George Greene <gree...@eagle.cs.unc.edu> wrote in message <news:xesn0p1xb2w.fsf@eagle.cs.unc.edu>... > da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) writes: > : Yes, but the difference is that in the three-clock case, no > : clock is physically accelerated. That should put an end to > : the idea that time dilation is something physical > : that happens to clocks when they accelerate.
> No, it doesn't. You still haven't resolved the paradox. > If the situation is really symmetrical among the 3 clocks, > then you have paradox.
Well, it's not. Uncle VitriAl may be a foam flecked bile spewing jackass painfully croaking obscenities from cracked and blackened lips -- but he did not propose a thought experiment where the 3 clocks enter symmetrically.
<...>
> Time dilation is self-contradictory bullshit until you can > explain this paradox.
And your relation to unc.edu is what ... ? Oh, I see, you are in the CS departement. Do you know James Hunter?
You probably wouldn't like it if I started ranting that a bubble sort was self-contradictory bullshit, while simultaneously demonstrating a lack of basic understanding of the bubble-sort algorithm, now would you? I thought not.
"Franz Heymann" <Franz.Heym...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message <news:apebil$lb8$6@helle.btinternet.com>... > "Edward Green" <nullde...@aol.com> wrote: > > Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> licked his crusted lips and spake: > > > [snip incredible bulk of ignorant spew invalidated by common > > > observation]
> > Same to you, Al, you insulting sonofabitch. ... > > Aha ... I see your idiocy. You are one of those people who are > > completely blind to the frame dependence of "relative velocity". > > Hell, not only are you blind to it, you even stated the concept in > > equivalent words, and _still_ screwed it up. I quote from the > > infallible master:
> > "the sum of the velocities as viewed by any inertial observer"
> > Bizarre. You suffer from the "relative velocity must be stated in > > rest frame of one of two bodies" disease
> I look forward to reading how Uncle Al responds to that. {:-)
He won't. He may be given to spasms of free-form insult which give me license to practice my best invective for the next 10 to 12 posts, or until I cool off -- which ever comes later -- but I will give him credit for realizing when he is in the wrong and at least demonstrating the intelligence of a rock, and shutting up about it. Better an apology, but at least not a negatively intelligent defense.
> Ed, there is no such concept in physics as a "relative velocity" in the > abstract. The concept is restricted to such situations as "The velocity > of A relative to B" or "The velocity of B relative to A". The former is > a measurement made in the frame in which B is at rest. Vice versa for > the latter.
Right. Well, I was expanding the concept "relative velocity" a tad ... though I didn't do this in the original post, so he doesn't have that excuse.
But in the process of ranting about this, it occurs to me that we _could_ think of "relative velocity" as a physical concept in the abstract, one which has a frame dependent representation, like so many other well loved physical concepts.
I pointed out in a reply to Briggs, though I don't mind repeating myself ... well, let me change things a little. Let's call the abstract physical object "skedaddle"; sk( , ); which has the following properties: given two objects with velocities v1, v2 in an inertial reference frame, then sk(1,2) has the representation v1 - v2 in that frame. To obtain the representation in a different frame we are required to first find v1', v2' in the new frame, by the usual methods, then again form v1' - v2'.
"Skedaddle" reduces to "relative velocity" in the sense you and the physics community seem to prefer when one of the two position holders v1, v2 is zero in the given frame. On the other hand, in an arbitrary frame, sk(1,2) is what I have suggested closing the "vector closure rate", or one of some similar set of circumlocutions.
Now, I would think it is simpler just to call skedaddle "relative velocity", or perhaps "relative vector velocity" consistently, considered as an abstract frame independent object transforming according to the stated rules: much like a vector. But I won't insist on it -- what is important is that the concept be recognized as a self-consistent and meaningful object, by whatever name.
But I hadn't even suggested this nomenclature when Al's brain lesion acted up, so he will have to think of something more powerful than the twinky defense, even if he hires Johnny Cochran.
> The situation under dicussion which leads to a maximum speed of 2c does > *not* involve the velocity of anything relative to anything else. It is > a "velocity of approach" of two objects *relative to me*, i.e. in the > frame in which *I* am stationary.
Ok ... I won't argue strongly ... but I find it just as natural to call this the "relative velocity in the frame in which I am stationary". That is, in all cases the "relative velocity" has the property that it is the vector derivative of D == X1 - X2, the displacement, the "vector closure rate". In frames where I am costationary with one of the bodies involved "vector closure rate" maintains these general properties, while reducing to your "relative velocity".
When the cocepts are well cemented we may go back to being sloppy.
> [...]
> > Relative velocity v1 - v2 is sensibly viewed as a physical object with > > frame dependent representation
> You are simply privately redefining the concept of an approach velocity > of two objects, as measured in the frame in which I am stationary. It > is unnecessary.
Well, Ok ... I am certainly not entitled to redefine anything, but I think the concept could use a name and is a useful concept, since this confusion that anything which even _sounds_ like relative velocity must be the canonical relative velocity is endemic. I've had to stop and argue that the version not specifically represented in the rest frame of one of the principals means _anything_ repeatedly.
And of course there is a certain sloppy sub-faction, typified for today by Uncle VitriAl (I'm closing in on my quota) who want to do a pattern recognition attack on "Doesn't get relativistic addition of velocities ... nyah, nyah, nyah". Save it for Spaceman (apostrophizing this rude faction)!
Assuming contrary to fact that Spaceman were an actual seeker after knowledge and not the uncooperative troll we see in reality, the "Doesn't get relativistic addition of velocities ... nyah, nyah, nyah" reply is inadequate. An adequate reply acknowledges the extent that the old "galilean" form of relative velocity really represents something meaningful even within SR, before pointing out its modified transformation properties as a physical object.
Nyah, nyah, nyah. Myanmar!
Proof that politically correct renomenization is silly.
> > > > When you can define time, then maybe your input will be > interesting. > > > > Clocks do not measure the passage of time, they 'register' an > internal > > > > velocity (of some mass or system of mass) times it's displacement, > > > > either linear or angular depending upon the type of clock, an > internal > > > > velocity that must change in order for the registered 'ticks' to > get out > > > > of sync with another clock.
> > > Time > > > o regarded as a coordinate dimension and required by relativity > > > theory, along with three spatial dimensions, to > > > specify completely the location of any event.
> > As perceived: A motion through ordered changes in state of the > universe.
