Science > Physics > Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2005 02:41:42 PM |
| Object: |
Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference =
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that B is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant to Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference *depending* on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if twin is
leaving B and going to A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incoherence:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
1971 Plane that noticed a time dilation using an atomic clock may
suggest:
1. The Universe has an absolute frame of reference
or
2. The link above specifies that a gravity field also generates a time
dilation (the more gravity the slower the clock): Could be similar to a
pendulum clock swaying slower if it's at the bottom of heavy water
(more gravity force) instead of air.
....but if this pendulum (atomic clock inside the plane) was traveling
faster in the air then it would also sway slower since it would *feel*
the same displacement resistance(= permittivity = 1/c^2 for space) as
when it was at the bottom of heavy water.
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
07 Feb 2005 03:09:26 PM |
|
|
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1107808902.893249.85160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Someone did on sci.physics.relativity.
Please don't multi-post but cross-post:
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm#XPMP
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Mazer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
07 Feb 2005 08:37:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference =
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that B is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant to Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
What do you mean by "age differently"? As long as both continue to move
at a constant velocity relative to another, relativity says there is no
absolute truth about who is aging slower--B is aging slower in A's
reference frame, and A is aging slower in B's reference frame.
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference *depending* on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if twin is
leaving B and going to A).
If two twins on platform A start out at rest to each other and the same
age, then one twin changes velocity until his velocity matches that of
platform B, then in platform A's frame the twin who changed velocity is
aging slower, and in platform B's frame the twin who remained on
platform A is aging slower. But in order for them to actually compare
ages at a single location, one of them will have to change velocities
again, and this will break the symmetry, so both frames will make the
same prediction about who has aged less when they meet again.
Jesse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 02:44:16 AM |
|
|
"twin changes velocity until his velocity matches that of
platform B, then in platform A's frame the twin who changed velocity is
aging slower, and in platform B's frame the twin who remained on
platform A is aging slower."
The aging process(difference) does not occur during change of velocity
(irrelevant if it's acceleration or deceleration)...
instead the aging difference is determined by the LENGTH of time the
twin is at the other constant velocity.
Now there was another twins on Platform B who did the same
vice-versa....so the twin remaining on Platform B is complaining to the
new imigrant: "No it's my brother who's gone to your Platform A which
is aging less than us"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 02:10:49 AM |
|
|
Jesse Mazer wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a
Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is
incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference =
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that B
is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant to
Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's
velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
What do you mean by "age differently"?
That's what was written...very few lines and people still make reading
errors.
It says: "it is impossible....to age differently"
As long as both continue to move
at a constant velocity relative to another, relativity says there is
no
absolute truth about who is aging slower--B is aging slower in A's
reference frame, and A is aging slower in B's reference frame.
Correct, that's what was written.
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches
the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference *depending*
on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if twin
is
leaving B and going to A).
If two twins on platform A start out at rest to each other and the
same
age, then one twin changes velocity until his velocity matches that
of
platform B,
You used the Correct words: "changes velocity" instead of "accelerate
or decelerate" for that's the foundation of Relativity, meaning there
is no Absolute Frame of Reference.
.....then in platform A's frame the twin who changed velocity is
aging slower, and in platform B's frame the twin who remained on
platform A is aging slower.
That is not what was written which is that there is ALSO another twins
on platform B..
.... and the remaining brother on platform B is NOW also arguing with
the new traveler from platform A that his twin is aging less then them.
But in order for them to actually compare
ages at a single location, one of them will have to change velocities
again, and this will break the symmetry, so both frames will make the
same prediction about who has aged less when they meet again.
Jesse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Mazer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 06:16:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a
Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is
incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference =
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that B
is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant to
Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's
velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
What do you mean by "age differently"?
That's what was written...very few lines and people still make reading
errors.
It's not a reading error, it's just that the phrase "age differently" is
inherently ambiguous, since it might be suggesting that there is an
absolute truth about who is aging faster and who's aging slower, or it
might just mean that each twin ages slower in the other twin's frame as
suggested by relativity. If the latter, I don't see why it is
"impossible" for them to age differently in this non-absolute sense.
