superluminal, You say that this is proof of time dilation, I say that this is caused by the change in the speed of light inside the muon as a result of its high speed through the Earth's gravitational field. As I stated before, experimental evidence can support more than one model. I'm stating that the speed of light is only equal to c relative to the gravitational field that it is passing through at any given moment. Once light, from distant locations, enters the Earth's gravitational field, it slows down, or speeds up, to c relative to that field and to us (since we are stationary in the Earth's gravitational field). There is no "unexplained behavior" to observe. By "inertial" I meant that the observer is moving at a constant velocity.
Not so. I am willing to allow anyone to provide a viable explanation. To date none has been forth coming. It really is a simple issue, one that shouldn't be difficult to address. The case is straight forward. Clocks A and B are properly described in SRT terms, in the example, as having 0.866c relative velocity. However, according to SRT in one case clocks A and B both dilate equally at a gamma of 1.109 relative to a third common point of referance. That happens to be the case that is supported by emperical data. But the error is that only by gendankin SRTist's claim that A runs slower than B by a gamma of 2.000 and also that B runs slower than A by a gamma of 2.000. That is the reciprocity which is inherent in the SRT view, and has never been observed nor recorded and is clearly a physical impossibility. All this hallibaloo about frames and simultaneity is just so much strawmans dodge since the only thing that counts is the accumulated time by the clocks. Einstein's error (and those that follow his lead) is to not realize what the symmetrical lesson demonstrates and to properly apply that to other scenarios. In the symmetrical case the affect on clocks is referance to a common rest frame. A,B and "C". Further that all emperical data showing time dilation may also be based on three points of referance, not merely two. That is where A and C for example are at rest to each other (cosmic muons, particle accelerators, etc., fit that scenario) and it gives a false illusion that only A and B are required. But eliminating "C" creates the false concept of reciprocity. When "C" is maintained, even though it is at rest to one clock and the gamma value is correct for A and B only, it precludes declaring the other clock as being at rest and prohibits reciprocity; which then brings the results into alignment with emperical data and logical reason. The SRT gendankin game is the problem. You have to realize that you cannot declare "A" at rest and then turn around and claim "B" at rest. Granted we might not be able to physically tell which if either is at rest but that is a measurement problem. The physical world responds to the actual condition of motion and if "A" is at rest then B cannot be at rest. The only practical method of determining which clock will (if either) be dilated relative to each other is to take a third point of common referance and ascertain each clocks component contribution to the total relative velocity. Then and only then does SRT begin to function properly and make sense.
OK I will try again thus: If we can set SRT aside for a second or two for an exchange of rational analyses, specifically then please explain o how one you proves two separate measurements of a physical condition can be lower than the other? The emasurements can be the same, or one or the other higher than the other. These are the only options open to a ratioanl physical model, "counter intutitive" or otherwise" To rely on what one observer sees of another observer' measurements as being less than his own, then how is this mutual or reciprical "seeing" of the other's measuremnts accomplished? Is it limited by the actual exchange of information between the respective observers points of view? Is it the simultaneously acquired measurement readings of instruments that are exchanged? Do, in fact the observers ever have an opportunity to compare the measuremnts of each other's measurements or with a third reference point? I cannot frame the questions any differently than I have, but if there are any who "see" no difficulty in the statement that, "A measures B's instruments lower than A's own, and B measures A's instruments lower than B's own. his own" you must explain as the matter is contradictory in form and a casual observation and consideration of the statements describing the conditions bringing reciprocity into full force.. Is this one of those instances that SRT is claimed as "counter intuitive"? And if so does "counter intuitive" equate with "rational objectivity"? Are those of us who see a clear example of a logical as well as physical contradiction defined in some objectionable terms by the insistence that the contradiction and logical incongruity be explained , are we intrusive? have the inconsistencie ever been measured? I am referring, of course, to the SRT claim that each observer sees the other's instrument readings as slower than his own as proved, or supported by the claim, "based on what?, your say so", asks James R? I cannot comprehend that those so committed to the existence of SRT in perpetuity cannot see that some of us see physical and logical incongruities in the above. This writer asks only that one (or more, no limit to responses intended or implied) of you who sees no incongruity to explain away the ill stated rational that we do see. If you do not comptrehend the disquiet that some see in the statement that 'ach sees the other's measuremnts as lower than his own', then you do not understand the essence of SRT or physical law. Geistkiesel
Sorry but that issue seemed to be obvious. Reciprocity: Is the situation when you claim A runs slower than B and also claim that B runs slower than A. Mutual Dilation: Both A and B run at a common rate but are dilated relative to a third observer. i.e. my A and B rockets launched in opposite directions from earth. They each have a gamma of 1.109 relative to earth but there is no systemic dilation between them. (EVEN TOUGH THEY HAVE RELATIVE VELOCITY). The case of reciprocity is physical nonsense since each cannot accumulate less time than the other. It is that simple. Mutual Dilation has been measured and recorded. reciprocity never has. (And never will be).