> > As it enters physics: The logical displacement of the initial state of > a > > closed system and the state of the same system through an arbitrary > and > > homogenous sequence of changes. Those cyclic changes in a sub-system > > (also virtually closed) in particular being regarded as "regular", and > > arbitrarily designated as a standard unit of change. The homogenous > > sequence of ordered microscopic changes (events) in the universe > > constitute a universal time-line, "moved" through equally by all > > particles, since all particles simultaneously exist in every state > > subtending any "duration".
> Philosophese mumbo jumbo for saying that time is what is measured by > counting the cycles of a repetitive process.
> Franz Heymann
Correct with the two exceptions: 1) It is based upon an empirical premise, namely that the order of occurrence of events in the universe is frame invariant. To be more precise, the universe itself, in its proceedings, doesn't take into account our psychological exceptions to its behavior when executing its "actual" laws. The universe carried on exceptionally well before man ever introduced the concept of frames of reference, and will do so long after man's frames of reference are gone.
The true principle of relativity is: The laws governing the behaviors of matter are "independent" of frames of reference.
Invariance is just a mathematical method of providing that independence, and SR fails miserably in that regard. The relative speed of two masses is not Lorentz invariant, but it "is" Galilean invariant. (v_x - v'_x) = (u_x' - u'_x'), which is to say the relative instantaneous speed of two masses in frame K is precisely equal to the relative speed of two masses in a frame K' moving wrt frame K. Inertial frames are not required; K and K' can be frames in any sort of motion wrt the masses, thus satisfying the mutual "independence" of events and any frames of reference from which they are observed.
2) It needs to be amended to read ".....counting the cycles of a repetitive process [in a virtually closed system].
Without this amendment the repetitive process ceases to be repetitive wrt inertial frames. And although no process is precisely repetitive, repetitiveness cannot even be approached if we allow systems that are not in fairly constant ambient surroundings. Inertial frames are introduced here because time is arbitrarily regarded as linear wrt inertial motion (per the arbitrary definition F=ma). Accelerated clocks would likewise serve equally well as standards so long as the correct mathematical transformation to linear time were known, which would in turn require taking into account variables that cannot be known without reference to the linear passage of time, thus making the process rather redundant right from the start, which is why it was omitted from the original considerations.
> > > > When you can define time, then maybe your input will be > interesting. > > > > Clocks do not measure the passage of time, they 'register' an > internal > > > > velocity (of some mass or system of mass) times it's displacement, > > > > either linear or angular depending upon the type of clock, an > internal > > > > velocity that must change in order for the registered 'ticks' to > get out > > > > of sync with another clock.
> > > Time > > > o regarded as a coordinate dimension and required by relativity > > > theory, along with three spatial dimensions, to > > > specify completely the location of any event.
> > As perceived: A motion through ordered changes in state of the > universe.
> > As it enters physics: The logical displacement of the initial state of > a > > closed system and the state of the same system through an arbitrary > and > > homogenous sequence of changes. Those cyclic changes in a sub-system > > (also virtually closed) in particular being regarded as "regular", and > > arbitrarily designated as a standard unit of change. The homogenous > > sequence of ordered microscopic changes (events) in the universe > > constitute a universal time-line, "moved" through equally by all > > particles, since all particles simultaneously exist in every state > > subtending any "duration".
> Philosophese mumbo jumbo for saying that time is what is measured by > counting the cycles of a repetitive process.
> Franz Heymann
Correct with the two exceptions: 1) It is based upon an empirical premise, namely that the order of occurrence of events in the universe is frame invariant. To be more precise, the universe itself, in its proceedings, doesn't take into account our psychological exceptions to its behavior when executing its "actual" laws. The universe carried on exceptionally well before man ever introduced the concept of frames of reference, and will do so long after man's frames of reference are gone.
The true principle of relativity is: The laws governing the behaviors of matter are "independent" of frames of reference.
Invariance is just a mathematical method of providing that independence, and SR fails miserably in that regard. The relative speed of two masses is not Lorentz invariant, but it "is" Galilean invariant. (v_x - v'_x) = (u_x' - u'_x'), which is to say the relative instantaneous speed of two masses in frame K is precisely equal to the relative speed of two masses in a frame K' moving wrt frame K. Inertial frames are not required; K and K' can be frames in any sort of motion wrt the masses, thus satisfying the mutual "independence" of events and any frames of reference from which they are observed.
2) It needs to be amended to read ".....counting the cycles of a repetitive process [in a virtually closed system].
Without this amendment the repetitive process ceases to be repetitive wrt inertial frames. And although no process is precisely repetitive, repetitiveness cannot even be approached if we allow systems that are not in fairly constant ambient surroundings. Inertial frames are introduced here because time is arbitrarily regarded as linear wrt inertial motion (per the arbitrary definition F=ma). Accelerated clocks would likewise serve equally well as standards so long as the correct mathematical transformation to linear time were known, which would in turn require taking into account variables that cannot be known without reference to the linear passage of time, thus making the process rather redundant right from the start, which is why it was omitted from the original considerations.
> Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> writes: > : Nothing runs "slow" in any refernce frame. When otherwise identical > : clocks - one of which sustained a velocity relative to the other - are > : brought together to compare, one is seen to have less elapsed time > : than its twin due to its hyperbolic rotation through 4-space.
> This is INCONSISTENT BULLSHIT, Al. > If one clock sustained a velocity relative to the other, > then THE OTHER SUSTAINED A VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE ONE, > as well. Therefore, if the one is "seen to have less" > elapsed time than the other, the other MUST be "seen > to have less" elapsed time than the one.
> SINCE THIS *CANNOT*HAPPEN* -- since you cannot exhibit > 2 pieces of paper, each with a positive number on them, > where each number is less than the other, you are > not saying anything.
You forgot that you have to bring the clocks together again in order to compare them.
> > > > > When you can define time, then maybe your input will be > > interesting. > > > > > Clocks do not measure the passage of time, they 'register' an > > internal > > > > > velocity (of some mass or system of mass) times it's displacement, > > > > > either linear or angular depending upon the type of clock, an > > internal > > > > > velocity that must change in order for the registered 'ticks' to > > get out > > > > > of sync with another clock.
> > > > Radioactivity, shithead. You look at the declining rate of decay > > and > > > > that is your clock. Why don't you tell us where the "internal > > > > velocity" is in radioactivity?
> > > It's not too fucking complicated that even you can't understand Al, > > but > > > only agglomerations of quanta produce radioactive decay.
> > Not on your nellie. Study the nature of the weak interaction before > > committing further blunders in ignorance.
> > > Which of the > > > involved quanta has zero velocity shit for brains?
