Relativity Experiment - how fast are we really moving?

[Qfwfq]

But then according to that premise, the two clocks in the stations should not be running at the same rate at the end of the experiment. If they are in fact running at the same rate then we should be able to use experimentation to find our absolute velocity.

I don't understand why they wouldn't and, indeed, they would. I don't see how you would get a determination of absolute velocity from it.

 

I ran into some very tough affairs and I'm still battling with Newton-Raphson and various matrices, I couldn't give this stuff much of a thought so far but maybe you could look at it this way: For every experiment that you escogitate, if you think it ought to reveal the experimentor's AV then imagine it also being performed by someone else who's travelling wrt the first one and consider whether, and how, it should give different results. Indeed, if there is such a thing, the two blokes would definitely have different AVs.

[Shekhar]

A better criticism to time dilation "due to speed" is given in the book The Final Theory.

[Tormod]

Sir,

There can be a frame of ref. where the speed of GPS system is 0 relative to it.

 

Now, does dilation has any link with speed ?

 

Dilation is only linked with speed - and relative speed at that. Time for any observer moving in her own frame of motion will experience time exactly like any other observer in *their* frame of motion.

 

However, when synchronized, their clocks will show different times because the flow of time is dependant of the relative speeds of each observer in relation to the others.

 

There is a fram of reference where the speed of a GPS satellite is 0 - and that is if you're sitting on the satellite, or moving at the exact same speed as the satellite.

[Tormod]

A better criticism to time dilation "due to speed" is given in the book The Final Theory.

 

This kind of post is useless - exactly where in the book is that given?

 

Please discuss the FT book in the FT thread. It is not an accepted source of good science.

[Smejkal]

"How fast are we really moving?"

There are good questions and bad questions. The ability to ask good questions is not innate to man. It is not enough to have dad owner electrical factory, and avoid physical practitioners. When our big Albert (armed with this only) began to philosophize, could ask the right questions?

 

I am afraid that the same is true for the author of the introductory question. "How fast", it means velocity. The velocity is the ratio between the distance of two points, and time. It is nonsense reflect one point only. Where the distance refers to two points, two points also applies of each velocity.

 

Thomas Kuhn: Revolution Against Scientific Realism .. Einstein's theory is not merely a more complex version of .. history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_4.html

Thomas Kuhn (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

According to Kuhn the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or ‘extraordinary’) phases. The revolutionary phases are not merely periods of accelerated progress, but differ qualitatively from normal science. Normal science does resemble the standard cumulative picture of scientific progress, on the surface at least. Kuhn describes normal science as ‘puzzle-solving’ (1962/1970a, 35-42). While this term suggests that normal science is not dramatic, its main purpose is to convey the idea that like someone doing crossword puzzles or chess puzzles or jigsaws, the puzzle-solver expects to have a reasonable chance of solving the puzzle, that his doing so will depend mainly on his own ability, and that the puzzle itself and its methods of solution will have a high degree of familiarity. A puzzle-solver is not entering completely uncharted territory. Because its puzzles and their solutions are familiar and relatively straightforward, normal science can expect to accumulate a growing stock of puzzle-solutions. Revolutionary science, however, is not cumulative in that, according to Kuhn, scientific revolutions involve a revision to existing scientific belief or practice (1962/1970a, 92). Not all the achievements of the preceding period of normal science are preserved in a revolution, and indeed a later period of science may find itself without an explanation for a phenomenon that in an earlier period was held to be successfully explained. This feature of scientific revolutions has become known as ‘Kuhn-loss’ (1962/1970a, 99-100).

 

Better question, maybe, sounds: "How fast are we really moving, to get good questions for progress of physics?"

Or we can end of any questions? To just construct new physical models? E.g. about atom?

 

See "Die lukrativen Lügen der Wissenschaft" (deutsch or cz), HK1971, or Maxwell papers.

[vxa1314]

"How fast are we really moving?"

There are good questions and bad questions. The ability to ask good questions is not innate to man. It is not enough to have dad owner electrical factory, and avoid physical practitioners. When our big Albert (armed with this only) began to philosophize, could ask the right questions?

 

I am afraid that the same is true for the author of the introductory question. "How fast", it means velocity. The velocity is the ratio between the distance of two points, and time. It is nonsense reflect one point only. Where the distance refers to two points, two points also applies of each velocity.

 

I'm a newbie but I was thinking about this topic and decided to google it and came upon here.

I want to understand this:

 

If we look at 2 points with a constant velocity such as:

 

(1). (2).

 

These 2 points are moving at 5ms^-1

And point 1 and 2 have a distance of 5m between them. Therefore the particles are not moving if both points are moving. The only way for point 1 to reach point 2 is by "speeding" up so that it is faster than point 2. So that it eventually reaches point 2.

 

I guess that's true never mind.

 

I also don't understand how Hubble's theory/law thing works. He said that relative velocities of receding galaxies is proportional to the distance of the galaxy away from the observer. I had this thing in mind where:

 

 

(P)(10ms^-1) (Q)(5ms^-1) (E)(3ms^-1)

 

Wait... nevermind, is it true that galaxies further away from the singularity point are moving faster? I don't think we have any idea where in the Universe our galaxy is.

 

Oh wait, nevermind, enough rambling anyways.

 

I see how using relative velocity and distance it could still calculate correctly. Even if we are stationary or not, the velocity it is moving away from us is greater.

 

 

wait if galaxies are moving away from each other with different velocities, the universe is expanding. But when galaxies combine into one, they suddenly share the same velocity?

 

I know this is completely off topic, but does gravity control time?