Many theists believe there is an objective morality to be discovered. However, since you can't uncover such a morality in the same way you can lift a stone and find a pill bug, empirical systems are not use for this process. Instead, many rely on various works that they give implicit trust to, except when the advice of such books goes against their innate beliefs. Hence, we see homosexuals barred from military service, but don't see single women non-virgins barred in such a fashion, much less executed for being a single non-virgin.
Some attempt a seemingly more sophisticated approach of creating a morality based upon a few accepted notions and creating a formal system to reflect it. That's when you see people like the Maverick Philosopher examining the details on what their basic positions entail when examined in detail. Below the fold, I'll go into why I think this helps to pinpoint the inherent lack of objectivity in this construction of a moral system.
I'm not really concerned with the particular argument that Dr. Vallicella is making in his post, rather, I want to highlight what happens when he finds his argument is inadequate. In particular, he doesn't like the breadth of the conclusion of the argument, so he proposes a new starting point. That is, in creating this supposedly objective moral position, he changed his starting point to get the conclusion that he felt was the right one.
Now, I have no objections to this activity per se. In fact, this is one of the better advantages of operating strictly within a formal system. If the starting positions lead you to a situation you can't use, changing the starting positions is to be expected. If you are tracking the movements of ships on the surface of the earth, you don't pretend that the surface of the earth matches Euclid's parallel postulate; instead you assume that no lines (aka great circles) are parallel and use a Riemannian geometry. It will have the tools you need to look at ship movements around a globe.
However, the process of choosing these starting positions is strictly based on the conclusions you want to derive. That makes the starting positions arbitrary, and those positions will be carefully chosen so the results conform to the desired outcome. So, far from getting some objective morality that can be applied to all, you get a tailored morality designed to support a specific set of positions. Some of these systems, like natural law, were debated for hundreds of years before they were codified, and even then still generate disagreements around the edges.
When people come up with another method of knowing things that can exhibit certainty, reality, and demonstrability, that method of know may indeed lead to an objective morality. Until that time, there will be no such creature. All the construction within formal systems will not be able alter the shaky foundation upon which they rest.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2,208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1801 – 2000 of 2208 Newer› Newest»Just a qucikie today. Again, I'll try to catch up on the weekend.
I was very amused by your sample discussion with the actuary. Of course, what you think of as a change in birthday is actually a change in birthplace, metaphorically. Your asking why their isn't a lrge difference in age expectancy based ont eh person being born in Alorton or Centerville.
In the original assumption, Jill time and distance (8 seconds, 4.8 light seconds) was determined to be what it was only by reference to Jack and his synchronized clocks.
But, now, having been determined, it is absolute.
Jill's distance and time can be calculated from jack's clocks, but it is deermined by her rulers and her clocks.
If we tell Colton that Jill time is that, and say that Jack is travelling at .6c relative to her (as he was when we derived Jill's "absolute" time and distance) THEN he will tell us Jack's time and distance is 6.4 seconds and 3.84 LS).
No, he didn't, and won't. Jack's time and distance will remain 10 seconds and 6LS. Jill observes Jack to use 6.4 seconds, but Jack does not observe that. If there was some clock4 in Jill's inertial state that was 4.8LS from Jill, Jack would measure that distance as 3.84LS. However, clock1 is in Jack's inertial state, so the distance Jack measures is 6LS, even though Jill still measures 4.8LS. The maximal distance is measured by a person in the same inertial state.
Which is it for Jack? 6 or 3.84 LS? 10 or 6.4? Both.
Regarding clock1, it is 10 seconds and 6LS for Jack. Not both.
Which of all these numbers is the "max time" on Colton's machine, I wonder?
Download the app and play with it. Max time is determined by the being in the same inertial state.
Colton said:
"Short answers to last two questions: 1) yes,"
So the short answer to what "max time" means is "yes?"
For Colton:
Colton: Thanks for your assistance. I'm afraid we may have conveyed the wrong impression to you about what we were asking.
You say that "Scenario B is exactly the same as Scenario A"
We intended to convey a difference in the two scenarios to you, as follows:
Scenario A: Jack is (absolutely--or in relation to Jill)stationary. Jill is (absolutely--or relative to Jack)) moving at .6c.
Scenario B: Jill is (absolutely--or in relation to Jack)stationary. Jack is (absolutely--or relative to Jill) moving at .6c.
Are you saying that Jack being absolutely stationary would constitute the "exact same" frame of reference as he would have if he accelerated to a speed of .6c, then cruised inertially?
====
In the comments accompanying your graph, you say that the "second picture" (where the "max time" is set at 10) is indentical to "Jill’s frame of reference in scenario A."
But please remember that Jill is MOVING, not stationary in scenario.
I believe that Eric and I agree that if Jill's frame of reference in scenario A is CHANGED to a view where she is stationary, rather than moving, she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6).
Are we wrong about that? That is, are we wrong to conclude that "she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6)" if she is deemed to be stationay?
Thanks again for your time and help, Colton.
One Brow said: "maximal distance is measured by a person in the same inertial state."
"Same inertial state" as what?
One Brow said: "maximal distance is measured by a person in the same inertial state."
Why do you seem to think you are saying something novel and unique if you replace the term "stationary" with the phrase "same inertial state?"
In the question for Colton, I left out the letter "A"
I meant to say:"But please remember that Jill is MOVING, not stationary in scenario [A]."
This is in the second paragraph after the line break (the ======).
aintnuthin said...
So the short answer to what "max time" means is "yes?"
I don't think he answered that question. Based on the last diagram, it seems to just set how big the graph is (not it was set to "20", and the graph runs from 20 to -20).
Slight alterations:
Colton: Thanks for your assistance. We may have conveyed the wrong impression to you about what we were asking.
You said that "Scenario B is exactly the same as Scenario A"
We intended to convey a difference in the two scenarios to you, as follows:
Scenario A: Jack is (absolutely--or in relation to Jill) stationary. Jill is (absolutely--or relative to Jack)) moving at .6c.
Scenario B: Jill is (absolutely--or in relation to Jack) stationary. Jack is (absolutely--or relative to Jill) moving at .6c.
Are you saying that Jack being absolutely stationary would constitute the "exact same" frame of reference as he would have if he accelerated to a speed of .6c, then cruised inertially?
====
In the comments accompanying your graph, you say that the "second picture" (where the "max time" is set at 10) is indentical to "Jill’s frame of reference in scenario A."
But please remember that Jill is MOVING, not stationary in scenario A.
