Personal Topic

[sluggo]

It's like two blind men describing an elephant!

[sluggo]

Moronium;

Refer to the graphic.

 

     

Reciprocal time dilation.
A and B moving at constant velocity of .3c and .6c.They have synchronized their
clocks. Gray hyperbolic lines are isobars of constant time.

Each sends a signal at .68 to request a time signal from the other. Each receives a reading of 1.00 at 1.47. Being in a pseudo rest frame, the SR convention requires the observer to assign the reading (clock event) to half the total transit time, (1.47+.68)/2 = 1.08 (blue).

Each concludes the distant clock is running slower than their local clock.

The reason, the intervals of time for each clock are increasing with time. The inbound (return) signal requires more time than the outbound signal when diverging. The descriptions are reciprocal as predicted.

Note the times of conclusions are not simultaneous in the U frame.

-----------------------------
Simultaneity is only relative for a given frame (since there is no universal time, since light speed is finite).

The introduction of a "luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, OTEOMB, A. Einstein, 1905

 

You are missing the point from the example he gives of induction. It is irrelevant concerning which element moves, the coil or the magnet. Only relative motion is required.

[Moronium]

I don't know which, if any, of my propositions you are addressing or trying to refute, Sluggo.

 

You seem to simply conclusively assume that the basic postulates of SR are "true."  Once you do that, then of course you will accept every proposition it asserts as being indubitably true.

 

You are free to do all that, if you want, but that can't "demonstrate" that your assumptions and conclusions are "true" (correspond to reality).

 

Only relative motion is required.

 

 

 Only "required" for what?  What do you think I have misunderstood?

 

The nature of my question may be clearer if you read post #261, below.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

A and B moving at constant velocity of .3c and .6c.

 

Moving relative to what?  If you are saying that A is "moving at .3c" and that B is "moving at .6c," as I take you to be, then you seem to be talking about some kind of absolute motion.  Where could you ever get those speeds from the mechanics of SR?

[Moronium]

Sluggo, you say:

 

Each concludes the distant clock is running slower than their local clock.

 

They "conclude" that on the basis of what assumption(s)?

Edited February 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You (properly) quote Einstein as follows:

 

The introduction of a "luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, OTEOMB, A. Einstein, 1905

 

 

 

In this statement he is NOT saying that the ether does not exist.  He simply says it's not required for the type of analysis he is undertaking.  Early in his career, he did, at times, effectively say that the ether does NOT exist.  Later he repudiated this stance, which he said was "too radical."  At that point he basically reverted to Newton's position that we could never detect the preferred frame.  This is quite different than saying it  "doesn't exist."  One claim is merely epistemological in character, the other is ontological (a matter of "metaphysics," essentially).

 

But, as it turns out, SR's absolute prohibition against positing a "preferred frame" is, in fact, a theoretical denial of the possibility that a preferred claim could ever conceivably exist. His theory disintegrates if he doesn't insist that "all (inertial) frames are equivalent and equally valid."

 

I don't need to know their absolute elevation above sea level in order to legitimately say that one of two objects is 3 feet higher than the other.  That is their relative elevation, and does not require any information pertaining to their "absolute" elevation in order for it to be valid.  If I'm just trying to determine the relative topography of a small area, say 10 acres, that I want to subdivide into a number of separate residential lots, then I don't need to know their absolute elevation in order to properly install storm drains and sewer lines.  It would be, in Einstien's words, "superfluous" for my purposes.

 

But that does not mean that they can't have such an elevation.  One could be 2000 feet above mean sea level, and one 2003.  It would still be just as true that one was 3 feet higher than the other.  Using this analogy, SR would claim, however, that one could never suggest that either object had any determinate  height above mean sea level.

 

I doubt you will see the relevance of my comments here, but, who knows, maybe you will.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Why is it, I wonder, that this always seems to happen?   Some poster, poised to present some pompous and pedantic remedial schoolin, strolls in, and, after chiding the ignorant fools in the thread, proceeds to pretentiously pontificate  and "learn them all good."

 

Then they scurry away, refusing to answer a single question.

 

Every instructor I ever had, except those who didn't really understand their subject well (which unfortunately included far too many), was always quite willing, even eager, to respond to questions.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Why is it, I wonder, that this always seems to happen?  

Look in the mirror, perhaps?

 

If you were less aggressively confrontational and contemptuous, and did not so clearly have a preconceived agenda, people might be more willing to enter into extended dialogue with you.

 

(Now I'm putting you back on Ignore, so don't bother replying.)  

[Moronium]

If you were less aggressively confrontational and contemptuous, and did not so clearly have a preconceived agenda, people might be more willing to enter into extended dialogue with you.

 

 

Heh, Chem, OK.  You're hardly one to be talking about showing smug contempt towards other posters, eh?

 

You are, however, a good exemplar of the kind of poster I'm talking about.   You are quick to deride and purport to refute other posters by opining on topics which you admittedly don't know much about, and then you simply run like hell if questioned.

 

I get where you're coming from though. We all know that asking a question is tantamount to being "aggressively confrontational and contemptuous."  It's really a complete insult to a person to ask them a question.  God forbid if you venture to disagree with them.  That's a bannable offense according to the standards of some I've encountered here.

