other object is under.
All information is a comparison... how could it be otherwise ?
How's your big commodity deal going? Made that nine
million yet? Figured out yet that tj does not actually have
a bank or any money?
I hope some supplier hasn't actually delivered 20 tons
of paper pulp or aluminum or whatever to your doorstep.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: I see homeless people camping all over the place. |
10 May 2006 11:08:25 AM |
|
|
Hi Randy_Poe, Re: My offers to buy/ship 20 to 50 thousand tons of aluminum,
You told me:
How's your big commodity deal going ? Made that nine million yet ?
Figured out yet that tj does not actually have a bank or any money ?
I hope some supplier hasn't actually delivered 20 tons
of paper pulp or aluminum or whatever to your doorstep.
How could I wind up with tons of aluminum at my doorstep ? !
I'm the shipper... if T.J. helps me get a loan from ExIm.GOV,
based on the money the seller puts down and
the market value of the 20 to 50 thousand tons of aluminum,
....ExIm.GOV will pay cash at the supplier's dock. Get it ?
I need to make cheap international calls,
so I'm going to buy a microphone when the stores open up.
Then I'll install Skype from Skype.COM and put 10 bucks into it.
I'm going very slowly, methotically, discovering prices between countries.
I'll move when/if the prices are right to do the _Riskless_ arbitrage.
I may not make a dime... unless T.J. outright gives it to me.
T.J. is exteremly optimistic, I'll give you that,
but he knows his biz... so what the hell ?
T.J. the person is magnitudes more interesting than you Randy_Poe,
and I could use the extra cash right about now.
Seattle and my landlords really smacked me down for
helping the criminally homeless,
....and getting rich would be one way to get back at the bastards.
I see homeless people camping all over the place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: I see homeless people camping all over the place. |
10 May 2006 11:12:35 AM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Randy_Poe, Re: My offers to buy/ship 20 to 50 thousand tons of aluminum,
You told me:
How's your big commodity deal going ? Made that nine million yet ?
Figured out yet that tj does not actually have a bank or any money ?
I hope some supplier hasn't actually delivered 20 tons
of paper pulp or aluminum or whatever to your doorstep.
How could I wind up with tons of aluminum at my doorstep ? !
I'm the shipper... if T.J. helps me get a loan from ExIm.GOV,
based on the money the seller puts down and
the market value of the 20 to 50 thousand tons of aluminum,
...ExIm.GOV will pay cash at the supplier's dock. Get it ?
I need to make cheap international calls,
so I'm going to buy a microphone when the stores open up.
Then I'll install Skype from Skype.COM and put 10 bucks into it.
I'm going very slowly, methotically, discovering prices between countries.
I'll move when/if the prices are right to do the _Riskless_ arbitrage.
I may not make a dime... unless T.J. outright gives it to me.
T.J. is exteremly optimistic, I'll give you that,
but he knows his biz... so what the hell ?
T.J. the person is magnitudes more interesting than you Randy_Poe,
and I could use the extra cash right about now.
Seattle and my landlords really smacked me down for
helping the criminally homeless,
...and getting rich would be one way to get back at the bastards.
I see homeless people camping all over the place.'
Jeff, please, please, please do not hijack this topic to include the
saga of your personal life. It is off-topic, impolite, and unwelcome.
Either stick with the discussion or do not contribute.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: The _True_ thread is the last 5 levels, I maintain. |
10 May 2006 12:40:18 PM |
|
|
Hi PD, The _True_ thread is the last 5 levels, I maintain.
So, contrary to your claim, although it can tangent, it cannot be hijacked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The _True_ thread is the last 5 levels, I maintain. |
10 May 2006 12:48:42 PM |
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi PD, The _True_ thread is the last 5 levels, I maintain.
So, contrary to your claim, although it can tangent, it cannot be hijacked.
And counting back levels from the one you posted that I complained
about, I find this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5f896d4a6b6739f4?hl=en&
I see no relevance whatsoever between your post and the one linked
above.