One of us believes that if Jill's frame of reference in scenario A is CHANGED to a view where she is stationary, rather than moving, she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6).
Is that wrong? That is, is it wrong to conclude that "she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6)" if she is deemed to be stationay?
Thanks again for your time and help, Colton.
In particular, my understanding is that Jill will observe 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock in both scenarios A and B, although she can calculate Jack will see/observe 10 seconds to pass on his clock. Whyat Jill observes and what Jill calculates Jack to observe are not the same thing.
Similarly, if Jill were dragging along some clock4 4.8 LS (as measured by Jill) behind her, in Jill's inertial state, then Jack would measure that distance as 3.84LS. This does not change the 6LS he measures for clock1.
Why do you seem to think you are saying something novel and unique if you replace the term "stationary" with the phrase "same inertial state?"
It has not been novel and unique since 1905, but "same inertial state" is different from saying merely "stationary". Two different moving objects can be in the same inertial state.
One Brow said: "One Brow said: "the Lorentz transforms are based on which objects are in the same inertial state, not which is moving."
No, they are not. The determination of which object is moving does indeed involve consideration of factors which the LT themselve do NOT provide, I grant you that, and in fact, have only asked that you CONSISTENTLY acknowledge that fact.
But the proper application of the LT is NOT a mathematical part of the formula itself.
No more than a computer simulation which generates probability distributions can tell you WHEN IT IS BEING PROPERLY APPLIED. Remember?
The LT simply tell you that the moving clock runs slower. If Jill's clock is slower, then she is the one moving.
One Brow said: "One Brow said: "the Lorentz transforms are based on which objects are in the same inertial state, not which is moving."
I said: "No, they are not."
Just to be clear, I meant "no, they are not BASED ON which objects are in the same inertial state (your way of saying "not moving")."
You are confusing the data in with the data out, and the relationship between the two. As is typical, you seem to think that the data out determines the data in, when the reverse is the case.
You tell the LT which object is moving(data in) and then(and ONLY then) it will tell you which clock is slower and which one is faster (data out).
One Brow said:"It has not been novel and unique since 1905, but "same inertial state" is different from saying merely "stationary". Two different moving objects can be in the same inertial state."
Of course. The term "stationary" here, in this context, simply means "relatively stationary," as applied between two inertial states moving with respect to each other. It has nothing to do with being ABSOLUTELY stationary.
Does your distinction make a bit of difference in the context I am using it.. Or is just that if I ever say "cat" you will insist that I should say "feline?"
===
One Brow said:"In particular, my understanding is that...she can calculate Jack will see/observe 10 seconds to pass on his clock."
My understanding is that she can also "calculate" that 20 million light years will pass on Jack's clock. That would simply depend on the formula she based her calculations on.
If she uses the LT, AND assumes she is stationary, then she will not, and CANNOT, "calculate" that 10 seconds will pass on Jack's clock.
I said:"If she uses the LT, AND assumes she is stationary, then she will not, and CANNOT, "calculate" that 10 seconds will pass on Jack's clock."
On the other hand, if she uses the LT, AND assumes that she is moving at .6c while Jack remains (relatively, OK?relatively...relatively.....relatively...do you now know what I mean)
stationary, then I agree with you 100% and you agree with me 100%
What she calculate AlL depends upon her premise about which of them is moving (faster, OK?..moving faster....moving faster...has a higher speed....is moving faster--do you now know what I mean--or do I have to say "feline" instead of "cat' for you to have a clue?).
One Brow said:"Similarly, if Jill were dragging along some clock4 4.8 LS (as measured by Jill)..."
Will the frame-switching and equivocation never end? We you and I have to pursue the infinite regression to eternity, here?
There alreay ARE two clocks involved which Jill measures to be 4.8 light seconds apart IN HER FRAME, i.e., the two clock we have been dealing with.
Let Jill drop clock 4--synchronized with the one she carries--next to jack's clock when she passes.
When she is through, clock 4 will be 4.8 light seconds away from her in her frame, and will read 8 seconds in her frame when she meets Jack.
Jack will see the two clock to be 6 light seconds apart, not 3.84 light seconds apart.
With respect to my question I posed to Colton. If you want to abandon what I thought you previously conceded, OK, I'll happily leave you out of it.
Rephrase it this way:
"I have been led to believe that if Jill's frame of reference in scenario A is CHANGED to a view where she is stationary..."
====
"Am I [not"Are we"] wrong about that? That is, am I [not "are we"] wrong to conclude that ...
I said:Am I [not"Are we"] wrong about that? That is, am I [not "are we"] wrong to conclude that ...
No need to change this--I see you already have, and it's fine the way you put it.
I said:"Let Jill drop clock 4--synchronized with the one she carries--next to jack's clock when she passes."
I can anticipate the red herring you will whip out already. You will say that can't be done...you will say that would change everything because now clock 4 has been accelerated as it has "changed inertial states."
Before dragging that crap out, please read up on "the clock hypothesis," OK?
A couple comments on the "magical" relativity of simultaneity.
1. As I have noted many times, and as most (if not all) scientists will acknowledge, what Al calls the "relativity of simultaneity," does not necessarily involve any relative motion at all. It follows from the mere finite speed of light, regardless of what speed that is, and regardless of whether all inertial frames measure that speed to be the same. Spatial separation is ALL that is required for the phenomenon. If you are 10 miles away from me, you will see a light ray which you generate before I do, even if we are absolutely motionless with respect to each other.
2. As my prior analysis of Al's "proof" of the ROS shows, it is all based upon the refusal of subjective observer (on a train) to concede that he is moving. If he didn't unreasonably refuse to concede this, the events would be simultaneous for all concerned (including those on the embankment), after appropriate correction for light delay.
3. The phenomenon is totally subjective in nature. It does not change the time at which each lightning strike actually hit the train. No two observers, wherever they are (even right next to each other) will EVER see the same phenomenon in exactly the same way. If that is what is required to call an event an "objective" one, then there never was, never is, and never will be any event that can be called "objective."
I said: "When she is through, clock 4 will be 4.8 light seconds away from her in her frame, and will read 8 seconds in her frame when she meets Jack.
Jack will see the two clock to be 6 light seconds apart, not 3.84 light seconds apart."
Let me be a litte more specific and precise here.
The clock, once dropped, will then "actually show" 10 seconds passed in Jack's frame. Using that information, and using the LT (properly and accurately, since he is stationary) Jack will conclude that Jill will perceive the clock's to be 4.8 light seconds apart in her frame, and that, given the rate at which her clocks tick, that would be the equivalent of 8 seconds in her frame(as her clock in fact shows).
