Personal Topic

[Moronium]

Do moving clocks always run slowly?

 

A commonly heard phrase in the realm of special relativity is "Moving clocks run slowly".  But—even in the context of special relativity—is it always true?  The answer is no.  It's only true when a clock's ageing is measured in an inertial frame...But if your frame is not inertial, the situation becomes much more complicated.

 

...The inertial clock measures the orbiting clock to age slowly.  This can only mean that the orbiting clock measures the inertial clock to be ageing quickly.  The frame of the orbiting clock is accelerated, and the (inertial) clock that moves within this frame ages quickly, not slowly.

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/movingClocks.html

[marcospolo]

No

You call me an ignorant, tell me I have no ability to comprehend how stupid I am, but then when I PROVE that you have no high ground on which to base those belittling remarks, you have not even the slightest decency to apologize, or even to admit that you are wrong.

You just ignore it, because you think that you still are superior. Even after having been PROVEN wrong.

 

You are behaving like the classic arrogant twit and your refusal to admit your errors have totally destroyed your credibility.

You can't be trusted to be honest.

 

You don't do much thinking, just reciting.

[Moronium]

If you're looking for a beeyitch fight, Marco, you're gunna need to find another beeyitch.  I aint one

 

You appear to have all the maturity and emotional stability of a menstruating 13 year-old girl.  You drip with insecurity and defensiveness.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

If you're looking for a beeyitch fight, Marco, you're gunna need to find another beeyitch.  I aint one.

Well don't go calling others IGNORANT just because they don't agree with you!

I'm not looking for a fight, I only expected a decent individual would have at least SOMETHING to say.

But seems I'm mixing with the wrong types. I should not expect too much.

[sluggo]

Moronium;

785-788

First, I don't ridicule people. Just refuse to accept their interpretation, and question their comprehension skills.

Builder wasn't the only person to realize the diference between SR and GR, it was and is common knowledge.

You read into accounts of successful experiments your own ideas.

It's as if you don't like people being successful in their efforts.

No amount of evidence in graphic or math form will convince you.

May the farce be with you.

[Moronium]

Moronium;

785-788

First, I don't ridicule people. Just refuse to accept their interpretation, and question their comprehension skills.

Builder wasn't the only person to realize the diference between SR and GR, it was and is common knowledge.

You read into accounts of successful experiments your own ideas.

It's as if you don't like people being successful in their efforts.

No amount of evidence in graphic or math form will convince you.

May the farce be with you.

 

 

"Comprehension skills," you say?

 

Did you read Builder's paper?  It had nothing to do with the difference between SR and GR.

 

Did you read the H & K paper?  If so you appear to have COMPLETELY misunderstood it.

 

I see that you say nothing  of substance here whatsoever.   Is that because you lack comprehension skills?

 

Learn up, Sluggo.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Moronium;

 

Builder wasn't the only person to realize the diference between SR and GR, it was and is common knowledge.

 

I take it this harkens back to your "GR recognizes that the earth orbits the sun," statement.  No kidding that Builder wasn't the first.  Ever hear of Copernicus?  Galileo, maybe?  Newton, perhaps?

 

Guess what?  Even if you haven't heard of them, Einstein certainly had when concocted SR.  GR didn't establish that "common knowledge," eh?

 

You're just showing, again, that you don't even understand the issues involved here.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

No amount of evidence in graphic or math form will convince you.

 

 

Graphics?  Math?  Once again that's irrelevant.

 

"Math" didn't create Einstein's postulates, let alone a piece of graph paper.

 

The exact opposite is true.  All the math and "geometry" follow from the postulates, not vice versa.

 

The math presupposes the validity of the postulates.

 

Math is irrelevant.  The issues here involve the postulates themselves, not the math that is necessarily implied by them.

 

Not really surprising, though, that you think it's all about math.  You might want to brush up a little on your "comprehension skills," eh, Sluggo?

Edited February 18, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

What answer is wrong?

 

You came here looking for experts.  It appears that you don't need one.  YOU ARE AN EXPERT!!!

 

You know immediately what the correct "entire interpretation of relativity" is already, it seems.

Wherever there is an expert, you will always find an equal and opposite expert.

 

Experts are a dime a dozen, and don't know anymore than anyone else, most of the time, in theoretical physics anyway. (theoretical physics such as SR, GR, Particle Physics etc.)

 

If an expert was of any value to prove a theory, then it would not be possible that a second expert would disagree with him, no?

[Moronium]

“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.” (Neils Bohr)

 

 

 

"An expert (specialist) is a man who comes to know more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing." (somebody)

 

[marcospolo]

 

In rereading these posts on a variety of SR related topics, it strikes me that the only thing to take away from it all is that noone has any clear case to present.

There is NO solid theory that is winning.  There is no consensus.

The SR guys just repeat what they have been told, and Moronium just dredges up quotes from a couple of old physicists from 1900 as if that is going to settle the questions.

The thing is, however brilliant Lorentz may have been, his ideas have already been rejected and supplanted by the ideas of far more brilliant physicists, who had the advantage of knowing everything Lorentz did, plus the added knowledge of all further research by thousands of other physicists over the next hundred years.

 

So IF your arguments are going to be based on quoting the ideas of famous celebrities, then Einsteini's SR and GR are the best and final truth because this is what is accepted by all leading physicists today.

 

OR, you could stop and wonder why there could be so much bickering about something as basic as Physics.

 

The most likely reason  may be that ALL of the theories are missing the point, or are just wrong.

 

Ralfcis is trying to fix a supposed problem that does not even exist. Its a assumed or imagined problem.

There is no time dilation to find a reason for.

 

 Moronium has a clock fetish, and cant ever get over it. "clocks slow down, not time, cause some old bugger said so."

or "my old bugger is more smart than Sluggo's old bugger"

[Moronium]

"If you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent ... The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is." (David Dunning)

 

[Moronium]

Heh, speak for yourself, Polly.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Polly, you have no idea what causes refraction. It's due to the permittivity and permeability constants of the electromagnetic field of the medium light passes through aka one of Maxwell's equations. It has nothing to do with quantum effects or absorption and emission of light from one atom to the next like 99.99999% of people believe.

[ralfcis]

Sentences are the quantum equivalence theory of paralegals subject to the ruhur of vehicular traffic.

[Moronium]

I take it this harkens back to your "GR recognizes that the earth orbits the sun," statement.  No kidding that Builder wasn't the first.  Ever hear of Copernicus?  Galileo, maybe?  Newton, perhaps?

 

Guess what?  Even if you haven't heard of them, Einstein certainly had when concocted SR.  GR didn't establish that "common knowledge," eh?

 

When Einstein was specifically asked in the context of answering questions about SR whether we weren't justified in claiming that the earth orbited the sun, rather than vice versa, he kinda stumbled.

 

He could have said, "yes, that's the correct view."  But he didn't.  It would have destroyed his relativity postulate.

 

Instead he just said that, as a practical matter, no one would adopt the view that the sun orbited the earth, because that would complicate calculations. It would be ridiculous to do that.  It was simply not a "convenient" viewpoint to take.

 

But he went on to say that the two views (heliocentric vs geocentric) were nonetheless "equally valid."  Obviously they are not "equally valid" as a matter of fact (and known physics), so how did he justify this statement?

 

He said it was justified "as a matter of principle."  Kinda tells ya where "principles" will lead ya, eh?

 

Faith does not move mountains.  On the contrary, it erects mountains where none exist.   (Nietzsche)

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Almost there, 10,000!!