0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteWhat you're failing to get is that the universe has to do something specific to coordinate the unfolding of events, This is your personal interpretation, no currently accepted theory requires this. Is this part of a predestination world?
What you're failing to get is that the universe has to do something specific to coordinate the unfolding of events,
Quoteand it can't have clock A ticking faster than clock B while at the same time having clock B ticking faster than clock A. If it does one of those, it cannot be doing both.Then you truly don't understand SR based on your replies. The relativistic expressions are the classical expressions modified by the effects of time dilation for both mutual observers, and are therefore reciprocal or symmetrical.
and it can't have clock A ticking faster than clock B while at the same time having clock B ticking faster than clock A. If it does one of those, it cannot be doing both.
A observes the B-clock moving past at v, and B observes the A-clock moving past at v, i.e. both in the same initial conditions, so why shouldn't each see the same clock behavior.
Each observer perceives a changed frequency of the other clock, increase or decrease, depending on approaching or receding, but perception (look up the word) is reality confined to the mind. The A and B clock rates have not changed.
In addition, time does not cause anything, that's why it's recorded AFTER the event occurs.
With no teleportation, you could communicate with the primed frame via light, and find its description of events is different, the same sequence of events happen but with different times and locations.Ten people in a circle around a house, with cameras. Each picture is a different perspective of the house, since no two people can be in the same location. Each picture is a real and valid representation of the one house.
The events you described are all humanly directed, planned and executed and dependent on consistent behavior of the elements of the universal, i.e. the 'laws'. Animal and plant life depend on the genetic programs and the 'laws', The remaining inanimate matter depends only on the 'laws'. At this level there is no evidence of coordination or purpose beyond the 'laws'. There is randomness like thermal energy and quantum probabilities, which are welcome, by providing diversity vs monotony. Imagine if all mountains looked the same, and all lakes were the same, etc.
QuoteThey come directly out of the idea that time never runs slow on any path (because time can't really run slower on one path than any other unless you have a preferred frame)You believe in a universal independent time, where SR requires a subjective time..
They come directly out of the idea that time never runs slow on any path (because time can't really run slower on one path than any other unless you have a preferred frame)
In a real world experiment, muons moving in a storage ring at .999c experienced time dilation compared to muons at rest in the lab. The results;1. an example of the 'twin' scenario, an aging difference,2. confirmation of the 'clock hypothesis', the tick rate depends on speed and not on acceleration (10^19 g in the storage ring).3. no event meshing issues, both batches of muons were always present in the lab.
QuoteSee if you can find any physicists who think that relativity can't be simulated.I didn't say it can't. A pilot can practice flying in a simulator, but he doesn't go anywhere.
See if you can find any physicists who think that relativity can't be simulated.
I have never seen this issue mentioned anywhere, and why I questioned its origin.
Time and the progress of causation go hand in hand together. A process is a series of steps in which earlier steps come before later steps and later steps come after previous steps. Look at the words used there: earlier, before, later, after - these are time words being used to describe an unfolding process of cause-and-effect events. We can run long strings of cause-and-effect processes inside our rockets as we run the "twins paradox" experiment, thereby showing that time must unfold for all those events in the same way as the processes unfold. Time and process are tightly coupled, to the point of being inseparable.
With the "twins paradox", for example, if the clock with the travelling twin is supposed to tick more slowly on one leg of a journey than the stay-at-home twin's clock and again tick more slowly on the second leg, that can't just happen by magic - it has to be controlled by something.
If you do it with two different frames, both of them will make sense, but they will account for what's happened in ways that contradict each other because they set different different one-way speeds of light across objects.
Wherever there is cause and effect, the cause has to run before the effect. You can't generate the effect first and then generate the cause (and no one suggests that you can), but you also can't generate the effect and cause at the same step in the process. When you fire a gun and the bullet smashes a glass plate, leading to a fragment of the plate embedding itself in an apple, the trigger of the gun was not pulled at the same step in the process as the shard of glass hits the apple. There is a chain of events which have an order with each causing or affecting the one that follows it. The process has to be coordinated, and time is necessarily dragged into that coordination and locked to it
Everything is in the present it does not matter about our view.
There is no such thing as time travel because time is the energy of motion as it relates to c.
You need to consider the issue of clocks ticking the same rate equidistant from the center of gravity and how it relates to the view of contraction. You are ignoring the issue in order to maintain physical contraction.
The rotation of the Earth around the sun seems not to affect the tick rate of clocks on the Earth.
So locally light has its own zero point return position in space for timing. Rotating Earth with the rotation around the sun and against the rotation around the sun has no affect on tick rate for timing.