I said:"If he didn't unreasonably refuse to concede this, the events would be simultaneous for all concerned (including those on the embankment), after appropriate correction for light delay."
And, as I should have added, corrections for the change of spatial position of the moving observer while the light ray is being propagated.
One Brow said: "One Brow said:"It has not been novel and unique since 1905..."
Since 1905? What are you talking about? Newton, like Galileo before him, acknowledged that only relative speed (not absolute speed) could be measured. Newton's idea of an "inertial state" was no different than what Al perceived it to be in 1905. Nobody thought than an "inertial state" implied that an object was "absolutely" at rest (stationary). That is not what they intended to denote when they said a body was "stationary."
To the extent that you (or Colton, for that matter) want to contend that Jack's clock "will always" read 10 seconds and that Jill's "will always" read 8 seconds, then you have made my point for me. That is simply to say that Jill is really moving (relative to Jack) and that Jack is "really stationary" relative to Jill.
You will be wrong in saying that you have "reversed" your assumptions about the state of motion of each party before coming to that conclusion, but you will be right that it is an objective fact (by hypothesis) and that no amount of "calculation" can change that fact.
You will also concede that the LT are NOT "mutually reciprocal," and in fact only work in one direction, not both.
One Brow said: "Jill's distance and time can be calculated from jack's clocks, but it is deermined by her rulers and her clocks."
OK, sure. At least if you take the would "determined" to mean "physically measured, with her instruments of measurement."
So, what's your point?
Here's my point: Jack "calculates" that Jill's clock will read 8. And guess what? It does, in fact, read 8. Why? Because he has accurately and properly applied the LT, based on the correct assumption that she is moving and he aint.
On the other hand, Jill improperly applies the LT in her attempt to calculate what Jack's clock will read. It is inaccurately and improperly applied on the (incorrect ex hypothesis) assumption that Jack is moving, and she aint. And guess what? She does inaccurately calculate what his clock will say.
She predicts that his clock will read 6.4 seconds, but sees that it in fact reads 10, not 6.4. Most scientists will concede that when their pet theory predicts outcomes which are clearly contradicted by the empircally observed facts, then there must be a flaw in their theory.
But not Jill!! She insists that her theory is accurate, and instead says that when Jack's clock 1 read 0, then, at that very instant, his clock 2 actually read 3.6. The fact that Jack, reading his clock in his frame, did NOT see it reading 3.6 at that time is ignored. Whether he saw it that way or not, that's the way it was, Jill insists.
Ya talk about an ignorant slut, eh?
I will give our pal, Fowler, credit for one thing: He is very clever and cunning in the deceptive way he makes his claims.
He doesn't, as most straightforward authors do, slip in the bogus "relativity of simultaneity" formula by starting at the beginning. That would make Jill's absurd claims too obvious.
He does not say (directly, that is, although he is saying it indirectly) that Jill is insisting that when Jack's clock 1 read 0, then, at that very instant, his clock 2 must have read 3.6. Nor can he say that when her clock read 0, Jack's read 3.6 at that time. He can't say that, because she is looking at both clocks when they start. So the 3.6 seconds must get added on at the end, rather than the beginning. Most authors put the "lack of synchronization" at the beginning, but that makes it's absurdity a little too obvious.
Fowler never explicitly puts it at the beginning or the end, the sly fox. To keep it disguised, he has Jill starting talking about what clock 1 say "now" at the end. Now she starts trying to calculate the present status of things by assuming things about the past. The route to her conclusions thereby becomes all the more circuitous and devious.
To further disguise the bogus nature of the claims being made, Fowler pretends that the "laws of physics" based on a precise mathematial formula which is itself derived from the "constancy of the speed of light" create the supposed "lack of synchronization"
Laws of physics, my ass. In this case the "lack of synchronization" is solely the product of Jill's ignorant sluttiness.
A philosopher of physics from St. Petersburg, Russia, Ravil Kalmykov, has some interesting comments on the "relativity of simultaneity." He starts by noting that, curiously, this concept is usually presented early, then ignored until it's supposedl mathematical consequences get slipped in later:
"In stating the contents of special relativity one usually finds the relativity of simultaneity right at
the beginning. But it has for some unknown reason only a qualitative character. The existence of
this strange effect is only mentioned. The quantitative formula is deduced much later, after calculations of the reductions of space lengths and timepieces according to Lorentz's
transformations. As a result, it is given a "third-rate" dependency. After all of that, it is forgotten."
He sees this as a fundamental mistake:
"The author sees a basic mistake in this fact. He considers that value of this phenomenon is
wrongly underestimated. Actually, it is the main thing (and as it will be shown below – the only
thing). Therefore it should be investigated first, and deeply."
After analyzing actual (Michelson-Morley) and theoretical experiments, he concludes:
It would be reasonable to consider that nothing unusual occurs in the scale of space and a time in
general. There is only the of displacement of events on the time scale. Thus, the basic impossibility of direct comparison of lengths of segments and time intervals forces us to
radically change the attitude towards the Lorentz's transformations equations and the well-known consequences of special relativity. Due consideration of the effect of the relativity of
simultaneity leads us through necessity, not only to reconsider all former calculations, but also to cancel all other "relativistic" effects. For all these imaginary "reductions", the paradox of "twins" and other amusing things it is sadly necessary to throw them out of the basket of history. In case
of the "twins" all that happens is simply another is displacement on the time scale....So, the special theory of relativity reduces to only one phenomenon – spatially caused displacement of events on the time scale."
The reason that the relativity of simultaneity concept (spatial displacement) "cancels out" relativistic effect, he argues, is because: "According to the Lorentz
transformations, a double change in time takes place: time intervals are reduced, and there is the phenomenon of “the relativity of simultaneity”.
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kalmykov.pdf
An interesting argument, which I have not tried to analyze in detail. It does have an air of plausibility to it, from my perspective, though.
I've been trying to avoid the use of pronouns that would distinguish us, because I think that helps avoid appearances of bias. How about this?
Colton: Thanks for your assistance. We may have conveyed the wrong impression to you about what we were asking.
You said that "Scenario B is exactly the same as Scenario A"
We intended to convey a difference in the two scenarios to you, as follows:
Scenario A: Jack is (absolutely--or in relation to Jill) stationary. Jill is (absolutely--or relative to Jack)) moving at .6c.
