FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Wherefore Art Thou, Little Higgsy?
Next: solutions book
From: Hayek on 28 Jul 2010 05:22 artful wrote: > On Jul 28, 2:32 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? > > Your argument seems to be > > We have SR (which, of course, is self consistent and models reality > well .. eg predicts observed time dilation etc) Some of it predicts reality well. And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve its scope. Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR, I answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong about SR > > Then you add FTL to it and find that SR + FTL results in errors of > causality (so isn't right) I said that ftl would expose the flaws in SR, some of these flaws can only be tested by ftl. > You then take the illogical step of concluding this means the SR is > wrong, and even more ridiculous that FTL is right. I did not say that all of SR was wrong, but that the untested and unverified assumption of SR could be proved wrong, IF we had ftl. > > You need to reexamine your (lack of) logic. Cure Yourself. You amalgamate SR, say that ALL of it must be true, because some of it was verified. That is lack of logic. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Hayek on 28 Jul 2010 05:48 harald wrote: > On Jul 27, 6:32 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? >> >> Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ? > > If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the > appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has > been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and > recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you > understand the math? The math is but an imperfect model of reality. The LET of SR was made up starting from the fact that we do not see the Preferred reference. It was based on the following reasoning : what would happen if some physical property of the preferred frame hid its existence from us. In order for us not to be able to measure the PF, after some calculations, we arrived that rods should shrink and time should slow. If you know something about math, you realize that the gamma factor would hide a PF. Which is perfectly ok, because that is what we looked for in the first place, and the result was the gamma factor. Wrongly assuming there is no PF, we continue to state that all motion is relative. Thus A can say B moves and vice versa. So now can have 10 spaceships moving away from Earth at gamma [1..10], and the Earth's clocks will tick also at ten gammas at the same time, and be flattened in ten different directions. I see only one way out of this, and that is that the mutual effects are only apparent for the moving observer wrt the PF. A time dimension could help a little bit, and still it would be only apparent, because if the twins are joined, the effects are over. What experimental proof do we have of MTD anyway ? Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Hayek on 28 Jul 2010 06:10 eric gisse wrote: > Hayek wrote: > >> eric gisse wrote: >>> Hayek wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> Why do you persist in discussing a subject you clearly don't grasp? >> There is a difference between "not grasping" and >> "interpreting differently". > > You simply don't know what you are talking about. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) I haven't noticed that in your answers, this mark. You cannot entertain any thought other than the generally accepted ones. > That you do not recognize > this is just another example of the prideful stupidity that seems to be > attracted to this newsgroup. > >> But you cannot grasp that anything your textbook says >> could be wrong. > > While you, for having never read any textbooks, can say whatever you want > because you aren't burdened with education? Again, you make a vacuous assumption. When I confront you with facts from these textbooks, your answers cease. > >> Besides the shouting, do you ever use arguments, or is >> that you simply do not grasp what arguments are ? > > Most certainly. But they tend to be ignored, Because we, as well as you, know them by heart. > so I skip the middleman and > move straight to the part where I call the odious crank what it is and move > on. �There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation� - Herbert Spencer Everlasting ignorance. That is Gisse allright. Uwe Hayek. > >> Uwe Hayek. >> > -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: harald on 28 Jul 2010 07:49 On Jul 28, 11:48 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > harald wrote: > > On Jul 27, 6:32 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ? > > >> Which belongs to fact and which belongs to fiction ? > > > If you have time dilation and length contraction, then with the > > appropriate sync convention you get "mutual time dilation". That has > > been explained over and over, by several people incl. myself and > > recently by Daryl. Thus, what causes your above question? Don't you > > understand the math? > > The math is but an imperfect model of reality. The math is *not* a model of reality - nor does it purports to be so. > The LET of SR was made up starting from the fact that we > do not see the Preferred reference. In which case it obviously isn NOT "preferred"... > It was based on the following reasoning : Not really - but never mind! > what would > happen if some physical property of the preferred frame > hid its existence from us. That property called "velocity". Indeed, that one is hidden; it wasn't a problem for Newton. > In order for us not to be able to measure the PF, after > some calculations, we arrived that rods should shrink > and time should slow. Clocks. Rods and clocks, on which we base our concepts of "length" and "time". > If you know something about math, you realize that the > gamma factor would hide a PF. Which is perfectly ok, > because that is what we looked for in the first place, > and the result was the gamma factor. > > Wrongly assuming there is no PF, we continue to state > that all motion is relative. I don't. Neither did Langevin. > Thus A can say B moves and > vice versa. So now can have 10 spaceships moving away > from Earth at gamma [1..10], and the Earth's clocks will > tick also at ten gammas at the same time, and be > flattened in ten different directions. No, that's a misrepresentation. Anyone who understands SRT like that would better stick with reading cartoons. > I see only one way out of this, and that is that the > mutual effects are only apparent for the moving observer > wrt the PF. That is the oldest interpretation of SRT; I also see no other reasonable alternative. > A time dimension could help a little bit, and still it > would be only apparent, because if the twins are joined, > the effects are over. > > What experimental proof do we have of MTD anyway ? Now you effectively answer my question to you in the negative. We do not NEED other experimental proof than the confirmation that if 2+2=4, then 4-2=2. We already know from a nearly infinite amount of experiments that simple math is reliable. Harald
From: Igor on 28 Jul 2010 10:04
On Jul 28, 3:42 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > How come your food stays fresh much longer in the fridge ? > > Exactly, molecules move slower at lower temperatures... And all this time, I thought it was because bacteria grow more slowly at lower temps. |