0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 14:12:45Quote from: Centra on 19/01/2022 10:52:00So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?I didn't.This is what I said was the authority.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativityIt's called experimental evidence.Oh right, Wikipedia knows all. Where do you think they got General Relativity from, pulled it out of a hat?
Quote from: Centra on 19/01/2022 10:52:00So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?I didn't.This is what I said was the authority.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativityIt's called experimental evidence.
So why do you hold at least one of them out to be the authority on the characteristics of light in relative frames?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 14:16:06Quote from: Centra on 19/01/2022 11:50:51It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation. It only appears that way to you.And those with a high enough level of comprehension.
Quote from: Centra on 19/01/2022 11:50:51It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation. It only appears that way to you.
It appears that I may have identified a flaw in Einstein's equations for time dilation.
There is not enough information in your question to give a valid answer. You need to specify which frame you are talking about.When thinking about SR you should consider yourself at rest compared to all other inertial frames. The clocks in all the other frames are moving slower and the amount they are slower depends on their velocity relative to you.
So if two objects are moving in the same straight axis in opposite directions from a third object, all of equal mass, at velocity of 100,000 km/s each from that middle object, would the two outer objects show the same times or different times on their clocks?
Here is how it would work. Assume there is a planet point A and both ships fly in opposite directions at 100,000 km/hr from the planet. The one going to the left is B and the one to the right is C.After one second the point A would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on B and C. From point B frame after 1 sec they would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on A and only 0.745 sec had elapsed for C. From point C frame after 1 sec they would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on A and only 0.745 sec had elapsed for B.
Assume there is a planet point A and both ships fly in opposite directions at 100,000 km/sec from the planet. The one going to the left is B and the one to the right is C.After one second the point A would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on B and C.
From point B frame after 1 sec they would see that only 0.943 sec had elapsed on A and only 0.745 sec had elapsed for C.
To Centra:There is no 'paradox' since there is no absolute time that you are assuming.Relative to any object, time runs slower for the other objects. This is not the same as saying that time runs faster for one object than another, a statement which lacks a frame reference and is thus meaningless.You seem to have no desire to actually understand anything, so I don't expect you to, but you have no grounds to declare the inconsistency of a theory which you admit yourself you lack even the most basic understanding.
Quote from: Halc on 19/01/2022 19:26:24To Centra:There is no 'paradox' since there is no absolute time that you are assuming.Relative to any object, time runs slower for the other objects. This is not the same as saying that time runs faster for one object than another, a statement which lacks a frame reference and is thus meaningless.You seem to have no desire to actually understand anything, so I don't expect you to, but you have no grounds to declare the inconsistency of a theory which you admit yourself you lack even the most basic understanding. I said it was seen as inconsistent with the results of experiments in 1942. What's wrong with declaring an observable fact, unless you want to suggest that those scientists were lying, which nobody else ever suggested at the time. You still haven't explained those results not matching up with the predictions of SR, by the way, you just completely ignored it, like Einstein himself did. If you can't explain something, act like it never happened, is that the strategy? "You seem to have no desire to actually understand" that experiment, what's that about, Halc?
To be precise, B and C would age 0.943 sec relative to A's frame. The observer at A wouldn't actually see that since the objects are receding and Doppler effect would reduce that to around 0.63 seconds, what observer B actually sees......Only 0.804 for C. It's only moving at 178432 km/sec relative to B, not 200000. Don't forget relativistic velocity addition.
Why don't you stop messing about, repeat the experiment they did, show that relativity is wrong, and collect your Nobel prize?
The observer at A wouldn't actually see that since the objects are receding and Doppler effect would reduce that to around 0.63 seconds, what observer B actually sees.
Only 0.804 for C. It's only moving at 178432 km/sec relative to B, not 200000. Don't forget relativistic velocity addition.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/01/2022 20:03:18Why don't you stop messing about, repeat the experiment they did, show that relativity is wrong, and collect your Nobel prize?Pretty sure they don't give out prizes for repeating experiments.
What would B and C write down on paper as being the time on their clocks when they reached 100,000 km from A?
I could accept that it might LOOK like those times but obviously the times couldn't actually change by different amounts at once.
E = mc2: Who Got There First? The equation E = mc2 is synonymous with the name Einstein. However, it may come as a surprise to many to find out that Einstein was not in fact the first to derive the famous equation. In 1903, the Italian Olinto De Pretto, who was an engineer/industrialist with experience in materials and their properties, gave the precise formula E = mc2. It was first published in June 1903. De Pretto delivered a second paper on November 29th 1903 in Venice, and this paper was published in the proceedings of the Venetian Royal Institute of Science, Literature and Art in February 1904. This is a translation of what De Pretto concluded in that paper: Given then E = mc2, in = 1 kg and c = 3 x 106 km/s. anyone can see that the quantity of calories obtained is represented by 10794 followed by 9 zeros, that is more than ten thousand billions. To what terrible result has our reasoning brought us? Nobody will easily admit that an amount of energy equal to the quantity that can be derived from millions and millions of kilograms of coal is concealed and stored at a latent state in one kilogram of matter of any kind; this idea will be undoubtedly considered foolish. However, even if the result of our calculations be reduced somewhat, it should be nevertheless admitted that inside matter there must be stored so much energy as to strike anyone's imagination. What is in comparison to it, the energy that can be derived from the richest combustible or from the most powerful chemical reaction? Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity TheoriesBy Al Kelly (page 15)
Quote from: Centra on 19/01/2022 19:18:49I could accept that it might LOOK like those times but obviously the times couldn't actually change by different amounts at once. The experiment was done.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experimentRelativity won.
1 The optical circuit, closed, is in its entirety fixed to the revolving disc. -- This is the well-known case of experiments of Sagnac. The two theories are here in agreement between them and in agreement with the experiment, with regard to the total shift of the 8 fringes recorded on the disc turning. However, the traditional theorist and the relativistic theorist are not in agreement between them on the distribution that they make, of the cause of the phenomenon, between the various components of the total course. But so that the physicist operator who makes the experiment has the possibility of choosing between these two theoretical interpretations, it would be necessary to take an experimental measurement directly of the speed of light on the platform in rotation, an operation which is obviously impossible to realize with the precision necessary, in the current state of the art. Quote
This may be shocking to some sensitive viewers, but Einstein did not originate E=mc2, just thought you should know in case you were under any illusions to that effect.
That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless.
For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't.
You could also cite the experiment with the highly sensitive atomic clock in recent times where they found that raising the clock 33 cm caused a difference in the time rate due to gravity difference and also claimed to have confirmed that motion also affected time.
We don't know how vibrating atoms
Gravity and motion are two different things though
We don't know why gravity affects time though, we don't know that it's due to curvature of spacetime, just that it does.