Scenario B: Jill is (absolutely--or in relation to Jack) stationary. Jack is (absolutely--or relative to Jill) moving at .6c.
Are you saying that Jack being absolutely stationary would constitute the "exact same" frame of reference as he would have if he accelerated to a speed of .6c, then cruised inertially?
====
In the comments accompanying your graph, you say that the "second picture" (where the "max time" is set at 10) is indentical to "Jill’s frame of reference in scenario A."
But please remember that Jill is MOVING, not stationary in scenario A.
One of us has been led to believe that if Jill's frame of reference in scenario A is CHANGED to a view where she is stationary, rather than moving, she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6).
Is that wrong? That is, is it wrong to conclude that "she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6)" if she is deemed to be stationay?
Thanks again for your time and help, Colton.
One Brow said: "I've been trying to avoid the use of pronouns that would distinguish us, because I think that helps avoid appearances of bias. How about this?"
Is this any different than your first proposal?
I should have known better than to make any attempt to summarize what YOU agree to. That pretty much depends on the hour of the day or the day of the week.
It's my question, so let's not pretend otherwise. Just leave yourself out of it. Let's see what he says.
I have emphasized the word "CHANGED" in an attempt to clarify the question we are asking.
He may come back and say: "It is impossible to change anything," who knows? He can, and presumably will, give any answer he believes is correct. Whether you or I, or both of us, or neither of us, agree with his answer is, or should be, irrelevant to him.
Just leave out the "one of us" reference entirely. Make it clear that I am asking the question, not you, if you don't agree.
I don't want to innudate him with questions, but I think I know what his answer would be (and what number he would enter for "max time" on his machine) if I asked this question:
Assume that John stationary and that Sam is travelling at a speed of .6c relative to John.
a. If John measures a distance to be 4.8 light seconds in his frame, what will Sam measure that distance to be in his frame?
b. If John's clock indicates that 8 seconds elapse between two events, how much time will Sam's clock indicate elapses between the same two events?
Granted, he would need to know more than that--There would be no length contraction perpendicular to the direction of travel, for example, so that would have to be known, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.
aintnuthin said...
Is this any different than your first proposal?
I chaned teh wording to "has been led to believe", as you requested.
I should have known better than to make any attempt to summarize what YOU agree to. It's my question, so let's not pretend otherwise. Just leave yourself out of it. Let's see what he says.
OK.
I have emphasized the word "CHANGED" in an attempt to clarify the question we are asking.
I left it in all caps. Or, did you mean in another place?
Just leave out the "one of us" reference entirely. Make it clear that I am asking the question, not you, if you don't agree.
OK.
I don't want to innudate him with questions, but I think I know what his answer would be (and what number he would enter for "max time" on his machine) if I asked this question:
Assume that John stationary and that Sam is travelling at a speed of .6c relative to John.
a. If John measures a distance to be 4.8 light seconds in his frame, what will Sam measure that distance to be in his frame?
b. If John's clock indicates that 8 seconds elapse between two events, how much time will Sam's clock indicate elapses between the same two events?
What two events? Distance to what? If you don't specify this, there are no unique answers.
Maybe that's your point, or question?
Next try:
Colton: ainuthin had a message, with a few questions, for you.
Thanks for your assistance. We may have conveyed the wrong impression to you about what we were asking.
You said that "Scenario B is exactly the same as Scenario A"
We intended to convey a difference in the two scenarios to you, as follows:
Scenario A: Jack is (absolutely--or in relation to Jill) stationary. Jill is (absolutely--or relative to Jack)) moving at .6c.
Scenario B: Jill is (absolutely--or in relation to Jack) stationary. Jack is (absolutely--or relative to Jill) moving at .6c.
Are you saying that Jack being absolutely stationary would constitute the "exact same" frame of reference as he would have if he accelerated to a speed of .6c, then cruised inertially?
====
In the comments accompanying your graph, you say that the "second picture" (where the "max time" is set at 10) is indentical to "Jill’s frame of reference in scenario A."
But please remember that Jill is MOVING, not stationary in scenario A.
I have been led to believe that if Jill's frame of reference in scenario A is CHANGED to a view where she is stationary, rather than moving, she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6).
Is that wrong? That is, is it wrong to conclude that "she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6)" if she is deemed to be stationay?
===
I don't want to innudate you with questions, but I think I know what your answer would be (and what number you will enter for "max time" in your application) if I asked this question:
Assume that John stationary and that Sam is travelling at a speed of .6c relative to John.
a. If John measures a distance to be 4.8 light seconds in his frame, what will Sam measure that distance to be in his frame?
b. If John's clock indicates that 8 seconds elapse between two events, how much time will Sam's clock indicate elapses between the same two events?
Thanks again for your time and help, Colton.
One Brow said: "What two events? Distance to what? If you don't specify this, there are no unique answers.
Maybe that's your point, or question?"
Yes, it's my question, and my point.
Take this example:
Earth observer measures the distance to a star, which star has always motionless with respect to it, to be 4 light years. Earth then crosses paths with a rocket which is moving at a speed of .6c relative to it (and relative to the distance star).
Question: How far does the rocket perceive the distance to be?
Answer: No way to say, given the current information. You must tell me which object is moving--the earth, or the rocket?
The rocket. OK, then the rocket will see the distance to be 3.2 light years.
Wait, I got it wrong. It's the earth (and the star) that are moving at .6c, but the earth still measures the distance to be 4 light years in it's frame.
New, revised answer: Then the rocket will see the distance to be 5 light years, not 3.2.
Notice that the answer to the question of 'which one is moving" is always "contained in" (implied by) the answer.
Whoever measures the distance to be shorter is the one moving. Same with time.
Do you disagree?
Under one scenario (earth stationary), Colton should should put 4 years as the "max time" on his machine.
Under the other (earth moving), he should put 5 years as the max time.
Machines don't give you the right answer if you don't give them the right information.
====
When Jill and Jack both see that her clock is running slower than his, they should both agree that she is moving and he is stationary--if they give any credence to SR.
One Brow said: "Next try:"
With one exception, that's fine.
The exception:
Just delete everything after the second line break (beginning with "I don't want...'). I meant it when I said I didn't want to inundate him with questions, and I didn't intend to forward that question to him (at least not now).
In the meantime, I have given my own answers. If you agree, then maybe there's no need to ask him anything as far as "settling a disagreement" goes.
I said:"With one exception, that's fine.
The exception:
Just delete everything after the second line break ..."
