 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / February 2006Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality)
Anti-Relativitists main points are, how can something physicists model as geometry for the sake of mathematics become equated to reality where time can literally slow at relativistic speed or near strong gravity. Your comments would likely be for them to study metric tensors, advanced vector and differential calculus, etc. But isn't there an intuitive way to explain SR,GR. I mean, which part of it is physical and which part is mathematical. You can say they are just stupid not understanding it. Well. We need to have layman friendly version of it too, it's not just for anti-relativistists but for ordinary folks who just want to have an intuitive feel for Relativity who don't have a decade of free time to study it because they are tied up to business and home duties for example. Of course math is important and essential but there should be a physical part of it as time indeed can slow down, etc.. For those who studied relativity for a decade or more. Pls. share which part of the geometry or math model actually pertain to reality where time can slow time literally or the physical basis of relativity. We can use mathematical model to explain sex like how momentum and tensors can model the movements of the body, but you can explain it too like how muscles move the body and how that thing is inserted without using the concept of ballistics or kinetic and potential energy, etc. So with relativity likewise. Which part of the geometry or math model is physical and which of it is modelled as geometry for sake of illustration or calculations. In other words, what's the physical basis or correlates or causal mechanism of Relativity. R. Below is an article I posted in Sci.physics.relativity. You may find it of interest. Best regards, Vertner Vergon LUCKY EINSTEIN There is a saying, "If he fell in a sewer, he'd come up with a gold coin. Einstein (whom I admire) was such an individual. He was 25 when he wrote his theory, 26 when it was published. His concept was impeccable, his mathematics correct. However, he fumbled in the interpretation of the mathematical results. This created a mystique haunting a theory that was basically correct but that played havoc with our intuitive concept of the universe -- one that was neatly categorized by Newton. Rather than dealing only with the relativity of moving bodies he brought in the electrodynamics also -- to some brilliant conclusions. Had he interpreted correctly, what would have transpired was the creation of a theory that neatly packaged various concepts of the principle of relativity that had been around for a while. People would say, "That's nice." and put it on the shelf along with other accepted theories of how our universe works. And he would have taken his place in equal standing alongside many other brilliant physicists. But Einstein misfired. He made interpretive errors that made his theory - and him -- super famous because the concepts were bizarre and resolution elusive. Perhaps the main one was the interpretation that led to the Twin Paradox -- the concept of time dilation. How many millions of hours have been spent discussing that? He discusses two identical clocks, one of which goes on a journey and returns to the stationary one. He notes that the clock that journeyed was behind the stationary clock, showed less time. Error number one. He assumed that the moving clock had kept slower time. This led physicists, great and small to recount that if one were to observe a space ship at high velocities, one would observe the on board clock to run at dilation time - t' = t sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) . This we know is not so. Astronomers observe moving emitters every night -- and what they see is Doppler time. Any known constant emitter is a clock. The variation of its frequency is the variation of observed time. In recession, the time is slower than norm - in approach the time is faster than norm. Following this precept, the Twin Paradox never appears. The correct explanation of the "behind" clock is that its velocity is greater than measured. Thus it completes its journey in less time than the observed velocity calls for - therefore in less time than that registered on the stationary clock. Another oversight by Einstein was that he did not make perfectly clear that mass increase and longitudinal foreshortening were observations only, and not real. He was also stymied when his mathematics showed infinite requirements for momentum and energy as a body approached c. Rather than just forge ahead and toss that on the public, he should have realized that his work was not done and that he had to go back to the drawing board to get it right. He might have cogitated that since longitudinal length seemed to contract, that maybe observed velocity along that path might contract also. In which case it could be assumed that Newtonian infinite velocity was possible -- and as that velocity approached infinity, its measurement approached c. This would account for the inordinate energy and momentum that accompany the measured velocities. It will be found that those parameters fit exactly the Newtonian velocities. This would lay to rest the bugaboo "relativistic mass" because that was created to explain the excess momentum. There were other mistakes in aberration but they were not serious and were quietly patched up by those who came after him. All in all, he can be forgiven for in the final analysis SR is a brilliant piece of work -- and no one is infallible. V. Vergon THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY (As it is presently understood) What is Einstein's theory of relativity all about? Simple. It's about the observations made of a moving body from another body. The title of his theory is "On the Electrodynamics of Moving bodies". For our purposes here "electrodynamics" means light. So what he is dealing with is the interplay of light and moving bodies. Picture a space ship moving in outer space. What is its velocity? Usually we think of a velocity as being in respect to earth. But with respect to mars it would be different - and with respect to Pluto still different. This is the relativity part. When you have a velocity it has to be with respect to a given body. That body is called the "inertial system" for it is considered inert and not moving (even though it may be). Each body has its own coordinate system. Think of a corner in a room. Now where the floor joins one wall is a coordinate (say "x") - where the floor joins the adjacent wall is coordinate "y" - and the corner going from floor to ceiling formed by the two adjacent walls is coordinate "z". So when we speak of a body, we also speak of its coordinate system. The location or dimensions of anything in the room can be defined by using measurement numbers along the coordinates. Now lets take a coordinate system and place within it a meter rod and a clock. The clock keeps correct time. This time is known as "proper time" The rod is, of course, one meter long. It also has a mass of one kilogram. This is known as the "proper mass". The length is the proper length. Next, we place this coordinate system in motion relative to an inertial system. The motion is along the x axis and is unvarying (Steady as she goes.), Now Einstein did his calculations to find out the results of the inertial system's observation of the rod and the clock. To do so, he took into account the fact (although he called it a postulate) that light travels the same speed (known as "c") with respect to all observers. No matter how fast one was traveling, they would always observe the velocity of light to be constant at c. This made the calculations tricky. Here's what he came up with. Since the rod was imbedded in the moving system, it had a velocity and therefore a momentum. His calculations showed that as the velocity of the rod approached c, its momentum approached infinity. His conclusion was that this was because the inertial mass increased. Now bear in mind this is an observation only, the mass of the rod does not increase. It maintains its proper mass of one kilogram. Next he calculated the observed length of the rod along the line of motion and found that as the velocity increased the rod appeared to foreshorten so that as it approached c its apparent length approached zero. Again, this is an observation only, the rod maintains its proper length of one meter in its own coordinate system, In making his calculations regarding the clock, he describes a thought (or "gedanken") experiment where he has two identical synchronized clocks one of which moves away and then returns. When the two clocks are together again he compares their times and finds the moving clock is now "behind" the stationary or inertial clock. His conclusion: The moving clock ran slower as a result of its motion. This running slower is called "time dilation". "Dilation" means to expand - that is each second on the moving clock expands so that in any given time span there are less seconds on the moving clock than on the inertial one. This dilation of time has led to the popular concept that if a twin brother traveled on a space journey, when he returned he would be younger than his earthbound twin. There has been much argument waged on this subject and it still goes on today even though some physicists claim to have solved the enigma. Another phenomenon dealt within the theory is called "aberration". Imagine you are in a space ship. You look out a port and see a star directly at ninety degrees to your line of travel. Now as your space ship accelerates you see the star appear to move forward toward the nose of the ship. At the speed of light, everything in the universe would appear to be in front of you. The explanation for the star to appear to be moving forward can be illustrated by assuming you are sitting in a car and it is raining. There is no wind so the rain is coming straight down. Now you start the car and move forward. The rain will now appear to come down slanted. The same thing happens with light and your space ship. Let's look at one more oddity of relativity. Assume you have a space ship traveling (relative to earth) at 75% the speed of light. Then a shuttle craft is expelled and travels 75% the speed of light relative to the space ship. What would an observer on earth measure as the speed of the shuttle craft? If you use regular arithmetic, you would say 1 ½ times the speed of light. Not so, would say Einstein. According to his theory the shuttle speed would be .96 the speed of light. The reason? Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Last but not least is the famous equation, E = m c squared. First of all it does not appear in Einstein's paper under discussion here but does exist in a subsequent paper published the same year. In it he describes the situation the following way: Given, a body that does not change velocity. When said body absorbs radiation, it gains in mass. When it emits radiation it losses mass. This change in mass is given by mass = radiation energy/ c square - or m = E/c square which when transposed is E = m c square. When an atom bomb goes off, part of its mass is converted to radiation. V. Vergon May, 2005 > Below is an article I posted in Sci.physics.relativity. You may find it > of interest. [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > V. Vergon What I wonder is if time in relativity slows down because the physical processes slow down or is it really time slowing down. When you put a human in a cryogenic freezer. As his cells slow down. Is time slowing down. No. Only the physical process is slowing down. Likewise, in Relativity, is time really slowing down or only the physical process. Now you may say its the same. Not really.. because what if atoms need some kind of power supply to make the wave particle coupling possible.. not yet known in physics. And at relativistic speed, what if the coupling weakens or other causes resulting in slow down of the physical atoms activities. Then it's not time slowing down but the physical process. This is why we need to know the physical basis or causal mechanism of Relativity so debates about twin paradox, etc. can be resolved. Relativistis, you can't blame us for questioning because what if the 4D spacetime coordinates used in relativity for mathematical purposes is just an approximation of a higher theory. R. > What I wonder is if time in relativity slows down because > the physical processes slow down or is it really time > slowing down. It is the physical processes, not time itself changing. A clock is supposed to keep invariant periodic motion. When a clock does not do such , it loses time. When a phsyical process slows down, it does not physically lose time, it merely slows down at the same rate a proper clock (one that did not change rate at all) would say it did. Relastic, The questions you are asking have more to do with Philosophy or Metaphysics than they do with Physics. This distinction is something that many Physicists (in my experience) do not recognize. I am a Physicist and have been philosophically-inclined for a long time. I take a highly agnostic view of scientific theories, and I'll explain what I mean. What is a scientific theory, such as General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics? Why do people believe them to be "true"? In short, people accept them because these theories allow us to make correct predictions about what we will observe. It is not enough that a theory "explain" what we observe. That is, it is not enough that a theory give a consistent description for what we have observed. It must be able to predict what we will observe. And as far as Science is concerned, that is all there is to it. The nature of the theory is irrelevant. If the theory was a long book that listed off everything we would observe in any conceivable situation, then it would be a leading theory. We'd even give it a captial "T" and call it a "Theory". People wouldn't like it because it would not be aesthetically pleasing or elegant, but it would irrefutably work. But of course real theories are not long books; they are constructions of logic and mathematics. They are a set of assumptions and "fundamental principles", and they comprise a mathematical description of what we observe. Note that I am not saying that the theories describe "Reality", for that word is too loaded and subjective. In fact, I believe that Science can provide very little information about Reality (with a capital 'R'), unless you believe that Reality is simply the sum of things that you can smell, taste, touch, smell, and see. (I personally believe that there is much more to reality than sensory perception, and I don't mean that in a religious sense.) These five senses are really our only connections to Reality that Science has any ability to describe and predict. That's a powerful statement, considering how many scientists believe that their reality IS what the theories say it is. So to your questions about the theory of Relativity: You seem primarily bothered by the worldview that the theory espouses. As you said earlier, some scientists would tell you to "study metric tensors, advanced vector and differential calculus, etc." I agree with you that this is not satisfactory, but only because of what many scientists would actually mean by saying it. You hit the nail on the head when you asked "which part of it is physical and which part is mathematical [?] " You understand that there is a distinction between the math that we use and develop and the much grander and seperate existence of Reality (assuming that when you say "physical" that your meaning is closer to mine when I use the word "reality"). Many scientists and other people take the mathematical and non-mathematical concepts of theories as Reality itself. So, for example, if a theory models a cow as a sphere (as the old joke goes), then such people would believe the cow is actually a sphere. This is an absurd example, but it is only absurd because we have many ways of observing a cow and have a fairly solid understanding of what a "cow" is. We know that there is a big difference between our concept of a sphere and the animal that we observe. Now consider another, more popular theory (in optics) that models atoms and molecules as (in essence) little spirngs, or oscillating dipoles. This theory is very good at explaining many optical phenomena and can make good predictions about how we can expect materials to respond to different types of light, etc. But do we believe that atoms and molecules are actually "little springs"? No, because we have other theories that do a better job at explaining the same observations, and those theories model atoms as something altogether conceptually different. The thing that is so troubling about Relativity is that it strikes at the heart of our most fundamental assumptions about Reality, which coincidentally concern phenomena we understand the least - such as time, to name a big one. Relativity takes a mathematical concept that is well-studied, such as geometry, and uses it to describe and predict things we observe. These things that we observe can be stars, watch dials, the sensation of our heartrate, the age of our twin brother, the lengths we measure, or anything else. Because the theory matches what we observe better than any other theory, it is considered to be the "closest to Reality" and many people accept it as such. Over the course of history, scientific theories have undergone massive (no pun intended) changes in conceptual explanations for thing we observe. Does this mean that the "basic fabric" of Reality has changed? Most people would confidently say "of course not". So basically, the moral of my ridiculously long post is this: If you are bothered by the worldview that a scientific theory espouses, take solace in the agnostic belief that the theory's scope is limited by the very nature of what it claims to accomplish, and that its connection to Reality is tenuous at best. Above all, continue to question and contemplate. Be self-honest and introspective, and strive for comprehensive, balanced, and open-minded thoughts. > Relastic, > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > introspective, and strive for comprehensive, balanced, and open-minded > thoughts. Excellent post. The following may also be of interest to those who are interested in such issues: 'The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences' http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html 'Where Do The Laws Of Physics Come From' http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html Thanks Bill You could see the "twins paradox" mistake comes from yourself if you only think about it. At a growing distance or an increased velocity the constant of the speed of light will cause a light image information stretch for a traveling twin rather than an actual time stretch. No one can observe simultaneousness in space and time. What anyone or anything will see, sense, or record is light speed information transmission in distance time from propagator or reflector, sender or whatever, to observers, sensors or receivers. It takes time for even light to cross any distance. It takes more time for it to cross more distance. It will be stretching out sent information in time giving the appearance to any observer or instrument of time slowing down at the other end. That will not be the case though because all during all information transmission across distance time