> > Tell us which quanta are involved where. Here is the typical process:
> > n -> p + e + nu-e-bar
> All quanta are involved in every interaction. No closed system exists > other than the universe itself.
Oracular words are of no interest when I asked for a response to a question of physics. Better luck next time
> > > Controlled fission, > > > hmmm Al, how the hell did that happen I wonder, I mean, radioactive > > > decay is independently spontaneous, uncaused, isn't it? Git.
> > You don't need fission, controlled or otherwise, to make a clock based > > on radioactive decay.
> You need radioactive decay, a physical event with physical causes. > What's your point?
That you don't need fission, contrtolled or otherwise, to make a clock based on radioactive decay. You raised it. Now read the reply.
> > You are out of your depth and it shows.
> Only your bared ignorance is showing.
> The launching of a system into orbit introduces physical changes to the > system. Cyclic systems in particular are those under consideration, and > the magnitude of any effects on these will depend upon the actual > physical makeup of the system. Given forty different "types" of clocks > that were initially synchronized, "none" of those will be ticking at the > same rate after the ship that contains them assumes its final orbital > trajectory. Will you argue this point?
If they were clocks, and not some crude approximations to clocks, they all by definition always count equal intervals of time. If they stay together, they will then always indicate the same time lapse.
> If you think it incorrect then > please cite the evidence to the contrary, keeping in mind that a > pendulum clock will be one of those on board,
A pendulum is not a clock. Full stop. Its behaviour sepends on its environment. This disqualifies it.
There is no need to read any further. I will however leave Richard's nonsense as is for the delectation of other readers.
> and that a electric motor > driven clock will be another type. How will the change in gravitational > potential affect the pendulum, and how will the change in > electromagnetic potential affect the motor driven clock? Let another > clock be a vertically oscillating spring, how will the acceleration > affect the frequency of oscillation? What type of clock can you imagine > that will not undergo physical changes when accelerated or when > relocated to a different gravitational and/or electromagnetic
potential?
None of the mechanisms you quoted qualify for clock candidates.
> Go roll over on your back and piss on yourself like the well trained and > defeated dog that you are.
> > "V.Gopal" <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message > > news:38af3945.0210251913.4ae26f1a@posting.google.com... > > > "Franz Heymann" <Franz.Heym...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message > > <news:apbp93$j5u$2@knossos.btinternet.com>... > > > > "V.Gopal" <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:38af3945.0210240748.1fc8e6cb@posting.google.com... > > > > > In Special Relativity Theory the basis of "Twin Paradox" is that > > > > > "moving clocks run slow". What is not clear is that, when a 'clock > > > > > runs slow' whether its frequency continuously decreases or not. > > Can > > > > > anyone clarify this point?
> > > > If a clock's frequency continuously decreases, it needs winding up.
> > > > Franz Heymann > > > It needs no winding up, let it stop. What I want to know is how do we > > > express or convey continuously and uniformly decreasing rate of > > > counting. Can we know when we reach zero if the rate of counting > > > decreases uniformly and continuously? > > > Here 'counting' does not divide time into equal intervals and in this > > > case because there is no linear or angular displacement, time appears > > > to 'shrink' continuously. How can we canvey rate of shrinkage of time?
> > I have not a clue as to what you might mean. > > I do have a strong suspicion that you don't know either.
> > Franz Heymann > I know what I mean. Let me make it simpler. A train enteres station at > a speed of say, 100miles/hr and brake is applied to it. At the > enterence you stand and begin to count the number of compartments as > the train begins to decelerate. If the speed of the train was constant > the rate of counting of number of compartments would be uniform. That > is, the interval of time between any two consecutive numberes would be > same. When the train is decelerating the interval of time between 1 > and 2 is less than that between 2 and 3 and so on. I call this as as > 'continuous decrease in the rate of counting of numbers'. We cannot > see both the ends of a period of time. As long as the train is moving > counting is possible. When the speed approaches zero and becomes zero > there is no way to know at what point of time the train came to a rest > because, in L/T, L-->0 and T --->infinity. If we do not have the > decelerating object in front of us, there is no way to remember the > period of time that was spent without activity between two numbers. No > expression can convey decreasing rate of counting, which is same as > angular deceleration.
Why are you so obseesd with time? Why don't you also discuss the possibility that the length of your metre stick changes, shrinking continuously?
> >I've been championing the idea recently "relative velocity" is a > >physical object with certain transformation properties, whose > >representation in a particular frame is v1 - v2, individual velocities > >expressed in that frame.
> The name "relative velocity" is taken (as you well know). Use > "closing velocity" or "velocity of approach" for the above. We've > been over this before, as I'm sure you recall.
Yes. Ok ... I wasn't hoping so much to redefine it as to extend the domain of definition. But you are right ... better call it something else. I kind of like "skedaddle" or "scramola".
In article <2a0cceff.0210271038.b1b6...@posting.google.com>, nullde...@aol.com (Edward Green) writes: >me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message <news:TNzu9.73$O4.18932@news.uchicago.edu>... >> In article <2a0cceff.0210260740.1ff51...@posting.google.com>, nullde...@aol.com (Edward Green) writes:
>> >I've been championing the idea recently "relative velocity" is a >> >physical object with certain transformation properties, whose >> >representation in a particular frame is v1 - v2, individual velocities >> >expressed in that frame.
>> The name "relative velocity" is taken (as you well know). Use >> "closing velocity" or "velocity of approach" for the above. We've >> been over this before, as I'm sure you recall.
>Yes. Ok ... I wasn't hoping so much to redefine it as to extend the >domain of definition. But you are right ... better call it something >else. I kind of like "skedaddle" or "scramola".
I vote for "skedaddle", it sounds neat.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
In article <xesn0p1xb2w....@eagle.cs.unc.edu>, George says...
>da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) writes: > : Yes, but the difference is that in the three-clock case, no > : clock is physically accelerated. That should put an end to > : the idea that time dilation is something physical > : that happens to clocks when they accelerate.
>No, it doesn't.
If none of the clocks accelerate, then how can the effect be due to acceleration?
>You still haven't resolved the paradox.
I wasn't trying to resolve the paradox, only to comment that it is *not* resolved by resorting to the physical effects of acceleration on clocks.
The resolution is Minkowsky geometry. In Euclidean geometry, a straight line is the shortest path connecting two points. In Minkowsky geometry, an inertial path is the *longest* path connecting two spacetime points. Rather than saying that moving clocks tick slower, the modern way of thinking about is that a clock accurately measures the "distance" (proper separation) between timelike points in spacetime, and that the geometry of spacetime implies that an inertial path is the longest.