But don't forget to include the "thank you" to Colton, OK?
On the prior page you asked a number of questions about inertia which I did not respond to for a couple of reasons:
1. I have already answered them at length, and
2. In trying to defend yourself, you answered them for yourself--in the same way I did.
This one was too ridiculous to merit a reponse, I thought:
One Brow asked: "...are you saying we have a way of knowing that the Sun, inner planets, etc. weren't all moving to beging with, and when Pioneer blasted off, it blasted to stop and let everything else go by? What's that way?"
Let me respond to that with a question of my own:
"...are you saying we have a way of knowing we're not all just brains in a vat? What's that way?"
A couple of excerpts from the previous page. Do you see any hint whatsover of inconsistency in your own statements?:
Excerpt 1:
I said: "The math of SR (and Lorentz) says that if two clocks are moving with respect to each other, one and ONLY one will run slower than the other. And it will always be the moving clock, not both."
You responded: "I agree. One you determine which clock is moving, the math says that clock will run slower."
Excerpt 2:
"aintnuthin said...
First you claimed that, if the motion was reversed, Jack's clock would still read 10 and Jill's would still read 8.
I stand by that claim."
One Brow said: "Once you determine which clock is moving, the math says that clock will run slower."
If your also gunna say that SR tells you that you can never tell who's moving, this presents a little bit of a dilemma, don't it?
It becomes worthless. Not a theory of physics at all. Simply a metapysical assertion.
All of it's "ability to predict" is illusory. It won't tell you a damn thing until you know something which it says you can never know--kinda like "God's will," know what I'm sayin?
One Brow said: "Of course, what you think of as a change in birthday is actually a change in birthplace, metaphorically."
As usual, you miss the whole point of the analogy.
This is typical of some. They just can't seem to grasp analogical reasoning. As soon as they find some literal difference, they dismiss all analogies as "stupid" and "irrelevant."
The other day I was trying to make a point with one of my great-great grandbabies. I tried to make it interesting to him by using one of Aesop's fables--the one about the tortoise and the hare.
After I told the tale, and showed him how it related to him, he merely said:
"That aint got nuthin to do with me. I aint no rabbit."
Your reaction to my statements throughout this thread have been very consistent. You will deny what I say, on any "grounds" that occur to you, no matter what it is. Even if it is something you have just agreed to.
All I have to do is say "X" and you will immediately say "Not X." Then if I turn around and say "Not X," you will immediately say "X."
This is why I say that it is not my idea of an honest, intelligent discussion. It give me certain tactical advantages from a "debate contest" point of view, though. I can easily get you to contradict yourself simply by contradicting myself. I have deliberately done this, in the hope of pointing out "your" self-contradiction, and thereby inducing you to analyze your own claims in more depth.
That hasn't worked, though. You simply deny that you ever said the two contradictory things. Again, not my idea of an honest, intelligent discussion.
I will give in one more shot. I should have given more prominence to this recent claim of yours:
"In particular, my understanding is that...she can calculate Jack will see/observe 10 seconds to pass on his clock."
YES. You are absolutely correct. We agree. You are right. She can in fact do that, rather easily, too.
All it requires is for to reform her ignorant slut ways and acknowledge the truth that Fowler has already asserted, i.e., that she is moving, not stationary, as she falsely insists.
It has, I hear-tell, become criminal to question any aspect of SR. Heresy on stilts, and an indication of crack-pottery so severe that institutionalization is called for. What is needed is some good old Orwellian "crimestop," ya know.
Orwell defining crimestop: ""The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."
I asked: ""...are you saying we have a way of knowing we're not all just brains in a vat? What's that way?"
Here I am making light of the tenor of the question, not suggesting that there is no possible answer. I have already answered the question, during our previous discussion. The question smacks of "crimestop."
In Newtonian terms, considering the solar system as a system, we know the pioneer is moving because we know it has not gone to, and then parked itself at, the point which is the center of matter of the system.
Considering the universe as a whole, we also know that it did not park itself at the center of mass of that system either. If it did, everything in the solar system (as well as the entire universe) would be revolving around that point, and it aint.
Since physics, broadly speaking, is the study of "matter in motion," the assertion that you "can never tell who's moving" is a denial of the whole body of physics and the denial of the possiblility of ever having an intelligible physics.
But dogma prevails, nonethless. No matter how many other facts must be denied, no matter how many contradictions and absurdities are generated, one eternal truth MUST be asserted and maintained, at any and all cost, to wit:
YOU CAN NEVER TELL WHO'S MOVING!!
The irony is that this absurd position doesn't even "save" Al's relativity principle, as it is designed to do.
This is just another failed attempt to implicitly equate epistemology with ontology. Even if the claim that "you can never tell who's moving" were 100% true, it would still imply no more than an epistemological limitation.
It would not place a limit on actual possibilities. Much less would it require "reality" to be self-contradictory.
"You can't tell who's moving" is still a completely different claim than either:
1. Because you can't tell who's moving, neither can be moving, or
2. Because you can't tell who's moving, both are moving faster/slower than the other.
SR apologists can't stop with a mere epistemological claim, because that alone can't cure the logical self-contradiction their position entails. So they go to step two, and try to assert (1) and/or (2) from above and pretend that gives the theory consistency.
Fraid not. It simply makes SR look doubly foolish. The first assertion (you can never tell who's moving) makes a fool out of SR as a matter of physics.
The second assertion(therefore nothing is moving) simply shows it's advocates to be fools as a matter of metaphysics, or, really, just plain fools, all metaphysics aside.
aintnuthin said...
Poincare merely pointed out that if (clearly a problematic "if") each observer always assumed that he was motionless, then the appearance of a notion similar to Galileo's would emerge. The similarity being that, given such as assumption, one would be deprived of the means, within a closed system, of detecting his own motion.
That doesn't make any sense. Of course you can detect motion in a closed system, tht's why acceleration is an absolute.
Poincare quickly saw through the theoretical and practical contradictions such a universal assumption would generate. Apparently some did not.
Which is why Mach, Dingle, etc. are considered people who misunderstood SR, as opposed to people who contributed to its understanding.
No, they do not. You seem to have great difficulty in distinguishing the math of the LT from the relativity postulate of Al.
None at all. In LR, the moving observer is just WRONG. That does not change his observations.
The LT say the moving clock will run slower.
Actually, they say the clock mo0ving in a different inertail state from you will run slower.
They do NOT say that a train is not moving.
Of course not. Neither does Einstein's relativity principle.
