Time Dilation

[EWright]

Actually, "axiom" would be more accurately discriptive. A theory is an unproved assumption that is still being scrutinized, while an axiom is a theory that is accepted as being "self-evident."

 

I don't think so. Axiom = ***-u-me. It need not be self evident; rather it is the assumption that the following theory is based on and is considered to be true *IF* you accept the initial axiom as true. The theory is then true based on this axiom, or the theory is true within the context of its own 'rules'.

 

SR is one such theory. It IS true within the context of the *assumptions* it is based on. That is *IF* you believe A then you must believe B, and so on. So what's important here is not to fall into the trap of believing A or it's a quick downward spiral into Einstein's box and apparently those who enter this way of thinking are forever trapped in a mind warp that limits their perception of alternate ideas.

[EWright]

I want to say: The theory SR is established on some wrong axioms. How does an axiom become wrong ? For example, in past human had guess that the eart is flat; this axiom was wrong. We have not difficult for reference systems in lokal conditions on earth, and we suppose the speeds are according to first coordınate system of the material. this is a local axiom. Because, the reference system of light is never its source. So, time dilation is also a fiction upon wrong axioms

 

Xersan, I gather that english is not your first language, and this is what is leading to some minor confusion. You are correct. SR is based on some mistaken assumptions (axioms). A flat earth could be considered an axiom if you then base a theory of how the earth works on this assumption. Or a flat earth could be a theory, if based on an axiom... such as... I assume because it looks flat from where I'm standing, that it is flat. Then, on this theory (A) you can condlude that there must be and edge (:lol: which means if you sail far enough across the see you'll fall off the earth ©, and you will die! (D)....

 

Point being... be darn sure of point A before proceeding or your entire theory is doomed. And just because someone transverses the sea and never returns doesn't mean they fell off the edge of the world. Maybe they just found a new world that was better than the one they left and decided never to return. :)

[Southtown]

I believe that is exactly what Xersan was trying to get at. And I said axiom was "accepted as self-evident" not that it was self-evident. Elevating assumptions to the level of "self-evident" (whether they are or not) sort of protects them from scrutiny, thereby producing conditions ripe for that flat earth scenario. That's what Xersan was trying to express, and that's why the use of "axiom," because it means a postulate that is neither proven nor scrutinized.

[EWright]

I believe that is exactly what Xersan was trying to get at. And I said axiom was "accepted as self-evident" not that it was self-evident. Elevating assumptions to the level of "self-evident" (whether they are or not) sort of protects them from scrutiny, thereby producing conditions ripe for that flat earth scenario. That's what Xersan was trying to express, and that's why the use of "axiom," because it means a postulate that is neither proven nor scrutinized.

 

Agreed. I was just adding to Xersan's comments and trying to clarify his position as I understood it, since I found it somewhat confusing as stated. Yes, axiom = postulate = assumption, upon which theories are based. Let's remember, it's the THEORY of relativity, not the LAW of relativity.

[Erasmus00]

Let's remember, it's the THEORY of relativity, not the LAW of relativity.

 

I think this is a very common misconception about science. There is no hard and fast rule as to when a theory becomes a law. Consider the laws of thermodynamics, and the theory of statistical mechanics are two different names for the same subject. Relativity has just as much experimental support as any of the laws of physics.

-Will

[EWright]

I think this is a very common misconception about science. There is no hard and fast rule as to when a theory becomes a law. Consider the laws of thermodynamics, and the theory of statistical mechanics are two different names for the same subject. Relativity has just as much experimental support as any of the laws of physics.

-Will

 

 

That's OK, I think SR is a very common misconception about science too. :lol:

[Erasmus00]

That's OK, I think SR is a very common misconception about science too. :lol:

 

 

If SR is wrong, then falsify it for me. Demonstrate some conclusion it makes that experiment doesn't support, or show why one of the two postulates doesn't hold. But you keep making this claim, and you are yet to support it with anything.