geistkiesel, As far as I know, an experiment has never been done where two observers, moving relative to each other, see the other observer's time dilating. This is just accepted as fact because SR requires it. What scares me is that this phenomenon is not only counterintuitive, but illogical as well, yet that doesn't seem to bother relativists at all. If that's not bad enough, according to SR, there are multiple psuedo-real time dilations in each observers frame of reference. Since SR dictates that an inertial observer measures the omnidirectional speed of light to be equal to c in his/her frame of reference, you must apply different time dilations to light travelling in different directions in the observers frame of reference. That would mean that in the same position in spacetime, you can have multiple time dilations depending on which direction the light is travelling in that spacetime. So the question is not only how's it possible that each observer will see the other observer's time dilating, but which of the multiple time dilations will the observer see.
Pro and "G", I certainly agree with the concern regarding the claims of "See" in SRT but I am more concerned and convienced the truth can be found emperically in the actual accumulated times on clocks. One could imagine some illusion of motion that might cause one to "See" something different than reality but the accumulated times are physical and clocks only record (accumulate) one value of time. Where that dilated accumulated time is observed and/or recorded dictates who was in motion and who was not or in what proportions each has a contribution to the total relative velocity. Where that contributoin is equal (symmetry) then both dilate equally relative to some third common point but neither show a systemic dilation between themselves even though they share the same relative velocity they would if one were infact considered at rest. That is what emperical data supports, not SRT and its reciprocity.
MacM, I totally agree. So do relativists, but they'll never admit it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Anomalous: See the thread linked from the Physics FAQ thread, titled "What is a reference frame?" wesmorris: That's wrong. A reference frame is much more than a point. A frame covers the whole of spacetime. It provides a way of assigning coordinates to events in spacetimes. I suggest you read the above thread, too.
MacM: There's no conflict between these things, since they involve two different reference frames. You deliberately ignore the part about the different reference frames, again. How dishonest. In which frame? One moment you say you can't tell which is at rest. Then, in the next sentence, you claim that one MUST be absolutely at rest (and you know which one). You can't make up your own mind. No wonder you can't convince anybody else. Poor MacM. geistkiesel: The two measurements under discussion are made in different reference frames. If I am sitting at the top of a tree and you are sitting at the bottom, is the middle branch higher or lower? Higher or lower, according to who? Can't you see we can get different answers from different observers? Think about it.
James R, If you are sitting on the top of a tree and I on the bottom, then the middle branch is higher than me, according to me and lower than you, according to you. This is your example, but we aren't making measurements of tree limb heights. We are making observations that define physical content of experiments with respect to moving inwertial frames of reference movingrelative to each other.. In other words if we are moving at a relative speed of .866c say each moving away from the other, then will not SRT say that you see my clock run slower than your clock? and will I not see that your clock is slower than my clock? Of course we see each other wrt our own frame of reference, but if we are mioving relative to each other and we simultaneously emit a one minute length of consecutive pulses of our individual clock rates say at 1/1000 sec interval, measured from our own frames of reference, or 60,000 pulses each and we receive each other's pulses will I see the same pulse rate enter my ship from you and likewise will you receive the same pulse rate from me? Will we both see 60,000 pulses in the same amount of time on our own frame? If we make measurements and each considers himself at rest for one measurement and for the second measurement each considers the other at rest wrt himself. The test results wil be identical in both cases correct? I mean this in the sense that if we send the pulse rate external to our frame making the receipt of the rate available to both and we also have a pulse mirror to reflect the same pulse rate back to our respective ships will you and I 1. Be able to distinguish each other's pulse rate from our own reflected pulse rate. 2. see the same pulse rate, higher pulse rate or lower pulse rate of each other's emitted pulses.3. If our emitted pulse rate is received and analyzed by a receiver system on planet earth for instance will our individual pulse rate be deemed the same by the earth receiver station? 4. and finally, I am disussing here more than mental musings of what I "think" your pulse rate is relative to mine, I mean this in the sense that our perceptions are discounted and only our radiated pulse rates are received and compared to our own platform's rate. For this final option, let us assume that all we individually receive are the pulse rates of each other but neither has a clue what the pulse rates are indicating. Neither knows the rates are the other's clocks rates. We both make an arbitrary decision to compare the input signals to our respective clocks rates what do we see? Is your signal into my ship lower than my clock rate and is my signal into your ship lower than my clock rate? Geistkiesel
MacM, You will never get a straight unambiguous answer to your question. It is impossible to test and everybody knows it, or should know it. I have yet to have anyone explain to me the experimental method designed to determine if two measuring points, two reference frames moving relative to each other, can detect the other's clock rate lower than their own clock rate, assuming identical clocks in both reference frames. you will however, get a lot of demeaning and other irrelevant and insignificant evasions. What else can they say? Well, look at what they do say. The test can be performed in a laboratory. Have the clocks for the frames calibrated to run as SRT predicts from the stationary frame. Have each clock start and stop after a fixed time period, say one minute. Look at the clock's total tick count and the answer is there to evalate. Have each of the three systems have a clocks that ticks at a rate they predict the other two clocks will tick at. The answers are so simple to determine experimentally, trivial even. However, talk is a lot cheaper than experimental costs and in todays ever tightening budget restrictions, well, we all know the drill. I suspect the talks will continue at an ever increasing rate, but then the rate may decline, or, remain constant at todays rate. This entire matter can be determined by one clock. It will take more time, but just use a clock that can have its rate easily adjusted and to perform all the possible combinations of tick rate measurements., 9 I believe I just mentioned, Geistkiesel
Thanks. Your definition of reciprocity is completely wrong wrt SR. No one, from a third frame, ever claims that A runs slower than B and B runs slower than A. The statement A runs slower than B is from B's frame. and B runs slower than A is from A's frame. From a third frame (earth?) they each will appear to run slower by some amount based on their rel. speeds wrt earth. You have postulated a problem with SR that does not exist and have proceeded to build a whole fantasy world around your misunderstanding. You are arguing from ignorance. If you ask anyone who knows SR, they will tell you your "reciprocity" requirement of SR is completely wrong and does not exist.