>If the situation is really symmetrical among the 3 clocks,
Well, it's not completely symmetrical, but we can make it perfectly symmetrical between the "stay-at-home" clock and the "travelling clock" by using 4 clocks:
Clock A remains at rest in frame S. Clock B starts off at A, and moves away from A at velocity v (as measured in frame S). Let S' be the rest frame of B. Clock C starts off far from A, and moves towards A at velocity -v (as measured in frame S). Clock D starts off far from B and moves towards B at velocity v (as measured in frame S').
1. At t=0 (according to both A and B), clock B passes clock A. 2. At t=T1 (according to clock B), clock C passes clock B. Clock C is set to the time shown on clock B. 3. At t=T1 (according to clock A), clock D passes clock A. Clock D is set to the time shown on clock A. 4. At t=T2 (according to clock A), clock C reaches clock A. The time shown on clock C is 2 T1, which is less than T2. 5. At t=T2 (according to clock B), clock D reaches clock B. The time shown on clock D is 2 T1, which is less than T2.
>then you have paradox.
No, it's not a paradox. It's not logically impossible. And it's not physically impossible.
>As Uncle Al originally numbered it, >the sum of the times on the slips from clocks 2 and 3 >was less than the time on the slip from clock 1. >But since all 3 clocks were started by their encounter >with a 2nd clock and stopped by their encounter with a 3rd >clock, his reasoning is going to lead to the conclusion >that there can exist positive rational numbers x,y, and z such that >x>y+z AND y>x+z AND z>x+y. This is obviously impossible. >How do YOU D.MC. break the symmetry?
Let's label the events e1, e2, e3, e4 and e5 as shown in the list above. e1 = clocks A and B pass. e2 = clocks C and B pass. e3 = A and D pass. e4 = A and C pass. e5 = B and D pass.
Let S_ij be the spacetime separation between event i and event j. Then we have
The weird thing about Minkowsky geometry is that a straight line is the longest distance between two points. That means that
S_12 + S_24 <= S_14
In Euclidean geometry, we have the reverse:
D_12 + D_24 >= D_14
where D_ij is the distance between points i and j.
> : Exactly. In Special Relativity, time dilation is a feature of > : spacetime, not a feature of clocks.
>Time dilation is self-contradictory bullshit until you can >explain this paradox.
George, surely you don't believe that the consistency of a theory of physics is affected by *my* ability to explain it. I don't have that kind of power. Whether Minkowsky geometry is bullshit or not is independent of whether I can convince you one way or the other.
For terminological purposes, to say something is "self-contradictory" means that for some statement S, it can prove both S and not-S. The theory of Special Relativity doesn't have such a statement.
: For terminological purposes, to say something is "self-contradictory" : means that for some statement S, it can prove both S and not-S. The : theory of Special Relativity doesn't have such a statement.
Of course not, but we WEREN'T DEALING with Special Relativity: we were dealing with approximate pronouncements about it by Uncle Al and with popularist canards about it like "moving clocks run slow". And it absolutely IS self-contradictory to say, as Uncle Al did, that : Nothing runs "slow" in any refernce frame. When otherwise identical : clocks - one of which sustained a velocity relative to the other - are : brought together to compare, one is seen to have less elapsed time : than its twin due to its hyperbolic rotation through 4-space.
EACH of these clocks has sustained a velocity relative to the other. Therefore, if this is true, EACH of them would have to show less elapsed time than the other. THAT IS self-contradictory. Your point, if you have one, is that therefore, THAT is NOT Special Relativity, NOR is it Minkowski geometry, NEITHER of which has its consistency in question. -- --- "It's difficult ... you need to be united to have any strength, but internal issues have to be addressed." --- E. Ray Lewis, on liberalism in America
> > > Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> licked his crusted lips and spake:
> > > > [snip incredible bulk of ignorant spew invalidated by common > > > > observation]
> > > Same to you, Al, you insulting sonofabitch. ...
> > > Aha ... I see your idiocy. You are one of those people who are > > > completely blind to the frame dependence of "relative velocity". > > > Hell, not only are you blind to it, you even stated the concept in > > > equivalent words, and _still_ screwed it up. I quote from the > > > infallible master:
> > > "the sum of the velocities as viewed by any inertial observer"
> > > Bizarre. You suffer from the "relative velocity must be stated in > > > rest frame of one of two bodies" disease
> > I look forward to reading how Uncle Al responds to that. {:-)
> He won't. He may be given to spasms of free-form insult which give me > license to practice my best invective for the next 10 to 12 posts, or > until I cool off -- which ever comes later -- but I will give him > credit for realizing when he is in the wrong and at least > demonstrating the intelligence of a rock, and shutting up about it. > Better an apology, but at least not a negatively intelligent defense.
Uncle Al's entertainment rating is sky high but the way he handle's himself when suspecting a mistake (even if it's his own) with our more learned posters unfortunately lacks class.
On a more amusing note......
Roll up, roll up Uncle Al's Debunk Clinic here You post em, we'll roast em Never let a thesis beat us.
On 25 Oct 2002 23:54:59 -0700, nullde...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in <2a0cceff.0210252254.5fddb...@posting.google.com> that:
>I merely pointed out from your ambiguous sentence that the maximum >speed difference between two arbitrary velocities is 2c in any >inertial frame. That's c to the right of you and c to the left of >you. Get it?
Hahahah :-))
------------------------- az kalamAte naghze irAni:
khodAyA: ghanA'at, sabr, va tahammol rA az mellatam bAzgir va be man arzAnidAr.
: >da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) writes: : > : Yes, but the difference is that in the three-clock case, no : > : clock is physically accelerated. That should put an end to : > : the idea that time dilation is something physical : > : that happens to clocks when they accelerate.
: If none of the clocks accelerate, then how can the effect : be due to acceleration?
This is a stupid question, Daryl. OF COURSE the clocks or frames accelerated at SOME time. The fact that it was before you started paying attention to the experiment doesn't mean it never happened. Suppose, since the metaphor is dilation, that you have 3 balloons that have been blown up (dilated) to different sizes. You walk into the room and see them sitting there, stationary, at their 3 different unchanging sizes. If I allege that some difference between these balloons is due to their differing sizes, are you really going to say, "since none of the balloons has changed size, how can the effect be due to change of size?" Well, yes, you are, if you are going to continuing being as STUPID as you were being when you asked that question. If moving clocks run slow, and that degree of slowness changes as their speed changes, then since change of speed IS acceleration, acceleration is relevant to the effect. That was logic, NOT opinion.