Edited February 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You want to talk about  "mirrors," Chem?

 

Perhaps you should reflect on these comments, addressed to you by LaurieAG

 

exchemist, on 23 Apr 2018 - 2:26 PM, said:

 

Mods have a duty not to let crank theories appear unchallenged in the main section, where the innocent might see them and be misled into thinking they were accepted science.

 

LaurieAG:

 

The following was in the editorial of my state newspaper yesterday and it relates to people of your ilk because of the bad example you set for the real innocents.

 

 

 

Newspaper:

 

ONLINE Trolls are like cockroaches. They scuttle around in the shadows, brave in their anonymity, and spreading grime and pestilence wherever they go. Unlike cockroaches though, they tend to hunt in packs, a swirling cloud of confected outrage and judgement looking for a soft target

 

Laurie AG:

 

If the mods have a duty it should also be to keep people like yourself at bay, people who only carp on about others and don't follow the scientific method or even bother to contribute to a discussion and explain their concerns or even bother to point people in the right direction without being nasty and venting their spleen.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31083-my-thread-just-disappeared-anyone-know-why/  (post #12)

 

Ring a bell?

 

If not, maybe this will; it's more recent:

 

Posted 01 February 2019 - 03:49 AM

 

The attitude you can drop. Exchemist, I don't know what kind of world you live in, but people do make mistakes. I've seen Susskind get his units wrong on the board, mix up things that are not true. I don't care how accomplished your son is, you reveling in someone's genuine error is pretty ugly. But you are an ugly person anyway. It can't be about correction for the sake of correction, but for the sake of belittling. You'd make a lousy teacher.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/31083-my-thread-just-disappeared-anyone-know-why/

 

Full disclosure:  The person making this post is known to be extremely defensive and has in fact demanded that people be banned for disagreeing with him. He considers it to be a personal insult if you even ask him a question, because he thinks that means you're dissing him instead of taking his proclamations as well-articulated and unquestionable fact, as you would if you showed the proper "respect."  But, still....

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

(Now I'm putting you back on Ignore, so don't bother replying.)  

 

You come in here making disparaging accusations about me, publicly, and then think you can pre-emptively preclude a response by running and hiding?

 

Uhhh, no, it don't work that way, I'm afraid.

 

Newsflash:  Everything aint always about YOU.

 

There used to be a kid in my hood who would always "pick a fight" with me by by screaming taunts from the second story bedroom window of his crib.  He always had his Mama bar the door when I tried to get in to "discuss" the situation with him.

 

He kept that up incessantly, until I caught his sorry *** at the park one day, ya know?

Edited February 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

How do you characterize that “duration”?  All you are doing is substituting the word “duration” for the word “time”

 

Nothing can change without that "duration"

 

time=change

 

Popeye, I composed a couple of responses to this, which you have not commented on.

 

Before I continue with the substance of this post, let me say this:   In my mind you have demonstrated that you are an intelligent, knowledgeable, and fair-minder poster.  Truth be told, if you weren't a member here I probably wouldn't ever come myself.

 

To continue:  Superficially this issue about "time" may seem rather trivial, but I don't think it is.  The answer one gives often depends a very fundamental and very important philosophical attitude.

 

In your case, especially, I'm interested in knowing if you even understand the point I am trying to make. My suspicion is that you don't.  Not that you can't understand my words, you're far too intelligent for that.  I'm just beginning to wonder if your "world-view" prevents you from even making sense of what I'm saying.  If not, it may simply be that I haven't articulated it well enough.  Or it could be some difference pertaining to a more fundamental "understanding" about the nature of things. 

 

I'm very curious to find out, so that's why I am basically repeating the question I have already asked, to wit:

 

The duration isn't different for each clock.  The rate of ticking is different, that's all.

 

Can you see the distinction?

 

Also these questions, from the next post:

 

 

The "certain amount of time" I mentioned is the same for each clock, right?

 

Now, to take it a step further, it would still be the same even if one clock was situated on a shelf 12" above the other, right?

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 

 I'm interested in knowing if you even understand the point I am trying to make. My suspicion is that you don't.... If not, it may simply be that I haven't articulated it well enough.  Or it could be some difference pertaining to  a more fundamental "understanding" about the nature of things. 

 

Because I'm thinking that you don't see the point (which I may be wrong about), I'll try to put this question one more way.

 

Assume 5 guys, each with a stop watch, are sitting around a table.  One of them says "go" (call that time 1), and they all start their stopwatches.  Then when that guy's stopwatch shows an hour as having passed, he says "stop" (call that time 2) and they all stop their watches.

 

Let's assume that each watch shows a different elapsed time, e.g., 58 minutes, 59 minutes, 60 minutes, 61 minutes, and 62 minutes.  So it's obvious that no two of these watches are running at the same rate.  But that doesn't mean 5 different times (or durations) are involved, does it?

 

The guy didn't say "go" at five different times, and he didn't say "stop" at five different times, so "different" durations can't be the explanation for 5 different clock readings, right?  The duration between time 1 and time 2 is the same for each watch, even if all of them are wrong about the "correct" amount of time elapsed.