action, motion, travel, continues at the transmission end. The information in transmission will fall behind in time to the real time being clocked of the transmittor of the light information, again giving the impression at the receivers end of time slowing down on the transmittor's end. The light beam itself between transmittor and receiver, traveler and observer, will stretch out in time with all gain in distance between transmittor and receiver, or greater difference in velocity between transmittor and receiver, or both. Relativity invariably means exactly what the word implies. The received information, in this case the received light speed transmitted image information, is relative to the observer, never the reality, never the real simultaneous object or event progressing in time at all times at the other end (advanced in time however far beyond the received object or event image time by any distant observer or instrumentation however far or near distant but DISTANT -- or in the case of velocity difference, however much differentiated in velocity). Physicists have neglected to inform anyone, or they didn't know themselves, that the image or information received by observers or whatever the instrumentation is never the current, simultaneous in space and time, reality at the other end. The image or other forms of information will have a clock time always behind whatever the simultaneous time (behind real time) of transmittor and receiver. Often, in something going away from the observer, or increasing in velocity relative to the observer, the received information growing in that seeming falling behind (thus the appearance of time slowing down at the other end growing in that [seeming] slowing down). It is as if physicists watching a Humphrey Bogart movie made 60 years ago were telling us that Bogart is 40 years old right now because they observe him on the screen to be 40 years old, while a person who was 2 years old 60 years ago is now 62 years old. They did the math for the received image as being the actual, the current, reality at the other end in space and time, somehow being deficient in being able to tell the difference between received information from the other end stretched out in time and current reality at the other end. They told us, loudly and in textbooks all over the world, that relativity and reality were one and the same thing (exactly the same mathematical equations applying to both as absolutely one and the same). That is exactly what Hitler and Stalin, and Mao, and every other tyrant who ever lived convinced people of, that relativity and reality are always absolutely one and the same thing. That they could never -- no matter what -- get beyond, escape, the tether leash, the stretchable arm, the stretchable seeing eyes, of absolute relativity to the observer (the totalitarian regime). Even Einstein couldn't, and Hawking can't, tell the difference. Einstein though knew there was something wrong but couldn't quite get in mind exactly what it was that was wrong (that the only reality from any distance away, whatsoever, an observer will ever observe is immediately [received] reality -- immediate to the observer, always pseudo-reality; always a past (a history)). Most physicists almost always insist that this isn't the case. They don't mathematically describe stretched out in time information received to the observer or instrumentation, the only thing that is truly [relative] to the observer and instrumentation, they always describe the actual, the immediate, the simultaneous, reality in being at the other end no matter the distance in space and time, or the difference in velocities (just another convertable version or dimension of distance), between. The physicist not only observes from his frame of reference but his eye quantum tunnels, or wormhole's, or teleports, continuously spontaneously instantaneously to the other end of distance time to always be immediate with the reality on that other end. Thus he knows -- because he personally is always physically simultaneously, at once, at both ends of distance at all times -- that time slowing is no optical illusion caused by stretched distance or difference, in turn stretching out the light-time having to cross stretched distance or difference, in turn causing information reception, including clock time information (all "time information" period), falling behind reality -- all the way to far behind reality. He knows that Bogart is 40 years old as of both 1946 and 2006. He wrote the textbooks that tell us time [really] slows in no uncertain terms, just as Palestinians publish geography textbooks that show all the world Israel doesn't exist (that it never existed). The funniest thing is that the mathematical description is absolutely correct. What isn't correct, what's wrong, is the thing itself that is being described by that mathematical description. There are two realities rather than one. The reality there on the spot and the time distance or velocity differentiated pseudo-reality always received by the observer or the instrumentation (always the what that is "relative to"). The mathematical description is correct for the pseudo-reality. The physicist just has no perception or realization of reality beyond it -- split or splitting away from it. A split reality that upgrades the 'principle of uncertainty' to a take over of much more than just the atomic universe. GLB > No one can observe simultaneousness in space and time. Yes they can. Well... simultaneity, anyway. I'm not sure what simultaneousness is. Ask the folks at JPL, they do it all the "time" from Cassini in "space". http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm Androcles. >> No one can observe simultaneousness in space and time. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Androcles. I prefer "simultaneousness." Anyway humans don't quantum entangle so "the folks at JPL" don't do it all the time from Cassini in space. They aren't at JPL and on Cassini at the same "time." The folks from JPL aren't in two places at the same time. Furthermore, Cassini itself isn't simultaneously in many different places in the Universe at the same time, thus its findings, just as with the Hubble telescope, aren't anything like telekinetic action at a distance. It has no telekinetic reach, nor is it quantum entangled with distant spaces existing simultaneously in time. Furthermore, the folks [at] JPL deal in a space and time pseudo-reality of Cassini itself since they aren't [at] Cassini [at] one and same time they are [at] JPL. There is a space-time-velocity differential existing between JPL and the reality of Cassini that splits realities [really]. Regarding relativity, no such differential, no such split reality, exists, thus the reality and the pseudo-reality of Cassini are one reality (no pseudo-reality). Regarding relativity, Cassini is both immediately at JPL and immediately distant in space at one and same time (quantum entangled "simultaneity"). Regarding the reality of Cassini, the pseudo-reality of Cassini, and the difference between the two, the people at JPL must always be "compensating" for the difference. They don't call it compensation for [expanded differences between splitting realities at any distance] though, they just call it compensation for "relativistics." Though compensation works the same way for both practically, they are still not the same thing really. Concerning Relativity, refusal to face the fact that reality is always somewhere out front, out ahead, of the pseudo-reality the observer will always be observing in space, time and velocity presents forever inescapable, continuing, unsolvable problems, complications and confusions for the physicist. The speed of light will never be instantaneous between distant points A and B, and C. Observation of a thing at any distance whatsoever will never be instantaneous with the event of the thing. If it were, that's annihilation. GLB >>> No one can observe simultaneousness in space and time. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I prefer "simultaneousness." Each to his own. > Anyway humans don't quantum entangle so "the folks at JPL" don't do it > all the time from Cassini in space. Sure they do. I often have a quaintum detangle myself, it's fun. > They aren't at JPL and on Cassini at the same "time." The folks from JPL > aren't in two places at the same time. That's not right, they quentam tingle. > Furthermore, Cassini itself isn't simultaneously in many different places > in the Universe at the same time, thus its findings, just as with the > Hubble telescope, aren't anything like telekinetic action at a distance. > It has no telekinetic reach, nor is it quantum entangled with distant > spaces existing simultaneously in time. Sure it is. It's orbiting Saturn now and it'll be orbiting Saturn yesterday simultaneousnessly, quantum tangles. > Furthermore, the folks [at] JPL deal in a space and time pseudo-reality > of Cassini itself since they aren't [at] Cassini [at] one and same time > they are [at] JPL. Yes they are. Quantum tingling tummy applies sumpletaneousness. > There is a space-time-velocity differential existing between JPL and the > reality of Cassini that splits realities [really]. Sure... really. I think I read the same sci-fi you did. > Regarding relativity, no such differential, no such split reality, > exists, thus the reality and the pseudo-reality of Cassini are one reality > (no pseudo-reality). Regarding relativity, Cassini is both immediately at > JPL and immediately distant in space at one and same time (quantum > entangled "simultaneity"). Ah, so we agree. > Regarding the reality of Cassini, the pseudo-reality of Cassini, and the > difference between the two, the people at JPL must always be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > works the same way for both practically, they are still not the same thing > really. Well really, of course. > Concerning Relativity, refusal to face the fact that reality is always > somewhere out front, out ahead, of the pseudo-reality the observer will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > GLB What's wrong with a bit of annihilation? Simpultaneousnessly quantum tungle Einstein's tingle, problem tangoed. Androcles. > Perhaps the main ["interpretive error" avergnon claims Einstein made] > was the interpretation that led to the Twin > Paradox -- the concept of time dilation. Except, of course, this has been observed in experiments many times. This is not "interpretation" at all, it is _measured_. > He discusses two identical clocks, one of which goes on a journey and > returns to the stationary one. He notes that the clock that journeyed > was behind the stationary clock, showed less time. > Error number one. He assumed that the moving clock had kept slower > time. Not really. To claim that you need to define what "time" is, and you have not done so, you have just _assumed_ that a "common sense" definition will suffice. In fact, "common sense" is _not_ sufficient, because one must have a definition that is _observable_. The only observable definition of "time" that anyone has come up with is: Time is what clocks measure. This, of course, requires an operational definition of "clock". > This led physicists, great and small to recount that if one were to > observe a space ship at high velocities, one would observe the on board > clock to run at dilation time - > t' = t sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) . > This we know is not so. Wrong. Actually we do indeed know that real clocks moving with speed v relative to a locally-inertial frame are _measured_ in that frame to run with that rate (to within experimental resolutions). > Astronomers observe moving emitters every night > -- and what they see is Doppler time. This is plain and simply not true. What is _observed_ is Doppler shift. No astronomer has ever observed "time" (presumably meaning time _at_the_source_) -- astronomy simply does not work that way. > Any known constant emitter is a clock. The variation of its frequency > is the variation of observed time. In recession, the time is slower > than norm - in approach the time is faster than norm. Following this > precept, the Twin Paradox never appears. You are confused. The Doppler shifts do not affect the way an _observer_ moving with the emitter perceives "time" or the frequency of the source. Note, please, that the "twin paradox" is not any sort of inconsistency or contradiction. It is a "paradox" in that it is a result that a naive person does not expect. > [... further nonsense omitted] Relastic wrote: > What I wonder is if time in relativity slows down because > the physical processes slow down or is it really time > slowing down. As I said above, before you can determine this you must define "time". > When you put a human in a cryogenic > freezer. As his cells slow down. Is time slowing down. > No. Only the physical process is slowing down. Likewise, > in Relativity, is time really slowing down or only the physical > process. In SR, "time dilation" does _not_ mean "time slows down". Nor does it mean "the physical process slows down". What it means is that one observer _observes_ a moving clock to be ticking slower than her own clocks. In particular, an observer comoving with that clock will observe it ticking at its usual rate. Here's a direct analogy: a 1-meter rod will pass through a doorway 1/2-meters wide in some orientations, but not in others. What matters is the _projection_ of the rod's length onto the width of the doorway. In terms of measurements, a ruler along the doorway's width measures the projection of the rod onto the ruler. In SR, a given observer measures the tick rate of a moving clock by a _projection_ of the interval between ticks of the clock onto her own clocks. This is the same type of geometric projection as the doorway makes of the rod. But the rod and doorway deal with the x-y plane (keeping the rod horizontal), and this is familiar Euclidean geometry. The clocks deal with the x-t plane (for which a rotation is a relative velocity), and this is unfamiliar hyperbolic geometry. But the principle is the same. Rotating the rod does not "change" its length. Observing a clock from another frame does not "change" its tick rate. But physical and geometrical relationships that depend on the relative orientations of objects will be different if the rod is rotated or if the clock is moving. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com $$ TiME is run OUT for GR Tivity (..but don't hurt them). Tom Roberts wrote: > > avergon@verizon.net wrote: -=-SNiP-=- > Not really. To claim that you need to define what "time" is, and you > have not done so, you have just _assumed_ that a "common sense" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what clocks measure. This, of course, requires an operational definition > of "clock". $$ ABSOLUTE simultaneity, is OBSERVABLE time. $$ REAL time (ABSOLUTE simultaneity) is OBSERVABLE ..not MEASURABLE. > > This led physicists, great and small to recount that if one were to > > observe a space ship at high velocities, one would observe the on board [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No astronomer has ever observed "time" (presumably meaning time > _at_the_source_) -- astronomy simply does not work that way. $$ REAL time is ABSOLUTE simultaneity. > > Any known constant emitter is a clock. The variation of its frequency > > is the variation of observed time. In recession, the time is slower [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > As I said above, before you can determine this you must define "time". $$ An iMPULSE is "time". > > When you put a human in a cryogenic > > freezer. As his cells slow down. Is time slowing down. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > clocks. In particular, an observer comoving with that clock will observe > it ticking at its usual rate. $$ No iMPULSE ..No TiC. > Here's a direct analogy: $$ TiME is an iMPULSE. > -=- a 1-meter rod will pass through a doorway $$ A METER is a POiNT-mass *ONLY* in GR Tivity. > 1/2-meters wide in some orientations, but not in others. What matters is > the _projection_ of the rod's length onto the width of the doorway. In [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > geometrical relationships that depend on the relative orientations of > objects will be different if the rod is rotated or if the clock is moving. $$ The POiNT-length of GR TEST-mass. $$ How LONG is a GR POiNT-mass "going at ..or, near" c.?!! $$ What is the LENGTH of a POiNT-mass, OBSERVED near c.?!! $$ Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity). > Tom [ He Between his ERROR-bars ] Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > Tom [ He too EMBARASSED to sign REAL doctor] Roberts ..@lucent.com Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) Re: REAL time (ABSOLUTE simultaneity) is OBSERVABLE ..not MEASURABLE. $$ Absolute simultaneity is EASY to OBSERVE, iMPOSSiBLE to MEASURE. Re: A TiC *CANNOT* be "MEASURED" ..a TiC can *ONLY* be "COUNTED". $$ [ATOMiC tickers SiMPLY provide more TiC per SECOND, to "COUNT"]. Re: No iMPULSE ..No TiC. ..can *ONLY* be "COUNTED". > $$ [ATOMiC tickers SiMPLY provide more TiC per SECOND, to "COUNT"]. > Re: No iMPULSE ..No TiC. aire your stinky gumholes out somewhere else i'll let you know when you get close you ain't even close JFTR take another look if I told you! you would probably grab it and call it yours! but you ain't even close $$ TiME is run OUT for GR Tivity (..but don't hurt them). Tom Roberts wrote: > > avergon@verizon.net wrote: -=-SNiP-=- > Not really. To claim that you need to define what "time" is, and you > have not done so, you have just _assumed_ that a "common sense" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what clocks measure. This, of course, requires an operational definition > of "clock". $$ ABSOLUTE simultaneity, is OBSERVABLE time. $$ REAL time (ABSOLUTE simultaneity) is OBSERVABLE ..not MEASURABLE. > > This led physicists, great and small to recount that if one were to > > observe a space ship at high velocities, one would observe the on board [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No astronomer has ever observed "time" (presumably meaning time > _at_the_source_) -- astronomy simply does not work that way. $$ REAL time is ABSOLUTE simultaneity. > > Any known constant emitter is a clock. The variation of its frequency > > is the variation of observed time. In recession, the time is slower [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > As I said above, before you can determine this you must define "time". $$ An iMPULSE is "time". > > When you put a human in a cryogenic > > freezer. As his cells slow down. Is time slowing down. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > clocks. In particular, an observer comoving with that clock will observe > it ticking at its usual rate. $$ No iMPULSE ..No TiC. > Here's a direct analogy: $$ TiME is an iMPULSE. > -=- a 1-meter rod will pass through a doorway $$ A METER is a POiNT-mass *ONLY* in GR Tivity. > 1/2-meters wide in some orientations, but not in others. What matters is > the _projection_ of the rod's length onto the width of the doorway. In [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > geometrical relationships that depend on the relative orientations of > objects will be different if the rod is rotated or if the clock is moving. $$ The POiNT-length of GR TEST-mass. $$ How LONG is a GR POiNT-mass "going at ..or, near" c.?!! $$ What is the LENGTH of a POiNT-mass, OBSERVED near c.?!! $$ Brian A M Stuckless, Ph.T (Tivity). > Tom [ He Between his ERROR-bars ] Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com > Tom [ He too EMBARASSED to sign REAL doctor] Roberts ..