Einstein's clock

[BWE1]

Relativity is dramatically unintuitive. Im not sure what math you think I should do. Do you know what an invariant is in terms of coordinate system transforms?

[chinglu]

Relativity is dramatically unintuitive. Im not sure what math you think I should do. Do you know what an invariant is in terms of coordinate system transforms?

You are off task.

[BWE1]

When I was trying to learn some solutions to simplified field equations with almost no idea of the larger scope of mathematics from which they emerged, a guy wrote a post on a forum which helped me immeasurably.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...915#post187915

I worked at it for another year and a little bit and learned just enough to know why intuitive attempts to work with the ideas are hobbled by the nature of what is being claimed.

If you can solve a simplified idealized setup of the field equations already, then it may not be useful to you. I never got much beyond that and it was useful to me.

Anyway. Much recommended.

[Aqueous Id]

Use your brain to calculate the location of the light sphere when the earth is again at the same location as the observer at rest with the sun after 1 year.

Which brain are we to use, the inertial one, or the accelerating one?

Are we to use the whole brain, or just excise that part which recognizes the difference between inertial and accelerating frames, and the consequence as far as time dilation?

[chinglu]

When I was trying to learn some solutions to simplified field equations with almost no idea of the larger scope of mathematics from which they emerged, a guy wrote a post on a forum which helped me immeasurably.

http://talkrational.org/showthread.p...915#post187915

I worked at it for another year and a little bit and learned just enough to know why intuitive attempts to work with the ideas are hobbled by the nature of what is being claimed.

If you can solve a simplified idealized setup of the field equations already, then it may not be useful to you. I never got much beyond that and it was useful to me.

Anyway. Much recommended.

Yea, let's stay on the task of this thread.

[chinglu]

Which brain are we to use, the inertial one, or the accelerating one?

Are we to use the whole brain, or just excise that part which recognizes the difference between inertial and accelerating frames, and the consequence as far as time dilation?

Which frame is accelerating?

Hint: either can be relative to the other.

So, your proposal does nothing.

[arfa brane]

chinglu's interpretation of observer dependence also does nothing.
Nothing for me, anyway.

What does the following mean, exactly?

Where is the light sphere located along some y axis when the 2 origins are again common?

What "y-axis", and what are "the two origins"? What's the distance between the two observers when this light is emitted?

1) Relativity says that the two observers will record different times and places for this emission event unless they are colocated in a stationary frame.
2) A year later, because one observer is moving relative to the other (in fact, is accelerating around the sun) they will show different distances for the expanding sphere of radiation (since one observer is length-contracted relative to the other).
3) Their clocks aren't synchronised after 1 year either, in fact the only time they can synchronise is in a stationary frame, as in 1).

[Neddy Bate]

Wait a minute guys, chinglu might be on to something here. How can one frame say an object, like the earth, is in one place, yet a different frame says it is in a different place? That would violate the notion that time is the same for all frames! Ipso facto reductio ad absurdum, all of physics needs to be thrown away.

[AlphaNumeric]

Which frame is accelerating?

Hint: either can be relative to the other.

Acceleration is not relative. Suppose you have two rockets initially at rest with respect to one another. One of them fires their engines and begins to accelerate. The one not firing their engines will not feel a force, they know they are still in the same inertial frame as before. The one feeling the acceleration knows he's no longer in an inertial frame. It's this asymmetry which leads to knowing which twin in the 'twin paradox' actually gets older than the other.

Learn some god damn science.

[Aqueous Id]

Which frame is accelerating?

It's your proposal, not mine. You stated that one observer is stationary in the sun's inertial reference frame.

Hint: either can be relative to the other.

If that were true, the sun would actually be orbiting the earth while, at the same time, the earth orbits the sun. Talk about paradox.

So, your proposal does nothing.

You proposed that a paradox exists, not me. I'm going with tried and true science. The relativistic clock retards against the inertial clock.

[Aqueous Id]

Wait a minute guys, chinglu might be on to something here. How can one frame say an object, like the earth, is in one place, yet a different frame says it is in a different place? That would violate the notion that time is the same for all frames! Ipso facto reductio ad absurdum, all of physics needs to be thrown away.

You've got a point there. I'll get back with you when I figure out how to get nature to comply. Wait a minute, that's why I'm chasing this to ground, so I can build a time machine. Wait a minute, I need a time machine to get nature to comply so I can build a time machine. Dang, another paradox.

[Mazulu]

Acceleration is not relative. Suppose you have two rockets initially at rest with respect to one another. One of them fires their engines and begins to accelerate. The one not firing their engines will not feel a force, they know they are still in the same inertial frame as before. The one feeling the acceleration knows he's no longer in an inertial frame. It's this asymmetry which leads to knowing which twin in the 'twin paradox' actually gets older than the other.

Learn some god damn science.

Please curb the profanity. Richard Feynman never talked like that.

[AlphaNumeric]

'Damn' isn't profanity, I'd be willing to say it in front of my 85 year old grand mother. As for 'god' would you prefer if I said "Learn some santa damn science!"?