-Will

[EWright]

If SR is wrong, then falsify it for me. Demonstrate some conclusion it makes that experiment doesn't support, or show why one of the two postulates doesn't hold. But you keep making this claim, and you are yet to support it with anything.

-Will

 

Relativity, p. 31.

 

"...the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time."

 

FALSE.

[Erasmus00]

Relativity, p. 31.

 

"...the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time."

 

FALSE.

 

Allow me to take the entire bit of the passage you have quoted. My edition is likely different then yours, but I found a similar quote from Section 6:

 

Let us suppose our old friend the railway carriage to be travelling along the rails with a constant velocity v, and that a man traverses the length of the carriage in the direction of travel with a velocity w. How quickly, or, in other words, with what velocity W does the man advance relative to the embankment during the process? The only possible answer seems to result from the following consideration: If the man were to stand still for a second, he would advance relative to the embankment through a distance v equal numerically to the velocity of the carriage. As a consequence of his walking, however, he traverses an additional distance w relative to the carriage, and hence also relative to the embankment, in this second, the distance w being numerically equal to the velocity with which he is walking. Thus in total he covers the distance W = v + w relative to the embankment in the second considered.

 

So we see that in the passage you have quoted Einstein is building up Galilean relativity. At the end of this section he points out that we must abandon this consideration. Taking one small fragment out of context is a bit absurd. You haven't falsified anything.

-Will

[EWright]

Re: Time Dilation

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWright

Relativity, p. 31.

 

"...the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time."

 

FALSE.

 

 

 

Allow me to take the entire bit of the passage you have quoted. My edition is likely different then yours, but I found a similar quote from Section 6:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Einstein

Let us suppose our old friend the railway carriage to be travelling along the rails with a constant velocity v, and that a man traverses the length of the carriage in the direction of travel with a velocity w. How quickly, or, in other words, with what velocity W does the man advance relative to the embankment during the process? The only possible answer seems to result from the following consideration: If the man were to stand still for a second, he would advance relative to the embankment through a distance v equal numerically to the velocity of the carriage. As a consequence of his walking, however, he traverses an additional distance w relative to the carriage, and hence also relative to the embankment, in this second, the distance w being numerically equal to the velocity with which he is walking. Thus in total he covers the distance W = v + w relative to the embankment in the second considered.

 

 

 

So we see that in the passage you have quoted Einstein is building up Galilean relativity. At the end of this section he points out that we must abandon this consideration. Taking one small fragment out of context is a bit absurd. You haven't falsified anything.

-Will

 

Hello Erasmus, I suspected I might get such a response from you :)

 

:lol: If you are going to take the entire passage to which I refer, then please site the correct passage.

 

We'll use your mistaken reference, however, to show why the reference I provided is a false statement. Let me first say, that I am very much open to being to being wrong about this and welcome insight into the errors in my logic. After all, I most certainly recognize that Einstein had a better understanding of these factors, which I am still struggling to grasp.

 

First of all, I conquer that the above statement that you quoted is true for the man relative to his position on the train as well as on the embakement. This is not the scenario I was taking issue with. The reference I sited is in section nine. I'll site the paragraph leading into it as well as its entire paragraph:

 

Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute signifigance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section 7) disappears.

 

We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6, which are now no longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But, according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to thereilway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the embankment.

[/Quote]

 

The initial, section 6, scenario does NOT mean that the man traverses the distance per unit w per second equally to both the train car he is walking on and the embankment. It clearly states that W = v + w is "relative to the EMBANKMENT" in the second consideration.

 

As the mans velocity relates to the floor of the train W = w. You do not add the man's velocity to the trains velocity relative to the floor he is walking on. Thus, the velocity of the train's motion in this scenario relative to W, is (v+w)-w or just plain old v relative to the fixed embankment.

