 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2004obvious absolute
A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length if we think that the clock time rate and the ruler length are affected from their speed, then the speed in order to have effect on the clock and on the ruler must be a absolute speed. This is elementary logic. After all the absolute speed is nothing more than a speed versus the totality of the universe taken as a whole. The totality of the universe is present locally through the inertia of the bodies. Things are very simple after all, just SR troubled the water, unless we fit SR in the ether, done so, all turns simple again. best regards beda pietanza > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length The word "absolute" is neither needed nor appropriate there. The proper length of a ruler and the proper time rate of a clock are intrinsic properties of those objects; only a handful of the meanings of "absolute" actually apply: Proper values are invariant over any coordinate transformations Proper values are independent of observer But: proper values are not referenced to any sort of "absolute system" or "coordinates coordinates" > if we think that the clock time rate and the ruler length are affected from > their speed, then the speed in order to have effect on the clock and on the > ruler must be a absolute speed. But in modern physics we don't think that "the clock time rate and the ruler length are affected from [by] their speed". This is quite simple: speed is always relative to some coordinate system, and a given object naturally has different speeds relative to different coordinate systems, but intrinsic properties must have a single value for a given object, so no intrinsic propety can vary with speed -- this applies to both proper length and proper tick rate. Another reason your statment is silly: your PUN on "absolute" is inappropriate -- look above and note that proper values do NOT have the aspect of "absolute" that you used. > This is elementary logic. Based on faulty premises, an invalid assumption, and an outrageous PUN. > [... further nonsense] Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > given object, so no intrinsic propety can vary with speed > -- this applies to both proper length and proper tick rate. Clock rate does change according to the state of absolute motion of the clock. This can be proven easily as follows: Observer A sees B and C clocks moving at different rate wrt his clock. He accelerated and becomes inertial again. Now he sees the clock rates of both B and C have changed compared to his clock. This interpretation is bogus. The B and C clocks remain at the same rate. What is changed is the rate of observer A's clock. IOW, the intrinsic rate of A's clock has changed. Ken Seto > > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > proper values are not referenced to any sort of "absolute > system" or "coordinates coordinates" I try to make a simple logic sequence: there is a moving ruler, some think that a moving ruler get shorter because of its movement, for the ones who think this, this can happen only if the ruler has a proper absolute length and the speed of the ruler is an absolute speed. This is said out of your SR jargon, of course. > > if we think that the clock time rate and the ruler length are affected from > > their speed, then the speed in order to have effect on the clock and on the > > ruler must be a absolute speed. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > given object, so no intrinsic propety can vary with speed > -- this applies to both proper length and proper tick rate. If the absolute length a moving ruler contract affected by the its absolute speed this phenomenon took place since long before there were any modern physics about. So come to my island: does the length of a ruler contract because of its movement or not??? If it does contract then its movement and its contraction are absolute. If a observer with plain eye look at two differently moving rulers both approaching him in his line of sight would him see the two rulers of the same length(taken away the any Doppler like effect on length)??? How do they know of each other existence, how light that ignoring every ones goes trough its absolute movement collecting information and bringing them to the eye of the observer if they were not standing or moving, each one independent of the other, in its own absolute morphology ??? Look carefully at your formulas you will find hidden somewhere the hidden couple of absolute value of speed(even yet indefinite but within to a very restrict range) you arranged to do (apparently) without: try to shift a bit the Esynch from (t1-t2)/2 and the absolutes start to show up. > Another reason your statment is silly: your PUN on "absolute" is > inappropriate -- look above and note that proper values do NOT have the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Based on faulty premises, an invalid assumption, and an outrageous PUN. ??? of course to measure the speed you need coordinate systems. Cordinate systems arranged as SR requires are not the only one we can have, we can have, also, absolute coordinate system anchored to something called the ether, then all the measured speed are absolute. It is only matter of agreement upon the choice we make. If choosing the ether preferred frame as a possible coordinate system does belong to modern physics or not is matter of opinion, your opinion is worthmore than mine, of course, but not to me. As where and how to find the ether candidate, you sure know better than I. best regards beda pietanza > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is elementary logic. No, it is not. It is a theory-dependent reasoning. It isn't just a matter of pure logic. > After all the absolute speed is nothing more than a speed versus the > totality of the universe taken as a whole. That is NOT the traditional meaning of absolute motion! Machian absolutism? What a laugh. Traditionally, absolute motion cannot be defined in terms of matter distribution or state of being in any sense. Classically, if you could remove ALL matter from the universe save for a single particle, absolute space and motion are still meaningful. That is my point. It's the fault of lousy education. Patrick > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is elementary logic. Indeed. Some more sophisticated logic might be required to reason whether separate systems that don't exchange matter or energy or a single system that doesn't conserve matter and energy have any need for an absolute notion of time. Sue... > After all the absolute speed is nothing more than a speed versus the > totality of the universe taken as a whole. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > beda pietanza > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is elementary logic. VERGON: Your elementary logic is defective. The conclusion is not warranted. To put it simply, everything in the universe is going every which way. The only way to judge the velocity of a coordinate system is in respect to another. Five different observers from different viewpoints will observe a rod length in a a particular system as having five different lengths. There is no absolute velocity. All this s so elementary that I believe you are just starting with SR. Get some good books on it -- or look it up in the Britannica. > After all the absolute speed is nothing more than a speed versus the > totality of the universe taken as a whole. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > beda pietanza > > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > There is no absolute velocity. Your logic is defective. Relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion along the line joining A and B and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B. Ken Seto > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This is elementary logic. VERGON: Your elementary logic is defective. The conclusion is not warranted. To put it simply, everything in the universe is going every which way. The only way to judge the velocity of a coordinate system is in respect to another. Five different observers from different viewpoints will observe a rod length in a a particular system as having five different lengths. There is no absolute velocity. All this s so elementary that I believe you are just starting with SR. Get some good books on it -- or look it up in the Britannica. > After all the absolute speed is nothing more than a speed versus the > totality of the universe taken as a whole. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > beda pietanza > > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > All this s so elementary that I believe you are just starting with SR. > Get some good books on it -- or look it up in the Britannica. OK, you are in deep space, in the dark, far away from anything you have a clock in your hand and the clock is tickling does it have a proper time rate or not ????? And you and the clock would you have a proper speed ??? What is the relation between you and the entire universe???? If the entire universe would double its mass your clock would go slower (what ever its time rate originally was), probably also your speed (whatever it was ) would slow down. Before you put anything in a suitable coordinate system you should know what is going on, otherwise the coordinate system will be a source of illusions for you. best regards beda pietanza > > After all the absolute speed is nothing more than a speed versus the > > totality of the universe taken as a whole. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > beda pietanza > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length > if we think that the clock time rate and the ruler length are affected from > their speed, then the speed in order to have effect on the clock and on the > ruler must be a absolute speed. The terms "proper" and "absolute" cannot be used together as adjectives in the way you've used them above because "proper" refers to a discrete object while "absolute" refers to a universal application. Also, one cannot say an object has a proper time, one can only say that an object has a proper time _rate_ because the proper time rate of an object/system is based on its speed, which can vary, as shown in SR's Twin Paradox. Thus there is no absolute time which imposes its force upon any and all objects within the universe. The only abs. time we can address is the time in which time rates exist, like the ranges in which em waves exist within the light spectrum charts. Such charts are not absolute, obviously; if they were, it would mean that time exists as a force imposed upon everything equally and aging would be at the same rate for everything within the universe, and thus SR's time dilation effect could not exist and entropy would have to be redefined. The only absolute fact about time is that it exists and passes. TomGee > > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > passes. > TomGee guess you have missed the point: The time rate of a moving clock if is affected by its speed then the time rate and the speed of the clock must be absolute. Here I use absolute in the sense that it is not relative to anything: if changes the absolute speed the time rate absolutely change, nothing else is involved. the absolute speed is meant versus the local ether. The local ether is the local effect of the entire masses of the universe. best regards beda pietanza It really seems that you missed the definitions. You can use the term "absolute" as you use it, even in physics where that is not its meaning in any physics I have read, but only after you explain your use of it and not before. Now that you have done that, it is clear that what you call "absolute whatever" is actually "proper whatever". "Proper whatever" corresponds to something which belongs or accrues to an object, while "absolute whatever" usually means the existence of something which corresponds to universal law. However, you say that if and when its speed changes, an object's time rate also changes, and that is correct, as per SR. There are still some who disagree with that SR claim, but I am not one of them. You refer to "the local ether", meaning, I think, that you believe there exists non-local ether, such as where there is no gravitation, and that is correct also because gravitation does affect the state of motion of objects within its field, and so we can call that the local ether as well. However, I do not know what you mean when you say that the local ether is the local effect of all the masses of the universe. That would mean you see the ether as an effect of mass and not as a medium for visible and invisible matter and light. If you mean that an object's speed is compared to the local ether and that is called the absolute speed of the object, how can one compare it to "empty space"? You can say that the speed of an object changed, nothing wrong with that, no need to compare it to anything unless the comparison is relavant. Thus, you can say that an object's proper speed has changed and so its proper time rate has changed also, until someone questions how you know it changed, then you will have to explain how you know that. TomGee > It really seems that you missed the definitions. You can use the term > "absolute" as you use it, even in physics where that is not its meaning [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > object, while "absolute whatever" usually means the existence of > something which corresponds to universal law. I used "proper absolute" time rate to emphasize the concept of a absoluteness of the property of the clock, regardless of having us the possibility of measuring it. "Proper absolute" time rate is versus the entire universe averaged as a clock. > However, you say that if and when its speed changes, an object's time > rate also changes, and that is correct, as per SR. There are still [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That would mean you see the ether as an effect of mass and not as a > medium for visible and invisible matter and light. Look, the local ether is different from a ether of somewhere else because there the mass distribution may be different. The properties of the local ether is determined by the totality of the masses of the universe plus various local influences, the local ether is the medium of visible and invisible matter and light as well as the cause of the inertia. The