Your habit of changing the topic title every time you post is a
strategy for quick level migration, an insidious way to insert your
personal agenda. It is still off-topic, impolite, and unwelcome.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: PD, if you want to be a cop go join the police force. |
10 May 2006 03:33:21 PM |
|
|
Hi PD, Randy_Poe asked me a question,
I wasn't tring to insidiously enslave you... get over it, read something else.
If you want to be a cop go join the police force.
Enjoying Beck's _Golden_Age_,
Morcheeba's _What_Do_New_York_Couples_Fight_About_ and
Sky_Cries_Mary's _Chickaboom_Cocktail_:
Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Golden_Age_.MP3
Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_What_Do_New_York_Couples_Fight_About_.MP3
Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Chickaboom_Cocktail_.MP3
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
08 May 2006 11:37:26 PM |
|
|
tomgee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
in SR it is not possible for the other twin to be present at
any such pair of events without accelerating somewhere
between them.
Unless, that is, the speed and direction of motion of the non-inertial
twin is toward the inertial twin such that they meet again.
It simply is not possible in SR for two inertial twins to meet twice.
They both follow straight-line paths, and their straight lines intersect
at most once. <shrug>
But you miss the main point, I think, which is that the discrepancy in
the passage of time between the twins happens even if they never
meet again.
But that is unobservable unless one adopts a synchronization convention
for clocks at different locations. Such a convention is an arbitrary
human choice and is of no physical significance. The whole point of the
twin scenario in having them meet twice is that at their meetings no
such convention is needed, because one can compare their clocks directly.
The reason it happens is not because they meet again, but because
time rates accrue to objects inversely proportional to their absolute
speeds.
Not in SR -- there is no such thing as "absolute speed". If you imagine
some different theory in which this is true, it is refuted by many
experiments, regardless of which frame you take as "absolute rest". This
is nowhere close to "inversely proportional" to any speed whatsoever.
It is possible to construct an unrefuted theory along those lines, known
as LET. But "time rates" are not "inversely proportional" to absolute
speed, the tick rates of clocks are proportional to gamma
(=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: How much do you weigh... compared to what ? ! |
10 May 2006 10:16:57 AM |
|
|
Hi Tom_Roberts, and TomGee,
Absolute_Speed makes no sense, as everthing we know is relative.
How much do you weigh... compared to what ? !
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tomgee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
09 May 2006 05:09:05 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
in SR it is not possible for the other twin to be present at
any such pair of events without accelerating somewhere
between them.
Unless, that is, the speed and direction of motion of the non-inertial
twin is toward the inertial twin such that they meet again.
It simply is not possible in SR for two inertial twins to meet twice.
They both follow straight-line paths, and their straight lines intersect
at most once. <shrug>
But you miss the main point, I think, which is that the discrepancy in
the passage of time between the twins happens even if they never
meet again.
But that is unobservable unless one adopts a synchronization convention
for clocks at different locations. Such a convention is an arbitrary
human choice and is of no physical significance. The whole point of the
twin scenario in having them meet twice is that at their meetings no
such convention is needed, because one can compare their clocks directly.
The reason it happens is not because they meet again, but because
time rates accrue to objects inversely proportional to their absolute
speeds.
Not in SR -- there is no such thing as "absolute speed".
No, not so. AE did not say that, so if you think he did,
you simply have it wrong. He said all motion is relative,
but that has to do with measurements, not with reality.
The reality of the universe is that does not mean there
is no absolute motion, because, objects do not move
only where other objects exist, they will move whether
or not other objects are nearby. SR has to do with the
measurement of motion, and of course, for that, we do
not need absolute motion so long as there are other
objects with which to measure relative speed. That is
why AE felt motion is only meaningful between two or
more bodies, and so the idea of absolute speed is in
for the intents and purposes of SR, superfluous.
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
If you imagine
some different theory in which this is true, it is refuted by many
experiments, regardless of which frame you take as "absolute rest".
