Same to you, Al, you insulting sonofabitch.

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?  What that has to do with the empirical invalidity of
Newtonian physics and Galilean transforms is beyond me, and any
thinking individual.

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 so badly that even if _you_
happen to state an equivalent form which leaves your sacred semantic
"relative velocity" untouched and inviolate, you unconsciously
translate it back to your form, and so spew nonsense.  If a particle
moves to my right with u2 = c - e1, and if a second particle moves to
my left with u2 = c - e2, then what is the bound on u1 + u2?

I'll give you time to think about this weighty proposition.

Logic impaired half-bakeds like you make one more sympathetic to the
non-standard logic-half-bakes.  You have about their wit and wisdom,
and so there is a fit meeting of the minds.  So to speak.

Relative velocity v1 - v2 is sensibly viewed as a physical object with
frame dependent representation.  Duh.  And, given a frame in which we
represent the velocity of particle 1 as v1 and the velocity of
particle 2 as v2, guess what the representation of "relative velocity"
is in that frame?  I know you can do it, unless that chemistry
accident fried your brain as well as your skin.

But oh, the beauty of it ... even given that askking for a frame
dependent representation of "relative velocity" is like asking a
Catholic to consider the sexual relation of the virgin to the Holy
Spirit, you yourself came up with an alternate formulation of the
heretical concept.

Oh, what the hell do I care what you think.  You may once have been a
brilliant man, but now you are a bitter old spewpot.

You don't even need jiggers. Just note the clock times at the various
meetings, and you won't get into complications over interactions between the
clocks.

May I refer all doubters to the little book "Relativity and Common Sense" by
Hermann Bondi (Heinemann 1965) which sets everything out logically with
minimal use of heavy mathematics.

news:3DB81FA6.ADDC528E@hate.spam.net...

Can you provide a consistent reversal of two events with respect to two
inertial frames? Do not the same events occur in the universe wrt the
twins during the time between their departure and the time of their
reunion on Earth? How can you say that each has progressed through time
at different rates when the time that they have moved through is
perfectly equal from every FOR? Though the time that was "registered" by
each may differ, this does not detract from the reality that they were
moving through time at equal rates, it shows only that orbits and cyclic
phenomenon in general are subject to physical change, which is no less
the "very" basis of any type of kinematics. This is the reason that an
accelerated clock is not a valid standard. As an analogy an an the
acceleration and/or change in temperature and/or external pressure
acting on a meter stick, results in a stick that no longer registers the
unit meter correctly, and if launched into orbit where the ambient field
differs then the same applies. Real clocks are just meter sticks in
motion about an axis, is this really that difficult for you guys to
grasp? You are so wrapped up in the abstract relationships between
manufactured units that you have lost all touch with fundamental
reality. The solution is always hidden in the details, those fucking
details;-)

Richard

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper

news:3DB9E8E0.43E27834@yahoo.com...

Not on your nellie.  Study the nature of the weak interaction before
committing further blunders in ignorance.

Tell us which quanta are involved where.  Here is the typical process:

n -> p + e + nu-e-bar

You don't need fission, controlled or otherwise, to make a clock based
on radioactive decay.
You are out of your depth and it shows.

Franz Heymann

news:3DB9EF2D.EB05BAEB@yahoo.com...

Philosophese mumbo jumbo for saying that time is what is measured by
counting the cycles of a repetitive process.

Franz Heymann

news:38af3945.0210251913.4ae26f1a@posting.google.com...
<news:apbp93$j5u$2@knossos.btinternet.com>...

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

news:3DB9CDF2.69A8108@yahoo.com...

[...]

You nneed not have bothered.  It is still nonsense.

Franz Heymann

news:2a0cceff.0210252254.5fddbab9@posting.google.com...
<news:3DB966C4.C92BE6A@hate.spam.net>...
<news:3DB81FA6.ADDC528E@hate.spam.net>...

I look forward to reading how Uncle Al responds to that.  {:-)

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.

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.

[...]

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.

Franz Heymann

[snip]

That is what the jiggers do.  The only way to synchronize two clocks
is for them to be "local."  Touching does the job without argument.
One wouldn't have two spaceships traveling 180 degrees head on at
0.999c skim within a millimeter of each other in the real world for
fear of insurance premiums skyrocketing.  It does make an entirely
satisfactory thought experiment.

"Looking" ship to ship won't do it for obvious reasons and
argumentative ones.