It says: "it is impossible....to age differently"
As long as both continue to move
at a constant velocity relative to another, relativity says there is
no
absolute truth about who is aging slower--B is aging slower in A's
reference frame, and A is aging slower in B's reference frame.
Correct, that's what was written.
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches
the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference *depending*
on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if twin
is
leaving B and going to A).
If two twins on platform A start out at rest to each other and the
same
age, then one twin changes velocity until his velocity matches that
of
platform B,
You used the Correct words: "changes velocity" instead of "accelerate
or decelerate" for that's the foundation of Relativity, meaning there
is no Absolute Frame of Reference.
.....then in platform A's frame the twin who changed velocity is
aging slower, and in platform B's frame the twin who remained on
platform A is aging slower.
That is not what was written which is that there is ALSO another twins
on platform B..
... and the remaining brother on platform B is NOW also arguing with
the new traveler from platform A that his twin is aging less then them.
I'm still not clear on the scenario you're suggesting, could you spell
it out more clearly? Are you suggesting that there's four quadruplets,
2 starting out on platform A and 2 starting out on platform B, and then
one from each platform changes velocity until he is at rest relative to
the other platform?
Jesse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 05:20:10 AM |
|
|
Yes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 03:50:02 PM |
|
|
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107948010.921349.32850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yes
That takes the prize for no headers, no context and no content.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Mazer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 09:37:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Yes
OK, so where's the contradiction? Say quadruplets A and C start out on
platform A, and quadruplets B and D start out on platform B. Then C
accelerates until he is at rest wrt platform B, and D accelerates until
he is at rest wrt to platform A. Now C will be younger than B when they
meet, and D will be younger than A when they meet, but from this point
on C&B will age at the same rate, and likewise A&D will age at the same
rate (A&D will age slower than C&B in platform B's frame, while C&B will
age slower than A&D in platform A's frame). What problem do you see with
this?
Jesse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 10:17:32 AM |
|
|
Jesse Mazer wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
Yes
OK, so where's the contradiction? Say quadruplets A and C start out
on
platform A, and quadruplets B and D start out on platform B. Then C
accelerates until he is at rest wrt platform B, and D accelerates
until
he is at rest wrt to platform A. Now C will be younger than B when
they
meet, and D will be younger than A when they meet, but from this
point
on C&B will age at the same rate, and likewise A&D will age at the
same
rate (A&D will age slower than C&B in platform B's frame, while C&B
will
age slower than A&D in platform A's frame). What problem do you see
with
this?
Jesse
I see someone who doesn't want to read.
Ask Eric he's in "STRAIN and Panic" because he has to study....meaning
info won't fall on your laps whether from a text book or from me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Mazer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 02:41:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
wrote:
Yes
OK, so where's the contradiction? Say quadruplets A and C start out
on
platform A, and quadruplets B and D start out on platform B. Then C
accelerates until he is at rest wrt platform B, and D accelerates
until
he is at rest wrt to platform A. Now C will be younger than B when
they
meet, and D will be younger than A when they meet, but from this
point
on C&B will age at the same rate, and likewise A&D will age at the
same
rate (A&D will age slower than C&B in platform B's frame, while C&B
will
age slower than A&D in platform A's frame). What problem do you see
with
this?
Jesse
I see someone who doesn't want to read.
Do you want to have a discussion, or do you just want to berate me?
Honestly, I read the following paragraph over and over and I don't see
any mention of multiple pairs of twins, nor do I get any clear idea of
what aspect of your scenario is supposed to be incompatible with relativity:
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference *depending* on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if twin is
leaving B and going to A).
Jesse
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 10:23:47 AM |
|
|
Perhaps simplified
1. The 1971 Two planes went East and West and had the *SAME* Time
Dilation
2. So if one guy left from the East and went inside the West plane
nothing should change from the above line.
3. But according to the Twin Paradox, because he accelerated from the
East plane therefore his Time Dilation should be LESS instead of the
*SAME* as in #1 above.
?@?