Now let's look at the MMX in that light (no pun intended).North and south directions we only have Simultaneity of Relativity for distance so the timing and distance are exactly the same in either direction. Now the East and West directions are slightly different for distance measurements. But it is an affect of light being independent of the source that measured a different distance in each direction. It can be measured as (c+v) and (c-v) but this has nothing to do with the speed of light not being constant.
You are merely measuring the light distance not the physical distance through space. Lets take a distance of light and say it is 20ns shorter in the East to West direction which is about 20 feet for light. Now we go back and find it to be 20ns longer which is regaining the 20 feet we lost. There is just an offset in the East and West direction because light returns to the same position it left. Light can only count distance on Earth and not space. So locally light distance is the same when measuring the two way distance for light in any direction for the same energy use. Unlike the positions in space that do not return to the same position by energy use. So clocks on earth tick at the same rate in two way cycles which is what we use for timing.
You can maintain your understanding of physical contracting solids with velocity but it is based on incorrect use of data.
Your understanding is in between SR and GR same as Einstein's was until he understood GR equidistance from the center of gravity and tick rates.
SR gives an explanation in terms of basic physics. It's a motion induced phenomenon in combination with a constant and independent light speed. The process of 'ticking' slows when the clock moves past an observer. If you understand how the light clock works, you should know this. Couple this with altered perception (chemical processes slowing) which prevents the observer from detecting his slow clock, and you have time dilation.
As for the reuniting, that's coordinated by the anauts moving with the correct velocity, i.e. under human control.
In your example of anauts A and B separating at speed v, each will observe the other clock ticking slower than their own. That is a contradiction only if considered simultaneously. It's not A and B, it's A or B. Each can assume a pseudo rest frame with the other moving and see the doppler effect. You don't even need two drawings, just swap pilots.
Light has a constant propagation speed c in SR. It is always measured as c in all frames.
That's common knowledge even for people not interested in science.
The indefinite causal chain is not always true, specifically when human choice is involved. You keep using examples of events planned and executed via human control, which answers your own question. If the person firing the gun misses the plate, the chain of causality ends That element was under human control, not time. I don't object to the idea of an objective 'time', it just hasn't been discovered yet.
I do reject any type of block universe, so no point in referring to it.
The past is not present
There is time travel into the future - it's impossible not to travel that way with time.
What issue am I ignoring? If they're moving, they're contracted regardless of how far they are from anything
How would you know? While the ticking rate changes, your inability to notice it changing hides the change.
How can you tell? If the galaxy's moving at relativistic speed, which it could be, then clocks on the Earth will be running slow one way and a bit less slow the other way.
The MMX uses such short arms that you needn't bother to think about the Earth rotating. You can simply take the MMX apparatus to be moving on a straight line because it will behave just like a copy of itself that is moving in a straight line (at a tangent to the Earth). The arm aligned with that straight line will have to contract.
I don't know how tangled your thinking is on this, but if you send the MMX apparatus along a tangent to the Earth, the arm aligned with that path will be length-contracted all the way as it follows that path, and when it passes an MMX fixed to the Earth's surface that is co-moving with it for a moment, it will behave identically to it. The only significant complication is that the speed of light will be lower as the MMX apparatus following the tangent gets deeper into the Earth's gravity well, so it will function more slowly.
Without length-contraction, particle accelerators could accelerate things to speeds greater than c. It's relativistic mass that prevents that happening, and relativistic mass drives length-contraction.
I don't think so. Bringing gravity into things doesn't stop length-contraction happening. It just provides another mechanism for slowing clocks which is additional to the speed of movement mechanism.
Quote from: David Cooper on 19/07/2017 22:34:54There is time travel into the future - it's impossible not to travel that way with time.That's a man made concept you are using to claim SR is incorrect. We only travel in the present with the motion of the present changing. You are using time travel issues that are not part of reality.
Quote from: David Cooper on 19/07/2017 22:34:54What issue am I ignoring? If they're moving, they're contracted regardless of how far they are from anythingNo on Earth we have an offset for the two way measurement of light. That is not contraction.
QuoteQuoteThe rotation of the Earth around the sun seems not to affect the tick rate of clocks on the Earth.How would you know? While the ticking rate changes, your inability to notice it changing hides the change.No with our measurement techniques we know all clocks tick at the same rate regardless of the rotation around the sun by direction of the spin of the Earth. The gravitational energy position we reside in may affect the overall tick rates of our clocks but on Earth they all tick at the same rate equidistant from the center of gravity.
QuoteThe rotation of the Earth around the sun seems not to affect the tick rate of clocks on the Earth.How would you know? While the ticking rate changes, your inability to notice it changing hides the change.