Special Relativity is a self-consistent hyperbolic geometry.  It
cannot be "disproven" any more than Euclid can be disproven.  Both are
rigorously derived and neither contains any errors.  However,
postulates are always ripe for attack!  

Plane geometry is the logic of zero curvature (Euclid's Fifth
Postulate).  If we assume positive or negative curvatures we get
elliptic and hyperbolic geometries whose limiting zero-curvature cases
are Euclid.  Newton tacitly assumed lightspeed is infinite.  If we
assume lightspeed is c we get Special Relativity, whose limiting case
for low velocities is Newton.

General Relativity assumes the Equivalence Principle, that inertial
(push a car) and gravitational (lift a car) masses are rigorously
identical.  Spacetime curvature immediately follows - all masses must
fall identically in vacuum (pursue local parallel geodesic paths) -
and then GR.  If we had two masses that did not fall identically, GR
would be falsified.  Einstein would fall to more inclusive theory as
Euclid and Newton so succumbed.

Folks have looked real hard for two such test masses, starting with
Galileo some 412 years ago and now sensitive to one part in ten
trillion relative.  100% failure.  There is only one examinable mass
property that has *never* been examined.  It can be quantitatively
calculated from first principles.  Paired test masses can be created
that are 99.9% divergent vs. overall rest mass.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Do something naughty to physics
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
The short form

Somebody should look.  Teh worst it can do is fail.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

"Signenerratum muss man nicht sich beitten an"
(We don't bother ourselves with sign errors)

Provide real German and attribute it to Planck or Einstein.  :-)

Well, we know what we mean on that score.

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 correct rule to transform this object is
to transform v1, v2 to the new frame then form the difference again.
This rule includes the special case where we transform to a frame
where either v1, v2 = 0 -- the expected frame for "relativistic
velocity addition".

Ironically it is kind of unrelativistic in outlook to insist that a
physical object can only be represented in a certain frame of
reference -- why should "relative velocity" be any different?

Thanks for taking the time to inject a note of moderation.

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.

Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"

 : In <3DB81FA6.ADDC5...@hate.spam.net> Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> writes:
 :
 : [Three-clock version of the twin paradox]
 :
 : Hey, that's good.  Really good!

Sure, the experiment is good, but the claim
that "nothing runs slow in any reference frame"
that preceded it was just hubristic hogwash.
Besides, the twin paradox is sort of mis-named.

In the 2-clock version, there is no paradox.
One clock runs slow, and it is the one that
got accelerated.  The reason the twin paradox
was called a paradox is that if you IGNORE
acceleration, if you JUST look at relative
velocities, then the situation looks SYMMETRIC:
EACH twin thinks about the other that "he started
out where I am, he moved away from me at a high
speed for a while, and then moved back to me at
a similarly high rate of speed".  If "moving clocks
run slow" were all there was to it, then each would
be expecting the other's clock to run slow.
THAT paradox (which IS a paradox) is resolved
only by noting that one of the clocks got
accelerated and the other didn't.  You could actually
produce the same relative-velocity progression while
accelerating BOTH twins in opposite directions, but
if you did that, then when they got back together,
their clocks would agree; again, NO paradox.

In the 3-clock scenario, the first question is,
IS there any paradox to resolve??
As far as Al took it, he got to the point
where the sum of the numbers on the slips
excreted by clocks 2 and 3 was less than the
number on the slip excreted by clock 1,
but he DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT what it looks
like from the viewpoint of the other 2 clocks.

The situation is almost symmetric (and symmetry is
NECESSARY BEFORE there can be any paradox to resolve)
in that all 3 clocks are turned on by a 1st encounter
with a 2nd clock and turned off by a subsequent encounter
with a 3rd clock.  But if we compare the later off-
encounter to the earlier on-encounter, for all 3
clocks, the differences are as follows:
Clock 1 has its off-encounter with a clock arriving
at the same speed but from the opposite direction,
while clock 2 has its off-encounter
with a clock arriving at a higher speed from the
same direction, and clock 3 has its off-encounter
with a clock arriving a lower speed from the same
direction.

Is there a paradox here OR NOT?

--
 ---
  "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

 : 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.  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?

 : >Still, your prevarication has the valuable property of showing that it
 : >is not any intrinsic effect of acceleration on the clock which results
 : >in the "paradox", but only on the trajectory.
 :
 : 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.