Controversy:
The 1971 Experiment says NO NO neither and that you should only measure
Time Dilation with the Center of the Earth (as the Inertial Reference
plane....and not the planes nor the Earth's surface....why)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
10 Feb 2005 06:44:53 AM |
|
|
<guskz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107966227.418994.198990@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps simplified
1. The 1971 Two planes went East and West and had the *SAME* Time
Dilation
2. So if one guy left from the East and went inside the West plane
nothing should change from the above line.
3. But according to the Twin Paradox, because he accelerated from the
East plane therefore his Time Dilation should be LESS instead of the
*SAME* as in #1 above.
?@?
Controversy:
The 1971 Experiment says NO NO neither and that you should only measure
Time Dilation with the Center of the Earth (as the Inertial Reference
plane....and not the planes nor the Earth's surface....why)?
How far do you fall behind time in a four year period of time (any four
year period. Every four years)? Each year of the four? Each day of the year?
Each hour of the day? Each minute of the hour? Each second of the minute?
How far behind do you fall? By what length of a second are you continuing
always to fall behind time?
How many days did we have to add to our calendar in the last century to
try and keep up with current time passage because we on Earth keep on
falling behind time?
Geologists discovered a long time ago that at one time some billions of
years ago the Earth spun on its axis fast enough to have made the day at
that time 14 hours long. We have been continuously falling behind time since
long before even that time.
If that 14 hour day had been divided into 24 hours of 60 minutes to the
hour, 60 seconds to the minute, how long would a second have been at that
time? How far four light years distance? How far, say, 14 billion light
years distant?
What would have been the speed of light per that second at that time? What
would have been the measure of space?
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Mazer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 02:19:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Perhaps simplified
1. The 1971 Two planes went East and West and had the *SAME* Time
Dilation
According to this page, the planes were going at different velocities
because one was travelling with the rotation of the earth while the
other was travelling against it, so their time dilation was different
(and since the planes were not travelling in straight lines, you can't
calculate things from their frame, you have to pick an inertial frame
like the center of the earth):
http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/physics/generalrelativityathome.htm
The planes flew at an elevation of 10 km (30,000 feet) and at 800
km/hr (500 mph). The plane flying to the east was thus traveling at
the speed of the earth's surface plus 500 mph while that flying to the
west was flying at the speed of the earths surface minus 500 miles per
hour. (If experimenters could afford a flight on a Concorde jet they
could fly at 1000 mph opposite the rotation of the earth and remained
at rest relative to the fixed stars while the earth clock rotated
beneath them!)
(Experimental aside, Paul once flew back from Sweden to San Francisco
flying a great circle route over the arctic, he enjoyed the show as
the sun set then rose again moving west to east for a while as the
plane sped across the surface of the earth faster than the rotation
speed of the earth in the arctic! Watch the suns motion as you fly on
polar routes!)
The atomic clocks on the planes flying east lost 184 nanoseconds (a
nanosecond is 10^-9 s) because of their speed of travel relative to
the earth surface clocks. They gained 125 nanoseconds due to the
gravitational red shift. The planes flying west gained 96 nanoseconds
due to their motion and gained 177 nanoseconds due to gravity. The
measured effects were within 10% of the predicted effects which was
within the 20% error in the experimental technique. (The effect of
gravitational redshift has now been confirmed to better than 1%)
2. So if one guy left from the East and went inside the West plane
nothing should change from the above line.
3. But according to the Twin Paradox, because he accelerated from the
East plane therefore his Time Dilation should be LESS instead of the
*SAME* as in #1 above.
OK, ignore the details of the actual plane experiment, and assume we
have two planes which travel towards each other at the same speed
relative to an observer on the ground (who lives on a flat, nonrotating
planet). At the moment they pass, one guy jumps off the east plane and
onto the west plane.
Suppose both planes took off at the same time relative to the ground
frame, and the guys on each plane were the same age right before they
took off. Then when the guy jumps from the east plane to the west plane,
he will *still* be the same age as the guy who was on the west plane all
along--naturally, since from the ground frame both planes are travelling
at the same speed, so the time dilation factor will be the same and both
guys will continue to age at an identical (slower) rate.