Quote from: David Cooper on 19/07/2017 22:34:54How can you tell? If the galaxy's moving at relativistic speed, which it could be, then clocks on the Earth will be running slow one way and a bit less slow the other way.Because it is an observed fact all clocks tick the same at sea level.
Quote from: David Cooper on 19/07/2017 22:34:54The MMX uses such short arms that you needn't bother to think about the Earth rotating. You can simply take the MMX apparatus to be moving on a straight line because it will behave just like a copy of itself that is moving in a straight line (at a tangent to the Earth). The arm aligned with that straight line will have to contract.Anytime some one says you needn't bother to think they are not in a position to learn.
You cannot take it to be going in a straight line. The energy usage is different for a straight line in space because clocks tick at the same rate on the Earth at sea level. GR controlled tick rate is a different animal.
Quote from: David Cooper on 19/07/2017 22:34:54I don't know how tangled your thinking is on this, but if you send the MMX apparatus along a tangent to the Earth, the arm aligned with that path will be length-contracted all the way as it follows that path, and when it passes an MMX fixed to the Earth's surface that is co-moving with it for a moment, it will behave identically to it. The only significant complication is that the speed of light will be lower as the MMX apparatus following the tangent gets deeper into the Earth's gravity well, so it will function more slowly.No it will not. Movement beyond the threshold of Earths gravitational influence as a tangent has a different affect than the curve of sea level.
All of this is based on believing clocks do not tick at the same rate at sea level.
There is an offset in the two way speed of light measurement. That is not contraction. The offset can be measured with atomic clocks.
David Cooper #425You're in denial, even when reading the answers.
The preferred frame is c.
Your simulations only account for the differences in time and not distance measurements.
In SR both cycle timing and distances change together.
You measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same in every frame.
When your timing slows your measuring stick expands in SR. You are only looking at timing. You need to understand the full affect.
Lets say Gods Eye is instantaneous not using light or measuring stick. There would be no need for relativity or simultaneity of relativity.
In SR the Gamma term is the increase in distance of your measuring stick to match the change in timing. Try that in your simulations.
SR experiments are performed in the real world, they are not simulations. The results agree with the theory.
Whenever the results are presented as a response to your questions, you deny/ignore them by repeating this fantasy notion about coordination and event meshing issues, etc.
How would you prove an event never happened? Sounds silly doesn't it?
Did you ever consider your models may have errors?
The real universe must pick one frame to use for its mechanism and stick with it throughout.
The issue, which you still seem incapable of grasping, is that frame A cannot be the absolute frame if a different frame, frame B, is the absolute frame, and frame B can't be the absolute frame if frame A is. You can't have more than one absolute frame.
SR does not claim frame A or any other frame is the absolute frame, that's the significance of the relativity principle which you don't seem to understand.
Give us your explanation/mechanism of why moving clocks run slower.
SR certainly doesn't claim there is one, but indeed it goes so far as to claim there isn't one. However, it depends on a preferred-frame mechanism for its functionality (unless it moves to the eternal static block universe model where the future had no opportunity to be generated out of the past), so it depends on there being an absolute frame whether it acknowledges the fact or not.
Why don't we take this right back to the very beginning to see if we can find out where it all went wrong for you. I want you to imagine that you know nothing about relativity at all and that you're a bright, open minded (but also suitably sceptical) child in a classroom who is completely new to physics. The teacher has a desk at the front of the room which is about 3.3 metres long and which is end-on to a window. He explains that light travels at a speed that allows it to go from one end of the desk to the other in ten nanoseconds. He produces two stopclocks which can count in nanoseconds and puts one at each end of the desk, then he attaches light detectors to the clocks (perhaps slave units designed for flash photography) so that the clocks can be stopped by flashes of light. He also has a flashgun from a camera which he's going to use to trigger them. He is able to start the clocks and synchronise them in some way, so they're both running and displaying the same time. He takes the flashgun to one end of the desk and aims it at the two detectors, then presses the button. There's a bright flash, and the clocks stop. One of them reads a value higher than the other by ten nanoseconds.
Now the teacher explains to the class that the Earth is moving, and so is the sun, and the galaxy, so can the speed of light really be the same in both directions along the desk relative to the desk? What if the desk is really moving through space at half the speed of light in the direction of the window such that light would take much longer to go from one end of the desk to the other in that direction and much less time to go the other way? Or what if the desk is really moving at 90% the speed of light? Well, he starts the clocks again from zero, but he has changed the mode they're running in such that they are now ticking more quickly than they were before. He also explains that he's changed the synchronisation so that one of them is ahead of the other, although it's too small a difference for you to see it. Now he repeats the experiment by setting off the flash from the same end as before. The result this time is a difference between the times of the clocks of seventy four nanoseconds.
