 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Minkowski Spacetime Geometry or Particles responsible for SR?
Hi, Does the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime play the main role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow? Or is it certain key aspects of the behavior of particles that produce the Minkowski spacetime geometric structure? In the former, Spacetime geometry cause time dilation, length contraction. Without "spacetime", particles and matter won't pull off the SR stunt even if different observers are in different inertial systems. In the latter, particles themselves pull off the SR trick and the spacetime geometry is a result of it. What is the case? What do you think? Danny > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > pull off the SR trick and the spacetime geometry is a result > of it. What is the case? What do you think? The assumption of Newton's inertially moving lighy particles is responsible for most of the confusion. http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html << Einstein's relativity principle, which states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> So any experiment that claims some physical effect resulting from inertial motion has to be viewed with great skepticism or considered as evidence against the theory. Sue... > Danny | Hi, | | Does the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime play | the main role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why | moving clocks run slow? Only when Santa doesn't get his milk and cookies, kooky, because that's when stationary clocks run slow. Otherwise he wouldn't have time to get all his deliveries done, now would he? Some people will believe any sh.t. >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Some people will believe any sh.t. It is the easter bunny that slows the clocks and helps Santa on his vacation time. :) > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > behavior of particles that produce the Minkowski spacetime > geometric structure? Lets try to put that in English. Does the mathematical structure of the easter bunny play the main role in explaining why eggs are found everywhere during a certain time of the year? spacetime = easter bunny. Wake Up! It is an asbtract creation of mankind, not a physical cause for anything.  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman < Does the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime play the main role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why moving clocks run slow? Or is it certain key aspects of the behavior of particles that produce the Minkowski spacetime geometric structure? > The answer to both questions is "No". Minkowski invented spacetime because clocks set by Einstein's 1905 method are hand set to be vx/c^2 seconds behind each other's time; where x is the distance between two such clocks as measured by the given system itself, X is the direction of motion, and v is the velocity of that system in lorentz's stationary ether or Einstein's stationary empty space. Note that the value of v doesn't have to be known or knowable, for Einstein's method to work. One merely sets clocks of all systems to measure the one way speed of light as c, and they will be set with a timelag of -vx/c^2 seconds, as described above. Note also that once clocks have been set that way you have to know the place a clock is in a moving system in order to know its "time"; so a clock at point xyz may register t = 2 seconds when a clock at a different point in that system registers t= t.01 seconds. Hence you have to give the spatial coordinates of a specific clock in order to know the "time" [at that point in that system]; and THAT's the cause and entire meaning of the "space-time continuum". > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > behavior of particles that produce the Minkowski spacetime > geometric structure? There are several ways of looking at this. There is a separate thread called "Are *observed* SR effects real?" where I am trying to explain one of them to M. Luttgens. You are free to drop in there to get some answers to this question. > In the former, Spacetime geometry cause time dilation, > length contraction. Without "spacetime", particles and matter [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Danny > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Have you heard of Harvey Brown? See his paper at: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/01/Minkowski.pdf And commentary on his book at: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603 Harvey Brown believes that in special relativity spacetime has a Minkowski geometry because the dynamical laws are Lorentz invariant. The geometry, in some sense, depends on the structure of the laws. Wonder if you know Harvey Brown already. I think he is more intelligent than Eric Baird where I got bored with his GR without SR work already. D > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Danny Minkowski time is fastest uncontracted time for a particle that is not in motion. Mitch Raemsch > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Danny It's geometrical. Consider how you would go about measuring the length of a moving object-- you *simultaneously* measure the positions of the leading and trailing edges. If simultaneity is not invariant, then length is not invariant. The length-contracted rod is not length-contracted because of mechanical stresses. Actually, that kind of length contraction of a macroscopic object hasn't been measured. I'm not sure how it could be, since the effect is so small at speeds we can manage. So we can't exactly say "How are we going to explain this effect that everyone keeps seeing?" It's a prediction of a geometrical theory. Time dilation is another matter, that's measured routinely. Some people would rather explain it as an interaction with an aether, but it's an aether whose properties are carefully tuned such that its state of motion can't be detected and cancels in any calculation of an observable. You just have to trust that its there. A theory is a mental model of physical processes; it's an invention. It can actually be shown (it has been shown) that there are an infinite number of aether theories that are equivalent to special relativity-- basically the relativistic effects can be arbitrarily divided into a geometrical contribution and an aether contribution, with the limits being Galilean relativity with a Lorentz aether, and special relativity with no aether. Asking which one is True is not the right kind of question to ask, but it's the question that will be endlessly debated here. | > Hi, | > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | | Time dilation is another matter, that's measured routinely. Yeah, and Santa is seen every year. Some people | would rather explain it as an interaction with an aether, but it's an | aether whose properties are carefully tuned such that its state of | motion can't be detected and cancels in any calculation of an | observable. You just have to trust that its there. Well, yeah, trust old Santa, he never fails. | A theory is a mental model of physical processes; it's an invention. That's right. A crackpot mental model. | It | can actually be shown (it has been shown) that there are an infinite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | being Galilean relativity with a Lorentz aether, and special relativity | with no aether. Go on then, show it instead of waving your hands. | Asking which one is True is not the right kind of | question to ask, but it's the question that will be endlessly debated here. That's because you can't show it, you are a lying cocksucker. > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Lorentz ether theory is a worthy adversary of pure minkowski jedi trick. As an analogy. A woman's curve is caused by the cells in the body. A mathematician of pre-prehistoric times may say that it is the geometry of the curve of the woman body that creates the woman and it is the geometric oscillation of the body movement of the couple that produces the baby. This may be like SR claim that the geometric structure of spacetime bestows the ability for particles to time dilate and length contract in a perspective fashion, when it could be LET all the way. It doesn't matter if original Einstein SR has mathematical beauty or elegance. A woman body curve has mathematical elegence but a woman is not a math. It is the body cells that did it. LIkewise, it could the particles intrinsic ability with built in lorentz invariance capaibility and non-local collective cooperations that produce the SR geometric structure. What do you think? Danny > > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > non-local collective cooperations that produce the SR geometric > structure. What do you think? I doubt Minkowski put quite that much poety into his musings. To legitimately relate temporal with spatial displacements it is necessary to assume a speed. If I say it is 1 hour to village and you say it is 100 km to the next village, we are both right in a car traveling 100km/hr. The speed of light is the speed that fundamental particles ~know~ about. Cherenkov radiation? The rest is just Pythagoras relation with the orthogonal axes. << in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. 1 In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt -1 ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates.>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html <<The hardest thing about working with complex numbers is understanding why you might want to. >> http://dl.uncw.edu/digilib/mathematics/algebra/mat111hb/Izs/complex/complex.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number Sue... > Danny >>> Hi, >>> Does the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime play [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Danny I want to reiterate that any theory is an invention. A theory may be valid (logically sound and validated by experiment), but you can't say any particular valid theory is true or false, no matter how much some people here will tell you otherwise. That is simply giving your personal preferences more force than they warrant. With that out of the way, relativity has some things going for it besides just mathematical beauty or elegance. Of course, part of the mathematical beauty is that it doesn't incorporate mysterious undetectable stuff whose properties drop out of any calculation of an observable. From the electrical force, you can show that the principle of relativity and a finite field propagation speed makes a magnetic force logically necessary. Think of a test charge moving past a stationary charge-- it experiences a force and acceleration directly toward the stationary charge. Change your frame of reference so that the test charge is stationary and the source charge is moving-- the test charge still feels an acceleration directly towards the source charge even though the electric force it feels was from a time L/c seconds ago when the source charge was in a different place. Note that this doesn't rely on an invariant c, it would be just as true in Galilean relativity, although details of the electromagnetic equations would then be different. Refer to Jackson for mathematical details. A