: >You still haven't resolved the paradox. : : I wasn't trying to resolve the paradox, only to comment : that it is *not* resolved by resorting to the physical : effects of acceleration on clocks.
You utterly fail. The original twin paradox proves that. In that case, appealing to acceleration DOES resolve the paradox. The clock that got acclerated is the one that runs slower.
: The resolution is Minkowsky geometry. In Euclidean geometry, : a straight line is the shortest path connecting two points. : In Minkowsky geometry, an inertial path is the *longest* : path connecting two spacetime points. Rather than saying that : moving clocks tick slower,
You DON'T GET TO HAVE a "rather than"! Moving clocks DO tick slower! At BEST, M.G. is going to be an EXPLANATION of "why" that seems to be the case, NOT an ALTERNATIVE to it.
: the modern way of thinking about : is that a clock accurately measures the "distance" (proper : separation) between timelike points in spacetime, : and that the geometry of spacetime implies that an inertial path : is the longest.
None of this is the issue. The issue IS, under this view, can the Twin Paradox ARISE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Is there any problematic symmetry that SEEMS to arise, SEEMS thereby to provoke paradox, and SEEMS to need breaking in order to rescue us? If so, then you can tell us how M.G. breaks the symmetry. Otherwise you are just irrelevant.
: >If the situation is really symmetrical among the 3 clocks, : : Well, it's not completely symmetrical, but we can make it : perfectly symmetrical between the "stay-at-home" clock and : the "travelling clock"
Please. In Al's experiment, THERE IS NO distinguished "traveling clock"; all 3 clocks are traveling and are representing inertial frames, with constant velocities relative to each other, and we just happened to pick, as OUR frame, the clock that was on longest.
: by using 4 clocks:
Jeezus, Occam's razor. You are obligated to draw a picture. I will analyze in the next reply.
> > > Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> licked his crusted lips and spake:
> > > > [snip incredible bulk of ignorant spew invalidated by common > > > > observation]
> > > Same to you, Al, you insulting sonofabitch. ...
> > > Aha ... I see your idiocy. You are one of those people who are > > > completely blind to the frame dependence of "relative velocity". > > > Hell, not only are you blind to it, you even stated the concept in > > > equivalent words, and _still_ screwed it up. I quote from the > > > infallible master:
> > > "the sum of the velocities as viewed by any inertial observer"
> > > Bizarre. You suffer from the "relative velocity must be stated in > > > rest frame of one of two bodies" disease
> > I look forward to reading how Uncle Al responds to that. {:-)
> He won't. He may be given to spasms of free-form insult which give me > license to practice my best invective for the next 10 to 12 posts, or > until I cool off -- which ever comes later -- but I will give him > credit for realizing when he is in the wrong and at least > demonstrating the intelligence of a rock, and shutting up about it. > Better an apology, but at least not a negatively intelligent defense.
> > Ed, there is no such concept in physics as a "relative velocity" in the > > abstract. The concept is restricted to such situations as "The velocity > > of A relative to B" or "The velocity of B relative to A". The former is > > a measurement made in the frame in which B is at rest. Vice versa for > > the latter.
> Right. Well, I was expanding the concept "relative velocity" a tad > ... though I didn't do this in the original post, so he doesn't have > that excuse.
> But in the process of ranting about this, it occurs to me that we > _could_ think of "relative velocity" as a physical concept in the > abstract, one which has a frame dependent representation, like so many > other well loved physical concepts.
The phrase "relative velocity" has been bagged for another purpose, so you should dream up another name. On second thoughts, don't do that. I think there is already a name for what you are speaking about. Is it not "closure velocity"?
> > > > > > When you can define time, then maybe your input will be > > > interesting. > > > > > > Clocks do not measure the passage of time, they 'register' an > > > internal > > > > > > velocity (of some mass or system of mass) times it's > displacement, > > > > > > either linear or angular depending upon the type of clock, an > > > internal > > > > > > velocity that must change in order for the registered 'ticks' > to > > > get out > > > > > > of sync with another clock.
> > > > > Radioactivity, shithead. You look at the declining rate of > decay > > > and > > > > > that is your clock. Why don't you tell us where the "internal > > > > > velocity" is in radioactivity?
> > > > It's not too fucking complicated that even you can't understand > Al, > > > but > > > > only agglomerations of quanta produce radioactive decay.
> > > Not on your nellie. Study the nature of the weak interaction before > > > committing further blunders in ignorance.
> > > > Which of the > > > > involved quanta has zero velocity shit for brains?
> > > Tell us which quanta are involved where. Here is the typical > process:
> > > n -> p + e + nu-e-bar
> > All quanta are involved in every interaction. No closed system exists > > other than the universe itself.
> Oracular words are of no interest when I asked for a response to a > question of physics. > Better luck next time
> > > > Controlled fission, > > > > hmmm Al, how the hell did that happen I wonder, I mean, > radioactive > > > > decay is independently spontaneous, uncaused, isn't it? Git.
> > > You don't need fission, controlled or otherwise, to make a clock > based > > > on radioactive decay.
> > You need radioactive decay, a physical event with physical causes. > > What's your point?
> That you don't need fission, contrtolled or otherwise, to make a clock > based on radioactive decay. You raised it. Now read the reply.
> > > You are out of your depth and it shows.
> > Only your bared ignorance is showing.
> > The launching of a system into orbit introduces physical changes to > the > > system. Cyclic systems in particular are those under consideration, > and > > the magnitude of any effects on these will depend upon the actual > > physical makeup of the system. Given forty different "types" of clocks > > that were initially synchronized, "none" of those will be ticking at > the > > same rate after the ship that contains them assumes its final orbital > > trajectory. Will you argue this point?
> If they were clocks, and not some crude approximations to clocks, they > all by definition always count equal intervals of time. If they stay > together, they will then always indicate the same time lapse.
> > If you think it incorrect then > > please cite the evidence to the contrary, keeping in mind that a > > pendulum clock will be one of those on board,
> A pendulum is not a clock. Full stop. Its behaviour sepends on its > environment. This disqualifies it.
I forgot to recommend that you turn upside down the next pendulun you encounter. Perhaps that will teach you something about perfectly repetitive motion.
> There is no need to read any further. I will however leave Richard's > nonsense as is for the delectation of other readers.
> > and that a electric motor > > driven clock will be another type. How will the change in > gravitational > > potential affect the pendulum, and how will the change in > > electromagnetic potential affect the motor driven clock? Let another > > clock be a vertically oscillating spring, how will the acceleration > > affect the frequency of oscillation? What type of clock can you > imagine > > that will not undergo physical changes when accelerated or when > > relocated to a different gravitational and/or electromagnetic > potential?
