That's not the one I meant. But, yes, there is: Time is frame dependent. I meant the one in which I explain mutual time0 dilation via light clocks, on page 4. Like you challenged me to.
What you seem to fail to understand (yet another thing on an apparently growing list) is that I did indeed address the issue. As long as the appearance remains as I described it, there can be no discussion.
Check out the physics here everybody. (list numbers added by me). 1) First, read number 4. Geist appeals to symmetry. If symmetry holds, then, WHILE IN UNIFORM MOTION, A must report B dilated and B must report A dilated. Of course G believes in "absolute velocities" and could never picture himself on a spaceship, measuring his relative velocity and calculating gamma's wrt another spaceship without reference to a mysterious "v=0" point. Now, no one has ever done this experiment with actual clocks. However, G and friends insist that particles that decay (muons?) are NOT clocks and prove NOTHING, even though two muons that take 20us each, to traverse a distance, could never meet without observing the other to be dilated. 2) Have them meet? Does Geist understand SRT? Clearly not. SR predicts that A and B will report mutual dilation only while IN UNIFORM MOTION. We're not analyzing the "twin paradox" here after all. 3) What will this tell us? It will tell us that each participant timed out 3600 one second ticks and shut their clocks off. Real useful, huh? 4) Oh? If A reports B's clocks as running slow (someone (A or B) must see dilation somewhere. Even G and friends admit that "one-sided" dilation occurs. Let's assume it's B dilating) then, by symmetry, B must report A's clocks as dilated. You're right Geist! You finally get it! Of course this is all futile since G and friends always insist on getting out of their spaceships and ramming a "v=0" stick somewhere between them in the middle of empty spacetime.
Technically, ramming a "v=0" stick in the middle of empty space-time shouldn't be a problem as long as you keep the frame straight. It's when you insist that "v= ABSOLUTELY ZERO" that you clearly demonstrate a conceptual failing... as velocity itself is a relative concept. I'm moving 100mph. Uhm.. compared to what? Absoluteness! Uhm.. absolute what? ??????
How specifically do the observers "see" the other part's clock tickingIt seems you are freferringh tothe calcuilations that A makes when he assumes the B frame is at rest. Yiou haven't madfe it clear how B vierwas all of this. If for instance the A and B frame are actually moving .4c antuparalale to each other or .8c wrt to each other Now becaue A assumes B is not moving he wil anticipate that the B clcok is faster than his own, byu the ioBA observere is only calulatinmgt thsi hopeing theoru = gtheope is copll;ey6 In the A frame and starting witht the photon moving antiparallel to the motion of the frame the photon moves a dsistance ct to reach the opposite approaching the opposite mirror. The A photon reflects and after moving a distance ct the photon must cover a distanc 2vt + vt' to reach the mirror. The total distance for each complete round trip reflection jjis 2ct + 2vt + vt'. Now what does the A frame observer "see"? . I mean you said the A observer can see the B frame clock ticking, how exactly does this "Seeing" occur?
Yes you told me. You said the A frame assumes he is moving an there fore the other, the B ftrame is at rest. Thjerefore The B frame is clock is moving faster than the A clock this is what the A observe sees. tHE SEEING IS NOT EVEN CLOCSE TO COMPARING CL;OCKS. THIS IS NOT WHAT OCCURS. tHE OBSERVERS IN THE VARIOUS FRAMES SEE THEMSELVES AS AT REST THEREOFORE SEEING THE OTHER MOVING AND THEREFORE THEIR CLOCKS ARE SEEN AS TICVKINJGH AT DIFFERENTR RATES, MEANING WHAT EVER THE PERCEPTION IS FOR THE ASSSUMPTION OF MOTION THIS WHAT IS SEEN TO MOVE AT DIFFERENTR SPEED OR RATES. tHERE IS NO ASSUMPTION OR ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY MEASURE THE VARIOUS MUTUAL ATTRIBUTES, E. tHESE PEOPLE AREN/GT STUJPID, WELL SL TRIED TO FOR A WHILE.BALSY WASN'T IT.? WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP.A WHOLE BUNCH OF CRAP, Geistkiesel.