No, name a single experiment - not many, just uno - that
has refuted the notion of absolute speed or motion.
This
is nowhere close to "inversely proportional" to any speed whatsoever.
What are you talking about?
It is possible to construct an unrefuted theory along those lines, known
as LET. But "time rates" are not "inversely proportional" to absolute
speed, the tick rates of clocks are proportional to gamma
(=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Well, isn't gamma a unit of mass? Now all you have to do
is try to overthrow the Twin Paradox claim of inverse
proportionality of the time rates of the twins, and if you do,
you are sure to win the Biiiig Prize!
.
|
|
|
| User: "AllYou!" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
09 May 2006 07:29:47 AM |
|
|
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147169345.426547.96170@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
in SR it is not possible for the other twin to be present at
any such pair of events without accelerating somewhere
between them.
Unless, that is, the speed and direction of motion of the
non-inertial
twin is toward the inertial twin such that they meet again.
It simply is not possible in SR for two inertial twins to meet
twice.
They both follow straight-line paths, and their straight lines
intersect
at most once. <shrug>
But you miss the main point, I think, which is that the
discrepancy in
the passage of time between the twins happens even if they never
meet again.
But that is unobservable unless one adopts a synchronization
convention
for clocks at different locations. Such a convention is an
arbitrary
human choice and is of no physical significance. The whole point of
the
twin scenario in having them meet twice is that at their meetings
no
such convention is needed, because one can compare their clocks
directly.
The reason it happens is not because they meet again, but because
time rates accrue to objects inversely proportional to their
absolute
speeds.
Not in SR -- there is no such thing as "absolute speed".
No, not so.
Er, yes, so. Check it out:
http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/
http://www.sysmatrix.net/~kavs/kjs/addend4.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
http://tinyurl.com/ks7zy
http://tinyurl.com/hhqom
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
AE did not say that, so if you think he did,
you simply have it wrong.
Nope, he's got it right. Check it out.
He said all motion is relative,
but that has to do with measurements, not with reality.
Do you have the slightest support for that silly claim, you
nincompoop? Do you have a quote where he said that?
The reality of the universe is that does not mean there
is no absolute motion, because, objects do not move
only where other objects exist, they will move whether
or not other objects are nearby.
Relativity doesn't say that objects only move if there are other
objects nearby.
SR has to do with the
measurement of motion, and of course, for that, we do
not need absolute motion so long as there are other
objects with which to measure relative speed. That is
why AE felt motion is only meaningful between two or
more bodies, and so the idea of absolute speed is in
for the intents and purposes of SR, superfluous.
Is meaningless.
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
How can there be absolute motion if there's no possibility of absolute
rest?
If you imagine
some different theory in which this is true, it is refuted by many
experiments, regardless of which frame you take as "absolute rest".
No, name a single experiment - not many, just uno - that
has refuted the notion of absolute speed or motion.
GPS clocks.
This
is nowhere close to "inversely proportional" to any speed
whatsoever.
What are you talking about?
<g>
It is possible to construct an unrefuted theory along those lines,
known
as LET. But "time rates" are not "inversely proportional" to
absolute
speed, the tick rates of clocks are proportional to gamma
(=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Well, isn't gamma a unit of mass?
LOL! How many gammas in a gram?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
09 May 2006 06:42:49 AM |
|
|
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147169345.426547.96170@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| > Not in SR -- there is no such thing as "absolute speed".
| >
| No, not so.
***** communication with *****...
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AllYou!" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
09 May 2006 07:19:10 AM |
|
|
"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey_c> wrote in message
news:Ze%7g.104195$tc.56566@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147169345.426547.96170@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| > Not in SR -- there is no such thing as "absolute speed".
| >
| No, not so.
***** communication with *****...
Well, I was slightly off. I thought it would take 5 exchanges for A
to call tg a *****, but it took 5 -1/2 exchanges for A to call him a
*****.
Close, though.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
11 May 2006 06:30:47 PM |
|
|
tomgee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Not in SR -- there is no such thing as "absolute speed".