But what if we consider it from the frame of one of the planes (which in
this example *are* moving inertially), will we come to a different
conclusion? No, because in the frame of the west plane, although it's
true that the guy on the east plane should be aging slower, the west
frame doesn't define simultaneity in the same way. During the
acceleration of the plane when it took off from the ground, its
definition of simultaneity was changing, so that at the moment attained
its cruising velocity (even if it accelerated to this velocity almost
instantaneously), the guy on the east plane would already be in
mid-flight, and would be older than the guy on the west plane. So even
though the guy on the east plane ages more slowly for the remainder of
the journey in this frame, he had a "head start" in age, and it will
work out so that at the moment they meet, this frame will also predict
they'll be the same age. I can illustrate in a quantitative way by
plugging some specific numbers into this scenario, if you like.
Jesse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
10 Feb 2005 09:18:09 AM |
|
|
Way to complex Jesse
You gotta make your Model but a few lines and well divided instead of
all squashed in one paragraph....even if I try I might omit one of your
details which would make my reply.... incoherent and incorrect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Mazer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
10 Feb 2005 01:52:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Way to complex Jesse
You gotta make your Model but a few lines and well divided instead of
all squashed in one paragraph....even if I try I might omit one of your
details which would make my reply.... incoherent and incorrect.
But relativity is complex too. My scenario is certainly both coherent
and correct according to relativity, and I can make it clearer by making
it quantitative--giving the position and time coordinates of each of the
important events (like the east plane taking off, or the two planes
meeting) in two different reference frames, using the Lorentz
transformation of relativity.
Jesse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
10 Feb 2005 02:54:43 PM |
|
|
Ok well I moved the computations to another posting in three small
parts beginning with Part1.
Feel free to plug in your input if the twins timing is incorrect?
PS I used ideal values such as I didn't use gamma in order not to play
with abnormal numbers.
So if V is incorrect based on distance, time computations it's only to
keep things simplistic without interfering on the general logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
07 Feb 2005 09:10:12 PM |
|
|
Jesse Mazer wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a
Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is
incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference =
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that B
is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant to
Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's
velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
What do you mean by "age differently"? As long as both continue to
move
at a constant velocity relative to another, relativity says there is
no
absolute truth about who is aging slower--B is aging slower in A's
reference frame, and A is aging slower in B's reference frame.
You had better pull out too!
They are NOT travelling at constant velocity relative to each other;
every second they are an extra 30kms apart, but there is NO
accelleration involved. That happened before the earth disappeared, OK?
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches
the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference *depending*
on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if twin
is
leaving B and going to A).
If two twins on platform A start out at rest to each other and the
same
age, then one twin changes velocity until his velocity matches that
of
platform B, then in platform A's frame the twin who changed velocity
is
aging slower, and in platform B's frame the twin who remained on
platform A is aging slower. But in order for them to actually compare
ages at a single location, one of them will have to change velocities
again, and this will break the symmetry, so both frames will make the
same prediction about who has aged less when they meet again.
Jesse
No. It is the same old story- what an observer sees, whether he is on
A,B, or where earth was, does not make that observation "The Truth".
Observers are confused by the delay in transfer of information, due to
light being emitted from its source at c and continuing at c ref that
source unless effected by gravity or collision. Observers get it WRONG-
absolute motion defines the universe's energy.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 11:32:04 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107832212.392179.267230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jesse Mazer wrote:
[snip]
What do you mean by "age differently"? As long as both continue to
move
at a constant velocity relative to another, relativity says there
is
no
absolute truth about who is aging slower--B is aging slower in A's
reference frame, and A is aging slower in B's reference frame.
You had better pull out too!
They are NOT travelling at constant velocity relative to each other;
every second they are an extra 30kms apart,
That sounds remarkably like a constant relative velocity of 30 Km/sec
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 10:14:12 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107832212.392179.267230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jesse Mazer wrote:
[snip]
What do you mean by "age differently"? As long as both continue
to
move
at a constant velocity relative to another, relativity says there
is
no
absolute truth about who is aging slower--B is aging slower in
A's
reference frame, and A is aging slower in B's reference frame.
You had better pull out too!
