Personal Topic

[Moronium]

You say that what moving clocks read on their faces is not time, than you say that his clock slowing WILL make him age less fast! How so?

You seem to be getting confused here.

 

Heh, that's what I was afraid of.  I think you're the one confused.  That whole post was designed to distinguish a "subjective" sense of time from an "objective" assessment of time.  I guess it had the opposite effect.

 

You have to distinguish the two.  A scientific theory requires an objective standard.  It cannot take every individual's perception as the "standard" (as SR does).

 

From a "scientific" standpoint, one month has passed for the guy.  For him, one day has passed.  But TIME ITSELF has NOT changed.  The rate at which recurring physical processes occur has changed in his frame.  That's NOT "time itself."

 

Have you read my other posts on this topic?

 

Have you read the posts where I discussed temperatures?

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

You keep saying this, but for the life of me I still can't follow your logic.  Have you read my other posts about this?  They explain my position, so I won't repeat them here.

 

Regarding length contraction:  Prevailing theory says it is REAL.  The only I'm "agnostic" about it for two reasons:

 

1.  We have never detected it because it's so minute as to be undetectable, especially at the speeds we test.  Our tests of time are different.  When a atom oscillates at the rate of 10 billion per second, you can break it down pretty finely, even at every day speeds.  10 billion,  minus only one, is still LESS than 10 billion.  We can test for time dilation without ever having to test for length contraction, so that much has been confirmed.

 

2.  The other reason I say I'm agnostic is because I have seen reputable physicists claim that it's not required.  I'm not sure why, because I don't care enough to pay close attention.  But they do not say:  Therefore the LT is unreliable.  They seem to think it makes no real difference.  So, who knows, maybe they're right, whatever the majority thinks.

 

But, let's just assume that length contraction is real, OK?  That's a complete side issue.  Why would that mean that "time itself" must conract?  I don't get it, despite your attempts to explain your reasoning.

 

You still keep talking about how guys subjectively "see things."  That can lead to all kinds of ambiguity.

 

Speed = d/t, as you know.  Time is measured with a clock, whether that clock is right or wrong.  The clock reading is not necessarily the correct amount of "true" time which has  elapsed, but either way it is not "time itself."

Jesus, I doubt anyone could spell it out any simpler. Seems your so wrapped up in your own theories, that you cant take a step back and follow simple logic of another theory.

OR you just don't wish to.

 

1. The only way for slowing clocks to work out in a practical application, is if the distance also shrinks. I showed this to be correct with simple math.

2. Then, the only way to measure a shrunken distance on a moving ship is to use the unshrunken absolute measuring equipment from the stationary frame.

3. So, using the absolute measurements if you agree that the distance has shrunk, then the time must have shrunk too.  (if it did not, then you would get two contradicting results for the ships speed in absolute terms, an impossibility.)

4. IF the time had not really shrunk in a absolute sense, (not just the clock reading) THEN the MATH would not give a consistent result. You would get a direct contradiction as to the ships position or when it exists or its speed in absolute terms. You would get two contradictory claims from Maths about the one physical event.

5. But IF the clocks on the ship did not loose time, then there is never any contradiction.

 

Try clearing your mind of preconceived ideas, and re read my post. Its not rocket science, and the logic is sensible.

Don't skip over any lines, every one of them is there for some reason in the argument. IF you don't follow when you get to a certain place, then no point proceeding. Ask for clarification as to why I wrote that line.

[Moronium]

1. The only way for slowing clocks to work out in a practical application, is if the distance also shrinks. I showed this to be correct with simple math.

 

 

OK

[Moronium]

2. Then, the only way to measure a shrunken distance on a moving ship is to use the unshrunken absolute measuring equipment from the stationary frame.

 

 

1. No, that's not the ONLY way  to measure it.  But that's one way.

 

2. "Distance" is not length.  Length is the amount of space between two ends of a single object.  Distance is the amount of space between two different objects.  In LR distances do not shrink.  Lengths do.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Heh, that's what I was afraid of.  I think you're the one confused.  That whole post was designed to distinguish a "subjective" sense of time from an "objective" assessment of time.  I guess it had the opposite effect.

