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: Inertial on 9 Aug 2010 00:00 "Mathal" wrote in message news:a75e62b4-3301-404f-b390-15921e6934f9(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > In BURT's first post in this thread he stated that the train was > moving and the station is relatively stationary. In the stations frame ... yes > 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. Which other frame? The train frame? In that frame the train is stationary and the station rushing toward it. > When the train > is interpreted as motionless and the station moving- an illusion That's not 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'. Nope .. the cases are identical and symmetrical. However. whichever is stationary in a given frame will measure whichever is moving as ticking at a slower rate. Both train and station see the other as moving. Both will measure a slower rate for the others clock. (though BURT has failed the challenge of describing how they would determine that) > This > is really just an example of GIGO. GIGO from BURT and Key .. yes >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 It is a theory.. it doesn't have a mind. >-give it a garbage > hypothesis of events and it will give you a garbage interpretation of > the events. There was no garbage hypothesis there > Given two objects passing in space, nothing can be said about their > velocities unless there is some shared history Each can say something about the others velocity relative to them > . If they stop and > compare histories they can determine if one or the other was moving > faster They would find both were moving at the same (but opposite) speed > or if they were travelling at the same velocity -i.e. no time > dilation. No .. you get time dilation dependent on speed. > Ken thinks SR can be and needs to be fixed. > I dont. Neither do I, as it isn't broken. Your understanding of it (and physics) seems to be.
From: Inertial on 9 Aug 2010 00:04 "BURT" wrote in message news:8b9495ba-1628-406a-827b-23b358ae2142(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > >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. BURT is once more reduced to spewing inane nonsense again. Almost had a rational conversation with him for a while there .. but he just wasn't up to it. I think his brain has once again blown a fuse.
From: BURT on 9 Aug 2010 00:08 On Aug 8, 9:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" wrote in message > > news:8b9495ba-1628-406a-827b-23b358ae2142(a)u4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > > >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. > > BURT is once more reduced to spewing inane nonsense again. Almost had a > rational conversation with him for a while there .. but he just wasn't up to > it. I think his brain has once again blown a fuse. The real nonsense is mutual time dilation with them aging differently. Mitch Raemsch
From: Mathal on 9 Aug 2010 09:54 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 . > > Doppler radar. Laser ranging. You deliberately 'cut out' this statement from the whole post. I'm not going to waste my time finding the post and cutting and pasting it back together again. Sam, anything taken out of context can be misunderstood. Given, two frames that have a history but are presently unaware of it encountering each other. Each can take itself as stationary and the other frame as moving and calculate the time frame the other will "appear" to be operating in relative to their own. Each will 'believe' the other is moving in a slower time frame if he takes himself to be stationary. There is no way to determine their 'actual' velocity WRT that historical shared frame- with any scientific instruments. Therefore they will not be able to tell what the 'actual' difference in each frames time is without that history. If WRT the historic frame they are both moving at the same velocity there is no contraction in either frame WRT each other- WRT the historical frame there is. In the case of the twins it will be obvious to them when they meet who was moving more than the other (from the shared frame). Mathal
From: Mathal on 9 Aug 2010 10:49
On Aug 8, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Mathal" wrote in message > > news:a75e62b4-3301-404f-b390-15921e6934f9(a)l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > > > In BURT's first post in this thread he stated that the train was > > moving and the station is relatively stationary. > > In the stations frame ... yes > > > 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. > > Which other frame? The train frame? In that frame the train is stationary > and the station rushing toward it. > > > When the train > > is interpreted as motionless and the station moving- an illusion > > That's not 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'. > > Nope .. the cases are identical and symmetrical. However. whichever is > stationary in a given frame will measure whichever is moving as ticking at a > slower rate. Both train and station see the other as moving. Both will > measure a slower rate for the others clock. (though BURT has failed the > challenge of describing how they would determine that) > > > This > > is really just an example of GIGO. > > GIGO from BURT and Key .. yes > > >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 > > It is a theory.. it doesn't have a mind. > > >-give it a garbage > > hypothesis of events and it will give you a garbage interpretation of > > the events. > > There was no garbage hypothesis there > > > Given two objects passing in space, nothing can be said about their > > velocities unless there is some shared history > > Each can say something about the others velocity relative to them > > > . If they stop and > > compare histories they can determine if one or the other was moving > > faster > > They would find both were moving at the same (but opposite) speed > > > or if they were travelling at the same velocity -i.e. no time > > dilation. > > No .. you get time dilation dependent on speed. > > > Ken thinks SR can be and needs to be fixed. > > I dont. > > Neither do I, as it isn't broken. Your understanding of it (and physics) > seems to be. Put synchronized clocks on the train and the station. If you want to treat the station as moving and the train as stationary the clocks will show you that you're mistaken. Given -a history of two ships. They start stationary and move away from each other at the same velocity and return similarly. If they measure their velocity WRT each other they can determine the "apparent" contraction in the other frame which will differ from the "apparent" contraction from the initial rest frame. When they come to a stop and compare their synchronized clocks, the clocks of the moving ships (relative to the "stationary' initial frame) will show less time than the stationary clock but the two moving ships will be identical because they were in the same time frame- their clocks moved at the same rate throughout their journey. If you're having difficulty with this consider the two ships moving in the same direction. Then you will plainly see that the moving ships clocks will display identical time throughout their journey. You always need a history if you want a definitive difference in which time operates in two frames. Different frames can always be understood using SR but that does not mean you can "know" the differences by just examining them one on one. All frames are their own rest frame. SR allows us to interpret the other frame in a coherent way so that the laws of physics still are 'seen' to work. If two frames have a shared historical frame, defititive calculations of the relative time rate of the two frames can be made otherwise they cannot. In ANY case the difference between the time frames is between the difference SR measures from one frame and the one SR measures from the other frame. I had thought until this post of yours that you got relativity. You do not. Mathal |