One Brow said: "The postulates of SR (the two I stated above) have been confirmed to the point that there is no reason to treat them as other than fact. LR certainly uses them."
Yet another occasion where you demonstate your naivety in the realm of the philsophy of science and your total inability to distinguish postulates from "fact."
Do go on. Show how "no reason to treat them as other than fact" means they are facts (as opposed to the intuitive leaps from inductive logic I have previously describede them as). It should prove interesting.
One Brow said: "To which postulate do you refer? The two in SR are:
1) Identical experiements in different inertial frames produce identical results.
2) As a result of 1), all inertial frames measure light at the same speed.
Which predicitons disagree with these postulates?"
Slow down, Hoss. To begin with, I don't agree with your statement of the postulates.
Wikipedia gives a longer, weaker version of them, but basically identifies these two postulates..
For one thing, to the extent, if any, that the postulates say the the LT are mutually reciprocal, then that is inconsistent with the LT themselves, which say that, as between two relatively moving objects, only one has it's measurments of time and length distorted.
Actually, the LT say that you will observe the time and length of objects in different inertial states to be distorted.
For another, to the extent the postulates imply that you can never tell which of two moving objects is moving, then ALL predictions of SR are inconsistent with the postulates, because then all predictions are meaningless and impossible.
Well, which of those two postulates do you take to mean "you can never tell who is moving"? Because if you can't derive that from the postulates, then what does that say of your continued criticism in that vein?
I just began reading your extensive responses, and I see many claims being made by you in these posts giving your authoritative exposition on LR, too (and here I thought, all along, that you were only an expert on SR, eh?).
I'm not an expert on either, but I have been reading up on LR over teh course of our conversation.
Knowing that I have made a post which quotes the Sexl-Mansouri study, which you probably had not read when making these assertions, I am deferring any comment on your claims about what LR postulates or predicts.
I read the part of the Sexi-Mansouri study you quoted. There is nothing in that quote that makes me think the Sexi-Mansouri disagrees with what I have been saying or reflects a different understanding of LR than I already have.
Ummmm, well, I guess you might begin by understanding and addressing what I am saying rather than twisting it into a straw man which you can attack, eh?
Your real difficulty is that I do understand what you are sayihng, and I understand the theory, and I know the difference, while you do not.
One Brow said: "The Lorentz transforms actually follow from the postulates of SR. Since the transforms follw from the postulates, and the predictions follow from the transforms, it is unreasonable to say the predictions don't follow from the postulates."
1. My understanding is that the LT do not strictly follow from the postulates, and that it is generally acknowledged that Al mathematical derivation of them was faulty, but that they can be derived with the addition of a number of other assumptions.
There are different ways you can formulate SR. However, the only additional assumptions needed, beside the postulates I stated, are the standard scientific assumptions of homogeneity, isotropy, memorylessness, etc. I'm not aware of any field of science that does not make use of those assumptions. This is also in the wikipedia article.
2. But that's just a technical matter. More fundamentally, you are missing the point of the objection, which I have already responded to a post or two back. The problem arises in the interpretation of the postulates. Any given interpretation of a postulate can lead to an inconsistency with the strict mathematical implications of the formulaes it adopts if it is an improper or poorly-considered interpretation.
Then ahow an accurate interpretation of these postulates that creates an actual inconsistency.
If, for example, I claim that evolution proves that there is a God, because it's postulates imply as much, that is a matter of interpretation, not math. It wouldn't in any way undermine or alter the mathematical formulaes which evolution might employ to reach conclusions.
OK.
aintnuthin said: "The slowing of clocks is a unilateral, not a reciprocal, effect."
You responded: "Except, it isn't in any form of relativity."
See my last few posts for my response to this assertion on your part.
I did. Your still wrong.
What "incorrect assertion" would that be. I understood you to explicitly agree with my comments about "relativity" that I made in connection with Poincare and different "forms of relativity."
Your assertion that observers in a moving object will measure the clocks on a stationary object to be going faster.
But, that aside, the claim that "The slowing of clocks is a unilateral, not a reciprocal, effect," in the LT is either correct or incorrect, without regard to "any form of relativity."
Relativity tells you how to use the equations. They are meaningless without being used in some theory of relativity.
I do not make claims ONLY AFTER determining that they are "allowable" under the postulates of SR. In a choice between SR and reason, I will take reason.
Fortunately, SR (the actual theory, not some Dingle-mach misrepresentation) is a subset of reason, so this choice is never necessary.
And it should therefore be easy to understand when such matters are relevant to the issue being discussed and when they aren't, eh?
We sometimes disagree on what is relevant.
He does NOT say Jill is wrong in interpreting things exactly as Jack predicts she will. He does not say, for example, that she is wrong when she sees 8 seconds on her clock. He does say that she is wrong in assuming she is motionless. By implication, he is also saying that any and all unsound arguments based on this assumption are also wrong.
Measurements are just measurements. The can not be right or wrong.
She is wrong, per Fowler, in her assumption that she is motionless. Or are you claiming, that like you often imply, Fowler thinks that Jack and Jill are BOTH are motionless?
The measurements come out the same regardless of whether Jill is moving or not.
I said: "As a sidelight, contrary to you claim when analyzing the "correct" solution to this problem, the prof. did NOT assume that the distance is "greater for the moving party."
You responded: "You must have read my analysis in a very interesting fashion to pull that from it. Your statement is unrecognizable to me."
Previously you said:
"If Jack is moving, he has the shorter yardstick. He measures more yards in the same distance than Jill. So, Jack sees a greater distance than Jill.
I can see why you like to avoid details."
That was not well-stated, I'll grant. It's still indicates you read my analysis in a very interesting fashion, to take a specific instance and generalize it in that fashion.
You clearly said the moving party will see the same distance to be greater than the stationary party. Then added a remark which indictated that your claim was indubitable.
I clearly stated that Jack will see a greater distance to clock1. As Ihave since clarified, this is because clock1 shares Jack inertial state.
As I said before, I swear that I remember what you say much better than you do.
Possibly. However, your interpretation of such is quite poor.
And when I do, you simply assert that: "You must have read my analysis in a very interesting fashion to pull that from it. Your statement is unrecognizable to me."
Recognize it now?
I recognize my statement, but not what you pulled from it.
Now, you want to ask me if you also made the contrary claim? Yes, you did that also.
As usual, you say both "true" and false" and then claim you were "right," whatever the correct answer turns out to be.
As usual, you miss the reason I offer a correction and the real point of contention, and then claim I'm being inconsistent.