similar argument can be made for *any* force, real or imagined or not yet discovered. The frame dragging of general relativity is one example-- even if gravity is a Newtonian-type force rather than curvature (and Biswas created such a model, you can look it up) there would be frame dragging. And it's not like a whirlpool in an aether, as some would like to think. It's more like a magnetic force, where the magnitude and direction on a test particle depends on the test particle's speed and direction. And the same is true of the strong and weak nuclear forces, which seem modeled very well by the standard model of particle physics with a relativistic mechanics. This makes the principle of relativity powerful and universal. And also uncompromising, so that any of the forces might have had a chance to break it. But they didn't. If it were an aether theory, you'd have to add each one in by hand, and still fine-tune it so that the aether properties disappear. > Time dilation is another matter, that's measured routinely. It is measured a lot, but too bad it is simply a clock malfunction and not "time" changing rate at all. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Danny Extended objects can appear to shrink when you rotate them. Rotation in the hyperbolic Minkowski space is a bit different than the rotations in elliptical space that we're used to seeing in the everyday world, but the same principle applies in general. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Danny Hmmm. The two arguments are mathematically and I believe formally logically equivalent. In other words, it probably means the same thing that physical laws obey Lorentz symmetry as it does to say spacetime has a particular structure. In fact, Noether's theorem may have something to say about the equivalence. However, the dynamical statement about the Lorentz symmetry of the laws of physics does NOT imply that some *physical interaction* is at work (where that interaction obeys the aforementioned laws of physics) to physically alter rods and clocks. PD > Does the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime play > the main role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why > moving clocks run slow? Moving rods do not shrink, and moving clocks do not run slow. I am using all these words with their standard and accepted meanings (you, however, seem to be using them in funny ways). SR does predict that the MEASUREMENT of the length of a moving rod will yield an answer smaller than a similar measurement of the same rod at rest. But the rod itself is unaffected by any such motion. And SR does predict that the MEASUREMENT of the interval between ticks of a moving clock will obtain an answer that is larger than a similar measurement of the same clock at rest. But the clock itself is unaffected by any such motion. To measure the length of a moving rod, or the tick rate of a moving clock, you must use two synchronized clocks at rest in the frame of the measurement. This synchronization is ultimately what generates different values for moving and resting objects. By not being careful about the precision of your statements, you fool yourself, and your readers. > Or is it certain key aspects of the > behavior of particles that produce the Minkowski spacetime > geometric structure? In SR and GR, the geometry is a fundamental concept, and is not "implemented" by particles in any way. But in GR the presence of mass-energy does affect the geometrical structure of spacetime (and that includes particles). > In the former, Spacetime geometry cause time dilation, > length contraction. In SR/GR nothing "causes" time dilation or length contraction. They are simple and elementary relationships described by the appropriate geometrical projection. Tom Roberts > > Does the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime play > > the main role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Tom Roberts ----------------- right! no basic physical entity is changing it is the **measurments** that can change not to speak about time which is not natures invention but a human invension to describe relative motions reason 2 for the above is th e upper limit for movement ie while you tryto ad more and more velocity it becomes more and more difficult ie you need to invest energy **not linearly to the growth of velocity and nothing to do with curved or shmersed space - time ATB Y.Porat ----------------- Time? Not nature's invention but a human invention? 10 billion light years ((0)-10 billion years) 9 billion light years ((0)-9 billion years) 8 billion light years ((0)-8 billion years) .......... 3 billion light years ((0)-3 billion years) 2 billion light years ((0)-2 billion years) 1 billion light years ((0)-1 billion years) 0 Earth here, now...........((0) Earth here, now......) ------------- (0)-1 bil. yrs. (1bly) +1 bil. yrs. = 0 (not "Earth here, now") (0)-2 bil. yrs. (2bly) +2 bil. yrs. = 0 (not " ") (0)-3 bil. yrs. (3bly) +3 bil. yrs. = 0 (not " ") ......... (0)-8 bil. yrs. (8bly) +8 bil. yrs. = 0 (not " ") (0)-9 bil. yrs. (9bly) +9 bil. yrs. = 0 (not " ") (0)-10 bil. yrs. (10bly) +10 bil. yrs. = 0 (not " ") ------------- There is a universe out there going away from Earth here, now (0) that is progressively later in space and time (+) than anything observed and measured from Earth here, now (0) ((-))! <><><><><><><><><><> There is a universe out there going away from Earth, here, now (0) that is progressively earlier in space and time (-) than Earth here, now (0) ([as observed and measured from Earth here, now (0) ((+))])! ------------- Not nature's invention but a human invention?!?! Get serious! GLB > > > Does