> None of the mechanisms you quoted qualify for clock candidates.
> > Go roll over on your back and piss on yourself like the well trained > and > > defeated dog that you are.
> > > > > When you can define time, then maybe your input will be > > interesting. > > > > > Clocks do not measure the passage of time, they 'register' an > > internal > > > > > velocity (of some mass or system of mass) times it's displacement, > > > > > either linear or angular depending upon the type of clock, an > > internal > > > > > velocity that must change in order for the registered 'ticks' to > > get out > > > > > of sync with another clock.
> > > > Time > > > > o regarded as a coordinate dimension and required by relativity > > > > theory, along with three spatial dimensions, to > > > > specify completely the location of any event.
> > > As perceived: A motion through ordered changes in state of the > > universe.
> > > As it enters physics: The logical displacement of the initial state of > > a > > > closed system and the state of the same system through an arbitrary > > and > > > homogenous sequence of changes. Those cyclic changes in a sub-system > > > (also virtually closed) in particular being regarded as "regular", and > > > arbitrarily designated as a standard unit of change. The homogenous > > > sequence of ordered microscopic changes (events) in the universe > > > constitute a universal time-line, "moved" through equally by all > > > particles, since all particles simultaneously exist in every state > > > subtending any "duration".
> > Philosophese mumbo jumbo for saying that time is what is measured by > > counting the cycles of a repetitive process.
> > Franz Heymann
> Correct with the two exceptions: > 1) It is based upon an empirical premise, namely that the order of > occurrence of events in the universe is frame invariant.
Balls. The order of events in the Universe is quite categorically not frame invariant. You should bone up on SR.
You seem to be under the impression that a clock can be separated from its frame.
> To be more > precise, the universe itself, in its proceedings, doesn't take into > account our psychological exceptions to its behavior when executing its > "actual" laws. The universe carried on exceptionally well before man > ever introduced the concept of frames of reference, and will do so long > after man's frames of reference are gone.
> The true principle of relativity is: The laws governing the behaviors of > matter are "independent" of frames of reference.
> Invariance is just a mathematical method of providing that independence, > and SR fails miserably in that regard. The relative speed of two masses > is not Lorentz invariant, but it "is" Galilean invariant. > (v_x - v'_x) = (u_x' - u'_x'), which is to say the relative > instantaneous speed of two masses in frame K is precisely equal to the > relative speed of two masses in a frame K' moving wrt frame K. Inertial > frames are not required; K and K' can be frames in any sort of motion > wrt the masses, thus satisfying the mutual "independence" of events and > any frames of reference from which they are observed.
That would appear to have been a string of erroneous assertions.
> 2) It needs to be amended to read ".....counting the cycles of a > repetitive process [in a virtually closed system].
I don't see the necessity for the addition. I see nothing wrong with reading my wristwatch at the same time as radiating heat into the rest of the universe
> Without this amendment the repetitive process ceases to be repetitive > wrt inertial frames. And although no process is precisely repetitive, > repetitiveness cannot even be approached if we allow systems that are > not in fairly constant ambient surroundings. Inertial frames are > introduced here because time is arbitrarily regarded as linear wrt > inertial motion (per the arbitrary definition F=ma).
Huh?
> Accelerated clocks > would likewise serve equally well as standards so long as the correct > mathematical transformation to linear time were known, which would in > turn require taking into account variables that cannot be known without > reference to the linear passage of time, thus making the process rather > redundant right from the start, which is why it was omitted from the > original considerations.
Then frame S is mis-named. It should be called frame A.
: Clock B starts off at A, and moves away from A at velocity : v (as measured in frame S).
Again, Al said it better. We don't know the initial history of the universe; we don't know (or care) when or how Clock B came into being. What we do know is that as long as we have been caring, Clock B has ALWAYS been moving at velocity v, TOWARD A, in this frame. At some point (frame/clock A will call it time 0), Clock B will encounter/collide-with/become-co-located-with Clock A, and thereafter continue moving, STILL at velocity v, (which is also mis-named; it should probably be velocity b), AWAY from A.
: Let S' be the rest frame of B.
This frame is mis-named; S' should be named frame B.
It also bears stressing that in this scenario, spacetime has *1* dimension of space, not 3. All the paths of all the clocks might as well be collinear.
: Clock C starts off far from A, and moves towards A at velocity : -v (as measured in frame S).
Clocks A, B, and C are currently in the same relation to each other as clocks 1,2, and 3 were in Al's original experiment. Daryl is obligated to draw a picture, because what he is about to say about the location of the 4th clock is ambiguous.
: Clock D starts off far from B and moves towards B at velocity v : (as measured in frame S').
"Far from B" is exactly equivalent to "Far from A" since the whole scenario begins with B and A being co-located. It is going to MATTER A LOT whether D's far-from-A is farther or not-as-far as C's. It also matters whether D is "behind" (on the A-side) or in front of (on the C-side) of B. That is why you need to draw a picture.
> > > > > If a clock's frequency continuously decreases, it needs winding > up.
> > > > > Franz Heymann > > > > It needs no winding up, let it stop. What I want to know is how do > we > > > > express or convey continuously and uniformly decreasing rate of > > > > counting. Can we know when we reach zero if the rate of counting > > > > decreases uniformly and continuously? > > > > Here 'counting' does not divide time into equal intervals and in > this > > > > case because there is no linear or angular displacement, time > appears > > > > to 'shrink' continuously. How can we canvey rate of shrinkage of > time?
> > > I have not a clue as to what you might mean. > > > I do have a strong suspicion that you don't know either.
> > > Franz Heymann > > I know what I mean. Let me make it simpler. A train enteres station at > > a speed of say, 100miles/hr and brake is applied to it. At the > > enterence you stand and begin to count the number of compartments as > > the train begins to decelerate. If the speed of the train was constant > > the rate of counting of number of compartments would be uniform. That > > is, the interval of time between any two consecutive numberes would be > > same. When the train is decelerating the interval of time between 1 > > and 2 is less than that between 2 and 3 and so on. I call this as as > > 'continuous decrease in the rate of counting of numbers'. We cannot > > see both the ends of a period of time. As long as the train is moving > > counting is possible. When the speed approaches zero and becomes zero > > there is no way to know at what point of time the train came to a rest > > because, in L/T, L-->0 and T --->infinity. If we do not have the > > decelerating object in front of us, there is no way to remember the > > period of time that was spent without activity between two numbers. No > > expression can convey decreasing rate of counting, which is same as > > angular deceleration.
