0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteIf you state that, in frame A, the rocket has speed x, then that's the speed in frame A. Time dilation applies when we speak of events in some other frame and then convert back to frame A. Note that in the frame that is co-moving with the rocket, the rocket is moving at speed 0.So basically you are saying that the occupants of the rocket are not moving in slow motion, they just look as though they are from the observation reference frame...
If you state that, in frame A, the rocket has speed x, then that's the speed in frame A. Time dilation applies when we speak of events in some other frame and then convert back to frame A. Note that in the frame that is co-moving with the rocket, the rocket is moving at speed 0.
So how do you tell what speed the rocket is moving at?
How do you know that its not moving in slow motion?
If the occupants are not really moving in slow motion, how can one say the length of the rocket is really contracted?
Quote from: timey on 28/08/2016 02:55:35QuoteIf you state that, in frame A, the rocket has speed x, then that's the speed in frame A. Time dilation applies when we speak of events in some other frame and then convert back to frame A. Note that in the frame that is co-moving with the rocket, the rocket is moving at speed 0.So basically you are saying that the occupants of the rocket are not moving in slow motion, they just look as though they are from the observation reference frame...No, again, you are simply not reading what I write and substituting your own imagination.If a rocket ship is moving at extremely high speed, x units/units, in frame A, then:1) it is moving through space at x units/units2) the physical systems of the rocketship are time dilated relative to what they would be at restQuoteSo how do you tell what speed the rocket is moving at?In this case, the speed was given. In general, the speed is determined by what two clocks in a given frame would read when the ship passes by.QuoteHow do you know that its not moving in slow motion?I don't know that. Rather, I know the reverse because of the principles of SR. Again, we can look at what clocks read at given events.QuoteIf the occupants are not really moving in slow motion, how can one say the length of the rocket is really contracted?By looking at the distance between events when the ship passes by at certain times as given by clocks.
Timey you have the uncanny ability to deflect learning opportunities. Maybe that is inverted learning.
Are you making a distinction between the frame the rocket is in and the rocket itself? *
If so then it is the rocket that is the factor that is experiencing the speed, not the frame it is in!!!
Clearly the physical mechanisms of the rocket operating slower will physically result in a slower speed, but this aside for the mo.
I can comprehend what may physically cause the fact of a rocket experiencing an 'actual' length contraction in atmosphere, but not in the vacuum of space.
Are you considering this length contraction to be actual, or just perceived from the observing frame?
If actual then:What causes the length contracted rocket in the vacuum of space to be physically length contracted?
And if you are using distance as a measure, are these distances constant?
And what about these other clocks you are using? Where are they? And how do you know what time dilation they are experiencing?
Quote from: timey on 28/08/2016 15:49:22Are you making a distinction between the frame the rocket is in and the rocket itself? *Of course. The rocket is in every frame! Objects are not frames, frames are systems of coordinates required to make descriptions in physics.QuoteIf so then it is the rocket that is the factor that is experiencing the speed, not the frame it is in!!!Speed is a property assigned to objects. When we speak of frames, we also speak of speed, but, properly, we refer to the way that the origin (and other points) of one frame has a certain relationship to the origin of another frame.QuoteClearly the physical mechanisms of the rocket operating slower will physically result in a slower speed, but this aside for the mo.No. The speed is something that is set in a given frame. We then point out that this speed, once set, has an influence on the physical systems (or subsystems) that are at that given speed.QuoteI can comprehend what may physically cause the fact of a rocket experiencing an 'actual' length contraction in atmosphere, but not in the vacuum of space.OK. But length contraction has to do with how events are arranged and how electromagnetic forces propagate, not with resistance forces or friction relative to motion.QuoteAre you considering this length contraction to be actual, or just perceived from the observing frame?It is an actual effect.QuoteIf actual then:What causes the length contracted rocket in the vacuum of space to be physically length contracted?There are a number of things that contribute. The most important is the time when we expect parts of the rocket to be in certain locations space. But you can think of how the electromagnetic forces that otherwise separate the parts of the rocket behave at that speed.QuoteAnd if you are using distance as a measure, are these distances constant?By the definition of a frame, the distances between constant points of space are constant.QuoteAnd what about these other clocks you are using? Where are they? And how do you know what time dilation they are experiencing?They are ideal clocks. See http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
OK - I am in fact familiar with all that you mention. I've read extensively on GR and SR, including the for's and against's...