They are NOT travelling at constant velocity relative to each
other;
every second they are an extra 30kms apart,
That sounds remarkably like a constant relative velocity of 30 Km/sec
Yes. My point is, that the accelleration earth-> 10k/s and earth
->40k/s
previous to the observations being made after accelleration stops,
cannot be ignored. (even if we were unaware of it, ie came on the
scene after the earth had disappeared)
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 01:56:51 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107922452.141692.208950@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1107832212.392179.267230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jesse Mazer wrote:
[snip]
What do you mean by "age differently"? As long as both
continue
to
move
at a constant velocity relative to another, relativity says
there
is
no
absolute truth about who is aging slower--B is aging slower in
A's
reference frame, and A is aging slower in B's reference frame.
You had better pull out too!
They are NOT travelling at constant velocity relative to each
other;
every second they are an extra 30kms apart,
That sounds remarkably like a constant relative velocity of 30
Km/sec
Yes. My point is, that the accelleration earth-> 10k/s and earth
->40k/s
That fragment has no meaning. Please rephrase it and also use correct
units
previous to the observations being made after accelleration stops,
cannot be ignored. (even if we were unaware of it, ie came on the
scene after the earth had disappeared)
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jesse Mazer" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
07 Feb 2005 09:25:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a
Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is
incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference =
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that B
is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant to
Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's
velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
What do you mean by "age differently"? As long as both continue to
move
at a constant velocity relative to another, relativity says there is
no
absolute truth about who is aging slower--B is aging slower in A's
reference frame, and A is aging slower in B's reference frame.
You had better pull out too!
They are NOT travelling at constant velocity relative to each other;
every second they are an extra 30kms apart, but there is NO
accelleration involved. That happened before the earth disappeared, OK?
Er, "constant velocity relative to each other" means the same thing as
"the distance between them is increasing at a constant rate"--for
example, if they have a constant velocity of 30 km/s relative to one
another, that means the distance between them increases by 30 km every
second. What else could it possibly mean?
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches
the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference *depending*
on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if twin
is
leaving B and going to A).
If two twins on platform A start out at rest to each other and the
same
age, then one twin changes velocity until his velocity matches that
of
platform B, then in platform A's frame the twin who changed velocity
is
aging slower, and in platform B's frame the twin who remained on
platform A is aging slower. But in order for them to actually compare
ages at a single location, one of them will have to change velocities
again, and this will break the symmetry, so both frames will make the
same prediction about who has aged less when they meet again.
Jesse
No. It is the same old story- what an observer sees, whether he is on
A,B, or where earth was, does not make that observation "The Truth".
Observers are confused by the delay in transfer of information, due to
light being emitted from its source at c and continuing at c ref that
source unless effected by gravity or collision. Observers get it WRONG-
absolute motion defines the universe's energy.
I'm not talking about what each oberver *sees*, I'm talking about what
time-coordinate they assign to different events. The procedure that each
observer uses to assign time-coordinates takes into account the delay
due to the finite speed of light--for example, if I see the light from
an event 100 light-years away in the year 2005, I assign that event a
time-coordinate of 1905 in my reference frame.
Jesse
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 02:37:16 AM |
|
|
"Observers get it WRONG-
absolute motion defines the universe's energy."
Outside the scope of this posting but to get more technical:
All we know is that nothing can go faster than light and light is more
energy than matter.
There's a chance that since mass cannot be converted further into
energy for light since light is more like is pure energy...
Then there's a slight chance the velocity of light remains the same
maximum "c" but instead the light beam BROADENS (WIDENS= energy
dispersion) and perhaps (but I doubt it) because of Lorentz contraction
the Beams would still be oberved as the same width.
Permittivity of Space has shown no difference from the Permittivity of
a Metal conductor....
Metal conductor is very tin (2D wire) therefore ruptures when it's
Permittivity limit is reached.
But a large block of Metal (3D) that conducts may then behave as 3D
Space's permittiviy....meaning the excess conductive Energy (light
Beam) simply broadens within the block (space) instead of
rupturing/melting the Metal.
Permittivity of Space = 1/ square of maximum velocity: the maximum
velocity for space is c (speed of light)
-----------------------------------------
In Relativity's gamma equation: Maximum permittivity = "1"
therefore gamma = "1" minus ratio between actual velocity^2 and
Permittivity limit
( Permittivity limit = 1/max. velocity (speed of light "c") )
so gamma = "1" minus ratio between actual v^2/c^2 (= means
proportional...you then add "2pi" among other things)
Therefore as the generated v reaches the maximum allowed v (c) (inverse
Permitttivity) then the other elements associated with v start to
behave hyperbolicly (exponentialy), these other elements are Time
dilation and Length contraction.
