Tinker Tinker Tinker Tinker. Keep hiding those tokens. Next we'll believe in Strings (11) dimensional Universe. I think 3D is fine you seetime is not a tangiable enity, not a 4th dimension. But that is another story. It is 2:00AM and I have things to do in the morning - Gotta go yawn. See you tommorrow. Just know you won't sleep.
Re: Tinker Tinker And there he goes with furrowed brow -- having proven nothing other than that his foot fits nicely in his mouth. - Warren
Re: Tinker Tinker actually, you re right, i m not planning on sleeping tonight. but i ll look forward to picking this up again tomorrow. i feel that we re close to overthrowing the relativists. keep the faith.
<b>Tom:</b> Your mistake is again in ignoring what a reference frame is. Clock B does not "experience" time dilation. Nor does clock A. Time dilation is not something which is experienced; it is something which an observer observes. An observer on Earth sees clock B's time as dilated. An observer travelling with clock B sees Earth's time as dilated. Neither observer "experiences" time dilation. Nothing is odd about their own times from their own points of view. <b>MacM:</b> In the formula m=<font face="symbol">g</font>m<sub>0</sub>, which you quoted, it is true that m does to infinity as v goes to c. Plug v=c into the formula and m is infinity? So what? What of it? The thing to realise is that <b>the formula does not apply at v=c</b>. v=c describes an impossible situation for a massive object, so the "problem" with infinity here is a non-starter. There is no problem, since the situation where there would be a problem cannot ever arise in practice.
chroot, Yes, I know. But as I stated before, clocks do not measure time, they measure the speed of certain reactions. And since relativity dictates that the speed of light is equal to c in all frames of reference, this means that the speed of reactions are equal in all frames of reference. And since clocks measure the speed of reactions, and not time, all clocks will tick at the same rate in all frames of reference. In other words, if length contraction and time dilation didn't exist, then a moving clock would run slower than a stationairy clock (see the Michelson-Morley experiment or a light clock). If time dilation and length contraction do exist, then they would "force" a moving clock to tick at the same speed as a stationairy one. Tom
Tom: In relativity, the word "clock" means anything which measures time. A clock can be a human pulse, water dripping from a tap, a light ray bouncing between two mirrors, a caesium fountain atomic clock, or you saying the numbers "one, two, three..." at a steady rate. All of these things are affected by time dilation. All of them are observed to be slower when travelling relative to an observer. Time is what is measured by clocks.
James, I am not arguing this case. I'm simply stating that the time dilation an observer observers, cannot be measured since atomic clocks do not measure time, they only measure the speed of reactions. And since relativity dictates that the omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c in all frames of reference, the speed of reactions will be the same in all frames of reference. Since the speed of reactions are equal in all frames of reference, and clocks use these reactions to measure time, then all clocks will run at the same rate in all frames of reference. You see, if relativity was correct then an ideal clock would be able to measure and record time dilation. By ideal clock, I mean a clock that measures time directly. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as an ideal clock. All clocks measure the speed of reactions, and not time. Since time dilation and length contraction "force" the reactions to occur at the same rate in all frames of reference, they also force atomic clocks to tick at the same rate in all frames of reference. Any clock that is running slower or faster than any other clock as a result of it's motion, is actually proof that the principle of invariance of light is wrong. Tom
James, No it isn't. Clocks measure the speed of reactions. There is no way to measure time directly. Relativity, through its principle of invariance of light, ensures that reactions occur at the same rate in all frames of reference thanks to time dilation and length contraction. Since clocks measure the speed of these reactions, and not time, they should, according to relativity, tick at the same rate in all frames of reference. Tom
Observed "Observed" is the key work hear. I have no problem with the use of Relativity as an "Observed" phenomena. But when you start to believe that "Illusions" are "Realitey" that is where you run into trouble.