 

That's the point I'm trying to make when I say that "time" doesn't slow down (or speed up), the ticking rate of clocks do, that's all.  There's a distinction there which goes beyond just saying the same thing in a different way. And that distinction is at the heart of my basis for saying Minkowski was wrong.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I don't think I've yet encountered anyone in this forum who truly understands that what a thing "is" can be different than what's it's measured to be, at least not in the context of SR.  Well, that is probably overstating it.  Some may understand it perfectly, but just choose not to comment on the issue.  Let me put it this way:  Many posters here appear to deny that a thing can anything other than what it's measured to be.

 

Say I put a stick, about 3 feet long, on a table top and ask two different guys to measure it for me.  They come back with different readings, so what does that mean?

 

Well, it means that at least one of them made a mistaken measurement, right?  Maybe both, but at least one.  Both guys can't be right.

 

Why can't they both be right?  Because it's the same damn stick.  The stick itself didn't change.  Making a measurement doesn't change the thing being measured.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

"I don't think I've yet encountered anyone in this forum who truly understands that what a thing "is" can be different than what's it's measured to be, at least not in the context of SR."

 

Right. In reciprocal time dilation all perspectives are correct and real because they are measurable. That's because reality is defined as being subjective. What event happens first is also made subjective by the relativity of simultaneity. I agree this is a wrong definition because there is causality which is not subject to perspective. A cause happens and propagates outwards to the effects. Sure it causes the effects in an order that is based on different perspectives. So what? If the sun is plucked out of the center of the solar system, who cares that our reality will still circle it and receive light from it for 8 minutes while Mars gets an extra 4.5 minutes depending on your perspective. The reality is that the sun is gone first not whether the earth or mars see it go out first. 

 

If I'm 100 yds from you, we will both see each other as only 1 thumb tall. We can measure that but it isn't real. It would be damn weird if, as we approached each other, you'd still be as tall as my thumb the whole way. This actually happens in the twin paradox but does not happen in reciprocal time dilation. Perspective is not reality, it is illusion and needs to be post-processed away. Einstein went in the opposite direction and said past, present and future are the persistent illusions because he concluded time is just another dimension of space. Yet there is so much evidence that it isn't and no relativist will address this. Madness!

 

My experience on the physics stack exchange has really soured me even more on the theory relativity (but not the facts of relativity). Science has become a democracy where a bunch of ignorant people are in the majority and can out vote correct answers. If you disagree with the majority, you will be cast out and none of the few who actually know the correct answers will stick up for you out of fear of looking stupid to the mob.

 

I was thinking of starting a thread, "Relative motion vs absolute motion" but what's the point. When I made that mistake in the separation of clocks in order to measure the one-way speed of light, I realized that is the only example of relativity using relative velocity. All other examples can make the earth or the background stars as the stationary frame and all the answers will still be correct. Why would one ever need the perspective of the obviously moving frame as stationary. Two ships leaving earth at .33c in opposite directions is not really the same scenario as 1 ship leaving at .6c even though the relative velocity is the same. Who cares what their time dilation is relative to each other when their time dilation relative to the earth is all that really matters? It only matters if you're separating clocks to measure the one-way speed of light or if you and the other ship are the only 2 things in an empty space universe. The Michelson-Morley experiment proved it's impossible to measure a velocity relative to the electro-magnetic medium of empty space.

 

Can anyone else think of an example where relative velocity is needed? It can't even be drawn in a single STD so why not just bury that concept and only bring it out when needed which is almost never. Stop confusing the mob, they can't handle it.

Edited February 5, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

"I don't think I've yet encountered anyone in this forum who truly understands that what a thing "is" can be different than what's it's measured to be, at least not in the context of SR."

 

Right. In reciprocal time dilation all perspectives are correct and real because they are measurable. That's because reality is defined as being subjective. What event happens first is also subjective by the relativity of simultaneity. I agree this is a wrong definition because there is causality which is not subject to perspective. 

 

Yes, I agree completely.  That's the most fundamental problem with SR.  As a matter of philosophical metaphysics, it holds, as did solipsists like Berkeley, that "reality is subjective."

 

But physics presupposes that there is such a thing as objective reality--things "out there" that have an independent existence and are not mere creations of a subjective mind.

 

At bottom, SR aint physics.  It's metaphysics.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

.Can anyone else think of an example where relative velocity is needed? It can't even be drawn in a single STD so why not just bury that concept and only bring it out when needed which is almost never. 

 

The concept of  relative velocity can be useful, and there are occasions where the concept of absolute motion is "superfluous" to the questions being asked.  But, ultimately, all motion, not just non-inertial motion, is absolute.

 

This is a point I recently made in post #261 of this thread.

 

It's not the concept of relative motion which is bogus or meaningless, it's the concept of the relativity of simultaneity.  That misconceived and ultimately nonsensical notion is at the heart of all SR's problems, such as "reciprocal" time dilation.

 

Like motion, simultaneity is ultimately absolute, not relative.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Moronium