If this doesn't stir your curiosity in the slightest, then I just don't know what's the matter you!
You mention that distances are held constant, but this is not reflected in the concept that galaxies receding away from us at faster than the speed of light are doing so because space is expanding...
Nor does it reflect the fact that the experience of the rocket is that it is not itself that is contracting but the frame its travelling through that is doing so.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 28/08/2016 14:35:34Timey you have the uncanny ability to deflect learning opportunities. Maybe that is inverted learning.I really do think that as a moderator you should give explanation of such comments...What have I not learned this time? ...or have you misinterpreted again?And would this be inverted comprehension?
Quote from: timey on 28/08/2016 17:52:30OK - I am in fact familiar with all that you mention. I've read extensively on GR and SR, including the for's and against's...And yet you seem to, again and again, deny the basics.QuoteIf this doesn't stir your curiosity in the slightest, then I just don't know what's the matter you!If you could marshal any measurement evidence, I might be interested. Otherwise, no.QuoteYou mention that distances are held constant, but this is not reflected in the concept that galaxies receding away from us at faster than the speed of light are doing so because space is expanding...But we're talking about SR, not GR! The "expansion of space" is a phenomenon on GR.Quote Nor does it reflect the fact that the experience of the rocket is that it is not itself that is contracting but the frame its travelling through that is doing so.Actually, we can only understand this difference if we have some constant measurement of distance within each frame. That's what a system of coordinates is.
...And thanks - you have caused me to realise the maths for observational time frame dependency are simplicity itself. To calculate a length contraction of 50%, the dilated second of that reference frame will have twenty 100 000 microsecond value time frames in relation to the standards second ten time frames of same value. Divide 10 time frames by 20 and this will divide each time frame into 2 equal parts, giving us a figure of 0.5, or half. The standard second will only view half of the time frames of the second that is dilated by the speed of 0.866c.The maths, I think (scratches head) are just a case of dividing the shorter second by the longer second.
10/15=2.5. Length contraction = quarter...and so on.
You are literally ignoring the mathematical discipline of geometry.
Why do you assume that your half-baked ideas are new? They are not new, they are simply wrong. Your "exam" is as intelligent as asking someone "Did you stop beating your wife?"
You have this insane idea that because the information in one well-formed frame is guaranteed to give us the information in every other well-formed frame, then the first frame we described things in is the preferred frame. It is not, it is merely the one we used to provide the initial description.
You realize that by saying this you are simply denying logical inference? The consistency of SR is not in doubt.
Again, I will side with every physicist that uses SR in saying that SR does not have a preferred reference frame and describes objects based on the frame of reference one uses. You can stand alone and be "right". Since SR is the basis of technology that makes contemporary computers possible, I feel OK being "wrong" in this way.
To be clear, you generate a contradiction only by claiming that one can compare lengths between two frames of reference in some manner independent of frames of reference, in violation of geometry. I will stick with geometry.
And in SR, this is never the case: descriptions depend on frame and one cannot make comparison claims outside of a frame.
To quote someone who should know better, your behavior matches someone like:"they've been taught the basics badly, leading them to imagine that it's okay to mix incompatible versions of the model into one faulty mess which they think works".
1. "the static block universe model... does not allow a universe to be generated in the first place as it allows no change whatsoever"No, this model simply establishes a certain metaphysical relationship between events. It does not change the physical relationships: the physical limitations on cause and effect are just as strong in the block universe model, perhaps even stronger.
SR is compatible with a block universe model, but does not require this model.
2. Your "Mode 1" represents SR. Your SR doesn't use the Lorentz transformations, so it is not SR. This is a horrible, obvious lie. The entire scenario of the "diagram" tries to mix the locations from one system of coordinates in another system of coordinates without using the transformations.
At this point, it is useless to continue further, as anyone who bothered to learn SR would see.
