0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
I'm sorry that you are so limited by whatever you taught yourself and that you refuse to learn anything new. Mathematically, one could always treat time as a length and this was done well before Einstein developed SR. Again, I'm sorry to see you embarrass yourself like this.
And, as everyone working on it has shown for over a century, SR is a deterministic theory for which future events are completely determined by the past. If you think otherwise, then you are making a mistake. You have a significant burden of proof, given the immense amount of study given to the fundamentals of SR.
I would be careful about making that accusation, given that you are the person up against a century of published work and that you are siding with bona fide crackpots against SR.
QuoteWhere can I find an animation/simulation that does the job in a way you approve of then?Have you heard of google?
Where can I find an animation/simulation that does the job in a way you approve of then?
Quote How do they perform the magic trick of avoiding generating contradictions?They, unlike you, actually use the Lorentz transformations.
How do they perform the magic trick of avoiding generating contradictions?
This is your spacial David Cooper Relativity theory. You are free to use your own theory, but do not lie to us and say that it is SR.
This is your own, special desire to have a holy frame of reference. Most other people have moved on.
If you ask questions based on falsehoods, then people will point this out.
Why don't you look at any of the major books by Lawrence Sklar, to pick a philosopher of physics out of a hat. It's likely that all of them go into this or at least give a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Sklar#Major_books You imagine that you have to answers, but you are merely poorly read and taught.
On the contrary - I'm one of the few people who can learn and who changes position when I find out I'm wrong about things. You by contrast do not learn even though you keep tripping over things. Here, you are still missing the point and making embarrassing objections to things that really shouldn't be contested. Of course time was often treated like a length before Einstein, and time is often described as short or long just like a length, and people have always talked about lengths of time, but it was with Einstein that it ceased to be metaphorical.
If you weren't too scared to take the interactive exam, you'd find out that there are major problems with how SR is supposed to generate the future out of the past without shedding some of its ideological baggage.
Why are you wasting my time with that pile of irrelevant junk? I want you to show me something that actually shows how the future is generated out of the past in SR without using an external time to control the relative progress on different paths, using nothing other than the time of the "time dimension" and not cheating by using one frame as a preferred frame to govern the rest.
Quote They, unlike you, actually use the Lorentz transformations.That isn't a valid answer because they produce contradictions.
They, unlike you, actually use the Lorentz transformations.
You may not understand SR well enough to recognise this as SR, but it is correct. Objects in SR occupy non-Euclidean space and their dimensions in that space are constant, not shifting with the wind. You are trying to claim that all the Euclidean views of them are providing equally fundamental truths about their shapes, but that is not the case - they are giving warped views of an underlying, unchanging reality.
It is nothing more than my refusal to accept contradictory claims about events. Where one account contradicts another, they cannot both be valid, so attributing equal validity to them is idiotic, and it's that crazy toleration of contradictions that generates the army of cranks and crackpots who attack SR in thousands of different ways, all thinking they may be doing a better job of it than the physicists because the physicists are so clearly barking mad.
It cannot be true that clock A ticks faster than clock B and that clock B ticks faster than clock A.
But they are unable to show falsehoods in the interactive exam.
QuoteWhy don't you look at any of the major books by Lawrence Sklar, to pick a philosopher of physics out of a hat. It's likely that all of them go into this or at least give a citation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Sklar#Major_books You imagine that you have to answers, but you are merely poorly read and taught.What you don't realise is that the argument I've built on my page came out of discussion with a number of experts on SR, and most of the content of it (including claims which you're objecting to) came directly from them while we collectively built the thought experiment at the centre of it.
Model 1 is also lorentz invarient,
All you can do is throw piles of links at me
Hi Timey,If we were to plot a graph of speeds of travel against the length contraction factor that applies for each speed, we might write speeds along the X-axis and have length contraction factors shown on the Y-axis. The line would run through the point (0,1) and it would look like a horizontal line running right along the graph on the Y=1 line for a very long way out to either side. Eventually it would begin to drift a little from that line, then it would head downwards more quickly until it hits the X-axis where the speed of light is marked. It is possible to create millions of other curves which also pass through (0,1) and which gradually accelerate down to meet the X-axis in the same place, and you will find points all the way along any such line where you can read off what appear to be length contraction values, but these will not be located over the right speeds and they are therefore completely useless for the task.You need to draw a graph of the numbers you're getting off your diagram to see if your graph is the right shape. Until you do that (and you can do it just by checking a few values, so it isn't a massive task), you aren't going to know if your graph is going to be useful or useless. What you appear to have at the moment is a notion rather than a theory, so if you want to turn it into a theory you're going to have to plot your graph. If you're scared to do this because you fear it will destroy your theory, then you're in the wrong game - you seriously need to find out the truth. If the numbers fit, you will certainly have something worth looking at, but the graph I'm getting from applying your method (in my head) appears to be horribly wrong. Perhaps I'm not doing it the right way though, and that's why I need you need to provide your numbers. Without them, no one else can justify putting in the time to explore this any further: these numbers are crucial. You have proportions that you can read off your diagram, but you can find those on any old curve on a graph. How do you read off the frame speed that goes with the contraction values? If you don't know the answer to that, you will never be able to use your diagram to provide useful answers.