Hi Tom, "No it isn't. Clocks measure the speed of reactions. There is no way to measure time directly." What James tried to say is that time is independent of the form of measurement in *any* theory... Relativity assumes nothing about time, except that it ticks at a constant rate (such that the change of time in 1 second is 1 second, dt/dt = 1)... Using that assumption, time dilatation is derived, independent of whether you use a lightclock, atomic clock, dunnowhat-clock to measure it. In practical experiments, you need to use atomic clocks or dunnowhat-clocks to measure time... What you are saying (about chemical reactions slowing down) would only influence the practical side of special relativity. Fortunately, the theory (no assumptions about clock) and the experiment (some practical realisation of a time-measuring device) agree, without complicated assumptions about reactions slowing down.. At best, your theory would explain why you measure something experimentally... Unfortunately, SR does a much simpler job. (buzzsaw sound)... Occam's superrazor coming through Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry about the sarcasm, I'm in a wierd mood today. Bye! Crisp
Define the Difference... "Observed" is the key work hear. I have no problem with the use of Relativity as an "Observed" phenomena. But when you start to believe that "Illusions" are "Realitey" that is where you run into trouble. <HR> When these time-dilation experiments are completed, the clocks read a different time. It is not just a percieved difference; the discrepencies in time are real. When it is over, all of the clocks run at the same rate, <b>but the difference in time is still there.</b> Both parties, the traveler and the stationary observer 'see' the other's clock running slow. In reality, only the traveler's clock is affected by time-dilation. At no time during the experiment, does the traveler notice his clock has slowed, instead, he sees the other clock running slow--doppler effect. All physics are normal in both the traveler and the observer's inertial reference frame, but they are really different. One standing truth is hard to elude. Time-dilation occurs in the departing mass at exactly the rate light shifts phase, because time-dilation is relative to the speed of light in the same way doppler shifts are relative to c. The observed phenomena is counterintuitive to reality, but reality shows time-dilation occurs in the traveling mass. The traveling mass is determined by its relative speed to the statoinary observer. In the case of a ship leaving Earth, there is no question which is the traveler, because Earth is the origin of the ship's motion. When two traveler's pass one another, they are most likely in different inertial reference frames. One object is almost always traveling at a different rate than the other. If they are traveling the same speed relative to the same origins, they are in the same inertial reference frame. In this way, both are observers, both are travelers, and their clocks would agree on the rate of time. But, each would 'observe' the other's time to be dilated. After a journey of exactly the same duration at exactly the same relative velocities, their clocks would show no discrepency, except to the origins of their departure.
Reference Frame Fluidity, Got a problem with your post. ************************* Both parties, the traveler and the stationary observer 'see' the other's clock running slow. ************************* 1 - According to Relativity I agree. ********************************* In reality, only the traveler's clock is affected by time-dilation. ********************************* 2 - Relativity and I disagree. You have assigned a "Preferred frame of Reference". None can exist in that velocity (motion is only relative. There are no absolute "Rest" references. ********************************** At no time during the experiment, does the traveler notice his clock has slowed, instead, he sees the other clock running slow--doppler effect. All physics are normal in both the traveler and the observer's inertial reference frame, but they are really different. ********************** 3 - Here you conflict with yourself. They can't both be normal and yet be different. 4 - For all the discussion about frames of reference, etc., I am dissapointed that nobody has addressed the clincher. That is using Lorentz and Relativity: a - Either clock may be slower depending on who you view as at rest. The fact that a clock infact has tested to have slowed proves Relativity Wrong not Right. The only way one clock can physically slow relative to another is if there is a preferred frame of reference. That violates Relativity. The very theory you claim such observed tests support. b - Nobody addressed the different calculations from Relativity between clocks A & B versus the difference between A & B as viewed from C. This fact causes correct (if such term can be justly used) Relavistic calculations of a common event to have dual; plus reversable results. XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX Physical clocks,if they measure actual time (dilated) or reaction times,cannot possess TWO different time losses simultaneously. XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX I'M WAITING WARREN
MacM: You don't have to wait long. The answer is that, as I've said before, you do not understand relativity. The problem you speak of is the 'twin paradox,' and is one of the most basic problems studied in a course on relativity. It isn't a paradox at all, despite the name. I'm going to post this again. Please read it this time, okay? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html - Warren
RE: Got a problem... 3 - Here you conflict with yourself. They can't both be normal and yet be different. <HR> No, I see no conflict. The rate of time is different, the physics behave normally. Here's an example. You're in an elevator. You're moving upward at a constant speed. Your distance from the ground is increasing at the rate of 10 meters/sec. You initially felt a push, lifting the elevator off the ground. You throw a ball in the air inside the elevator. It goes up and comes down at exactly the same rate it did before. (You have to find a tall building with a good elevator to test this, some accelerate and decelerate a lot.) Your inertial reference frame is very different in the elevator, but you weigh the same, and gravity, inertia...all is the same, in spite of your motion. But, if we cut that cable, you will accelerate toward Earth at 32ft/sec^2, and land on the ground with all the potential energy stored in that elevator that was required to lift it. If we accelerate to a high rate of speed, we are pushing ourselves through time at a faster rate. The counterintuitive effect, is that we undergo time-dilation. It's like accelerating to catch a train. The faster we go, the slower the train goes in relationship to us. I'm going to attach a goofy graphic that illustrates how I view the flow of time. I'm not saying this is 'actually' how time behaves; it is my current understanding of time, and why time and motion seem related to the absolute speed of light.