You are right, I don't realize this. I suspect that you are lying. If you did speak with people, they were likely cranks that you should know better than to call "experts".
QuoteModel 1 is also lorentz invarient,No, you are simply lying: you combine two frames into one without applying the transformations. I cannot believe you are so incompetent.
Model 1 is also lorentz invarient,
You asked for links to animations of SR!
Thanks, crank, for acting in so dishonest a way as to take away my feelings of pity once I saw your horrible website. You have had no substantial interaction with "experts" since if you had, at least one would tell you to stop letting your education reform website look like it was designed by a ten-year old.
Quote from: PhysBang on 27/08/2016 02:24:46You are literally ignoring the mathematical discipline of geometry.You are simply arguing about this trivial issue as a diversion to avoid taking on the real issues. I say Newtonian time isn't a dimension, but you appear to want it to be a dimension and want to deny my right to say it isn't a dimension, and this appears to be because you want time to be the time dimesion of SR even when time is being discussed in relation to other theories which don't have a time dimension. We can argue about this till the cows die of old age, but it's just a side issue which really isn't worth the trouble. In my introduction, I simply want to provide people who are new to the subject with something to hang their coat on so that they can get their head around things quickly, and if you have a problem with me correctly stating that Newtonian time isn't a dimension, that's a problem for you to discuss with a psychologist.
I don't know if they're new, but they're certainly important because there is no evidence that they're wrong. If you want to account for how the future is generated out of the past, you need to look at how events progress on different paths and how they are coordinated in such a way that you avoid event-meshing failures (unless you are prepared to tolerate such failures, as you can do with model 1).
That's you just misunderstanding things, as always. We can't tell which frame is the preferred frame, but what we can do is determine that because the accounts generated from the analysis based on different frames are in conflict with each other, they cannot all be correct, and that means they can't all be valid: there has to be a preferred frame, and the fact that we can't pin down which frame that is does not negate the need for there to be a preferred frame (unless you use model 1 which manages without one at the cost of having to tolerate event-meshing failures).
Computers work just fine on LET, as does everything else, but if we're pretending that SR is reality, the Eculidean views of things that we get from frames of reference are not the fundamental reality - the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant.
The contradictions are very clear if you use mode 2 of my interactive diagram.
QuoteAnd in SR, this is never the case: descriptions depend on frame and one cannot make comparison claims outside of a frame.Yes you can, and must: the accounts of the action generated from different frames are in conflict as they directly contradict each other. If you ban yourself from comparing them, you are shutting down your rational thinking capability and training yourself to be blind to contradictions.
If clock A is ticking faster than clock B in one frame and clock B is ticking faster than clock A in another frame, that's a direct contradiction
The static block universe is model zero - it doesn't have running time, so it just exists fully built (both past and future) eternally without ever having been generated in cause-and-event order, which means that there was no causation involved in the patterns of apparent causation written through the "events" in the block.
Fail. My diagram displays exactly what yours would if you wrote a simulation of it for mode 1, so the horrible, obvious lie is all yours. The paths that the objects follow are exactly the same as on the Spacetime diagrams which are identical to the ones that you would produce if you apply your maths to it correctly, and all I've done with it is allow those objects to follow their paths without their clocks being slowed under the governance of the time of any other path.
This is sad, because we should be allies in search of truth.
QuoteYou asked for links to animations of SR!I asked for a link so something that does the job without cheating. You provided a pile of links to cheats, although most of the things there don't even attempt the job at all.
Why would you pity me on the basis of a website that works fine?