--
 ---
  "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

If you knew anything about Special Relativity you would be astonished
at your public self-abasement.  Either get to a library and get
educated before you brain fart, or bother religious newsgroups where
any borborygmus is holy writ deserving of elicited mass defecation in
support.

You know nothing.  You are an embarassment.  You don't have the
intelligence to pull 85 years of physics out of your bellybutton ab
initio.  You criticize, but you offer nothing in exchange.  "The food
was awful and there wasn't much of it, either."  Go eat somewhere you
pay the tab yourself.

[snip]

Relativistic mu-mesons from cosmic ray collisions high in the
atmosphere have explicit empirical half-lives by the SR rule longer
than locally generated low energy (slow) mu-mesons.  So do
relativistic accelerator beams of unstable particles or nuclei.  Go
ahead, jackass, discredit SR while explaining the observation.  To
criticize is to volunteer.

If you don't know, don't voluminously spew hot air loudly illuminating
your loathsome ignorance.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Special Relativity is a hyperbolic geometry.  Relativistic velocities
are macroscopic hyperbolic 4-rotations.  The algebra isn't linear.
Everything works by the book.  Try reading the book.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

In article <3DBAF911.F66BC...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al

[snip]

  ^^^^^^^^^^^

I like it.  Thanks for the vocabulary building.

[snip]

--
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \    barbara minus knox at iname stop com
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |  
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |  
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |  
-----------------------------

All quanta are involved in every interaction. No closed system exists
other than the universe itself.

You need radioactive decay, a physical event with physical causes.
What's your point?

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 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, 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 occultation? 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?

Go roll over on your back and piss on yourself like the well trained and
defeated dog that you are.

Richard

All quanta are involved in every interaction. No closed system exists
other than the universe itself.

You need radioactive decay, a physical event with physical causes.
What's your point?

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 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, 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?

Go roll over on your back and piss on yourself like the well trained and
defeated dog that you are.

Richard

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.

 : George Greene wrote:
 : > Sure, the experiment is good, but the claim
 : > that "nothing runs slow in any reference frame"
 : > that preceded it was just hubristic hogwash.
 : > Besides, the twin paradox is sort of mis-named.
 :

 : If you knew anything about Special Relativity you would be astonished
 : at your public self-abasement.  Either get to a library and get
 : educated before you brain fart,

That is not a refutation.

 : You know nothing.  You are an embarassment.  You don't have the
 : intelligence to pull 85 years of physics out of your bellybutton ab
 : initio.

That is not a refutation.

 :  You criticize, but you offer nothing in exchange.

You don't even criticize.  You just humiliate yourself
with immature scatological flatulence.

 :  "The food
 : was awful and there wasn't much of it, either."  Go eat somewhere you
 : pay the tab yourself.
 :  
 : [snip]
 :
 : > Is there a paradox here OR NOT?
 :
 : Relativistic mu-mesons from cosmic ray collisions high in the
 : atmosphere have explicit empirical half-lives by the SR rule longer
 : than locally generated low energy (slow) mu-mesons.

That is not an answer to the question.

 : If you don't know, don't voluminously spew hot air loudly illuminating
 : your loathsome ignorance.

Why not?  In saner circles, people will actually bother
to correct it instead of just rehashing playground insults.
--
 ---
  "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

 : 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.

Hey, Daryl: you are not saying anything, either,
but you should.

Excuse me for quoting myself, but

 : >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* --

it seemed necessary, since some people didn't get it the first time:

 :   I think that your knowledge in the area is a bit green.

That is not a refutation.

--
 ---
  "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> 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.

When I laughed at that,

DarkMatter <DarkMat...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> said:
 :
 :   I think that your knowledge in the area is a bit green.

I understand that it is possible, if both inertial frames
have different velocities, for B to think that A's clocks
run slow while A also thinks that B's clocks run slow.
But that doesn't involve any bringing together of 2
physical clocks to compare.  In that scenario, a "frame"
is more like a collection of synchronized clocks at
many points, stationary with respect to each other.
Very much a different kind of thing from something
that comes into existence and turns on as a result
of a collision, then turns off and changes into a slip
of paper recording the numerical time that it ran up to,
and then gets transported magically to anyplace where
it might need comparing.  You, DarkMatter, need to be
less green about all the claims Al made during the
course of the argument -- like "the clock IS the frame!" --
though it comes easily into and out of existence (which
frames don't).
--
 ---
  "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