I'd think such an Advanced Reasoning Agent wouldn't have to rely on CAPS to convey his obviously superior perspective.
Geist, you're going to have to clean up those posts. They're totally unreadable. Also, what part of "seeing with their eyes" don't you understand? Photons from a light source hits B and scatters - some of these photons hit A's retina. Are you blind? I can understand if you're confused by the compensation for the light propagation delay, though. I'll explain: Since A knows B's velocity wrt himself (A), and some initial time and position of B (say, when they were both on earth), he knows exactly how far away B is, and how to compensate for the time the photons took to travel to his eye from hitting B. In cosmology this corresponds to things that are far away being images of something that happened a long time ago. However, we can compare this with how things were for ourselves at that time, and it is in this way that A will find that B's clock is ticking slower than his own - not only will the ticks A sees become ever more spaced apart in reception time for A because B goes further and further away, A will also find that B is sending them at a rate slower than he "should" be. And that situation is perfectly symmetrical due to the relativity principle! Perhaps you'll be more comfortable with a small example: Let A and B move apart with relative velocity 0.5c. Their clocks are synchronised at time time they start moving apart (no acceleration is assumed, this is just to make it easy. Note that such synchronisation is not necessary for this reasoning to be valid, either.) From A's frame: Time passes and A's clock reads 1 second. That means that all light as considered from A's frame have moved exactly 1 lightsecond. Now, B has moved 0.5 lightseconds away from A, so light hitting B allowing A to see the readout of B's clock won't reach A for another 0.5 seconds. However, A can easily compensate by telling himself that the image he sees at time 1.5 will correspond to how B was at time 1. So, at time 1.5 seconds, A will see exactly what B's clock read at time 1 (as read on A's clock). What does he see? Not 1 second! Why? Because at time 1 second in A's frame, all light has moved exactly one lightsecond. And to tick, the photon in B's light clock has to move more than one lightsecond! Specifically, for B's clock to tick at time 1 second, as considered from A's frame, the photon in B's light clock would have had to move sqrt((1lightsecond)^2 + (0.5 lightsecond)^2), and since that is strictly larger than 1 lightsecond, B's clock hasn't ticked yet. It can't, because light speed is constant in A's frame. Do you understand? To recap, from A's viewpoint: At time 1.5 seconds, he sees B as he was at time 1, and sees that B's lightclock hasn't ticked yet. Now, of course, the situation is symmetrical, so B sees exactly the same! What was so difficult about that?
wes, You're right of course. The stick they keep ramming Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)) is an ABSOLUTE ZERO VELOCITY stick. Absolute what? Who? Where? Wait.. Oh yea... No... Ummm... That's right. It's absolute with respect to, umm... wait. That's not right... (head now explodes) TWZ
Yes you told me. You said the A frame assumes he is moving an there fore the other, the B ftrame is at rest. Therefore The B frame is clock is moving faster than the A clock this is what the A observe sees. THE SEEING IS NOT EVEN CLOCSE TO COMPARING CLOCKS. THIS IS NOT WHAT OCCURS. tHE OBSERVERS IN THE VARIOUS FRAMES SEE THEMSELVES AS AT REST THEREOFORE 'SEEING' THE OTHER MOVING AND THEREFORE THEIR CLOCKS ARE SEEN AS TICKING AT DIFFERENT RATES, MEANING WHAT EVER THE PERCEPTION IS FOR THE ASSSUMPTION OF MOTION THIS WHAT IS 'SEEN ' TO MOVE AT DIFFERENT SPEEDs OR RATES. THERE IS NO ASSUMPTION OR ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY MEASURE THE VARIOUS MUTUAL ATTRIBUTES. THESE SRT PEOPLE AREN'T STUPID, WELL SL TRIED TO FOR A WHILE. BALSY WASN'T IT.? WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP.A WHOLE BUNCH OF CRAP, These people are frauds. fakes, propagandists, get it through your heads, everybody. Superluminal is dirty lying son-of-a-bitch. A real prick. Geistkiesel.