No, not so. AE did not say that,
I am talking about SR, not what AE did or did not say. Indeed, in SR
there is no such thing as "absolute speed". <shrug>
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute speed (given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
name a single experiment - not many, just uno - that
has refuted the notion of absolute speed or motion.
Absolute speed is an interpretation, and is not measurable without a
theory in which it appears. To date, all theories in which it appears
have been refuted (except those that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR). Not by a "direct refutation" of absolute
speed, but by refutations of their other predictions.
IOW: one can refute theories, not interpretations. And not components of
theories.
Well, isn't gamma a unit of mass?
No. Gamma is unitless, a pure number.
Now all you have to do
is try to overthrow the Twin Paradox claim of inverse
proportionality of the time rates of the twins,
The twin paradox makes no such claim.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "tomgee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 09:19:04 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Not in SR -- there is no such thing as "absolute speed".
No, not so. AE did not say that,
I am talking about SR, not what AE did or did not say. Indeed, in SR
there is no such thing as "absolute speed". <shrug>
But then you are only restating what some call the
fallibility of Relativity in that it self-limits itself within
its tenets and ignores the facts of the reality of the
universe.
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute speed (given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
name a single experiment - not many, just uno - that
has refuted the notion of absolute speed or motion.
Absolute speed is an interpretation, and is not measurable without a
theory in which it appears. To date, all theories in which it appears
have been refuted (except those that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR). Not by a "direct refutation" of absolute
speed, but by refutations of their other predictions.
Out of all theories you claim it appears in and that it has
been refuted, could you not have explained just one for us?
IOW: one can refute theories, not interpretations. And not components of
theories.
Well, isn't gamma a unit of mass?
No. Gamma is unitless, a pure number.
Gamma is imaginary? You argue reality using a math
construct? How lame is that, Tom?
Now all you have to do
is try to overthrow the Twin Paradox claim of inverse
proportionality of the time rates of the twins,
The twin paradox makes no such claim.
Of course it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AllYou!" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 09:37:22 AM |
|
|
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147443544.087301.31970@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute speed
(given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
How can there be absolute motion with no absolute rest? If an object
is moving through the universe at some speed, is it in motion?
<waiting for inevitable reply without reading further>
But what if that speed were zero? Would that object still be in
motion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tomgee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 12:56:47 PM |
|
|
AllYou! wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147443544.087301.31970@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute speed
(given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
How can there be absolute motion with no absolute rest?
I just now above explained that, fool! Did you not read it,
or did you not understand a word of it?
If an object
is moving through the universe at some speed, is it in motion?
<waiting for inevitable reply without reading further>
That's your best stupid question so far.
But what if that speed were zero? Would that object still be in
motion?
Second-best stupid question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AllYou!" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 01:26:14 PM |
|
|
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147456607.194078.202620@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
AllYou! wrote:
"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147443544.087301.31970@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute
speed
(given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
How can there be absolute motion with no absolute rest?
I just now above explained that, fool! Did you not read it,
or did you not understand a word of it?
You did a lot of hand waving about expansion of the universe, but you
didn't say that has anything to do with absolute rest. Can something
have a speed in the universe of 1 billion mph? 1 million mph? 1
thousand mph? 1 hundred mph? 1 mph? 1/trillion mph? So why not
zero mph?
If an object
is moving through the universe at some speed, is it in motion?
<waiting for inevitable reply without reading further>
That's your best stupid question so far.
Did I call it or did I call it?
But what if that speed were zero? Would that object still be in
motion?
Second-best stupid question.
What's the matter, nincompoop? Caught again? If an object's speed is
zero in the universe, is it at rest?
--
"I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee 5/10/2006
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 09:38:29 AM |
|
|
tomgee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
tomgee wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Not in SR -- there is no such thing as "absolute speed".