> Why are you so obseesd with time? > Why don't you also discuss the possibility that the length of your metre > stick changes, shrinking continuously?
> Franz Heymann
Length does shrink or elongate during acceleration. 'Length' of metre stick does shrink or elongate depending on the environment. No experiment within the four walls of a laboratory can prove that 'dimension' of unit of time can be changed by changing the environment. If both length and time are assigned similar properties then mass includes the clock that 'runs slow'. We have every reason to believe that the problem of calculating the internal change is shifted to the clock. According to Newton's law, a force of constant magnitude 'works' with continuously increasing power. Has this possibility been proved in a laboratory?
> > "V.Gopal" <vgopa...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
> > Franz Heymann > Length does shrink or elongate during acceleration. 'Length' of metre > stick does shrink or elongate depending on the environment. No > experiment within the four walls of a laboratory can prove that > 'dimension' of unit of time can be changed by changing the > environment. If both length and time are assigned similar properties > then mass includes the clock that 'runs slow'. We have every reason to > believe that the problem of calculating the internal change is shifted > to the clock. According to Newton's law, a force of constant magnitude > 'works' with continuously increasing power. Has this possibility been > proved in a laboratory?
If the thin plate skulls of hallucinating neo-caveman chemists can prove that time cannot be changed, then four walls easily prove that it can be changed.
> > > > > > When you can define time, then maybe your input will be > > > interesting. > > > > > > Clocks do not measure the passage of time, they 'register' an > > > internal > > > > > > velocity (of some mass or system of mass) times it's > displacement, > > > > > > either linear or angular depending upon the type of clock, an > > > internal > > > > > > velocity that must change in order for the registered 'ticks' > to > > > get out > > > > > > of sync with another clock.
> > > > > Time > > > > > o regarded as a coordinate dimension and required by > relativity > > > > > theory, along with three spatial dimensions, to > > > > > specify completely the location of any event.
> > > > As perceived: A motion through ordered changes in state of the > > > universe.
> > > > As it enters physics: The logical displacement of the initial > state of > > > a > > > > closed system and the state of the same system through an > arbitrary > > > and > > > > homogenous sequence of changes. Those cyclic changes in a > sub-system > > > > (also virtually closed) in particular being regarded as "regular", > and > > > > arbitrarily designated as a standard unit of change. The > homogenous > > > > sequence of ordered microscopic changes (events) in the universe > > > > constitute a universal time-line, "moved" through equally by all > > > > particles, since all particles simultaneously exist in every state > > > > subtending any "duration".
> > > Philosophese mumbo jumbo for saying that time is what is measured by > > > counting the cycles of a repetitive process.
> > > Franz Heymann
> > Correct with the two exceptions: > > 1) It is based upon an empirical premise, namely that the order of > > occurrence of events in the universe is frame invariant.
> Balls. The order of events in the Universe is quite categorically not > frame invariant. You should bone up on SR.
Let event1 be the ejection of an electron from a negative test charge, and let event2 be the absorption of that electron by a positive test charge. From what frame of reference is the electron ejected from the positive test charge and absorbed by the negative test charge, and what law governs this interaction? Is causation to be sidelined, and if so then how is the event still predictable? Do you see the inherent contradiction here Franz? You really haven't thought this out very well, have you? The observed time of an event is not the actual time of occurrence of that event, and one of these days you'll understand that this is all that the Lorentz transform says. It assigns infinite propagational velocity to light, and assigns time dilation and length contraction as the causes of propagational delay (required because light is no longer something that propagates, but is rather regarded as an instantaneous connection between charges). It is a mathematical twist that was completely out of order, uncalled for, and most especially just plain stooopid.
> You seem to be under the impression that a clock can be separated from > its frame.
I've thrown an alarm clock or two, a clear example of separation of a clock and "my" frame. Had it been nailed to the table, then it would have been me that accelerated, but I would have still used the clock as a reference timepiece to measure my velocity toward the opposite wall. A standard needs to remain in a constant state in order to remain a valid standard, unless any physical effects on it are predictable to the point of allowing a precise conversion of its measured readings to proper time (the standard). A particular clock must be adopted as a standard for use by observers in all frames when performing a series of directly related calculations, just as a particular dictionary must be chosen as a standard reference in order to formulate intelligent conversation. Terms have to be well defined.
> > To be more > > precise, the universe itself, in its proceedings, doesn't take into > > account our psychological exceptions to its behavior when executing > its > > "actual" laws. The universe carried on exceptionally well before man > > ever introduced the concept of frames of reference, and will do so > long > > after man's frames of reference are gone.
> > The true principle of relativity is: The laws governing the behaviors > of > > matter are "independent" of frames of reference.
> > Invariance is just a mathematical method of providing that > independence, > > and SR fails miserably in that regard. The relative speed of two > masses > > is not Lorentz invariant, but it "is" Galilean invariant. > > (v_x - v'_x) = (u_x' - u'_x'), which is to say the relative > > instantaneous speed of two masses in frame K is precisely equal to the > > relative speed of two masses in a frame K' moving wrt frame K. > Inertial > > frames are not required; K and K' can be frames in any sort of motion > > wrt the masses, thus satisfying the mutual "independence" of events > and > > any frames of reference from which they are observed.
> That would appear to have been a string of erroneous assertions.
You know what they say about opinions. You know the premise is correct, physical interactions occur entirely independently of how they are perceived. Changing frames of reference will not change the course of events, only the perception of them.
> > 2) It needs to be amended to read ".....counting the cycles of a > > repetitive process [in a virtually closed system].
> I don't see the necessity for the addition. I see nothing wrong with > reading my wristwatch at the same time as radiating heat into the rest > of the universe
As long as you don't change in temperature this isn't a problem, but when the clock warms up it ain't gonna tick the same anymore Franz.
> > Without this amendment the repetitive process ceases to be repetitive > > wrt inertial frames. And although no process is precisely repetitive, > > repetitiveness cannot even be approached if we allow systems that are > > not in fairly constant ambient surroundings. Inertial frames are > > introduced here because time is arbitrarily regarded as linear wrt > > inertial motion (per the arbitrary definition F=ma).
> Huh?