 

You have to distinguish the two.  A scientific theory requires an objective standard.  It cannot take every individual's perception as the "standard" (as SR does).

 

From a "scientific" standpoint, one month has passed for the guy.  For him, one day has passed.  But TIME ITSELF has NOT changed.  The rate at which recurring physical processes occur has changed in his frame.  That's NOT "time itself."

 

Have you read my other posts on this topic?

 

Have you read the posts where I discussed temperatures?

You ARE confused!

Forget about the differences between subjective and objective, I know that we must use objective standards in Physics.

 

If one month has passed really, but the persons subjective view is that only one day has passed, then it can never have a result where any physical processes in anyone's frame (subjective) such as slowing physical recurring processes.

 

There is only one absolute time, and jumping onto someones imagined subjective frame can never alter the processes that are metered by absolute time and space.

 

So no physical process can change it's rate from absolute time. (which has no frame) What you are claiming is that if I can invent an imaginary frame with the right conditions, then I will never get older!

 

This is BS.

[Moronium]

1. No, that's not the ONLY way  to measure it.  But that's one way.

 

2. "Distance" is not length.  Length is the amount of space between two ends of a single object.  Distance is the amount of space between two different objects.  In LR distances do not shrink.  Lengths do.

 

 

If one month has passed really, but the persons subjective view is that only one day has passed, then it can never have a result where any physical processes in anyone's frame (subjective) such as slowing physical recurring processes.

 

 

What does this even mean?  What is "it?"

 

You keep saying that you are able to distinguish clock rates from time itself, but you never seem to display that understanding in your posts.

[marcospolo]

1. No, that's not the ONLY way  to measure it.  But that's one way.

 

2. "Distance" is not length.  Length is the amount of space between two ends of a single object.  Distance is the amount of space between two different objects.  In LR distances do not shrink.  Lengths do.

Using the best tools we have is good science, using absolute time and distances is good physics. There is no need to comment on this point.

and the second point is a moot point too. If LR says that distances don't shrink, only lengths do, then its crap. The length of an object is the space, and so is the space in a distance. Its a moot point. I could say that this rock in space is that distance from that rock, its a distance. LR has nothing to say about it. But if I hook a piece of string between the two rocks, then its a length, so NOW LR is all interested?

 

stop being pedantic.

[Moronium]

If LR says that distances don't shrink, only lengths do, then its crap. T

 

 

Minkowski says that "lengths" don't change.  Only distance (space) does.   You're with Minkowski, I see.  He couldn't distinguish one from the other either.

 

Say I have a football field with goal posts at each end.  The space between those two posts is the distance.

 

Now I say I have to rulers with "lengths."  One is 12" one is only 6" long (but I think it's 12)

 

With the short ruler I will measure the distance to be 600 feet.

 

With the long ruler, I will measure the distance to be 300 feet.

 

The distance is the same, and has not changed.  The only thing that changed is my measurement of it.  That's because the lengths of my measuring instruments are different, not because the two goal post have moved first farther apart, and then closer together, when I change rulers.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

What does this even mean?  What is "it?"

 

You keep saying that you are able to distinguish clock rates from time itself, but you never seem to display that understanding in your posts.

it is a typo. should be something like "there could never be any result"  and you are othe one all hung up on clocks. I'm more interested in time absolutely.

You have a fetish about clocks because you think they can morph and shimmy in a provocative way when they move in that certain way.

I'm happy to never mention clocks again, if you can too.

[marcospolo]

Minkowski says that "lengths" don't change.  Only distance (space) does.   Your with Minkowski, I see.  He couldn't distinguish one from the other either.

Now you are misquoting me and being childish.

You know I hate Minkowski's work, no better way to annoy me than to put me in his company.

I just got through saying that distance and length are two shades of the same color. Its a bit like using the term dog or k9.