No, not so. AE did not say that,
I am talking about SR, not what AE did or did not say. Indeed, in SR
there is no such thing as "absolute speed". <shrug>
But then you are only restating what some call the
fallibility of Relativity in that it self-limits itself within
its tenets and ignores the facts of the reality of the
universe.
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute speed (given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
Why yes, yes there are. There have been multiple experiments designed
specifically to look for evidence of absolute motion. These have been
carefully designed to distinguish absolute motion from relative motion,
and to be sensitive to absolute motion if it exists. The *amount* of
absolute motion is predicted by a variety of theories that rely on the
existence of absolute motion, and this is what guided the experimental
design and the sensitivity of the apparatus. Those experiments,
repeated by independent researchers and using complementary methods and
designs, have all unilaterally noted a pronounced *lack* of the signal
predicted by theories that incorporate absolute motion.
There are two possible "outs" for absolute motion.
1. Propose a theory that says there is absolute motion of some sort but
somehow not in the range of sensitivity of the experiments listed.
Further advice is to not actually calculate what the absolute motion is
but to simply say that no matter how sensitive a measurement you make,
the absolute motion is still there, it is just smaller than what you
will ever measure it to be. Such a theory is useless, of course,
because it makes no quantitative predictions that can be tested; in
fact, it is specifically proposed to make it untestable.
2. Propose a theory where there is absolute motion, but there is a
conspiracy of other physical countereffects going on that make the
detection of that absolute motion completely unmeasurable. This also is
a useless theory, because it proposes the existence of something that
cannot be detected under any circumstances.
name a single experiment - not many, just uno - that
has refuted the notion of absolute speed or motion.
Absolute speed is an interpretation, and is not measurable without a
theory in which it appears. To date, all theories in which it appears
have been refuted (except those that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR). Not by a "direct refutation" of absolute
speed, but by refutations of their other predictions.
Out of all theories you claim it appears in and that it has
been refuted, could you not have explained just one for us?
IOW: one can refute theories, not interpretations. And not components of
theories.
Well, isn't gamma a unit of mass?
No. Gamma is unitless, a pure number.
Gamma is imaginary? You argue reality using a math
construct? How lame is that, Tom?
Why no, it's not imaginary. Is pi imaginary? Is seven imaginary?
By the way, a measurement in radians (look it up) is also a number
without units. You can see this by noting the relationship between arc
length, radius, and angle in radians:
s = r * theta
where s is arc length in meters,
r is radius in meters,
theta is angle in radians.
Kindly solve, TomGee, for theta and then ask yourself what the units of
s/r are.
Now, my driveway has a slope of 0.083 radians. Does the fact that this
is unitless mean that the angle of my driveway is imaginary?
Now all you have to do
is try to overthrow the Twin Paradox claim of inverse
proportionality of the time rates of the twins,
The twin paradox makes no such claim.
Of course it does.
Why no, no it doesn't. Would you care to support your claim that it
does?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 12:35:30 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147444709.236034.107560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
But then you are only restating what some call the
fallibility of Relativity in that it self-limits itself within
its tenets and ignores the facts of the reality of the
universe.
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute speed
(given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
Why yes, yes there are. There have been multiple experiments designed
specifically to look for evidence of absolute motion. These have been
carefully designed to distinguish absolute motion from relative motion,
and to be sensitive to absolute motion if it exists. The *amount* of
absolute motion is predicted by a variety of theories that rely on the
existence of absolute motion, and this is what guided the experimental
design and the sensitivity of the apparatus. Those experiments,
repeated by independent researchers and using complementary methods and
designs, have all unilaterally noted a pronounced *lack* of the signal
predicted by theories that incorporate absolute motion.