Yes you told me. You said the A frame assumes he is moving an there fore the other, the B ftrame is at rest. Therefore The B frame is clock is moving faster than the A clock this is what the A observe sees. THE SEEING IS NOT EVEN CLOCSE TO COMPARING CLOCKS. THIS IS NOT WHAT OCCURS. tHE OBSERVERS IN THE VARIOUS FRAMES SEE THEMSELVES AS AT REST THEREOFORE 'SEEING' THE OTHER MOVING AND THEREFORE THEIR CLOCKS ARE SEEN AS TICKING AT DIFFERENT RATES, MEANING WHAT EVER THE PERCEPTION IS FOR THE ASSSUMPTION OF MOTION THIS WHAT IS 'SEEN ' TO MOVE AT DIFFERENT SPEEDs OR RATES. THERE IS NO ASSUMPTION OR ATTEMPT TO ACTUALLY MEASURE THE VARIOUS MUTUAL ATTRIBUTES. THESE SRT PEOPLE AREN'T STUPID, WELL SL TRIED TO FOR A WHILE. BALSY WASN'T IT.? WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP.A WHOLE BUNCH OF CRAP, These people are frauds. fakes, propagandists, get it through your heads, everybody. Superluminal is dirty lying son-of-a-bitch. A real prick. Geistkiesel.
Geistekiesel, you are acting like an immature child. Obviously your comprehension of interpersonal exchanges is as warped as your demands for an absolute frame of reference. It is QUITE unfair of you to name-call at SL as you have, as it's obvious to me that he is sincere, honest and un-pricklike. You may well be the same, though your view of physics is obviously in disagreement with his... well, except for the prick part. You seem kinda prickish, given that you resorted to calling someone who has an honest disagreement with you a liar and a prick. Of course this isn't much different than the behavior of your partner in delusion, MacM. I await the day you guys show the world how stupid they are. At least you've convinced each other. I'd be impressed if you could convince someone who doesn't seem as confused as either of you, and hope that if you are indeed correct.. someone with the capability to translate what appears to be paranoid ramblings into meaningful science that could help the world understand the universe. I'm not holding my breath. EDIT: Oh, and it seems to me that if your arguments really are superior, and those who object really are such liars and pricks... then aren't you really appealing to the wrong audience? Surely such impressive work as yours (and Mac's)should grant you audience to the greatest minds in the world. At least one of the best and brightest should be receptive to such powerful arguments. Presuming you're correct, I wish you success. Otherwise it would be nice if the disagreements here could be civil, as a scientific endeavor should be. I can imagine little less gracious than spending years on a message board accusing your opponents of fiat, rhetoric, gendankens, lies and utter ignorance, then finding out someday you're right just to relish your your former gloating. Ick. Surely you and Mac have more class than that.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is dedicated to my good friend Superluminal: How to measure the absolute velocity of isolated inertial frames. When two inertial frames are moving relative to each other, the relative motion wrt the inertial frames is easily determined. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Therefore, a frame moving at 9000 units moving relative to another inertial frame moving at 23000 units in the opposite direction, the relative velocity is 32000 units, 9000 + 23000. However we do not get this number by measuring the A and B frame separately, the relative motion is measured as a unit. So if the A frame is some X number in the thousands and the B frame is approximately 1 unit or smaller then the measured relative velocity of the A and B frame is Va + Vb = V a + 1 = 24500 units. The Va is them 24499 units. Where all we know the value of the relative motion with respect to the rationally selected low velocity B frame and unknown A frame. The trick is to provide the B frame on the A frame until the measurement of the absolute velocity is measured. No more will the observer ever again need to consider, or to assume some equivalence theory, or postulate justifying a theoretical state of rest for any inertial frame. For those who would have you ignore the simplicity of this measuring process, or to deny you its use, then go to Jamaica and contract some powerful voodoo forces against those in your way. The absolute velocity so trivially simple that any forces denying or prohibiting their use to you are thoroughly evil forces and must be dealt with accordingly, by whatever methods that work. Whatever it takes.. The measurement can be increased in accuracy of course by reversing directions and with ever smaller values of the relative motion until the limits of the measuring resolution have been reached and lower values of the B frame motion are no longer providing increases in resolution. Geistkiesel
I take issue with your assignments of magnitude of velocity, as either assigment you give implicitely includes a third frame. 9000 units with respect to....? 23000 units with respect to....?