Time is linear wrt the law of inertia as it is defined. If we define time as nonlinear wrt a uniformly moving body then it will then be accelerating "on paper". The choice is arbitrary, I'm surprised that you don't understand that scales can be arbitrarily manipulated. As long as all other scales are altered to reflect the change in one, the logical system remains consistent. You really don't get this? LOL:-)
> > Accelerated clocks > > would likewise serve equally well as standards so long as the correct > > mathematical transformation to linear time were known, which would in > > turn require taking into account variables that cannot be known > without > > reference to the linear passage of time, thus making the process > rather > > redundant right from the start, which is why it was omitted from the > > original considerations.
>Daryl has 4 clocks. >...That is why you need to draw a picture.
Okay. From the point of view of frame A (as you call it), A has velocity 0, B has velocity .87c (direction = to the right) C has velocity -.87c (direction = to the left), D has velocity .99c (direction = to the right)
We have the following snapshots (distances in light-seconds, times in seconds). Beside each clock, we show the time on that clock. We use "?" to indicate a clock that has not been set. To the far left of each clock, we show the position of that clock.
So, according to frame A: clock B ticks at 1/2 the rate of clock A. Clock C ticks also ticks at 1/2 the rate. Clock D ticks at 1/7 the rate of clock A.
From the point of view of frame B, A has velocity -.866c, B has velocity 0 C has velocity -.990c D has velocity .866c
According to frame B, clock A runs at 1/2 the rate of clock B, clock D runs at 1/2 the rate of clock B, clock C runs at 1/7 the rate of clock B.
Distant events thus have different orders in frame A and frame B. Clocks have different rates as viewed in frame A and frame B. But the events as seen by frame B are consistent, and the events as seen by frame A are consistent. And the reports of nearby events are the same:
A shows t=1 when D shows t=1 A shows t=4 when C shows t=2 B shows t=1 when C shows t=1 B shows t=4 when D shows t=2
> : >da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) writes: > : > : Yes, but the difference is that in the three-clock case, no > : > : clock is physically accelerated. That should put an end to > : > : the idea that time dilation is something physical > : > : that happens to clocks when they accelerate.
>I replied, > : >No, it doesn't. > : >da...@cogentex.com (Daryl McCullough) writes: > : If none of the clocks accelerate, then how can the effect > : be due to acceleration?
>This is a stupid question, Daryl. >OF COURSE the clocks or frames accelerated at SOME time.
No. Clock A has always been at rest. Clock B has always been travelling at speed .866c. Clock C has always been travelling at speed .866c in the opposite direction.
>The fact that it was before you started paying attention to >the experiment doesn't mean it never happened.
I set up the conditions, and my conditions say that none of the three clocks has ever accelerated. If no clock has accelerated, it follows that time dilation is not due to acceleration. I don't know how you can argue that.
> : The resolution is Minkowsky geometry. In Euclidean geometry, > : a straight line is the shortest path connecting two points. > : In Minkowsky geometry, an inertial path is the *longest* > : path connecting two spacetime points. Rather than saying that > : moving clocks tick slower,
>You DON'T GET TO HAVE a "rather than"! Moving clocks DO tick >slower!
No, they don't.
> : the modern way of thinking about > : is that a clock accurately measures the "distance" (proper > : separation) between timelike points in spacetime, > : and that the geometry of spacetime implies that an inertial path > : is the longest.
>None of this is the issue. The issue IS, under this >view, can the Twin Paradox ARISE IN THE FIRST PLACE? >Is there any problematic symmetry that SEEMS to arise, >SEEMS thereby to provoke paradox, and SEEMS to need >breaking in order to rescue us? If so, then you can >tell us how M.G. breaks the symmetry. Otherwise you >are just irrelevant.
I *am* irrelevant. I'm just some guy who occasionally posts to usenet. So are you.
But I already told you how Minkowsky geometry breaks the symmetry. Minkowsky geometry says that
T(A,B) + T(B,C) <= T(A,C)
where T(A,B) is the invariant separation between spacetime points A and B.
> > > > > > > When you can define time, then maybe your input will be > > > > interesting. > > > > > > > Clocks do not measure the passage of time, they 'register' an > > > > internal > > > > > > > velocity (of some mass or system of mass) times it's > > displacement, > > > > > > > either linear or angular depending upon the type of clock, an > > > > internal > > > > > > > velocity that must change in order for the registered 'ticks' > > to > > > > get out > > > > > > > of sync with another clock.
> > > > > > Time > > > > > > o regarded as a coordinate dimension and required by > > relativity > > > > > > theory, along with three spatial dimensions, to > > > > > > specify completely the location of any event.
> > > > > As perceived: A motion through ordered changes in state of the > > > > universe.
> > > > > As it enters physics: The logical displacement of the initial > > state of > > > > a > > > > > closed system and the state of the same system through an > > arbitrary > > > > and > > > > > homogenous sequence of changes. Those cyclic changes in a > > sub-system > > > > > (also virtually closed) in particular being regarded as "regular", > > and > > > > > arbitrarily designated as a standard unit of change. The > > homogenous > > > > > sequence of ordered microscopic changes (events) in the universe > > > > > constitute a universal time-line, "moved" through equally by all > > > > > particles, since all particles simultaneously exist in every state > > > > > subtending any "duration".
> > > > Philosophese mumbo jumbo for saying that time is what is measured by > > > > counting the cycles of a repetitive process.
> > > > Franz Heymann
> > > Correct with the two exceptions: > > > 1) It is based upon an empirical premise, namely that the order of > > > occurrence of events in the universe is frame invariant.
> > Balls. The order of events in the Universe is quite categorically not > > frame invariant. You should bone up on SR.
> Let event1 be the ejection of an electron from a negative test charge, > and let event2 be the absorption of that electron by a positive test > charge. From what frame of reference is the electron ejected from the > positive test charge and absorbed by the negative test charge, and what > law governs this interaction? Is causation to be sidelined, and if so > then how is the event still predictable? Do you see the inherent > contradiction here Franz? You really haven't thought this out very > well, have you? The observed time of an event is not the actual time of > occurrence of that event, and one of these days you'll understand that > this is all that the Lorentz transform says. It assigns infinite > propagational velocity to light, and assigns time dilation and length > contraction as the causes of propagational delay (required because light > is no longer something that propagates, but is rather regarded as an > instantaneous connection between charges). It is a mathematical twist > that was completely out of order, uncalled for, and most especially just > plain stooopid.
I asked you to bone up on SR before answering. The above nonsense shows that you have not.
> > You seem to be under the impression that a clock can be separated from > > its frame.
> I've thrown an alarm clock or two, a clear example of separation of a > clock and "my" frame.
Please read what I said. The rest will obviously not be worth reading, so I will not.
|