SL, Thought of a way to express this with logic equations. What do you think? Given events A, B in frame S and A', B' in S' A before B and B' before A' To evaluate for T/F we need the Lorentz Operator. (transformation) lorentz_S>S'(A)=A' and so on. Therefore A before B and B' before A' = True I know, it probably won't convince anyone but I thought it a concise way to express the disagreement.
Surely a simpler way to sort out the issue is to talk about how you would later compare the clocks. It won't really matter if one clock slows down and speeds up again, or if an observer in one frame reads a distant clock as out of sync with his own. The problem is, getting the clocks back together again, after the effects of acceleration to near-light speeds for significant space-time periods. In the original thought-experiments with astronauts, one had to eventually turn around and return to earth, so that ages/sense of time could be compared. I think Einstein himself would limit discussions to cases where the clocks could be measured by one observer or another, and this would require the observer to be in the light-cone of the observee. This is not possible in both directions. One observer or the other will be ahead in 'absolute' space-time, irreguardless of the 'tilt' of the plane of simultaneity, which can only tilt to the point of a light-geodesic and not beyond. (45 degrees on the space-time manifold). A measurement is an event which receives information from another event, and cannot access the changing state of the entire spacetime geodesic of the 'object' (=clock). Clocks are not 'events', and ultimately all that can be measured is the information from 'events'.(=points in spacetime). That is, ultimately if the clocks are returned to the same inertial frame and location in space-time, then the only thing that can be measured is their relative difference in reading, if they were previously synchronized. From this one could surmise generally the acceleration that one or the other has undergone from an inertial reference is such and such an amount, but there would be no way of telling how, or by what path the clock had been accelerated.
geistkiesel: No, but we're making observer-dependent measurements, just the same. Yes. And to take another example, you also look smaller than me, while to you, I look smaller than you, because we're seeing each other at a distance. No. You will see a slower pulse rate from me than you are emitting, and vice-versa. The results of measurements are set in stone. Any event which happens happens. You can't change which events happen by adopting some arbitrary point of view. If you have a detector detecting pulses, then it will detect a certain number between the time you switch it on and the time you switch it off, and everybody will agree on that number, regardless of their reference frame. What they won't agree on is how long the detector was switched on for.
If the frame in which the object is at rest "doesn't change its position coordinate" sound suspiciously like yiou have described an absolute reference frame of Velocity equal to zero. What SRT postulates as a physically impossible state to achieve, SRT also allows, nay demands, the postulational velocity equal zero motion state must be achieved for the purpose of fullfilling the mathematical dictates of SRT, AKA, The Wizard Needs Support of His Motion Theories, otherwise why have a Wizard in the first place? This is one of those "counter intuitive" conditions that SRT requires be accepted in order that SRT be "understood" as practiced, isn't it? I knew it, I just knew it. Geistkiesel
MacM, I do not see exactly what a 'clocks contribution' to the total relative velocity is but I do have a sense of what the total contribution of each inertial frame's velocity is to the total relative velocity. Take frames A and B moving relative to each other in opposite directions at a relative velocity of .866c. Now take a mobile probe C, from A (initially on board A) and slightly acceelrate the probe in the negative direction of the A frame. Two inertial frames may physically measure the relative velocity of the two inertial frames, when C is moving anti-parallel at at Vc << Va would not the relative velocity of Va + Vc = Vca be approximately = to Va? The point is the measure of the intrinsic velocity of inertial frames in relative motion wrt each other may be determined by each frame separately, or by each frame measuring the relative motion of the other's frame and probe relaltive velocity. But if SRTists recognize this they ....... Geistkiesel Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