the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime play > > > the main role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > no basic physical entity is changing > it is the **measurments** that can change But don't forget that one of the twins age slower than the other. It may seem like SR is only perspectivewise and only the measurements can change but it has permanent effect. For example, with time dilation, the muon can reach the ground versus when there isn't. These examples is great way to realize that it is not just a measurement problem but the measurement creates reality and permanently. Danny > not to speak about time > which is not natures invention but a human invension [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > But don't forget that one of the twins age slower than > the other. It may seem like SR is only perspectivewise [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just a measurement problem but the measurement > creates reality and permanently. According to the traveling twin, the stay at home twin should have aged but that did not "RELATIVELY" occur. That should be simple proof the clock malfunctioned, The "SR" "time dilation" effect is not relative at all. The clock physically changed tick rate. It was not a relative effect at all. That is a malfunction of a machine. Sheesh! SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 16, 9:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > But don't forget that one of the twins age slower than > > the other. It may seem like SR is only perspectivewise [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman Math creates reality. What the math shows will turn up as reality. This means there is high probability we are living inside a simulation and the math is the program interacting with us. This makes a lot of sense and one good way to be at home with SR. D. > On Jul 16, 9:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > interacting with us. This makes a lot of sense and one > good way to be at home with SR. Sorry Danny, It makes no "sense" at all. Math can not "create" reality" Math is the "abstract" of the reality, not the other way around. I am very sorry you did not understand what I just told you, If the math actually created the reality, the traveling clocks observational math of the non traveling clock should have made that clock change also and both clocks should have remained "relative" to the math. The relativity of the clocks is proven wrong and that also means the math, did not create the reality it says it should have according to SR. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 16, 9:49 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 16, 9:25 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Math is the "abstract" of the reality, > not the other way around. > I am very sorry you did not understand what I just told you, > If the math actually created the reality, the traveling clocks > observational math of the non traveling clock should have > made that clock change also and both clocks should > have remained "relative" to the math. But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is longer. Something like that. When I say math creates reality. I mean some very unique creative energy in the beginning can take on any shape and form. It takes on math. So these primordial energy plus math can create any reality it so desires. We are in such reality. This is the only thing that can makes sense physics as I see it. Danny > The relativity of the clocks is proven wrong and that also > means the math, did not create the reality it says it should [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling > twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is > longer. Something like that. According to the traveling clock, the "at rest" clock and Earth did that "longer" path. Poor relativity, it always has to ignore itself to support itself. :) > When I say math creates reality. I mean some very > unique creative energy in the beginning can take on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only thing that can makes sense physics as I see > it. Danny, I am very sorry SR has infected you this much. If you wish to make "sense" of physics, study classical physics and remove SR and GR completely. Once you have done such you will see that physical causes do not come from math, they come from physical objects in motion. You may also wish to learn basic geometry a bit to cancel out any spherical geometry crap that has also infected you. :( SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 16, 11:01 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling > > twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Poor relativity, it always has to ignore itself to support > itself. In a reference worldlines graph. Compare the travelling and at rest clock and you will find the traveling clock to produce longer path. Since creative energy plus math create reality. The travelling twin or any particle or thing gets younger. Something like that. And I think it makes sense. Ponder on it dude. D. > :) > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 16, 11:01 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > younger. Something like that. And I think it makes sense. > Ponder on it dude. Then you only prove you skipped classical physics also. You seem to not understand a clock malfunction and you seem to think the "math" does not model the reality but actually creates it. I do feel sorry for you. You truly need to study classical physics and drop the SR sh.t completely in order to understand the classical physics first. Just like math.. You need to learn the basic math before you move onto algebra. It seems you are ignoring the fact that basic math proves the "SR" math is wrong. and if you think SR proves basic math is wrong, you are left with proof that is also wrong because it is based upon the basic math you are saying is wrong. SR will state that c+0.5c = 1c basic math states c+ 0.5c = 1.5c What math do you believe is correct? If you say the SR math, you have truly lost basic math and .. logic itself. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 16, 11:29 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > On Jul 16, 11:01 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > SR will state that c+0.5c = 1c > basic math states c+ 0.5c = 1.5c More sophisticated Minkowski geometry puts constrain on the speed of anything and it can do jedi mind trick too. So c is the same in all inertial frames. This is the magic of math. And since math plus the ensouling primordial energy create reality. SR and GR may be correct for all intent and purposes. Since QM is also correct and it is not compabitle with the formers. A third theory will encompass the rest and the third theory may directly deal with the math realm where the creative energy has its being. The Large Hadron Collider will show us the way. Encompass truth or be left behind in medieval newtonian dungeon. I'll return again after 6 hours to wake you up from your sleep in your lonely newtonian cave. D. > What math do you believe is correct? > If you say the SR math, you have truly lost [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Jul 16, 11:29 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > on the speed of anything and it can do jedi mind trick > too. So c is the same in all inertial frames. It seems you have picked the "non-logical" side. I really do feel sorry for your loss of the logic of 1+1=2 :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling >> twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is >> longer. Something like that. > > According to the traveling clock, the "at rest" clock and > Earth did that "longer" path. No, it was the traveeling clock that received the boost to a different velocity. The "at rest" clock did not. >>> But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling >>> twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, it was the traveeling clock that received the boost > to a different velocity. The "at rest" clock did not. So the Earth is the "absolute frame" then? LOL Too funny Greg..too funny, You ignore relativity to support it all the time and don't even realize it! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling >>>> twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So the Earth is the "absolute frame" then? What logic (and I use the term loosly in your case) lead you to that conclusion? >>>>> But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling >>>>> twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What logic (and I use the term loosly in your case) > lead you to that conclusion? It is being used as the "preffered frame of reference" to ignore the relative motion to support the relative motion theory. Eric, What logical function is true below c + c = 2c or c + c = c Poor Eric, He also lost his "logic" long ago. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>>> But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling >>>>>> twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > c + c = c > Poor Eric, LOL I just lost my logical function.. Eric does not equal Greg. Ooops.. my bad. LOL >>>>>>> But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling >>>>>>> twin uses longer worldline path, hence the proper time is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> It is being used as the "preffered frame of reference" >> to ignore the relative motion to support the relative motion theory. No mention was made of a preferred frame. Either twin's frame of reference is equally valid. The fact that the traveling twin returns to the stay-at-home twin's location simply makes using the stay-at-home twin's frame a convenience. You will find complete anayses of the Twin Paradox from both frames of reference on the web with a modicum of effort. So again I ask, by what logic did you arrive at the conclusion that an absolute frame was declared, and that the Earth frame was it? There was no mention of absolute frames anywhere I could see. > No mention was made of a preferred frame. Either twin's > frame of reference is equally valid. The fact that the > traveling twin returns to the stay-at-home twin's location > simply makes using the stay-at-home twin's frame a convenience. While ignoring the traveling clocks frame of reference to support the end outcome. I rest my case, you are ignoring relativity to supoort relativity. Case Closed. Bye Greg. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> No mention was made of a preferred frame. Either twin's >> frame of reference is equally valid. The fact that the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > While ignoring the traveling clocks frame of reference to > support the end outcome. How strange that you would say that considering the remainder of my paragraph, which you chose to delete, said: >> You will find complete anayses of the Twin Paradox from both >> frames of reference on the web with a modicum of effort. You're being dishonest again, James. > I rest my case, you are ignoring relativity to supoort relativity. > Case Closed. > Bye Greg. James runs away to hide again. "Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message news:CLWdnUUn9OXtkOPVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com > Danny Milano wrote: >> But the math involved worldlines and geodesics, the travelling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > According to the traveling clock, the "at rest" clock and > Earth did that "longer" path. No, it was the traveeling clock that received the boost to a different velocity. The "at rest" clock did not. How does the hub of a wheel so very much smaller in diameter and circumference than the rim get across the same kilometer of space as the rim in the same time as the rim, in the same number of turns as the rim, if you the observer are not in any way aware the rim exists? Did it tunnel through space and time? Did it go [over the top]? Did it by constant boost accelerate in expansion (assuming the dimensions of the rim) and by deceleration contract (reassuming the dimensions of the hub), displacing itself in space and time from here to there or there to here (maintaining the larger, and yet the smaller, more singularly dual relationship the hub has with the rim -- the rim has with the hub)? Say like the relationship that we have with the Planck [singularly dual micro-scale | macro-stage] of universe? An apparently larger frame, or field, more encompassing, while yet the same frame or field -- the same dimension -- smaller. The traveling clock is occupying more space (all at once) than its Earth bound twin. Yet at the same time it is occupying the same amount of space as it did sitting beside its twin on Earth. It doesn't matter which of you is talking since neither of you can picture that neither space nor time -- nor 'relativity' itself for that matter -- is absolute. GLB > How does the hub of a wheel so very much smaller in diameter and > circumference than the rim get across the same kilometer of space as [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > picture that neither space nor time -- nor 'relativity' itself for > that matter -- is absolute. Yuck, Yet another that wants to use multiple standards for distance and time. No wonder the science of physics is so dilluded. It has left the science of measurement and single standards behind. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> How does the hub of a wheel so very much smaller in diameter and >> circumference than the rim get across the same kilometer of space as [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > It has left the science of measurement and single standards behind. > :) Yes I do like to get somewhere in ten minutes that it takes you an hour to reach. Or that YOU never reach -- never even get closer than you are right now -- because YOU can't get a certain ratio off an absolute of 1:1! The rest of us do, routinely. GLB >>> How does the hub of a wheel so very much smaller in diameter and >>> circumference than the rim get across the same kilometer of space as [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > you are right now -- because YOU can't get a certain ratio off an > absolute of 1:1! The rest of us do, routinely. Wow, you truly are lost. I bet you are going to say you take a curved path and traveled at the same speed as I did and you beat me to the point because I took a straight line. That is so stupid, it is amazing you can actually think such at all. LOL I do not "never get closer" like you confuse it to being. You see, I move at 1 meter per meter and one second per second. The faster I move (distance per time), the faster I get there. I do see you completly left the science of measurement behind your "sad" logic. In my "reality" world, when I travel at 186,000 miles every 2 seconds I have traveled a total of 372,000 miles in 2 seconds. But in your rubber ruler world you will travel less distance in 2 seconds. So, guess who actually won the race to the 372,000 mile marker? Hint: I did. HA HA HA HA HA You lost! LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > "Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message > news:CLWdnUUn9OXtkOPVnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@comcast.com [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > GLB Relativity breaks down....and builds up. It shrinks....and expands. You can and will lose relativity to..... while gaining relativity to..... You can make of this [local] universe a black hole....that you leave behind you (a vortex made that you can -- by way of constant boost -- travel out of, or be tossed out of, shrinking it behind you to nothing more than just another point in space and time indistinguishable from every other point of an infinity of points). Yet in so doing, you've at same time, exactly the same time, entered one (proportionately expanding around you). To some degree you do this everyday, routinely, any time you go in motion (the instant you accelerate in the universe) and travel anywhere. There is no center point to an infinite Universe....every point is the center point of it. And those [points, in vertical depth,] are not absolutely [points] as such! Though the stereotypical, or archtypical, entity "point" is of course an absolute, a universal constancy. 