I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.There is no way to avoid this contradiction"
Quote from: timey on 27/08/2016 18:19:36I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.There is no way to avoid this contradiction"Yeah, that's just wrong. The motion of the rocket is stipulated, it is the physical events "within" the rocket that appear to be slowed. If the "rocket" was just a pocket watch, the entire watch would be moving at the stipulated speed, it is just the motion of the hands and gears of the watch that change.
Quote from: timey on 27/08/2016 18:19:36I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.There is no way to avoid this contradiction"Yes that is a very interesting point. Maybe someone will address it once all the arguing stops.
Quote from: PhysBang on 27/08/2016 23:59:02Quote from: timey on 27/08/2016 18:19:36I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.There is no way to avoid this contradiction"Yeah, that's just wrong. The motion of the rocket is stipulated, it is the physical events "within" the rocket that appear to be slowed. If the "rocket" was just a pocket watch, the entire watch would be moving at the stipulated speed, it is just the motion of the hands and gears of the watch that change.Lol - if I say potato...aye!To stipulate that objects experiencing speed are time dilated relative to the stationary frame, and to then say that only the occupants are experiencing the time dilation and that the rocket that is moving with the occupants does not experience the time dilation is both illogical and entirety contradictory.
The speed associated with a length contraction 'should' be indicative in the 'length' of its associated dilated second.
Why include a graph line for the related speed? It would be simple enough to include by tagging each line representing the length of a second with a label stating its time dilated related speed of motion. But what point? There would be vastly more point to including info of the gravity field that a rocket travelling at relativist speeds would be obliged to encounter.
If you have paid attention - which you haven't...
It's just that you are entirely conditioned to view the fact of a length contraction as being caused by speed of motion, (although physics has no idea why this should occur)...
...and this system I am proposing further defines the situation as being that speed of motion causes dilated seconds - and that dilated seconds are causing the appearance of length contraction, when observed from a reference frame of seconds that are differently dilated.
...But before I leave you to argue in length and breadth with the realm defender as would seem you're preference, can you tell me by how much a second 'is' dilated, (relative to a standard second), to cause a length to contract to half its length?
If you don't believe the measurements of experiments and want to create a theory of some other universe that no one can access to measure, then that's great, but it's not my field.
Quote from: timey on 28/08/2016 00:22:10Quote from: PhysBang on 27/08/2016 23:59:02Quote from: timey on 27/08/2016 18:19:36I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.There is no way to avoid this contradiction"Yeah, that's just wrong. The motion of the rocket is stipulated, it is the physical events "within" the rocket that appear to be slowed. If the "rocket" was just a pocket watch, the entire watch would be moving at the stipulated speed, it is just the motion of the hands and gears of the watch that change.Lol - if I say potato...aye!To stipulate that objects experiencing speed are time dilated relative to the stationary frame, and to then say that only the occupants are experiencing the time dilation and that the rocket that is moving with the occupants does not experience the time dilation is both illogical and entirety contradictory.That's not what I said in the slightest.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.
Quote from: PhysBang on 28/08/2016 01:36:32Quote from: timey on 28/08/2016 00:22:10Quote from: PhysBang on 27/08/2016 23:59:02Quote from: timey on 27/08/2016 18:19:36I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.There is no way to avoid this contradiction"Yeah, that's just wrong. The motion of the rocket is stipulated, it is the physical events "within" the rocket that appear to be slowed. If the "rocket" was just a pocket watch, the entire watch would be moving at the stipulated speed, it is just the motion of the hands and gears of the watch that change.Lol - if I say potato...aye!To stipulate that objects experiencing speed are time dilated relative to the stationary frame, and to then say that only the occupants are experiencing the time dilation and that the rocket that is moving with the occupants does not experience the time dilation is both illogical and entirety contradictory.That's not what I said in the slightest.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 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...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 02:55:35Quote from: PhysBang on 28/08/2016 01:36:32Quote from: timey on 28/08/2016 00:22:10Quote from: PhysBang on 27/08/2016 23:59:02Quote from: timey on 27/08/2016 18:19:36I'm surprised that nobody picked up on my earlier comment:"If the occupants of a rocket are observed to be moving about their tasks in slow motion due to time dilation, the rocket must also be moving in slow motion. If the rocket is moving in slow motion it cannot be travelling at the speed causing the time dilation.There is no way to avoid this contradiction"Yeah, that's just wrong. The motion of the rocket is stipulated, it is the physical events "within" the rocket that appear to be slowed. If the "rocket" was just a pocket watch, the entire watch would be moving at the stipulated speed, it is just the motion of the hands and gears of the watch that change.Lol - if I say potato...aye!To stipulate that objects experiencing speed are time dilated relative to the stationary frame, and to then say that only the occupants are experiencing the time dilation and that the rocket that is moving with the occupants does not experience the time dilation is both illogical and entirety contradictory.That's not what I said in the slightest.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 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...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?The question you need to ask yourself is, "How would I find out what the accepted answer is to this conundrum?" When you find the answer come back and tell us.