 

At no point does the man traverse the same distance per second relative to the ground AND the carraige... or "the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time"... relative to the embankment you have to add v... so per second he is covering different distances relative to each.... not the same distance per unit of time. He does PROPEL himself at the same speed relative to each, but he his propolsion is added to by the velocity of the train, relative to the embankment.

 

Assuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand. :)

[Erasmus00]

He does PROPEL himself at the same speed relative to each, but he his propolsion is added to by the velocity of the train, relative to the embankment.

 

Assuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand. :lol:

 

That is what Einstein was saying. If he traverses a distance w relative to the train, he also traverses that same distance w relative to the embankment (plus the additional distance v due to the velocity of the train). Given that Einstein is simply restating the relationship he showed in section 6, if you are fine with section 6, you should be fine with the reiteration of it.

 

Also, I personally believe that Einstein is far from the best introduction to relativity out there. I suggest Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book Spacetime Physics, or the last few chapters of Kleppner and Kolenkow's book Introduction to Mechanics. Either can probably found in a good university library.

-Will

[EWright]

That is what Einstein was saying. If he traverses a distance w relative to the train, he also traverses that same distance w relative to the embankment (plus the additional distance v due to the velocity of the train). Given that Einstein is simply restating the relationship he showed in section 6, if you are fine with section 6, you should be fine with the reiteration of it.

 

Also, I personally believe that Einstein is far from the best introduction to relativity out there. I suggest Taylor and Wheeler's excellent book Spacetime Physics, or the last few chapters of Kleppner and Kolenkow's book Introduction to Mechanics. Either can probably found in a good university library.

-Will

 

No, he specifically states the relationship differently in section nine. I used quotes even! He does NOT include the velocity of the train in the description I initially sited. He specifically says "w", not v+w, is the same for distance traveled relative to the carraige and the embankment. And then his following position is based on this mistaken logic. It's right there in black and white.

 

As for your second suggestion... More books!? :lol: I've already given B&N more than $100 in books on this subject in the past month and a half! Let me get through some of these first. Einstein's doesn't seem to hard so far. I'm just getting to the Lorentz Transformation equations and trying to figure out how to rewrite them to correct for their mistakes as well :)

[Erasmus00]

As for your second suggestion... More books!? :lol: I've already given B&N more than $100 in books on this subject in the past month and a half! Let me get through some of these first. Einstein's doesn't seem to hard so far. I'm just getting to the Lorentz Transformation equations and trying to figure out how to rewrite them to correct for their mistakes as well :)

 

The library is your friend. You shouldn't have to purchase books.

-Will

[EWright]

The library is your friend. You shouldn't have to purchase books.

-Will

 

The library seems to frown on my using highlighters. Now what about the first part of that last post? Step into the light, my friend... (At least acknowledge you think I *might* be right? :lol: )

[Erasmus00]

The library seems to frown on my using highlighters. Now what about the first part of that last post? Step into the light, my friend... (At least acknowledge you think I *might* be right? :lol: )

 

No, I don't think you are. Einstein could have simply said "as was noted in section 6" but he does a tiny recap with a poor choice of words.

-Will

[EWright]

No, I don't think you are. Einstein could have simply said "as was noted in section 6" but he does a tiny recap with a poor choice of words.

-Will

 

Give me a break! Either his argument is flawed or he's sloppy, and I don't believe he is sloppy in his ideas or his expressions of them. Thus, I feel his logic is flawed. I chose this point because you asked for one and it was the most blatant that came to mind. But the fact is, that one flawed argument after another got him to this point in the first place. How many times does he use the argument that *IF* you accept this, than this... or *IF* you dismissed (the perfectly acceptable) notion that this, than we have this... ? I could *IF* my way into a whole bunch of theories *IF* you chose to believe the initial premise I set up and make the results dependant on your acceptance of them.

 

Can anyone else sound off on the interpretation of this argument based on Einstein's own words please?

[Dundasbro]

:lol: Time is way too hard a concept for us to comprehend :)