One Brow said:"No, Jill measures the time elapsed on Jack's clock, from Jill's frame, as 6.4 seconds. This has nothing to do with what Jack thinks."
It has nothing to do with what Jack thinks, I agree. It has to do with what Jill THINKS Jack THINKS.
Wrong again. It has to do with what Jill measures. Period.
She "thinks" he is moving, so she "thinks" that he "thinks" the time elapsed is only 6.4
That's not the way Fowler put it, but that's what he's saying.
That's not what he is saying, which is why he didn't put it that way.
She is saying that, in Jack's frame, he is seeing 6.4 seconds elapse. She is saying, in effect, that when clock 1 read 0, clock 3 read 3.6 seconds, and that therefore Jack would conclude that only 6.4 seconds have elapsed in his frame, even though his clock does say 10.
No, Jill recognizes that Jack measures the time passed as 10 seconds.
This elasped time in HER frame is 8 seconds, not 6.4, so this is wrong:
She is, to put it most directly, assuming that length contraction and time dilation are "mutually reciprocal" and therefore that, "as seen in Jack's frame" the elapsed time will only be 6.4 seconds. She is wrong.
The degree to which you misunderstand this is highly amusing..
One Brow said: "No, Jill measures the time elapsed on Jack's clock..."
She isn't measuring a god-damned thing. She is making assertions. False assertions based on false premises, not "measurements." See later posts which demonstrate this directly.
I have. I was amused. They demonstrate that you didn't understand.
Show me a single place where Fowler even begins to suggest that she "measures" anything in Jack's frame. He doesn't. How could she? She's not in his frame.
Jill measures things about Jack's frame, not in his frame.
Here again, you can't distinguish "measurement" from deduction.
Here, you can't tell the difference from measuring something in a different inertial state and making measurements while you are in that inertial state.
I said:"Per Eddington, the distance she sees is NOT correct, it is much LESS (not greater) than she perceives it to be. Again, you can prove or disprove just about any proposition you want by applying the vague premises of SR and shifting assumptions virtually at will."
You responded: "What makes eddington's analysis more accurate, or even equally accurate, to Fowler's? Can you quote thins from Eddington?"
I didn't say, or even imply, that one was more accurate than another. That was beside the point I made, which you naturally missed.
Got it. Since some people (like Eddington, perhaps, although you certainly didn't offer a quote that even support the position you ascribe to him) can misuse SR to get an inaccurate analysis, that means an accurate analysis can't be had. That fits in with your history on scientific positions fairly well.
Just like you couldn't understand the Greek professor.
Riiiiiiight. I saw through his criticisms in a way you didn't.
Yes, you've said that before. I shouldn't have posed this question at this time. If Colton says otherwise (or you come to see otherwise in some other fashion), please come back and answer this question then.
Since he has already agreed...
One Brow said:"The equations are inevitable consequences of the two posulates I mentioned above, neither postulate of which involves or implies a "universal standard for time".
I didn't say a (literal) universal time was "required." Read it again. I noted, however, that the equations make a clear UNILATERAL (not mutually reciprocal) distinction between two objects moving relative to each other. In order to do this it must implicitly assume that the "proper" time detemines the adjusted time (for the moving object).
Proper time refers to time in the inertial state chosen as the rest frame. Of course choosing the rest frame determines which other states show adjusted time.
This was preceded by me saying:
"Yes, which is just another way of saying that you must have a "preferred frame," with "proper time" as a standard, to reach ANY conclusions whatsoever. In effect, SR must fully and immediately revert to the basic premises of LR (that there is a time which applies to both--or all-frames under consideration)."
Right, and actually not strong enough. It's not just that there is a preferred frame with a proper time that applies to all inertial states. It's that any inertial frame can act as a preferred frame with a proper time applies to all other states.
See that last part:"... there is a time which applies to both--or all-frames under consideration."
That is the "universal" (common) time within the context of any given solution provided by the LT, and the context of my comment.
Rght, with the proviso above.
Lorentz did, however, develop the equations to apply to a theory assuming a "universal time," just as I said. I didn't say it was "required."
OK.
One Brow said:"By contrast, there is no experiement that can confirm LR over SR. There is no experiment that can determine the true rest frame, even if you accept LR."
I disagree with your suggestion that question of which of two relatively is moving requires the determination of a "true rest frame."
Name some other method of making that determination.
Furthermore, to the extent that you are claiming this "contrast" is in any way determinative,
What do think I am claiming this comparison (since I am asserting a similarity, it is a comparison) is determinative of..
the very fact that you make this distinction simply proves my point (confusing what is known or knowable--epistemology--with what *is,* or "is not"--ontology.
Actually, epistemology would be about what can be discerned/discoverd and how, not about what can be known. However, as I have said, if your only claim is that there must be some ontological notion of "really moving" that can't be discovered or discerned, but must be determined in other fashions, I have no problem with this.
My statement has absolutely nothing to do with confirming LR over SR. I don't have to know which of two objects is moving to know that both can't be at rest. No "experiments" are needed to prove that.
OK. Since in SR they are never both at rest, this is not relevant.
The suggestion that, unless you have an experiment to prove otherwise, you can't validly that "both are at rest" is, as I said, to confuse epistemology with ontology.
OK. Since in SR they are never both at rest, this is not relevant.
The either was, or was not, a "big bang" whether we can ever experimentally demonstrate that or NOT.
Unless there was an event that had some of the properties that we associate with the big bang, but not all.
You have, in the course of this thread, asserted that "both objects are moving;" that "neither object is moving"
You are again interpreting things in an interesting fashion.
and that either view is "equally valid."
If you mean, "the view that A is at rest" is equally valid with "the view B is at rest", of course it is. Do you have a reason to say one is more valid than the other?
Based upon the asserted inability to know which is moving.
Nice to see you still can't tell the difference between knowing something and being able to determine something based on measurements. Good job separating ontology and epistemology, there.
You call such claims "stupid." Are you admitting to your stupidity, that it?
I'll happily say that the interpretations you are throwing out are stupid.
Once again, this has NOTHING to do with any claim involving a prefence of SR over LR, or vice versa.
Really? OK.
This issue here is about distinguishing objective perspectives from subjective ones and distinguishing claims about "what we are able to know" with claims about "what is, or what is possible."
What's an "objective perspective" supposed to be?
One Brow said:"You have confused the idea of "unanswerable" with "arbitrarily answerable". It's not that there is an answer to the proper velocity of an object that is not discoverable.