@lucent.com Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) Re: REAL time (ABSOLUTE simultaneity) is OBSERVABLE ..not MEASURABLE. $$ Absolute simultaneity is EASY to OBSERVE, iMPOSSiBLE to MEASURE. Re: A TiC *CANNOT* be "MEASURED" ..a TiC can *ONLY* be "COUNTED". $$ [ATOMiC tickers SiMPLY provide more TiC per SECOND, to "COUNT"]. Re: No iMPULSE ..No TiC. Tom Wrote: > The only observable definition of "time" that anyone has come up with is: Time is what clocks measure. This, of course, requires an operational definition of "clock". That's not quite true, we did have a concept of time before the invention of clocks. It's simply the succession of events - mankind must have had a notional concept of the second law of thermodynamics, and therefore the arrow of time, long before he could write. > Wrong. Actually we do indeed know that real clocks moving with speed v relative to a locally-inertial frame are _measured_ in that frame to run with that rate (to within experimental resolutions). I would have bought that, had you not qualified it. > What it means is that one observer _observes_ a moving clock to be ticking slower than her own clocks. In particular, an observer comoving with that clock will observe it ticking at its usual rate. What do you make of Hexenmeister's post: >The engineers and scientists at JPL don't like being 14 seconds off >because Einstein said they have to be... Best regards SCW > Tom Wrote: > > > The only observable definition of "time" that anyone has come up > > with is: Time is what clocks measure. > > This, of course, requires an operational definition of "clock". http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html "The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." Dirk Vdm > > Tom Wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dirk Vdm That is a metrologist's definition, not a physicist's definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem Sue... > > > Tom Wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That is a metrologist's definition, not a physicist's definition. Dennis, you, as a retired engineer, have no idea what a physicist's definition entails. Dirk Vdm > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem > > Sue... > > > > Tom Wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Dennis, you, as a retired engineer, have no idea what > a physicist's definition entails. I tho't you'd agree with me. Personal attacks usually mean you can offer no argument. You sure are agreeing with folks a lot lately. If you don't find this where you usually read with other morons like yourself, try looking in a science ng. Sue... > Dirk Vdm > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem > > > > Sue... >> > Tom Wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Sue... Aha! So physicists are incapable of understanding metrology. I'm glad I'm an engineer. Androcles. > >> > Tom Wrote: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sue... > Aha! So physicists are incapable of understanding metrology. Who said Dirky-pee-pee was a physicist? AFAIK he is a moron. The is the ng were he likes to read his replies. > I'm glad I'm an engineer. Just don't illuminate any mirrors with your version of light or you might get elected to high office. ;-) Sue... > Androcles. >> >> > Tom Wrote: >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Who said Dirky-pee-pee was a physicist? He did. > AFAIK he is a moron. You are absolutely correct, but he managed to parrot something that is correct for once in his life. <clap clap clap clap> I doubt he understands "Hello Sailor". > The is the ng were he likes to read his replies. The is the it? >> I'm glad I'm an engineer. > Just don't illuminate any mirrors with your version of > light or you might get elected to high office. ;-) Oh... I'm planning to. (Illuminate a mirror, that is) I did it yesterday and worked quite well. Now I need a motor for the mirror, I've already got me a laser pointer. Here is the theory: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm That's me in the blue suit w/yellows stars alongside my new lawn sprinkler for my old lawn. Free CDs from AOL make good lightweight mirrors. If my theory is correct I'll be making music instead of loading dumb software. I don't want too many people to know, but I reckon I could record music on a CD with a light. Kinda like photography with all the pixels stretched out in a spiral. Androcles. > Sue... > >> Androcles. > >> >> > Tom Wrote: > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > that is correct for once in his life. <clap clap clap clap> > I doubt he understands "Hello Sailor". Of course I understand. Don't I, Dennis? How's your naval navel, by the way? Dirk Vdm >> Tom Wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dirk Vdm Egads! The phuckwit Dork Van de merde said something sensible for once in his pathetic life. Take a brownie point. So a second by Cassini's clock is a second by an Earth clock, regardless of their relative motion. That's why Cassini is synchronized to UTC, along with 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. This cannot go unnoticed. Applaud the imbecile, everyone. Clap clap clap clap.. Can we have an encore? No? Awwww... Androcles. > >> Tom Wrote: > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Egads! The phuckwit Dork Van de merde said something sensible > for once in his pathetic life. You wouldn't recognize something sensible if it bit you in your thick red whisky toper's nose. Dirk Vdm >> >> Tom Wrote: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dirk Vdm I just knew that single lucid moment you had couldn't last and you'd have to snip. You are still a snipping, arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands relativity and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm Hey dumbfuck! Do you know how to move sideways or up? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/how_to3.jpg tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) Right or wrong, dumbfuck? If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are, pathetic shithead. For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c Right or wrong, shitforbrains? Einstein said eta = y, zeta = z because he did not know how to move sideways or up, anencephalous cretin. [quote] we establish by definition that the "time" required by a crab to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. [end quote] Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a crab. Oops!... Did I say 'a crab'? Sorry...'light'. "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c, to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." -- Einstein. In agreement with experience and without any assumption, BA = -AB, 2AB = AC, [AB +BA]/(t'A-tA) = 0 Hence c = 0 in Einstein's math. Observation: http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif Explanation: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) (Or stars explode twice in three months, which is stupid). In agreement with experience and without any assumption, you remain a snipping, arrogant, illiterate, innumerate, illogical, incompetent c.nt without a scrap of logic in you, you whining little toad. You don't have an inkling about mathematics or physics and live in the vain hope some moron will think you are clever, Mr SmartArse who pretends he understands physics and doesn't have a clue how to synchronize his watch to Cassini time. Modern physics: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm f.ck off, useless tord! tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²) eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²) zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²) If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are. Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator. Personally I prefer three witches: Double double, toil and trouble, Fire burn and Einstein bubble. --- Pop! Hexenmeister. > Tom Wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's not quite true, we did have a concept of time before the > invention of clocks. It's a downright lie from a shithead relativist. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm A clock is an oscillator and a counter. > It's simply the succession of events - mankind > must have had a notional concept of the second law of thermodynamics, > and therefore the arrow of time, long before he could write. Yep. You are right there. >> Wrong. Actually we do indeed know that real clocks moving with speed v >> relative to a locally-inertial frame are _measured_ in that frame to run >> with that rate (to within experimental resolutions). Another downright lie from Tom. Our clocks do not speed up or slow down relative to Cassini to suit Einstein and they move faster and slower. > I would have bought that, had you not qualified it. I wouldn't. >> What it means is that one observer _observes_ a moving clock to be >> ticking slower than her own clocks. In particular, an observer comoving >> with that clock will observe it ticking at its usual rate. One can't use >> the word "rate" of time per time. That's like saying the rate of mass per mass or the rate of length per length. > What do you make of Hexenmeister's post: >>The engineers and scientists at JPL don't like being 14 seconds off >>because Einstein said they have to be... He'll attack me personally to evade the issue, of course. Or simply evade it. Relativists always do. > Best regards That's a mistake. I have no regards for a relativist, they are all mindless morons and can all drop dead. :-) Androcles. > SCW > Tom Wrote: >> The only observable definition of "time" that anyone has come up [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > must have had a notional concept of the second law of thermodynamics, > and therefore the arrow of time, long before he could write. This is not observable, except inside your own head. Solipsism is not science. But I see I should have said: observable and quantifiable. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com $$ ^. $$ My isRAELis. $$ THAT IAM before I was. $$ What ABSOLUTE is SiMULTANEiTY is. $$ ABSOLUTE SiMULTANEiTY is simply REAL TiME. $$ [ABSOLUTE simultaneity is OBSERVABLE but NOT QUANTiFiABLE]. $$ Several GR observers (Max Born would specify his LiTTLE iMPs), $$ are simultaneously OBSERViNG a train, speeding along the track $$ from a MARK on the track at POiNT A. THEN, a GR observer fires $$ off a SiGNAL which is recieved by a TRANSciever located on the $$ BACK of the train, which NOW iMMEDiATELY re-LAYs the SiGNAL to $$ another TRANSciever, located conveniently, at the FRONT of the $$ train, which iMMEDiATELY FiREs a powerful ELECTRiC-arc MARKiNG $$ the track at POiNT B. Assuming that VELOCiTY and LENGTH of the $$ train REMAiN UNchanged ..SHOW (exhibit) the length A->B, each. $$ $$ Next, REPEAT, by SiMiLARLY triggering an olive and cannon-ball $$ to iNSTANTLY, AUTOMATiCALLY start to SiMULTANEOUSLY fall, from $$ from the TOP of the LEANiNG TOWER of PiZA, TOGETHER ..at once. $$ $$ These are OBSERVERs OBSERViNG iMMEASURABLE SiMULTANEOUSNESS.!! $$ [snicker] ```Brian. Tom Roberts wrote: > > Doune wrote: > > Tom Wrote: > >> The only observable definition of "time" that anyone has come up > >> with is: Time is what clocks measure. This, of course, requires an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Tom [He between his error-bars] Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality). Re: UNquantifiable simultaneousness ALL together at once. In sci.physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote: [...] >> Astronomers observe moving emitters every night >> -- and what they see is Doppler time. > This is plain and simply not true. What is _observed_ is Doppler > shift. No astronomer has ever observed "time" (presumably meaning > time _at_the_source_) -- astronomy simply does not work that way. This is generally right, but there are cases in which astronomers can observe a standard "clock." The results conform exactly to the predictions of relativity. For example, a pulsar is basically a rotating ball of neutrons, with a ``spot'' that beams light out, much like a lighthouse. When the beam crosses the Earth, we see a pulse of light. Isolated pulsars are in fact extremely accurate clocks, comparable to our best atomic clocks, but they're based on a simple mechanical mechanism, the rotation of a ball of neutrons. Every once in a while, though, we find a binary pulsar, a pulsar in orbit around another neutron star. If the orbit is not exactly circular, the pulsar's orbital speed varies as it moves (basically according to Kepler's law). When we look at the rate of the "clock," as measured by the frequency of the pulses, we see exactly the amount of time dilation predicted by special relativity. We can also see gravitational time dilation, since the pulsar moves farther from and then closer to the companion neutron star. Again, the amount agrees with the predictions of general relativity. (Strictly speaking, we see a combination of these two effects. You could, I suppose, claim that the special relativistic effect isn't really there, and that the gravitational time dilation differs from the predictions of general relativity by just the amount needed to mimic special relativistic time dilation. But this requires some extraordinary special pleading, since both effects can be observed, separately, in controlled lab experiments.) Steve Carlip $$ ^. $$ Pegged c anomalies. $$ Any GR effect is NONSENSE ..since a "PEGGED" light SPEED is used directly on the raw DATA ..NOT KNOWiNG the "actual AVERAGE" speed. Therefore, you can expect more Pioneer and GPS anomalies, and RED and BLUE "shifting", Hubble EXPANSiON & SPACE-time-CURVATURE, etc. [These are ALL MUCH BETTER ..for the "PULP & PAPERs" economy. And, ALL the ASTRONOMERs look VERY clever explaining it a.s-BACKWARDs]. $$ Now you go-go Google GROUP SEARCH < GPS PREset & REset equation >. $$ Hope this helps, ```Brian. Carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote: > In sci.physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote: > > avergon@verizon.net wrote: > [...] > >> Astronomers observe moving emitters every night > >> -- and what they see is Doppler time. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > extraordinary special pleading, since both effects can be observed, > separately, in controlled lab experiments.) > > Steve Carlip Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) Re: Pegged c anomalies. $$ ^. $$ Pegged c anomalies. $$ Any GR effect is NONSENSE ..since a "PEGGED" light SPEED is used directly on the raw DATA ..NOT KNOWiNG the "actual AVERAGE" speed. Therefore, you can expect more Pioneer and GPS anomalies, and RED and BLUE "shifting", Hubble EXPANSiON & SPACE-time-CURVATURE, etc. [These are ALL MUCH BETTER ..for the "PULP & PAPERs" economy. And, ALL the ASTRONOMERs look VERY clever explaining it a.s-BACKWARDs]. $$ Now you go-go Google GROUP SEARCH < GPS PREset & REset equation >. $$ Hope this helps, ```Brian. Carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote: > In sci.physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote: > > avergon@verizon.net wrote: > [...] > >> Astronomers observe moving emitters every night > >> -- and what they see is Doppler time. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > extraordinary special pleading, since both effects can be observed, > separately, in controlled lab experiments.) > > Steve Carlip Re: Anti-Relativistists Main Points (Einstein Abstraction or Reality) Re: Pegged c anomalies. On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:50:48 +0000, carlip-nospam wrote: > In sci.physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > from and then closer to the companion neutron star. Again, the > amount agrees with the predictions of general relativity. An aside: If the rate at which time passes for the neutron star slows by a factor of gamma, then its spin rate must slow by gamma. But then, in order for angular momentum to be conserved, its inertial mass must increase by a factor of gamma also. And so once again we see the interconnection between time dilation and change in inertial mass. Ho, hum. Oh, well, it seemed like a more interesting observation before I wrote it down. > (Strictly speaking, we see a combination of these two effects. You > could, I suppose, claim that the special relativistic effect isn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve Carlip  SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org I know it is a moot point to argue this, but the time dilation has been measured and there is no twin paradox. The twin that left the planet was not always in a noninertial reference frame, since he underwent (twice) an acceleration, which is not relative. The acceleration to the speed of light and the deceleration are when the time differences occur. Once the ship is at a constant velocity it is in a noninertial refrence frame and the argument can be made that the earth is moving away from the ship at the speed of light. But acceleration and deceleration are not relative and obviously it would take a very long time to accelerate to the speed of light (it very gradual, for the comfort of the pilot). Also time dilation and length contraction have been verified using muons, particles that form when cosmic rays strike the atmosphere and have a very short lifetime (approx. 10^-20 seconds). They travel at speeds approaching c, but they still (using vector calculations for velocity) would not even make it halfway towards the surface of the earth before they cease. However, the particles do make it to the surface and are readily detected there. It matches, precisely, relativity's description of length contraction. I hate using appllications to back theory, but GPS using time dilation in its calculations and it is highly precise. > Anti-Relativitists main points are, how can > something physicists model as geometry for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to study metric tensors, advanced vector > and differential calculus, etc. Nope. My comment is to study simple Euclidian geometry. It is as mathematical as SR and models 'reality' in exactly the same way. All the 'reality' type objections that can be bought against SR can be bought against Euclidean geometry. Try telling a surveyor it is only a math theory and can not be reality and see how far you get. BTW I do not accept any responsibility for any injuries incurred while suggesting such to surveyor - they often are rather fit. > But isn't there > an intuitive way to explain SR,GR. Complexity has nothing to do with validity. > I mean, > which part of it is physical and which part > is mathematical. Which part of Euclidian geometry is physical and which part is mathematical? > You can say they are just > stupid not understanding it. That someone does not understand it is fine - it is the ridicules crap they go one with such it is only a math theory can not be reality etc that is the issue. It's validity is a very simple application of the fundamentals of science that were taught in grade 8 - simple as that. >Well. We need > to have layman friendly version of it too, Science does not depend on having theories in a form simple for laymen to understand. Either spend the time to understand it or forget about it - simple as that. > it's not just for anti-relativistists but for > ordinary folks who just want to have an > intuitive feel for Relativity who don't have > a decade of free time to study it because they > are tied up to business and home duties for > example. A few weeks is all you need - not a decade. The time you have been posting is enough to understand the basics. > Of course math is important and > essential but there should be a physical part of > it as time indeed can slow down, etc.. Can Euclidean geometry be explained in English or do you actually need to do it? I suggest the latter. > For those > who studied relativity for a decade or more. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > using the concept of ballistics or kinetic and > potential energy, etc. So with relativity likewise. Yet not with Euclidian geometry and many other theories - I wonder why you single out SR for this comment? > Which part of the geometry or math model is physical > and which of it is modelled as geometry for sake of > illustration or calculations. In other words, what's > the physical basis or correlates or causal mechanism > of Relativity. What is the casual mechanism for the projection of the length of lines onto an axis to vary depending on the angle it makes with the axis? What is the casual mechanism for the sum of the squares of the side of a right triangle to equal the square of the hypotenuse? Surely Euclidian geometry is only math and as such can not be reality - surveyors are just fooling themselves - yes I have seen the light - all those smart dudes are wrong. Aren't I good - gee I feel great. http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html See the woo woo credo http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html Thanks Bill > R. snip <<Which part of Euclidian geometry is physical and which part is mathematical?>> 1/r^2 is physical http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/forces/isq.html As that defines isotropy... it cast doubt on the physical plausibility of any anisotropic co-ordinate system. ( Ya seen any space with gain ? ) << space-time has a non-isotropic nature which is quite unlike Euclidian space with its positive definite metric. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html <<The Lorenz gauge is incomplete, in the sense that there is this residual gauge freedom. However, the gauge degrees of freedom propagate at the speed of light.>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing Sue... snip > Thanks > Bill > > > R. > > Anti-Relativitists main points are, how can > > something physicists model as geometry for the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > responsibility for any injuries incurred while suggesting such to surveyor - > they often are rather fit. My main concern involves adding time as a dimension to the 3 dimensions to make up 4D spacetime in Relativity. It is ok if it is for the sake of illustration. But then suddenly Relativity is claiming gravity can indeed result from the 4D coordinate mathematical model. It was just mathematical to add time to space dimensions, suddenly it becomes real. Last week I thought that relativity Spacetime indeed occur in 4D and the limitation of our senses make us perceive space and time as separate entities. But then you said it's not true and its just mathematical. This starts the problem of wondering what is mathematical model and what is real. As an illustration. You have 3D dimension of length times width times height. Someone then tell you to add say the human heart into the 3D coordinate to make up space-heart. This is then used to explain how the heart pumps blood to the body. So what I want to know is what is the physical basis of relativity wherein time can indeed slow down and gravity occurs. Gravity is attraction of our mass to earth or between bodies. What has time got to do with it. I justified it by saying time may have energy and it is converted to mass at relativistic speed that's why time slows down. It's like there is a certain maximum amount of energy to every event. When you move fast, time slows down because the energy of time is transfer to speed. But you said it's wild speculations. So without any physical model for relativity. I'm at a lost. Therefore I'd like to know what it is. Actually last week. I already understood Euclidean and even non-Euclidean Riemannian geometry. I understood about world line and how the 4D curving occurs in the presence of mass, energy or stress-energy. I visualized this a lot last week. I thought it is literal and it is our senses that is the limitation that is why we perceive space and time separately. And it explains everything. When you said it is not literal and just a mathematical model. Then the problem starts. I ask which of it is physical and which is mathematical as far as its correlations with actual reality. I need an intutive grasp so I can explain it to anyone. Hope others who know what I'm talking about can explain. Bill Hoopa is not a good teacher because he can't explain it in terms or levels that you can understand. He has to use strict terms and complex concepts he knew beginners is not yet familiar with. He can't use analogies. Maybe he is a genius and too high for us beginners to deal with. But there may be other geniuses or just fellas with good common sense who can convert the concepts to levels that novices can understand. I request for a sound theoretical justification of Relativity. After I understood it. Thanks and I'd go into the complex maths slowly taking years with appreciation of the concepts in mind and certainty that Relativity correctly describes relativity. R. > > But isn't there > > an intuitive way to explain SR,GR. [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > > R. (to continue with the above) Let's settle this the Riemannian way... I know the basic concepts of GR theoretically but not how it ties up to reality. Theoretically. I know about geodesic, how non-Euclidian is curve and its the geodesic between two points is arc of a great circle. Now when you put time in the 3D coordinates producing a Riemannian geometry, the following is how I see it. When I'm stationary in space and no gravity. There is only movement in the time coordinate. When there is gravity. This forces my world-line to become a curve. When I am standing in the third step of the stairs. The mechanical resistance of the floor is holding against my continuous physical acceleration but preventing my free falling in spacetime. When I jump down the stairs. I continue to move in spacetime but take a geodesic (which is the "straight" version in Riemannian). This attributes to my being attracted to the ground by "gravity". I imagined this last week when doing daily activities. I thought it is literal and my senses just can't perceive them. But Hoppa emphasized the above is just a mathematical model. This shakens me and I therefore ask which of it is real and mathematical. I need this insight, this single insight that can make me say "Aha. Now I understand GR at its core". Anyone can assist here? R. > (to continue with the above) > > Let's settle this the Riemannian way... > > I know the basic concepts of GR theoretically Your writings do not support that. > but not how it ties up to reality. It ties to reality exactly the same way Euclidean geometry ties to reality. >Theoretically. I know > about geodesic, how non-Euclidian is curve and its > the geodesic between two points is arc of a great > circle. On a sphere. > Now when you put time in the 3D coordinates producing > a Riemannian geometry, the following is how I see it. When [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I imagined this last week when doing daily activities. > I thought it is literal Is it literal that points have position and no size? It is exactly the same way what you are imagining is literal eg are you really a point on a space-time diagram? Or is this a model you carry around in your mind? >and my senses just can't > perceive them. But Hoppa emphasized the above > is just a mathematical model. This shakens me > and I therefore ask which of it is real and mathematical. Again I ask you in Euclidian geometry what is real and what is mathematical? Think that though and you will have your answer. Hint - Euclidian geometry is a model you carry around in your mind - you provide the links to reality ie what you consider can be treated as a point. That is part of the human activity of abstraction. But issues like that are for philosophy - not physics. > I need this insight, this single insight that can make > me say "Aha. Now I understand GR at its core". > Anyone can assist here? Many people have tried. Thanks Bill > R. > My main concern involves adding time as a dimension to the > 3 dimensions to make up 4D spacetime in Relativity. Imagine a bungie cord and fish scale stretched between you and you favorite partner so the scale reads 1 kg. Imaging you and your partner run on parallel paths. The scale will still read 1kg. Now consider all possible trajectories that you and your partner can assume so the scale will maintain 1kg. It is not just parallel paths Eh? This is how we get *permission* to map a temporal point to a spatial point. We can use a 3 spatial dimensions: Time-independent Maxwell equations Introduction Coulomb's law Or 2 spatial and one temporal dimension (because we know the speed of light) Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Introduction Faraday's law http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html > It is ok > if it is for the sake of illustration. But then suddenly Relativity [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mathematical. This starts the problem of wondering what is > mathematical model and what is real. Four space lets us with some degree of accuracy equate a volume of imaginary space-time with mass and energy. The calculations work out