Therefore if this Permittivity limit of space (maybe ether) is indeed
similar to the Permittivity limit of a metal conductor then their maybe
ABSOLUTE space who's reference frame is infact the speed of light
(maximum velocity = inverse of Permittivity limit).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
07 Feb 2005 03:14:46 PM |
|
|
Apologies for the multi-posted reply. Thanks for the heads-up, Dirk.
Won't happen again.
g...@hotmail.com wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a
Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is
incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference =
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that B is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant to
Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
Here is your mistake. There is no "faster" or "slower", except in
relation to the Earth, which is now gone. As soon as you take the Earth
away, there is no faster or slower. In fact, without the Earth, they
can equally well be viewed to be going the same speed in opposite
directions. Without "faster" or "slower", there is no meaning or
distinction to "accelerate" or "decelerate".
I just pointed out what's wrong. I'd like a public recanting of the
claim in your subject line.
PD
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's
velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches
the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference *depending*
on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if twin
is
leaving B and going to A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incoherence:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
1971 Plane that noticed a time dilation using an atomic clock may
suggest:
1. The Universe has an absolute frame of reference
or
2. The link above specifies that a gravity field also generates a
time
dilation (the more gravity the slower the clock): Could be similar to
a
pendulum clock swaying slower if it's at the bottom of heavy water
(more gravity force) instead of air.
...but if this pendulum (atomic clock inside the plane) was traveling
faster in the air then it would also sway slower since it would
*feel*
the same displacement resistance(= permittivity = 1/c^2 for space) as
when it was at the bottom of heavy water.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
07 Feb 2005 05:18:23 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Apologies for the multi-posted reply. Thanks for the heads-up, Dirk.
Won't happen again.
g...@hotmail.com wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a
Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is
incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference =
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that B
is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant to
Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
Here is your mistake. There is no "faster" or "slower", except in
relation to the Earth, which is now gone. As soon as you take the
Earth
away, there is no faster or slower. In fact, without the Earth, they
can equally well be viewed to be going the same speed in opposite
directions. Without "faster" or "slower", there is no meaning or
distinction to "accelerate" or "decelerate".
Wrong. There is STILL a 30km/s velocity between them.
They are NOT travelling at the same velocity.
You're really off, I wouldn't recommend you try to go any further.
Give someone else a try.
Those that can't find any lines that are incorrect should then
validate/agree with the conclusion provided.
I just pointed out what's wrong. I'd like a public recanting of the
claim in your subject line.
PD
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's
velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he reaches
the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference
*depending*
on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if
twin
is
leaving B and going to A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incoherence:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
1971 Plane that noticed a time dilation using an atomic clock may
suggest:
1. The Universe has an absolute frame of reference
or
2. The link above specifies that a gravity field also generates a
time
dilation (the more gravity the slower the clock): Could be similar
to
a
pendulum clock swaying slower if it's at the bottom of heavy water
(more gravity force) instead of air.
...but if this pendulum (atomic clock inside the plane) was
traveling
faster in the air then it would also sway slower since it would
*feel*
the same displacement resistance(= permittivity = 1/c^2 for space)
as
when it was at the bottom of heavy water.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
07 Feb 2005 09:28:56 PM |
|
|
wrote:
PD wrote:
Apologies for the multi-posted reply. Thanks for the heads-up,
Dirk.
Won't happen again.
g...@hotmail.com wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a
Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is
incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth (difference
=
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is that
B
is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute
Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant
to
Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach same
velocity as B.
Here is your mistake. There is no "faster" or "slower", except in
relation to the Earth, which is now gone. As soon as you take the
Earth
away, there is no faster or slower. In fact, without the Earth,
they
can equally well be viewed to be going the same speed in opposite
directions. Without "faster" or "slower", there is no meaning or
distinction to "accelerate" or "decelerate".