Sigh....that's because the experimenters failed to interpret the results of
their experiments correctly. For example the null results of the MMX is due
to the fact that there is no absolute motion in the horizontal plane of the
light rays. The Pound and Rebka experiments show that there is absolute
motion in the vertical direction. This means that if the MMX is oriented
with the plane of the light rays in the vertical direction you will get
non-null result when the apparatus is rotated. <shrug>
There are two possible "outs" for absolute motion.
1. Propose a theory that says there is absolute motion of some sort but
somehow not in the range of sensitivity of the experiments listed.
Further advice is to not actually calculate what the absolute motion is
but to simply say that no matter how sensitive a measurement you make,
the absolute motion is still there, it is just smaller than what you
will ever measure it to be. Such a theory is useless, of course,
because it makes no quantitative predictions that can be tested; in
fact, it is specifically proposed to make it untestable.
2. Propose a theory where there is absolute motion, but there is a
conspiracy of other physical countereffects going on that make the
detection of that absolute motion completely unmeasurable. This also is
a useless theory, because it proposes the existence of something that
cannot be detected under any circumstances.
This is a bunch of baloney. I have a theory called Model mechanics that
includes absolute motion. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. Also
Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity call DTG. DTG
describes gravity as a force and as such it is unified with the other forces
of nature.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 12:48:14 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147444709.236034.107560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
But then you are only restating what some call the
fallibility of Relativity in that it self-limits itself within
its tenets and ignores the facts of the reality of the
universe.
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute speed
(given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
Why yes, yes there are. There have been multiple experiments designed
specifically to look for evidence of absolute motion. These have been
carefully designed to distinguish absolute motion from relative motion,
and to be sensitive to absolute motion if it exists. The *amount* of
absolute motion is predicted by a variety of theories that rely on the
existence of absolute motion, and this is what guided the experimental
design and the sensitivity of the apparatus. Those experiments,
repeated by independent researchers and using complementary methods and
designs, have all unilaterally noted a pronounced *lack* of the signal
predicted by theories that incorporate absolute motion.
Sigh....that's because the experimenters failed to interpret the results of
their experiments correctly. For example the null results of the MMX is due
to the fact that there is no absolute motion in the horizontal plane of the
light rays. The Pound and Rebka experiments show that there is absolute
motion in the vertical direction. This means that if the MMX is oriented
with the plane of the light rays in the vertical direction you will get
non-null result when the apparatus is rotated. <shrug>
There are two possible "outs" for absolute motion.
1. Propose a theory that says there is absolute motion of some sort but
somehow not in the range of sensitivity of the experiments listed.
Further advice is to not actually calculate what the absolute motion is
but to simply say that no matter how sensitive a measurement you make,
the absolute motion is still there, it is just smaller than what you
will ever measure it to be. Such a theory is useless, of course,
because it makes no quantitative predictions that can be tested; in
fact, it is specifically proposed to make it untestable.
2. Propose a theory where there is absolute motion, but there is a
conspiracy of other physical countereffects going on that make the
detection of that absolute motion completely unmeasurable. This also is
a useless theory, because it proposes the existence of something that
cannot be detected under any circumstances.
This is a bunch of baloney. I have a theory called Model mechanics that
includes absolute motion. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. Also
Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity call DTG. DTG
describes gravity as a force and as such it is unified with the other forces
of nature.
Ken Seto doesn't understand the experiments that have looked for (and
not found) absolute motion. He is apparently aware of only one (the
MMX). Moreover, he is happy to espouse a theory that characterizes
absolute motion of the Earth as being radial (either inward or outward)
relative to the center of the Earth. Ken Seto also doesn't believe that
the scientific method is the proper way to do science and thinks that
it gets in the way of true creativity. This, more than anything else,
tells you something about Ken Seto's approach to science.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 06:41:09 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147456094.405840.68800@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147444709.236034.107560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
But then you are only restating what some call the
fallibility of Relativity in that it self-limits itself within
its tenets and ignores the facts of the reality of the
universe.
