0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-acceleration-slow-time.919565/page-2#post-5801139
... So, just measuring the force experienced is not enough.
Quote from: Le Repteux on 12/07/2017 20:00:46For David and those who are interested, I'm actually participating to a discussion at Physics Forum entitled «Does acceleration slow time», where I try to introduce the notion that, when known, acceleration automatically determines motion.https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-acceleration-slow-time.919565/page-2#post-5801139If you examine the gamma/Lorentz factor, you find (1) and (v/c). That factor is used to calculate time dilation, and it does not contain a term for acceleration.
An absolute rest frame then becomes meaningless and redundant.
Quote from: David Cooper on 12/07/2017 23:15:56... So, just measuring the force experienced is not enough.I know it's not enough, but I think I can still prove that not knowing the direction and the rate of acceleration prevents us from calculating the dilation.Dale complicated the problem with a third observer. The two clocks are moving with regard to the observer, the observer is at rest, one clock accelerates away from the other, what is the time dilation with regard to the observer suffered from the clock that has accelerated a second time? I said there was no solution without knowing first if it is the two clocks or the observer that is moving, he said the solution was .
We cannot tell which frame of reference is tied to the fabric of space, so we cannot tell which accounts are true and which are false, but we are allowed to pick whichever frame of reference is the most convenient for us to work with, and then we can use it for our calculations exactly as if it is the special, absolute frame of reference.
There is no unhappening/undoing of events because of changing reference frames. You just get a different description of events. In the real world, events do happen once but are perceived many times because observers are at different locations. This argues against a block universe.
A simulation is not a real world experience no more than drawing a graph of the history of an object moving in space.
In examining the light clock, it’s the light that moves in two dimensions, while the clock moves in one dimension. Thus nothing moves in time, it’s only a line on paper. That makes it physically unreal (and magical).
Quote We cannot tell which frame of reference is tied to the fabric of space, so we cannot tell which accounts are true and which are false, but we are allowed to pick whichever frame of reference is the most convenient for us to work with, and then we can use it for our calculations exactly as if it is the special, absolute frame of reference. So you state we don’t need an absolute reference.
Why then say it’s necessary?
Whether from Lorentz, Einstein, Poincare, or any others working on a theory of relativity, the significance of it was enabling uniform descriptions of physical processes without having to reference a ‘special’ frame.
If you don’t see that then you don’t understand the principle of the theory. That principle allows for all descriptions to be different yet valid.
As Einstein said in the 1905 paper, it didn’t matter whether the wire moved or the magnet moved, there was an induced current, i.e. which one moves is not relevant.
Thread closed just when it was getting interesting. I think I'm going to open a new one to talk about my conversion from SR unbeliever to LET believer. I bet they won't be as happy as Jorrie seems to be here: http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32771&p=325037#p325358
Quote from: phyti on 13/07/2017 16:08:39An absolute rest frame then becomes meaningless and redundant.Except that it's required to eliminate the contradictions. Any theory that tolerates mechanistic contradictions is wrong. If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.
If the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.
Any form of 'ether' was not necessary, and SR removed any special frame which made its acceptance easier in terms of simplicity.
What you fail to get is the clock phenomena is their perception and not the behavior of the clocks.
I've read and reread the paper at 'Magic' to have a better understanding of what it says. Where did these ideas about event meshing originate?
Quote from: DavidIf the control mechanism of a theory allows clock A to tick faster than clock B while clock B ticks faster than clock A, the theory is broken.That is not a relativity claim at all. With two synchronized clocks and two observers each observer can view the other's clock as being behind their own. That is just simultaneity of relativity.
All views are equally valid. This is only the truth because no view is valid.
I can't figure out the simplicity. I've been on the net for ten years without anybody being able to help me understand SR, and a simple simulation did the job in two days. Maybe Einstein would have changed his mind about simplicity if he had seen what I saw. It is one thing to imagine the motion of light through the moving interferometer, but it is another one to see it, especially when it is moving along the moving telescope. The other possibility is that I am completely dumb, and it aches. :0)
No one who believes time never runs slower on one path than any other should be able to look at mode 1 and not immediately see that there's a serious problem for them with event-meshing failure. No one who looks at mode 2 should be left in any doubt that it leads to events happening and unhappening whenever they change frame and that this can only be tolerated in the real universe by people who believe in magic. And anyone who disagrees with my conclusions and who thinks he knows better is logically required to explain where the interactive "exam" claimed he has failed it, but they aren't prepared to do this because to fail on any of those questions would make them look ridiculous. I really thought they'd finally see the light and start accepting the argument as the proof that it is, but they just slink away in silence instead, clinging fast to their religious belief.
You can rarely force people to understand things, and because they don't understand it, they simply assume it's wrong on the basis that it goes against their teaching.
Your definition of time for relativity might be at fault. Your claims that time has a past and future in classic relativity is an opinion I do not share.
Everything resides in the same present
What you're failing to get is that the universe has to do something specific to coordinate the unfolding of events,
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.
If points N and N' are the same Spacetime location, we have an unfolding of events in which events N and N' must happen simultaneously. What happens after that though? The other events must unfold, and the progression of events along those two lines is never undone. If you freeze the process for a moment and change frame,
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)
See if you can find any physicists who think that relativity can't be simulated.
(thereby making things happen and unhappen when the frame is changed [which you agree that we can't allow the real universe to do]),