Wrong. There is STILL a 30km/s velocity between them.
Which means nothing. I have two buses on the highway, each fitted with
radar detectors. Bus B105 measures Bus C287 to have a relative velocity
of 30 m/s. Bus C287 measures B105 to have a relative velocity of 30
m/s. Which one is moving faster than the other? Which one has to
accelerate or decelerate to match the other?
I'm not done with you yet.
PD
They are NOT travelling at the same velocity.
You're really off, I wouldn't recommend you try to go any further.
Give someone else a try.
Those that can't find any lines that are incorrect should then
validate/agree with the conclusion provided.
I just pointed out what's wrong. I'd like a public recanting of the
claim in your subject line.
PD
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's
velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any Time
Dilation.
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he
reaches
the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference
*depending*
on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if
twin
is
leaving B and going to A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incoherence:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
1971 Plane that noticed a time dilation using an atomic clock may
suggest:
1. The Universe has an absolute frame of reference
or
2. The link above specifies that a gravity field also generates a
time
dilation (the more gravity the slower the clock): Could be
similar
to
a
pendulum clock swaying slower if it's at the bottom of heavy
water
(more gravity force) instead of air.
...but if this pendulum (atomic clock inside the plane) was
traveling
faster in the air then it would also sway slower since it would
*feel*
the same displacement resistance(= permittivity = 1/c^2 for
space)
as
when it was at the bottom of heavy water.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 01:59:48 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
guskz@hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:
Apologies for the multi-posted reply. Thanks for the heads-up,
Dirk.
Won't happen again.
g...@hotmail.com wrote:
There are but a few simple lines (5 sentences) below until a
Conclusion
is reached.
Someone must clearly specify the first line he reads that is
incorrect
and why.....if no error is wrong than there remains
insufficient
evidence of time dilation (outside the muons experiment).
Setting:
We will call 2 platforms: A & B
A goes 10km/s and B goes 40km/s in relation to Earth
(difference
=
30km/s)
Now if Earth disappeared, the only thing A would observe is
that
B
is
30km/s faster and likewise B would observe A moving 30km/s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symptom:
Relativity's Law specifies there is no Universal Absolute
Reference
Frame (everything is relative), so by this law it is irrelevant
to
Time
Dilation wether A must *accelerate* or *decelerate* to reach
same
velocity as B.
Here is your mistake. There is no "faster" or "slower", except in
relation to the Earth, which is now gone. As soon as you take the
Earth
away, there is no faster or slower. In fact, without the Earth,
they
can equally well be viewed to be going the same speed in opposite
directions. Without "faster" or "slower", there is no meaning or
distinction to "accelerate" or "decelerate".
Wrong. There is STILL a 30km/s velocity between them.
Which means nothing.
That's what I wrote.
You have a hard time recognizing words.
I have two buses on the highway, each fitted with
radar detectors. Bus B105 measures Bus C287 to have a relative
velocity
of 30 m/s. Bus C287 measures B105 to have a relative velocity of 30
m/s. Which one is moving faster than the other?
That's what I wrote....you cannot tell because of the very meaning of
Relativity but only that there's a velocity difference observable by
the change in distance between them with time.
Which one has to
accelerate or decelerate to match the other?
That's what I wrote:
Therefore if B goes from platform 1 to 2 and
vice-versa D goes from 2 to 1
then the new partners A&D on 1 are aging the same as the new partners
B&C on 2 thus there is no Time Dilation.
MODELAA: But this is not what was observed in 1971 which is the plane's
(platform 2) atomic clock was slower (aging less) than the Earth's
(platform 1) clock.
All I did extra to the above MODELAA was have someone(with a clock)
also leave the plane and go to Earth...therefore from the plane's
perspective the person who left for Earth should be aging less.....
****** .....because it is irrelevent for Relativity to specify
acceleration versus deceleration but only that there is a change of
velocity ********
I'm not done with you yet.
PD
They are NOT travelling at the same velocity.
You're really off, I wouldn't recommend you try to go any further.
Give someone else a try.
Those that can't find any lines that are incorrect should then
validate/agree with the conclusion provided.
I just pointed out what's wrong. I'd like a public recanting of
the
claim in your subject line.
