If a train is not aging faster than the station
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Vereinheitlichungsmodell von allgemeiner Relativität und Quantenmechanik
Next: The Ether-nal Ether-eal SpaceTime
From: BURT on 8 Aug 2010 22:37 On Aug 8, 7:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" wrote in message > > news:604e85ee-bf6c-4635-a21a-133e5c18df13(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > >On Aug 8, 6:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "BURT" wrote in message > > >>news:5e9a8fda-b6fb-4261-a6e9-3a5cc47dbd7c(a)v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > SR says one is slower. > > >> No .. it doesn't > > >> > How can it say that if it is mutual? > > >> Question is meaningless, because it doesn't say that. > > >> > If they age at the same rate > > >> They do > > >> > how does motion of SR slow down ones > >> > clock and not the other? > > >> It doesn't > > >It is called the transevrse doppler effect in Special Relativity. > > BAHAHA .. you have no idea what you're talking about > > > Did you forget that? > > Of course I didn't forget it .. it simply isn't relevant here. > > >Einstein said clearly that the one in motion ages less. > > Nope. You are perhaps thinking of the 'twins paradox' (one remains at rest, > the other accelerates) .. not mutual time dilation for inertial frames > (train and station). If there is one twin in a thought experiment that is in a fast moving train how can he age the same as his brother twin who is at the station he passes? No. Relativity says in the twin paradox applied to trains that one twin is older at the conclusion. But how can that be if slowing is mutual? No. You have nothing of value to defeat my argument. Please show me where I am wrong. Mitch Raemsch
From: Mathal on 8 Aug 2010 23:27 On Aug 8, 7:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" wrote in message > > news:604e85ee-bf6c-4635-a21a-133e5c18df13(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > >On Aug 8, 6:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "BURT" wrote in message > > >>news:5e9a8fda-b6fb-4261-a6e9-3a5cc47dbd7c(a)v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > SR says one is slower. > > >> No .. it doesn't > > >> > How can it say that if it is mutual? > > >> Question is meaningless, because it doesn't say that. > > >> > If they age at the same rate > > >> They do > > >> > how does motion of SR slow down ones > >> > clock and not the other? > > >> It doesn't > > >It is called the transevrse doppler effect in Special Relativity. > > BAHAHA .. you have no idea what you're talking about > > > Did you forget that? > > Of course I didn't forget it .. it simply isn't relevant here. > > >Einstein said clearly that the one in motion ages less. > > Nope. You are perhaps thinking of the 'twins paradox' (one remains at rest, > the other accelerates) .. not mutual time dilation for inertial frames > (train and station). I am more inclined to believe that you are not > thinking at all. > > > Einstein saw that time could slow and extended that to gravity. > > That's GR .. totally different notion. In GR time at different > gravitational potentials DOES go slower (or faster) for different observer, > and those observers agree that that is the case. We are not talking about > different gravitational potentials for the train and station > > All you are doing is lying about what SR says and instead making up your own > nonsense, and then showing your nonsense is wrong,. In BURT's first post in this thread he stated that the train was moving and the station is relatively stationary. Both Ken and BURT are probably addressing the idea that either frame can be considered the rest frame and the motion ascribed to the other frame. When the train is interpreted as motionless and the station moving- an illusion one sometimes gets of another train by the window when you start moving- anyway the station should have a slower time rate in this 'case'. This is really just an example of GIGO. SR will happily churn out 'yes you're right the moving station is in a slower time frame than the "stationary" train' because SR is mindless -give it a garbage hypothesis of events and it will give you a garbage interpretation of the events. Given two objects passing in space, nothing can be said about their velocities unless there is some shared history . If they stop and compare histories they can determine if one or the other was moving faster or if they were travelling at the same velocity -i.e. no time dilation. Ken thinks SR can be and needs to be fixed. I dont. Mathal
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Aug 2010 23:40 On 8/8/10 10:27 PM, Mathal wrote: > Given two objects passing in space, nothing can be said about their > velocities unless there is some shared history . Doppler radar. Laser ranging.
From: BURT on 8 Aug 2010 23:43 On Aug 8, 8:27 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 8, 7:10 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "BURT" wrote in message > > >news:604e85ee-bf6c-4635-a21a-133e5c18df13(a)x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com.... > > > >On Aug 8, 6:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "BURT" wrote in message > > > >>news:5e9a8fda-b6fb-4261-a6e9-3a5cc47dbd7c(a)v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > SR says one is slower. > > > >> No .. it doesn't > > > >> > How can it say that if it is mutual? > > > >> Question is meaningless, because it doesn't say that. > > > >> > If they age at the same rate > > > >> They do > > > >> > how does motion of SR slow down ones > > >> > clock and not the other? > > > >> It doesn't > > > >It is called the transevrse doppler effect in Special Relativity. > > > BAHAHA .. you have no idea what you're talking about > > > > Did you forget that? > > > Of course I didn't forget it .. it simply isn't relevant here. > > > >Einstein said clearly that the one in motion ages less. > > > Nope. You are perhaps thinking of the 'twins paradox' (one remains at rest, > > the other accelerates) .. not mutual time dilation for inertial frames > > (train and station). I am more inclined to believe that you are not > > thinking at all. > > > > Einstein saw that time could slow and extended that to gravity. > > > That's GR .. totally different notion. In GR time at different > > gravitational potentials DOES go slower (or faster) for different observer, > > and those observers agree that that is the case. We are not talking about > > different gravitational potentials for the train and station > > > All you are doing is lying about what SR says and instead making up your own > > nonsense, and then showing your nonsense is wrong,. > > In BURT's first post in this thread he stated that the train was > moving and the station is relatively stationary. Both Ken and BURT are > probably addressing the idea that either frame can be considered the > rest frame and the motion ascribed to the other frame. When the train > is interpreted as motionless and the station moving- an illusion one > sometimes gets of another train by the window when you start moving- > anyway the station should have a slower time rate in this 'case'. This > is really just an example of GIGO. SR will happily churn out 'yes > you're right the moving station is in a slower time frame than the > "stationary" train' because SR is mindless -give it a garbage > hypothesis of events and it will give you a garbage interpretation of > the events. > Given two objects passing in space, nothing can be said about their > velocities unless there is some shared history . If they stop and > compare histories they can determine if one or the other was moving > faster or if they were travelling at the same velocity -i.e. no time > dilation. > > Ken thinks SR can be and needs to be fixed. > I dont. > > Mathal- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The train had weightedness when it began moving. The train is in motion and that slows its energy's clock. The station did not have weightedness or a slower clock. The slower clock of the train could observe the station's clock. And it would see the station's clock always running faster because it is always aging more in any given interval than the train. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 8 Aug 2010 23:53
On Aug 8, 8:40 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/8/10 10:27 PM, Mathal wrote: > > > Given two objects passing in space, nothing can be said about their > > velocities unless there is some shared history . Just because space is invisible doesn't mean it isn't the absolute frame of motion for both light and matter. There is something that can be said. They have a mutual motion metric in the unmarked space frame. Energy in empty space cannot reach light speed and if it is light it starts moving at that speed. > > Doppler radar. Laser ranging. |