He now explains to the class that he has measured the speed of light along the length of the bench twice. The first measurement claimed that light travels one desklength every ten nanoseconds. The second measurement claimed that light travels one desklength every 74 nanoseconds (in that direction). What he does next though is startling, because he tells the class that light travels the length of the desk in ten nanoseconds AND in 74 nanoseconds, AND in a millon years, AND in five nanoseconds. He tells them that light is moving the length of the table at all those different speeds at the same time and that his fiddling with the way the clocks are synchronised and the rates at which they tick is fully valid. Each method of synchronising the clocks is based on the idea that the desk could be moving at high speed through space, and each speed needs its own synchronisation.
The idea that the new synchronisation is valid for a high speed of travel for the desk makes sense, so that isn't the startling thing about the teacher's claim. Someone behind you speaks up, suggesting that light can only be moving at one speed along the desk. The teacher replies, "Well, there is actually a theory that asserts just that, and it fits all the facts perfectly, but we have a simpler theory which also fits all the facts which says that light's moving along the table at an infinite number of different speeds at the same time." Another heckler's voice is heard grumbling that it doesn't sound simpler. "Ah, but it is simpler," says the teacher, "because... Oh, I'm afraid I misspoke! When light's moving along the table at an infinite number of different speeds at the same time, we should simply state that it's moving along the desk in ten nanoseconds without worrying about how fast the desk might be moving, and that means we can always claim that it isn't moving at all and that we'll always be right. It means that light always travels at the same speed relative to all objects and that all the other speeds we record for any object can simply be ignored. Yes; that's what the simpler theory says!" He walks over to a cupboard in the corner of the room and by opening it reveals that it is actually a wardrobe full of clothes dangling from hangers, then he steps into it and calls, "Who's coming to Narnia with me!"
Should you follow him to Narnia? You stop to think. The measurement that he made where the clocks recorded it taking 74ns for the light to travel the length of the desk would be correct if the desk is moving at about 87% as fast as the light, and it really could be moving that fast through space. That second experiment measured the speed of light relative to the table and found it not to be the 10ns/desklength, but 74ns/dl. Someone in the class knows what the speed of light is supposed to be in km/s, so you get a calculator out and crunch the numbers. Yes - 10ns/dl matches up to the official speed of light. But 74ns/dl most certainly does not. The teacher carried out an experiment which measured the speed of light along the desk as 0.135c relative to the desk. At first he asked you to believe that light travels the length of the desk at all speeds between 0 and 2C at the same time, but then he changed his mind and asked you to ignore that and to believe instead that light always travels at c relative to the desk and doesn't travel at any other speed than c relative to anything."I don't want to fail my exams," says a boy at the front. He gets up and walks into the wardrobe. "If we have to say we believe this stuff to get through, I'll gladly say it!"
A flock of baaing sheep then make their way to the wardrobe and they all pass through into Narnia. You are left with a few people who either don't care about physics or who object to what they're being asked to believe. What are you going to do? We can measure the speed of light relative to moving objects and get values which are clearly not c, so do these measurements not provide valid information? The measured value of 74ns/dl may be correct, and if it is correct, all the other speeds for light relative to the desk in that direction are necessarily wrong. If the teacher wants the speed of light to be c relative to the desk for all speeds of travel of the desk, he must be changing the speed of light through space in different directions to match any change in the speed of travel of the desk through space. But as soon as there are two desks moving relative to each other, his trick is broken - the speed of light across one of the desks will not be c relative to it in every direction, and you will be able to measure the difference. The teacher's favoured theory produces contradictions, while the "less simple" theory (which seems much simpler) doesn't.As I said before, there's some weird psychology tied up in all this
That is a straw man argument. The two postulates make no such claim. In fact having a constant c is a claim for an absolute frame.
They would tick more slowly at 90% of the speed of light.
If you change the tick rate of your clock you are no longer synchronized with relative rest for your clock. You do not get 74ns at 90% relative to rest. You measure the same 10ns because of your contraction and the slower tick rate by relativity (although I do not believe in physical contraction).
The affect for one way vs. two way is different. Lets make your clock the same distance as your desk and measure the one way as a tick. Clocks are only timing measurements based on c. You cannot measure something if that something is part of the measurement. Timing using c and measuring c is included.
It's c that is constant. You are making a straw man argument. Measuring and timing are not valid except for relative measuring from a frames point of view and only that frame. No view is valid!!!!! They are indirect measurements that change with velocity. Both time and distance.
Yes there is a faith issue in relativity. It's an incomplete understanding of the masses that allows confusing points of view. I am sorry to say you have not completed your understanding until you resolve the paradoxes you claim. You are creating paradoxes that are not applicable. No view is valid and no measurement is valid but c is constant.