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute speed
(given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
Why yes, yes there are. There have been multiple experiments designed
specifically to look for evidence of absolute motion. These have been
carefully designed to distinguish absolute motion from relative
motion,
and to be sensitive to absolute motion if it exists. The *amount* of
absolute motion is predicted by a variety of theories that rely on the
existence of absolute motion, and this is what guided the experimental
design and the sensitivity of the apparatus. Those experiments,
repeated by independent researchers and using complementary methods
and
designs, have all unilaterally noted a pronounced *lack* of the signal
predicted by theories that incorporate absolute motion.
Sigh....that's because the experimenters failed to interpret the results
of
their experiments correctly. For example the null results of the MMX is
due
to the fact that there is no absolute motion in the horizontal plane of
the
light rays. The Pound and Rebka experiments show that there is absolute
motion in the vertical direction. This means that if the MMX is oriented
with the plane of the light rays in the vertical direction you will get
non-null result when the apparatus is rotated. <shrug>
There are two possible "outs" for absolute motion.
1. Propose a theory that says there is absolute motion of some sort
but
somehow not in the range of sensitivity of the experiments listed.
Further advice is to not actually calculate what the absolute motion
is
but to simply say that no matter how sensitive a measurement you make,
the absolute motion is still there, it is just smaller than what you
will ever measure it to be. Such a theory is useless, of course,
because it makes no quantitative predictions that can be tested; in
fact, it is specifically proposed to make it untestable.
2. Propose a theory where there is absolute motion, but there is a
conspiracy of other physical countereffects going on that make the
detection of that absolute motion completely unmeasurable. This also
is
a useless theory, because it proposes the existence of something that
cannot be detected under any circumstances.
This is a bunch of baloney. I have a theory called Model mechanics that
includes absolute motion. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT
the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. Also
Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity call DTG. DTG
describes gravity as a force and as such it is unified with the other
forces
of nature.
Ken Seto doesn't understand the experiments that have looked for (and
not found) absolute motion. He is apparently aware of only one (the
MMX). Moreover, he is happy to espouse a theory that characterizes
absolute motion of the Earth as being radial (either inward or outward)
relative to the center of the Earth. Ken Seto also doesn't believe that
the scientific method is the proper way to do science and thinks that
it gets in the way of true creativity. This, more than anything else,
tells you something about Ken Seto's approach to science.
My scientific method is solid: do all the experiments that can falsify your
theory and not just do those experiments that will support your theory. So
far SRians refused to do any direct OWLS experiments which could potentially
falsify the claims of SR. I OTOH proposed experiments in the following link
that can falsify my theory or falsify SR. But the SRians refused to provide
funding for it. They don't even comment on the validity of my experiments.
They rejected my proposal based on the fact that I don't have the proper
credentials.
BTW the Pound and Rebka experiments do confirm that on earth the direction
of absolute motion is radial. That is not something I made up.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 06:45:21 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:p299g.36122$P2.1938@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147456094.405840.68800@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147444709.236034.107560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
But then you are only restating what some call the
fallibility of Relativity in that it self-limits itself within
its tenets and ignores the facts of the reality of the
universe.
What SR does say is that there is no absolute rest, and
of course, we all agree with that, right?
That is equivalent to there being no such thing as absolute
speed
(given
the usual meanings of the words involved). <shrug>
Not quite the same thing, though. We assume there
is no absolute rest because of the evidence of the
expansion process of the universe, but there are no
observations or other evidence to preclude the fact
of absolute motion, are there?
Why yes, yes there are. There have been multiple experiments
designed
specifically to look for evidence of absolute motion. These have
been
carefully designed to distinguish absolute motion from relative
motion,
and to be sensitive to absolute motion if it exists. The *amount* of
absolute motion is predicted by a variety of theories that rely on
the
existence of absolute motion, and this is what guided the
experimental
design and the sensitivity of the apparatus. Those experiments,
repeated by independent researchers and using complementary methods
and
designs, have all unilaterally noted a pronounced *lack* of the
signal
predicted by theories that incorporate absolute motion.