Crisp, Yes, I know. I'm not stating that reactions are slowing down. I'm stating that length contraction and time dilation "adjust" the reactions so that they DO NOT slow down. Since the reactions don't slow down, thanks to relativity, clocks don't slow down either since clocks measure the speed of these reactions, and not time. You are making a mistake in your chain of reasoning. Here's your chain of thought: 1) The omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c in all frames of reference. 2) So, length contraction and time dilation occur in a moving frame of reference. 3) So, a clock will measure this time dilation. This is the correct reasoning: 1) The omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c in all frames of reference. 2) So, length contraction and time dilation occur in a moving frame of reference. 3) So, the length contraction and time dilation force all physical, chemical, and electromagnetic reactions in the moving frame of reference to occur at the same rate as they would in a stationairy frame of reference. 4) So, since clocks measure these reactions, and not time, a clock in a moving frame of reference will tick at the same rate as a clock in a stationairy frame of reference. Which train of thought is correct, mine or yours?? Yours is simpler, but that doesn't make it correct. The only reason that yours is simpler is because you are making the incorrect assumption that clocks measure time, instead of reactions. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, tell me, and I will post an illustration demonstrating the effects of time dilation and length contraction on reactions. Tom
Responses Fluidity: Thanks for the graphics. Had to print it out to read it but it printed ok. I see a couple of objections. It starts out stating that the Alpha and Beta waves are integral parts of space-time and that they are not energy. Question: How can yuo define anything as a wave and claim it is not energy? A wave is motion. Motion has energy. The second objection is actually mute and that is is is correctly posted as "in this model". There are other models and will be more models. One should not cling to one model and claim it is the only valid religion. Warren: I scanned your link last night. I have given it a closer read tonight. I have entered it into Favorites and will be digesting it even further. But I want you to undestand, all this is not new to me, been there done that, but I do feel due to your unwillingness to consider alternatives that I must present you with arguements which may be more solidly bases. On the surface I see something I don't like. On further reading I may alter my view but at first read it does seem to me that these solutions attempt to set a "Preferred" frame by isolating one as "inertial" and the other not. This may be a solution to the problem but it is not a solution based upon pure relativity. In pure relativity there is no preferred frame of reference and that does lead to conflicts. yes or no. Further while these mathematics may or may not be a suitable answer it doesnot preclude alternate views or answer as having equal if not preferred consequences. And finally, in UniKEF I also found a basis for time dilation in gravity fields and/or acceleration but none for linear relative velocity, as yet. But none of this has any bearing on UniKEF vs theories for gravity and in that case I do currently have test data that is going to give you and your view some problems.
Tom: You're not getting it. <i>I'm simply stating that the time dilation an observer observers, cannot be measured since atomic clocks do not measure time, they only measure the speed of reactions.</i> Wrong. If they measure anything, they measure time. Reaction speed depends on time. <i>And since relativity dictates that the omnidirectional speed of light is equal to c in all frames of reference, the speed of reactions will be the same in all frames of reference.</i> Wrong. Different observers see different reaction rates. <i>Since the speed of reactions are equal in all frames of reference, and clocks use these reactions to measure time, then all clocks will run at the same rate in all frames of reference.</i> Demonstrably, clocks do not run at the same rate in all frames of reference. Remember the clocks-on-planes experiment? <i>You see, if relativity was correct then an ideal clock would be able to measure and record time dilation.</i> Yes. It can and it does. <i>Any clock that is running slower or faster than any other clock as a result of it's motion, is actually proof that the principle of invariance of light is wrong.</i> Well, it's a good thing that no clock runs slower or faster due to its motion, then, isn't it? It is only observers in different frames of reference who see clocks running slower or faster.
Twins chroot, Not finished yet but wanted to offer some food for thought. At this point it appears to me that you are off the mark. The three clock problem is not resolved by the Twins Paradox solutions. The Twins soultion merely computes time loss between two clocks. ********************* To see the problem you must now compute a simular loss for a second clock at a different velocity. Once you have computed both times losses subtract one loss from the other and compute the expected time differential between the two space clocks. Then finally do a third calculation of time loss between the two space clocks using the stated differential speeds for the first set of calculations as your relative velocity between the space clocks. Unless I've been screwing up what you will find is the computed time loss between the two space clocks is different using the same mathematical procedures. If that is true then you have a conflict just as I have said. If not the I'll eat your "uneducated" lable, do a bit more listening and less talking. Thanks.
UniKEF Introduction Members: With permission of James R. I have posted the Introcution to UniKEF Theory under "Relativiy" for your questions or comments.