PD
This same symptom also applies to B if it wishes to reach A's
velocity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
By the symptoms provide above, it is impossible for A or B to
age
differently than the other and therefore there cannot be any
Time
Dilation.
Likewise, it is impossible for a twin to leave A, until he
reaches
the
same velocity as B and then accumulate an age difference
*depending*
on
how long he remains at the same velocity as B (also the same if
twin
is
leaving B and going to A).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incoherence:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
1971 Plane that noticed a time dilation using an atomic clock
may
suggest:
1. The Universe has an absolute frame of reference
or
2. The link above specifies that a gravity field also generates
a
time
dilation (the more gravity the slower the clock): Could be
similar
to
a
pendulum clock swaying slower if it's at the bottom of heavy
water
(more gravity force) instead of air.
...but if this pendulum (atomic clock inside the plane) was
traveling
faster in the air then it would also sway slower since it would
*feel*
the same displacement resistance(= permittivity = 1/c^2 for
space)
as
when it was at the bottom of heavy water.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 02:09:06 AM |
|
|
I can point it out. It occures at the extreme.
Where time ends is what is wrong.
You can't have anything without time.
If time ends everything(else) goes with it.
In this way it is the Unified Field.
When the first physicists solved the equations for
black holes they thought they literally saw mass dropping
out of the universe. Of course we do not see galaxies with
their black hole centers unraveling.
There is a problem with time ending at an event horizon.
How would it start over again inside and stop again?
There is only one time. Proper time can never go any faster than
the gravitational slowdown or gravitational time.
But you can by accelerating into stronger gravity go slower
than gravitational time.
Proper time and gravitational time have to be together
as one time that never ends.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
08 Feb 2005 11:38:07 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1107850146.545462.66140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I can point it out. It occures at the extreme.
Where time ends is what is wrong.
You can't have anything without time.
If time ends everything(else) goes with it.
In this way it is the Unified Field.
When the first physicists solved the equations for
black holes they thought they literally saw mass dropping
out of the universe. Of course we do not see galaxies with
their black hole centers unraveling.
There is a problem with time ending at an event horizon.
How would it start over again inside and stop again?
There is only one time. Proper time can never go any faster than
the gravitational slowdown or gravitational time.
But you can by accelerating into stronger gravity go slower
than gravitational time.
Proper time and gravitational time have to be together
as one time that never ends.
Talking to yourself now, guskz?
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 05:34:06 AM |
|
|
Your too paranoid.
(Look look he can't spell, meaning this guy shouldn't be
writting....everyone everone STOP reading see he can't spell...it's
you're not your and therefore everything else he writes is wrong. Look
Look Einstein once mistakenly divided by zero so everything else he
writes is wrong....Of course Einstein never ever wrote and then rewrote
and then rewrote before he offered his theory).
Look out in the dictionary judgemental.
And no I'm not a NERD not like you for I have a life.
And yes I even forgot what I ate yesterday, it makes watching the same
movie more interesting.
And yes I foget how the gamma equation is written and I have to relook
it up every few months for I do not spend my whole days in
Science......only NERDS do that.
But then again I am not judgemental.....some are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time Dilation Model, NO ONE can point out what's wrong |
09 Feb 2005 05:28:20 AM |
|
|
Nick wrote:
I can point it out. It occures at the extreme.
Where time ends is what is wrong.
You can't have anything without time.
If time ends everything(else) goes with it.
In this way it is the Unified Field.
When the first physicists solved the equations for
black holes they thought they literally saw mass dropping
out of the universe. Of course we do not see galaxies with
their black hole centers unraveling.
There is a problem with time ending at an event horizon.
How would it start over again inside and stop again?
There is only one time. Proper time can never go any faster than
the gravitational slowdown or gravitational time.
But you can by accelerating into stronger gravity go slower
than gravitational time.
Proper time and gravitational time have to be together
as one time that never ends.
Neither do I know specifically, but I see time by itself as nothing.
Time is the manifestation of for example a movie film's speed rate
(refresh rate) inside a projector.
Except in the case of space, the film is not 2d thin (height and width)
but instead a 3d cube of film (film that has a height, width and
thickness).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