Sigh....that's because the experimenters failed to interpret the
results
of
their experiments correctly. For example the null results of the MMX
is
due
to the fact that there is no absolute motion in the horizontal plane
of
the
light rays. The Pound and Rebka experiments show that there is
absolute
motion in the vertical direction. This means that if the MMX is
oriented
with the plane of the light rays in the vertical direction you will
get
non-null result when the apparatus is rotated. <shrug>
There are two possible "outs" for absolute motion.
1. Propose a theory that says there is absolute motion of some sort
but
somehow not in the range of sensitivity of the experiments listed.
Further advice is to not actually calculate what the absolute motion
is
but to simply say that no matter how sensitive a measurement you
make,
the absolute motion is still there, it is just smaller than what you
will ever measure it to be. Such a theory is useless, of course,
because it makes no quantitative predictions that can be tested; in
fact, it is specifically proposed to make it untestable.
2. Propose a theory where there is absolute motion, but there is a
conspiracy of other physical countereffects going on that make the
detection of that absolute motion completely unmeasurable. This also
is
a useless theory, because it proposes the existence of something
that
cannot be detected under any circumstances.
This is a bunch of baloney. I have a theory called Model mechanics
that
includes absolute motion. Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory
of
relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike
SRT
the
equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity.
Also
Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity call DTG. DTG
describes gravity as a force and as such it is unified with the other
forces
of nature.
Ken Seto doesn't understand the experiments that have looked for (and
not found) absolute motion. He is apparently aware of only one (the
MMX). Moreover, he is happy to espouse a theory that characterizes
absolute motion of the Earth as being radial (either inward or outward)
relative to the center of the Earth. Ken Seto also doesn't believe that
the scientific method is the proper way to do science and thinks that
it gets in the way of true creativity. This, more than anything else,
tells you something about Ken Seto's approach to science.
My scientific method is solid: do all the experiments that can falsify
your
theory and not just do those experiments that will support your theory. So
far SRians refused to do any direct OWLS experiments which could
potentially
falsify the claims of SR. I OTOH proposed experiments in the following
link
that can falsify my theory or falsify SR. But the SRians refused to
provide
funding for it. They don't even comment on the validity of my experiments.
They rejected my proposal based on the fact that I don't have the proper
credentials.
Sorry the link for my proposed experiments is as follows:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
BTW the Pound and Rebka experiments do confirm that on earth the direction
of absolute motion is radial. That is not something I made up.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
12 May 2006 07:20:10 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
My scientific method is solid: do all the experiments that can falsify your
theory and not just do those experiments that will support your theory. So
far SRians refused to do any direct OWLS experiments which could potentially
falsify the claims of SR. I OTOH proposed experiments in the following link
that can falsify my theory or falsify SR. But the SRians refused to provide
funding for it. They don't even comment on the validity of my experiments.
They rejected my proposal based on the fact that I don't have the proper
credentials.
BTW the Pound and Rebka experiments do confirm that on earth the direction
of absolute motion is radial. That is not something I made up.
Ken Seto
Wrong again!
Seto doesn't understand Pound and Rebka
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Rebka.html
o polarization is not an issue
o there is no "absolute" motion
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Why the more accelerated twin aged less. |
13 May 2006 08:22:14 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_C99g.942999$x96.339161@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
My scientific method is solid: do all the experiments that can falsify
your
theory and not just do those experiments that will support your theory.
So
far SRians refused to do any direct OWLS experiments which could
potentially
falsify the claims of SR. I OTOH proposed experiments in the following
link
that can falsify my theory or falsify SR. But the SRians refused to
provide
funding for it. They don't even comment on the validity of my
experiments.
They rejected my proposal based on the fact that I don't have the proper
credentials.
BTW the Pound and Rebka experiments do confirm that on earth the
direction
of absolute motion is radial. That is not something I made up.
Ken Seto
Wrong again!
Wormy is a runt of the SRians.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