To begin with, I am familiar with relativity's light clock. I understand the example of how it ticks slower in the 'other' frames that are in motion relative to an observer's clock in this same observer's 'rest' frame. Before we go further, I would like to know if this same light clock example can be used in the non-inertial frames of General Relativity? I mean in frames that are in different gravitational potential? I have never seen it stated these light clocks cannot be used in GR, because they ARE clocks. In SR's inertial frames, the light clock beats slower in frames of reference other than the observer's own because light must travel a longer path in the moving frame, thus slowing the clock relative to the observer's rest frame. Now, let's speak of General Relativity. Let observer A be located on the surface of the Earth and observer B be located in high orbit. Observer A 'sees' the clock located in high orbit (B's) clock beat Faster than his own. Explain how this light clock can beat faster according to observer A in his rest frame. The path the light takes must be shorter on B's clock than observer A sees on his own clock in his own rest frame. Now, we use some empirical evidence in my next example, an STR inertial frame example. A second is DEFINED as 9192631770 'beats' of a cesium 133 atom. A second is a defined amount, a meter is a defined amount ( the distance light will travel in 1/299,792,458 sec.) and the speed of light is a defined amount. The 'beats' of the cesium clock is its frequency. The frequency of a radio wave or photon emission (light) is directly related to the frequency of the cesium clock in this rest frame. If the cesium clock beats relatively slower than a similar cesium clock in the rest frame of an observer receiving the transmitted signal, the signal will be Doppler shifted to the red in the observer's rest frame. A faster beating clock in the light emitting frame of reference will result in a signal Doppler shifted to the blue in the receiving frame. This is confirmed by empirical evidence in GPS measurements. Now a gedanken using this knowledge. Suppose two observers, A and B are relative motion moving apart at a significant fraction of the speed of light. No conflicts with STR, each will observe the signal from the other frame as being Doppler shifted to the red spectrum. Remember, the frequency of the recieved signal is a direct indication of the frequency rate of the cesium clock in the other frame. Now suppose two observers are approaching each other at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Each observer will receive a signal that is Doppler shifted to the blue end of the spectrum. That indicates the cesium clock in the other frame is beating faster.....Oops!....what happened! An observer cannot 'see' the clock in a distant moving frame of reference, he can only receive signals from the other frame. The frequency of a receeding cesium clock will be perceived as slower, the frequency of an approaching cesium clock will be perceived as faster by an observer in his own rest frame. This is the empirical evidence science has.
No. In A's frame, A is at rest and B is moving. In B's frame, B is at rest and A is moving. That they can consider themselves at rest is that old chestnut, Newton's 1st law. What do you mean, "no attempt to measure or compare clocks"?!? In my example above, A looks at B's clock when his own clock reads time 1 second (well, time 1.5 second due to the light propagation delay) and finds that B's clock is ticking slower than his own! If that is not a measurement, I don't know what is. If you do not accept such a thing as a measurement, then what on earth is?
A frame at 9000u relative to another inertial frame... Stop right there. That defines their relative speed. Done. You just said it. It's 9000u. but, you add: ...moving at 23000 units in the opposite direction, the relative velocity is 32000 units, 9000 + 23000 Ok. Fine. You have now redefined the relative velocity in mid sentence. It's now 32000u. So what you really are describing is a system with THREE frames: 9000 <--X...Y...Z-------> 23000 with Y as your arbitrary reference frame. Just as wes points out.
The velocity time dilation effect known from str is less than the gravitational time dilation effect of gtr, in which clocks deeper in the gravity well tick slower than those higher up. Gravitational time dilation is antisymmetric, meaning that this will make B's clock tick faster than A's, from both perspectives. If you know the clock's velocity relative to your own reference frame, then you can cancel out the Doppler effect. I didn't see any actual empirical evidence presented...
