FTL or Mutual Time Dilation ?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Wherefore Art Thou, Little Higgsy?
Next: solutions book
From: Igor on 28 Jul 2010 10:05 On Jul 28, 5:48 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > The math is but an imperfect model of reality. But alas, it's the only way we have to model reality. How else do you propose doing it?
From: Androcles on 28 Jul 2010 10:11 "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message news:68f18cb4-3c6e-47c1-aaa7-693684d19ee0(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On Jul 28, 5:48 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > The math is but an imperfect model of reality. But alas, it's the only way we have to model reality. How else do you propose doing it? ======================================== By adhering to the rules mathematics, which you are incapable of.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 10:14 On Jul 28, 5:42 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > whoever wrote: > >> "Hayek" wrote in message > [..] > >> There is another, much more simple explanation : they are still both > >> in the same now > > > Except we KNOW from experiment that there is no such thing as the same > > 'now'. Time is NOT the same everywhere. this is experimentally proven > > Only, you have not defined time, I don't need to. Have you defined space? > and you have not > defined what a clock is. Yes I have .. it is a device to measure time > The only thing you know is that > you read time on a clock. And that a clock is a device > you read time on. There you go .. you just defined it > And because you believe in MTD, it haas nothing to do with what I believe. It is what we observe experimentally > you assume there must be > a time dimension, and that there cannot be ftl, because > in that case it would violate causality. FTL results in causality violation. Glad you admit it [snip more stupity about fridges and lack of logic] Learn physics .. then learn logic. Then try to apply the latter to the former. So far you are failing dismally on both
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 10:20 On Jul 28, 7:22 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > 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. All of it > And it has to state that ftl is impossible to conserve > its scope. No .. it is based on a finite limit to information transfer > Darryl said that ftl would destroy SR, FTL information transfer is impossible in SR. So if there is FTL information trnasfer, that would refute SR. So far there is no such thing. > I > answered it would only destroy the parts that were wrong > about SR No .. it would refute the entire basis for modern SR. You also can't just remove a 'bit' of 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, There is no flaw > some of > these flaws can only be tested by ftl. There is no flaw to test. SR is self-consistent and models reality. You suggest that if FTL (which we do not observe happening) did happen, then (as it is contrary to the premises of SR) it could results in contradiction. That is not a flaw. > > 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, You can't just look at bits of it in isolation .. it is all interrelated > but that the > untested and unverified assumption of SR Which ones are they .. SR is one of the best tested theories we have > could be proved > wrong, IF we had ftl. We don't. Conversely, FTL can be proved wrong if we have SR. And we do. > > You need to reexamine your (lack of) logic. > > Cure Yourself. You amalgamate SR, say that ALL of it > must be true, That is correct > because some of it was verified. That is > lack of logic. Nope .. the parts are interrelated. Enough are demonstrated to show the whole. It is not divisible.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 10:28
On Jul 28, 7:48 pm, 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. Why imperfect.. it gets it right > The LET of SR Don't you mean the LT of SR? > was made up starting from the fact that we > do not see the Preferred reference. Nope. > It was based on the following reasoning : what would > happen if some physical property of the preferred frame > hid its existence from us. Nope > 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. You really need to learn some physics > If you know something about math, you realize that the > gamma factor would hide a PF. There is no preferred frame in SR to hide. There is a hidden preferred frame in LET, of course, and the properties of the aether and how it affects matter (in particular that it results in the LT) do mean one cannot detect it. > Which is perfectly ok, > because that is what we looked for in the first place, > and the result was the gamma factor. You are confusing cause with effect > Wrongly assuming there is no PF, Why is that wrong? there is no evidence of one > we continue to state > that all motion is relative. Of course it is. Regardless of whether there is a PF or not. > Thus A can say B moves and > vice versa. Of course they can. Regardless of whether there is a PF or not. > 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. Wrong.. nothing happens to the earth clocks themselves. You really need to understand the physics. They will simply be MEASURED as ticking slower and contracting. Just as different observers measure different velocities and momentums etc > I see only one way out of this, There is nothing to required a way out > and that is that the > mutual effects are only apparent for the moving observer > wrt the PF. Nope > 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. No .. the effect remains after the twins reunite. > What experimental proof do we have of MTD anyway ? Please refer to the links given many times before here on experimental test of SR |