Chinglu's failure to grasp basic logic and willingness to be dishonest is well documented, I see no reason to be particularly courteous to him when he is wilfully dishonest and ignorant. I give respect to people who show intellectual honesty, regardless of how well they grasp things. Chinglu's made it clear he isn't deserving of that.

[chinglu]

Acceleration is not relative. Suppose you have two rockets initially at rest with respect to one another. One of them fires their engines and begins to accelerate. The one not firing their engines will not feel a force, they know they are still in the same inertial frame as before. The one feeling the acceleration knows he's no longer in an inertial frame. It's this asymmetry which leads to knowing which twin in the 'twin paradox' actually gets older than the other.

Learn some god damn science.

Here we go again.

The problem does not decide which frame is accelerating, so either could be relative to the other or both could be.

If there was scientific confirmation in the problem which was accelerating relative to the other, we could determine that.

But, both frames are accelerating since they are in the solar system and the solar system is rotating in the milky way.

So, his comment was irrelevant to the discussion.

[chinglu]

chinglu's interpretation of observer dependence also does nothing.
Nothing for me, anyway.

What does the following mean, exactly?

What "y-axis", and what are "the two origins"? What's the distance between the two observers when this light is emitted?

1) Relativity says that the two observers will record different times and places for this emission event unless they are colocated in a stationary frame.
2) A year later, because one observer is moving relative to the other (in fact, is accelerating around the sun) they will show different distances for the expanding sphere of radiation (since one observer is length-contracted relative to the other).
3) Their clocks aren't synchronised after 1 year either, in fact the only time they can synchronise is in a stationary frame, as in 1).

1) The 2 frames are at the same place when the light is emitted and the clocks are also synched.

2) One year later, they are at the same place and we use a y-axis which is perpendicular to the relative direction of travel. Therefore, there is no length contraction.

3) Correct, their clocks are not synchronized 1 year later when they are again at the same place because of at least time dilation.

4) Now, we look at the y axis and we must find the light sphere at the same location on that y axis since the coordinates systems are now common and there is no length contraction in the y direction. Otherwise, we have two light spheres.

5) Hence, in the y direction, since the distance is the same for the frames and the clocks read a different time, then both frames cannot measure c as the speed of light.

That is the problem,.

[chinglu]

It's your proposal, not mine. You stated that one observer is stationary in the sun's inertial reference frame.


If that were true, the sun would actually be orbiting the earth while, at the same time, the earth orbits the sun. Talk about paradox.


You proposed that a paradox exists, not me. I'm going with tried and true science. The relativistic clock retards against the inertial clock.

The rotational acceleration makes no difference because it only applies when the frames are again at the same place. It's too small to explain anything.

So, we have a y direction location light sphere location which is exactly the same for both frames and a different clocks measurement.

Therefore, we do not have a constant speed of light if you are correct.

[chinglu]

In short, this problem proves one cannot have a constant speed of light c and time dilation.

Both cannot be true.

[arfa brane]

1) The 2 frames are at the same place when the light is emitted and the clocks are also synched.

Ok, that's more or less reasonable. Except that one observer is on the surface of the earth. The other observer would need to be too, so we assume this observer is somehow unaffected by the earth's gravity?

2) One year later, they are at the same place and we use a y-axis which is perpendicular to the relative direction of travel. Therefore, there is no length contraction.

But one observer is stationary relative to the sun, the earth is moving around the sun a lot faster then the sun is moving around the galaxy. What's this "relative direction of travel"?
Length contraction depends on relative motion, and the observers are in relative motion, so once again your argument does not follow, and nor do the rest.

This, in particular:

5) Hence, in the y direction, since the distance is the same for the frames and the clocks read a different time, then both frames cannot measure c as the speed of light.

That is the problem,.

Contradicts centuries of actual measurement. This is the real problem.

[chinglu]

Ok, that's more or less reasonable. Except that one observer is on the surface of the earth. The other observer would need to be too, so we assume this observer is somehow unaffected by the earth's gravity?But one observer is stationary relative to the sun, the earth is moving around the sun a lot faster then the sun is moving around the galaxy. What's this "relative direction of travel"?
Length contraction depends on relative motion, and the observers are in relative motion, so once again your argument does not follow, and nor do the rest.

This, in particular:Contradicts centuries of actual measurement. This is the real problem.

The motion of the earth does not have a GR explanation for this.

We do not have an experiment that verifies that this concept because it cannot, it is a contradiction.

However, all is true under relativity.

If some part of the conclusions of this thought experiment is false under relativity, what would that be? No explanation exists in Relativity.

If one cannot find a reason, then that proves physics verifies a contradiction which makes it crackpottery.

[arfa brane]

The motion of the earth does not have a GR explanation for this.

For what?

We do not have an experiment that verifies that this concept because it cannot, it is a contradiction.

If you could explain "the experiment" clearly, and show how all the experiments that have been done to verify relativity are a contradiction, you might be on to something.

If some part of the conclusions of this thought experiment is false under relativity, what would that be?

Your thought experiment isn't very well thought?