There is NOONE on the planet earth who has gone to school who could not understand the differences between length and distance.

The difference is moot. in this case. The distance between two imaginary points is 10 units. the space between the points can be renamed as length if we slip a chunk of wood between the two points. The distance is the same as the length. What you getting worried about is that you cant shrink nothing, there must be something to shrink. LR requires some 'stuff" on which to perform its magic.

[marcospolo]

anyway, please proceed to digest my long post explaining that you either have to discard clocks slowing or accept that lengths also objectively contract.

and once you go down that road, its a slippery slope into nonsense.

[Moronium]

There is NOONE on the planet earth who has gone to school who could not understand the differences between length and distance.

The difference is moot. in this case. 

 

It is one thing to say you understand a concept.  Anyone can do that.  The question of understanding is only answered when a person shows he knows how and when to apply those concepts.  I.e., how and when the difference is significant, and why.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

anyway, please proceed to digest my long post explaining that you either have to discard clocks slowing or accept that lengths also objectively contract.

and once you go down that road, its a slippery slope into nonsense.

 

 

Why should I?  You never seem to read a single word of mine.  You just look for something you can dispute (on the basis of miscomprehension) and bust out, guns blazing.

 

Even if you shout 1,000 times that you know clock rates are not time, or that lengths are not distances, you still display no real understanding of the difference, despite my trying very patiently to explain it to you. You are not interested in "explanations."  or understanding. You're only interested in making assertions and creating disputes.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

It is one thing to say you understand a concept.  Anyone can do that.  The question of understanding is only answered when a person shows he know how and when to applies those concepts.  I.e., how and when the difference is significant.

you claim the differences are critical to something, but i don't agree that its important at all in this case. Its really that simple. I note that you always assume that you are right, and no-one can understand simple concepts if they disagree with you.

The other option is that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill because some cherished beliefs of yours depend on such minor differentiation between tow version of practically the same thing!

My wife is Chinese, in their language, as an example, they may not even have two different words that translate into distance and length. They seem to be able to pick up on what ones meaning is, without all the semantics typical of English.  Does one have to learn English to discuss physics? I think not.

 

My use or misuse of the words "length" and "distance" has no bearing on the discussion in hand. At least not one that will alter the outcome.

Is your only way to discuss simple concepts that of nit picking over minor errors? Ohh you did not dot your i, so i wont listen to you now.

 

\

[marcospolo]

Why should I?  You never seem to read a single word of mine.  You just look for something you can dispute (on the basis of miscomprehension) and bust out, guns blazing.

 

Even if you shout 1,000 times that you know clock rates are not time, or that lengths are not distances, you still display no real understanding of the difference, despite my trying very patiently to explain it to you. You are not interested in "explanations."  or understanding. You're only interested in making assertions and creating disputes.

I cant understand why you keep saying this. I agree that clocks are not time, Exactly 1000 times Ive said that, AND displayed that knowledge 1000 times to you, its part of my whole argument. You you still seem to think I cant get it.'  Which bit exactly shows you that I think clock rates  are time? Where?

[Moronium]

you claim the differences are critical to something, but i don't agree that its important at all in this case. Its really that simple. 

 

My use or misuse of the words "length" and "distance" has no bearing on the discussion in hand. 

 

 

You'll never understand the difference between minkowski "spacetime" and Newtonian 3 +1.  Or between Lorentz and Einstein.  You don't even care to.  Why pretend?

[Moronium]

Which bit exactly shows you that I think clock rates  are time? Where?

 

When you repeatedly claim said that "time itself" changes in Lorentz's theory, you are clearly misunderstanding something.  He insisted that it did not. Others agree with him on that point.  Even if they don't agree, they understand the difference.  You don't.

 

Lorentz and Poincare, just to name two, were brilliant mathematicians and physicists, and they did not make a simple mistake in analyzing the implications of the LT, which they created.

 

If you were one-tenth as brilliant as you seem to think you are, you would make Einstein look like he should be riding the short bus.  Sorry, but you aint.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Moronium