'Relativity', don't you know? GLB >> But don't forget that one of the twins age slower than >> the other. It may seem like SR is only perspectivewise [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > According to the traveling twin, the stay at home twin > should have aged but that did not "RELATIVELY" occur. What does that mean? When the traveling twin arrives back home the stay at home twin is an old man, while he's still a young man. >>> But don't forget that one of the twins age slower than >>> the other. It may seem like SR is only perspectivewise [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > back home the stay at home twin is an old man, while > he's still a young man. First lets get this straight, no "men" were used. The clocks were. And when the traveling clock came back. It showed a change, If it truly stayed "relative" to the at home clock, there would be now change in the times. The traveling clock according to "relativity" should have observed the stay at home clock as the clock that slowed. But of course it did not. Relativity broke, SR is wrong Case closed. (at least to anyone that has not been brainwashed) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> But don't forget that one of the twins age slower than >>>> the other. It may seem like SR is only perspectivewise [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > First lets get this straight, no "men" were used. > The clocks were. The Twin Paradox concerns twins, hence the name. I thought that, at least, would be obvious even to you. Whether or not they each had clocks with them is not the central theme of the exercise. The apparent paradox lies in the differential ageing of the twins. >>>>> But don't forget that one of the twins age slower than >>>>> the other. It may seem like SR is only perspectivewise [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > the central theme of the exercise. The apparent > paradox lies in the differential ageing of the twins. The paradox of their "age" difference is based upon the clocks, I am merely cutting out the "middle man". I am ashamed that physics has infected people like you so much that they have lost basic logic and can not even tell when a clock is no longer ticking at the same rate that it should. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>>>> But don't forget that one of the twins age slower than >>>>>> the other. It may seem like SR is only perspectivewise [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The paradox of their "age" difference is based upon the clocks, > I am merely cutting out the "middle man". You "cut out the middle man" as you put it in order to avoid dealing with the fact that the twins really are of different ages when they reunite. You would like to think that it is just clocks that are somehow influenced by relative motion, but it is not so. Everything time dependent is subject to the dilation effects. > You "cut out the middle man" as you put it in order to > avoid dealing with the fact that the twins really are of > different ages when they reunite. No, I cut the middle man because there is no "real" middle man there at all. The clocks are the "hypothetical" men. You truly are sad with the diversion tactics Greg. All this diversion so you can ignore the clock malfunction. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> You "cut out the middle man" as you put it in order to >> avoid dealing with the fact that the twins really are of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > All this diversion so you can ignore the clock > malfunction. You're a funny man, James, speaking of diversions to provide one of your own. So tell us, James, do you think that the twins will be of the same age or not when they reunite? Yes or no. >>> You "cut out the middle man" as you put it in order to >>> avoid dealing with the fact that the twins really are of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you think that the twins will be of the same age or > not when they reunite? Yes or no. They will both be the same Earth revolutions WRT the Sun old. (so thier "natural age" will be the same). :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 16, 11:25 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > >>> You "cut out the middle man" as you put it in order to > >>> avoid dealing with the fact that the twins really are of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > They will both be the same Earth revolutions WRT the Sun > old. (so thier "natural age" will be the same). Now what makes you think that human aging "natural age" is driven by the number of Earth revolutions around the Sun? >>>> You "cut out the middle man" as you put it in order to >>>> avoid dealing with the fact that the twins really are of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > They will both be the same Earth revolutions WRT the Sun > old. (so thier "natural age" will be the same). What would the traveling twin find 'natural' about the advanced age of the stay-at-home twin? > > Does the geometrical structure of Minkowski spacetime play > > the main role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Tom Roberts I thought of what you said before but I'm analyzing the work of Harvey Brown. I'm agoizing where to get his book called "Physical Relativity: Space-Time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective. See: http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Relativity-Space-Time-Structure-Perspective/dp/01 9923292X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216124604&sr=8-2 reviewer said... "....the author does not consider that Relativity theories refer to an ontologically independent physical agent of spacetime geometry. Instead, he thinks that spacetime geometry is an artifact of macroscopic dynamical effects of more fundamental quantum theories of basic interactions in physics like quantum gravity and quantum electrodynamics." How could Harvey claim it in spite of already being aware of what you mentioned above.. unless there is a slight logical possibility for the dynamical interpretation? I want to look into his mind. He is no Pentcho or a crackpot. Danny |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.