but it is an imaginary space sort of like Hilbert space where probabilites are mapped spatially. > As an illustration. You have 3D dimension of length times width > times height. Someone then tell you to add say the human heart [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Gravity is attraction of our mass to earth or between bodies. > What has time got to do with it. Untill the looser of a drag race crosses the finish line with less fuel than the winner, you may assume time and energy are inseprable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem > I justified it by saying time may have energy and it is > converted to mass at relativistic speed that's why time > slows down. It's like there is a certain maximum amount > of energy to every event. When you move fast, time slows > down because the energy of time is transfer to speed. No... time doesn't slow down but an imaginary time is useful if electrodynamics is involved... because of retarded potential. > But you said it's wild speculations. So without > any physical model for relativity. I'm at a lost. Therefore I'd > like to know what it is. Special relativity is:physically just the mass of an electric charge and the Coulomb force: http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html Retarded potential. That is why Einstein only modeled slowing clocks. If you want a mechanism for gravity just assume all bodies in the universe pull you in all directions equally (inertia) and the earth spoils the isotropy. You can pretend the force works like Van Der Waals 'till some supercomputer demonstrates that it really is. ;-) http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/index.html Sue... snip (snip) > If you want a mechanism for gravity just assume all > bodies in the universe pull you in all directions equally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sue... Not bad. Not bad at all. Only thing is you are dealing in the parts and not the parcel. The energy, so to speak, and not the synergy. You forget, I think, the look of the entire distant universe at large as accelerating expansionism. All that gravity which is everywhere whatsoever extant becomes remotely communal overall, so to speak, as well as locally individual (so to speak). A draw -- or attraction -- to the communal whole of the Universe is a gravitational draw away from every single constituent individual making up the whole. The first overlays the second throughout the Universe and is dominant everywhere but most locally or gravity would be the strongest force in the universe instead of the weakest and the Universe would cease to exist. The electro-magnetic and the strong-weak forces are dualities. So is gravity a duality, the duality that doubles as "space" itself. Gravity's attraction regarding the local-individual is universal. Gravity's attraction regarding the remote-overall communal is multi-universal or attraction to -- rather continuously up through -- the so-called greater "Multiverse" or "greater Universe." Thus there must be a finite limit to local gravity's collectivism and mergers. An "inertial" limit. The overall collective of all locals, or the overall merger of all, is already in place -- already in effect -- in the infinity (in the Multiverse). That forever singularly remote horizon, which at the same time is made up of every locality everywhere situate, puts, or forces, an insurmountable drag upon all local clustering and merger potentials. Very few can picture the exact same gravity at once also being "anti" when being attached to a different frame of reference (the overall frame of reference). The singular-duality, or dual-singularity, of self-opposed character forms yet another, a third, dimension everywhere: altogether the three-dimensional of volume, the "void," the "vacuum," or "space." Time is no more an add-on, or add-in, dimension to space than energy is an add-on or add-in dimension to mass. "Real-time," simultaneous-time, is equivalent to space the same as mass and energy are equivalents. Distance-time is time to a certain point of some distant history (distant place's past) via the ruler of the constant of the speed of light, not time to any place, any simultaneity, in space whatsoever. Astronomers tell us they are looking farther back in time the farther they look out in space. To begin with, they aren't looking out in space at all, they are looking out in time. Secondly, the farther they look out in time the faster they say the universe's galaxies developed in time. Thus inevitably they will reach a point in distant look into distance-time where they say development of the universe via development of galaxies occurred so fast that it occurred practically instantaneously in time. Following that, they will then reach a point where they will have to say development occurred faster than the speed of light. In other words, mindboggling "speed" is everywhere at the other end of the universe from Earth. In other words, mindboggling "speed" is everywhere at the other end of the universe from anywhere and everywhere situate in the Universe whatsoever. Acceleration existing everywhere between anywhere and that near speed of light, or precise speed of light, horizon common, and constant, to anywhere everywhere [in] the Universe (including common -- and constant -- [on] Earth as well as [to] Earth). That acceleration away from any- and everywhere is the [raised from the individual-local] physic of gravitational acceleration. The developed galaxies there at the far end from us are not developed due to any vastly increased speed of development but due to being in another localized, but transparent, house in the greater Multiverse (the greater Universe) than our own very localized -- but also transparent -- house. There is no real continuity, no real continuousness (continuum), between here and there. Between our own galaxy's history and that history at that distance. Up to a point multiple universes (therefore multiple differing histories as well) can and will be transparent to one another as well as spatially reachable by advanced civilizations (largely thanks to the [outward] draw, the outward attraction, and acceleration of infinity's (many universes') gravity away from every local anywhere). Rather than one single arrow of time, we are witnessing many points of many differing, paralleling, arrows of time. A heck of a lot of more or less transparent "windows" into a heck of a lot of houses other than our own. I like to think quanta dynamic. GLB > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > think, the look of the entire distant universe at large as accelerating > expansionism. No... I am only looking at distant induced-dipoles. Just as atoms in your refrigerator door are aligned by a distant magnet to produce an attractive force. http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html > All that gravity which is everywhere I only find gravity when there is some matter in the neighborhood. > whatsoever extant becomes > remotely communal overall, so to speak, as well as locally individual (so to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The electro-magnetic and the strong-weak forces are dualities. >So is > gravity a duality, the duality that doubles as "space" itself. Gravity's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > dimension everywhere: altogether the three-dimensional of volume, the > "void," the "vacuum," or "space." Duality is another word for dunno. :o) > Time is no more an add-on, There is no free lunch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem > or add-in, dimension to space than energy is an > add-on or add-in dimension to mass. "Real-time," simultaneous-time, is > equivalent to space the same as mass and energy are equivalents. > Distance-time is time to a certain point of some distant history (distant > place's past) via the ruler of the constant of the speed of light, not time > to any place, any simultaneity, in space whatsoever. I have no idea what you just said. :o) > Astronomers tell us they are looking farther back in time the farther they > look out in space. To begin with, they aren't looking out in space at all, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > arrows of time. A heck of a lot of more or less transparent "windows" into a > heck of a lot of houses other than our own. << I like to think quanta dynamic.>> Quanta is imaginary. I assume the above rambling was too. Sue... > GLB ... > If you want a mechanism for gravity just assume all > bodies in the universe pull you in all directions equally > (inertia) and the earth spoils the isotropy. Ironically, what you described is a mechanism-free principle. > ... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ironically, what you described is a mechanism-free principle. I didn't say that was the mechanism. A plausible mechanism exists. This is a plausible induction mechanism, currently simulated to over ten orders of magnitude beyond Van der Waals forces. http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html The MD Grape simulations still have to leap-frog from molecular entities to gravitating entities to reduce the computation time but it is more rigour than GR. http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/#why Sue... > > ... > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the computation time but it is more rigour than GR. > http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/#why So, you believe gravity to be electromagnetic in nature? And, what about the gravity of non-atomic matter? > So, you believe gravity to be electromagnetic in nature? And, what > about the gravity of non-atomic matter? What is "non atomic" matter? Is that matter that is not of this universe? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message