Quote from: timey on 28/08/2016 11:08:30...And thanks - you have caused me to realise the maths for observational time frame dependency are simplicity itself. To calculate a length contraction of 50%, the dilated second of that reference frame will have twenty 100 000 microsecond value time frames in relation to the standards second ten time frames of same value. Divide 10 time frames by 20 and this will divide each time frame into 2 equal parts, giving us a figure of 0.5, or half. The standard second will only view half of the time frames of the second that is dilated by the speed of 0.866c.The maths, I think (scratches head) are just a case of dividing the shorter second by the longer second.I hope you realise that I just chose line 20 at random to link to the 1/2 figure and so I could easily have said 19 or 13 instead. I don't know which fractions you're reading out of proportions on which lines. That's why it would be useful if you'd supply a list of line numbers and the fractions you're getting from them. If you're associating 0.866c with the line that's giving you the 1/2, what speed are you associating with the line that gives you 1/4?Quote10/15=2.5. Length contraction = quarter...and so on.I'm not sure your arithmetic is sufficiently precise there, but what I'm still trying to find out is how you're getting anything useful from your diagram other than fractions which you could get just as easily by plucking them out of the air. If I find the fraction 1/3 on a fridge magnet, for example, that's a length contraction and time dilation figure which seems to work just as well if I get it from there as if I take it off your diagram, so what information does the diagram provide you with that my fridge door doesn't?
Yeah, I'll discuss with a psychologist how messed up I am by having had a full education on mathematics and physics rather than having self-taught myself part of it and imagining that there is nothing beyond my limited reading.
Of course there is proof that you are wrong: in any given reference frame, the events of the past determine the events of the future without difficulty. This is something established a century ago.
That the frames disagree about event order is not a conflict: we have a guaranteed way to generate the information for any frame from the information from any other frame, the Lorentz transformations. Any frame provides the objective information to determine physical events. You don't seem to acknowledge this.
QuoteComputers work just fine on LET, as does everything else, but if we're pretending that SR is reality, the Eculidean views of things that we get from frames of reference are not the fundamental reality - the fundamental reality is found in the non-Euclidean space in which the lengths are constant.Please provide a source to support this claim.
Sure, if one uses David Cooper relativity, then there are contradictions.
But do not lie to us and claim that David Cooper relativity is SR.
Your animations...
...put the events of two different frames in one frame without transformation.
It is part of a deception to make false claims about SR.
Perhaps you don't even realize this, since you seem to have a number of cognitive difficulties.
However, your character is so poor here that it doesn't seem out of line to identify your statements as lies.
So, if we take your crazy scheme, we get contradictions. This is a great day for David Cooper relativity.
In David Cooper relativity, not in SR, where one cannot compare events in different frames without using a transformation to consider the events in the same frame.
Just like in Galilean relativity, where one cannot compare different frames without translation. It would be absurd to say that the mast on a ship is never in motion because it is never moving relative to the ship, even in a frame where the ship is in motion.
And yet every cause-and-effect chain exists in the model. It is a lie to say that these chains do not exist.
Not true. Sadly obviously not true. Try again.
No, I do not need self-taught selfish jerks to be on the search for truth. You want to make yourself look better than other people, that's why you "search for truth".
Your entire website is a horror: you have absolutely no experience with education, yet you want to revise all of it.
You don't want to learn any of the mathematics of physics or of SR, yet you think that without this knowledge you can raise yourself above a century of work of academics and practicing scientists.
So, no, please stay away from my search for truth: I don't need your attitude and nor does anyone else.
You are a liar.
Because it looks horrible. It is essentially unreadable. It is definitely reflective of the fact that you are self-taught and not really interested in getting to know other people: you simply want to vomit information at them and you expect them to "get it". It gets your intellect across fine.
It doesn't matter which line you choose, what matters is by how much longer or shorter a second is. The lines are representing seconds that are getting longer and then shorter again. The spaces created on the line's are representing time frames of that second. The lines are not all equal in length. The spaces are equal in length for all the lines.
So you see that this method could be very precise if the proportionality were to be apportioned correctly.
(Now this may be where you are saying I am being imprecise, I appreciate, and maybe I am.)
If a 50% reduction in length is now associated with a 100% increase in a standard second, then a100% reduction in length associated with the speed of light, is a standard second times 4.
What I'd like this type of ratio to represent is a second dilating via the inverse square law with addition of speed. Does it?
Dispense with the diagram...Let's approach a different way and just in bits.You can tell me that a speed of 0.866c causes a length contraction of 50%, and a time dilation of 50%. The occupants in that rocket are supposed to be moving in a slow motion of half the speed.What length of a second is this extended length of second, that is associated with a speed of 0.866c, held relative to?