ether shapes the bodies, make feel the inertia and determine the local speed of light. > If you mean that an object's speed is compared to the local ether and > that is called the absolute speed of the object, how can one compare it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > someone questions how you know it changed, then you will have to > explain how you know that. Changes are absolute first of all, and these changes are versus the entire universe taken as a whole. Said so, you can make any change relative, then the absolute can be made not relevant, because the differences are in many case more important than the absolute values. best regards beda pietanza > > > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > > > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > changes the absolute speed the time rate absolutely change, nothing else is > involved. You seem to get "absolute out" because you have wrongly stacked the deck to do so, not quite realizing it, I suppose. You prejudiced the outcome by using an absolutist's phraseology. What you should have said is this: The time rate of a moving clock is affected by its speed relative to (and as judged by) an inertial frame of reference, but NOT relative to its own rest frame -- the frame which carries the clock, maintaining it at relative rest at all times. In other words, you never notice time retardation on the clock you carry with your person, although you may notice that your clock got out of synch with clocks in other frames of reference. In SR, you cannot discuss time measurements without specifying the reference frames involved. These statements are true in SR whether the "moving clock" is inertial or noninertial, classically speaking. Furthermore, the rate at which the moving clock desynchronizes relative to, and as judged by, the inertial clock is a function ONLY of the two frame's relative velocity. (If the relative velocity of the two frames is a known function of time in the inertial coordinates, a simple integration can be performed.) No "absolute" third frame is ever needed to perform the calculations involved in making predictions, such as for the clock experiment. This is fairly simple when viewed from a Minkowski diagram. Patrick > These statements are true in SR whether the "moving clock" is inertial > or noninertial, classically speaking. Furthermore, the rate at which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > involved in making predictions, such as for the clock experiment. This > is fairly simple when viewed from a Minkowski diagram. But the relative velocity between any two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component of A's absolute motion and the vector component of B's absolute motion along the line joining A and B. Notice that if A accelerated he will change his state of absolute motion and thus change the relative velocity between A and B. After the acceleration, A will see B's clock to run at a different rate than before he accelerated. This is not due to B's clock rate has changed. It is due to A's clock rated changed intrinsically. Ken Seto > > These statements are true in SR whether the "moving clock" is inertial > > or noninertial, classically speaking. Furthermore, the rate at which [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ken Seto Fully agree, good point in making evident the absolute change of speed. regards beda pietanza > > > > A moving clock must have a proper absolute time rate > > > > A moving ruler must have its proper absolute length [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > you cannot discuss time measurements without specifying > the reference frames involved. The clock changes its time rate because of its absolute movement versus the entire universe. And the time rate of the absolutely moving clock changes versus the totality of the average of the clocks of the universe. Forget about synch, it is another case: you would need to set comparing clocks to zero first. > These statements are true in SR whether the "moving clock" is inertial > or noninertial, classically speaking. Furthermore, the rate at which [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > involved in making predictions, such as for the clock experiment. This > is fairly simple when viewed from a Minkowski diagram. In the conjuring trick of the SR frames you are correct, and you are correctly trapped into it. Conjuring tricks works, some can be considered also good science, good meanly to suggest people, never they tell you the full story though. I prefer not to use inertial frames nevertheless with Esynched clocks. There is the universe to look at as the best frame of reference. And of the universe, locally, we have the ether (whatever is made of ) with the inertia and with the capability to shape the bodies and force light to a speed limit. Keep on playing with the local relative two frame if you wish, but I suggest you to enlarge your view: look out at the stars: they tells you much more. best regards beda pietanza > > > guess you have missed the point: > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > The clock changes its time rate because of its absolute movement > versus the entire universe. Yes, you can say that, but its more precise to say that its time rate changes inversely proportional to any and all changes in its speed, according to SR. > And the time rate of the absolutely moving clock changes versus the > totality of the average of the clocks of the universe. Nonsense. Time is a property of matter and an object's time rate has nothing to do with the "totality of the average of the clocks of the universe", whatever that means. > Forget about synch, it is another case: you would need to set > comparing clocks to zero first. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the moving clock desynchronizes relative to, and as judged by, the > > inertial clock is a function ONLY of the two frame's relative velocity. No. It is a function of the fact that time is a property of matter and it changes dependent upon upon an object's state of motion. TomGee > <reany@asu.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio [snip] > > These statements are true in SR whether the "moving clock" is inertial > > or noninertial, classically speaking. Furthermore, the rate at which [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In the conjuring trick of the SR frames you are correct, and you are > correctly trapped into it. Every theory that works is the result of creative mental conjuring. Now you're starting to get it! > Conjuring tricks works, some can be considered also good science, good > meanly to suggest people, never they tell you the full story though. > I prefer not to use inertial frames nevertheless with Esynched clocks. > There is the universe to look at as the best frame of reference. > And of the universe, locally, we have the ether (whatever is made of ) with You are addicted to constructive theory bulding. > the inertia and with the capability to shape the bodies and force light to a > speed limit. Sounds like Einstein's metric field, except that that field wasn't claimed by Einstein to be "absolute." Patrick |
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.