"Proper velocity" is not the question I raised. You can say that any question is "arbitrarily answerable" if (1) you don't know the answer and/or if (2) you do not believe the answer can ever be known.
You could, but that would be inaccurate and would confuse the notion of "unanswerable" with "arbitrarily answerable".
But that is quite different from saying there are "objective facts" which determine things ONLY AFTER you make an arbitrary choices. Any such "facts" are no longer objective, it they don't exist until you make a choice.
Somehow, you still seem to think the choice matters in determining the objective facts. It doesn't. Jill makes the same measurements whether she believes she is moving or whether she believes Jack is moving.
As just one of many examples, you have claimed that there is no "objective way" to determine the history of acceleration of a given object, not even a split second after it ceases to accelerate. You conclude, therefore, that to claim it had recently been accelerated would be "arbitrary."
That would be the assumption of memorylessness. However, if you can describe a measurement Jill can make in the present that reveals a history of acceleration in her past, I'm all ears.
Outside of that, acceleration is not arbitrary. The notion that Jill used to be at rest and is not moving is arbitrary. It can just as easily be the Jill used to be moving and is now at rest.
You call such claims "stupid." Are you admitting to your stupidity, that it?
I'll happily say that the interpretations you are throwing out are stupid.
Once again, this has NOTHING to do with any claim involving a prefence of SR over LR, or vice versa.
Really? OK.
This issue here is about distinguishing objective perspectives from subjective ones and distinguishing claims about "what we are able to know" with claims about "what is, or what is possible."
What's an "objective perspective" supposed to be?
One Brow said:"You have confused the idea of "unanswerable" with "arbitrarily answerable". It's not that there is an answer to the proper velocity of an object that is not discoverable.
"Proper velocity" is not the question I raised. You can say that any question is "arbitrarily answerable" if (1) you don't know the answer and/or if (2) you do not believe the answer can ever be known.
You could, but that would be inaccurate and would confuse the notion of "unanswerable" with "arbitrarily answerable".
But that is quite different from saying there are "objective facts" which determine things ONLY AFTER you make an arbitrary choices. Any such "facts" are no longer objective, it they don't exist until you make a choice.
Somehow, you still seem to think the choice matters in determining the objective facts. It doesn't. Jill makes the same measurements whether she believes she is moving or whether she believes Jack is moving.
As just one of many examples, you have claimed that there is no "objective way" to determine the history of acceleration of a given object, not even a split second after it ceases to accelerate. You conclude, therefore, that to claim it had recently been accelerated would be "arbitrary."
That would be the assumption of memorylessness. However, if you can describe a measurement Jill can make in the present that reveals a history of acceleration in her past, I'm all ears.
Outside of that, acceleration is not arbitrary. The notion that Jill used to be at rest and is not moving is arbitrary. It can just as easily be the Jill used to be moving and is now at rest.
It is not "arbitrary" to say that a car going 100 mph has been accelerated more in the recent past than the car currently parked in your garage.
I agree. But it can be wrong.
This could be viewed as either an ontological or an epistemological claim in practice, I suppose. But you routinely go further than that, and suggest that if it is not known, or supposedly "can't" be known, then it cannot "have" a history of acceleration. It MUST be considered as having no history (rather than simply an "unknown" history).
Actually, my claim is that the historical acceleration is meaningless in determining the present situation, because the acceleration may have been from a moving state to a rest state. Tht is different from declaring the history to not have existed.
One Brow said: "Actually, under SR, the part of reality that can be objective (observers can compare things on close spacetime proximity) are the same, regardless of the choice of rest frame."
As soon as you start making "observers" an essential part of what is "real," you have once again dove head-first into subjectivism.
One of the identifers of what is objective is that it looks the same to all oberservers, regardless of perspective.
Al wants to claim, for example, that if I don't see the effects of a super-nova until centuries after they "actually happen" for an observer in "close promixity" to the explosion, then they "happened" at a different time for me, and that my "reality" is different. Such claims have nothing to do with objective reality or time. They simply attempt to elevate subjective perception to the status of "reality."
Your alternative is what? That you don't actually see the super-nova when it light reaches the earth? That you really see the supernova when it explodes? More to the point, since you're confused on the roles of observers in the explanations (more on that in the next paragraph), that the light of the super-nova reaches earth when it explodes, and you seeing that light millions of years later is an illusion? That some trick of your brain keeps you from seeing the light until the proper time?
The arrival of the light to earth is an objective phenomenon. When we talk about 'when the observer sees the light arrive', that's anthroporphization in an attempt to make the phenomenon relatable. The light arrives at different times on Sirius, Alpha Centauri, and earth. If you look at two different supernova, it's entirely possible that the light from the two events reaches earth simultaneously, that the light from event A freaches Sirius first, and the light from event B reaches Alpha Centauri first. The light arrives whether there is an observer or not. The light arrives at the same time on earth whether there is an observer there or not. The effects of the events are simultaneous on earth, whether there is an observer on earth or not.
"Objective" does NOT mean something that two people with two different perspective will "agree on" in terms of MERE APPEARANCE. If it did, nothing could be objective (as Berkeley claimed).
Jill's clock reades 0 and clock1 reads 0 when Jill passes clock1. Jill's clock reades 8 and Jack's clock reads 10 when Jill passes Jack. Every honest observer capapble of viewing those events will agree on that. If you want to go with another definitiion of objective, feel free, but it will incorporate that idea, at the very least.
One Brow said:"That a highly limited and limiting version of physics. Changes which affect the oberver are still physical changes."
Yes, they are, or can be, but that's not the issue. In areas of perception, two things are required, to wit:(1) a subject (an observer) and (2) an object (the thing observed). Things which "affect" the subject are not involved in the distinction between subject and object. A change in the object is "objective change" in this context.
Sorry, but changes in the spatial relationship between two objects are also objective changes. Night is objectively different from day, even though there is no change in the sun or the earth, just in how they are oriented with respect to each other.
If no pereceptual interaction between subject and object is even being contemplated, then that context changes.
The earth has no percetion of the sun. There was still a night and a day before anything was aroung to perceive it.
If you are in a context where no are only dealing with an "observer," then "objective" takes on a different meaning. In that context, a sharp stick in the ass might be an "objective" sensation while a hallucination would be a "subjective" sensation (originating and caused solely WITHIN the subject). In is important not to confuse one context with another.
I agree, it is important not to confuse them. It's also important to not dismiss a wide range of objective effects as subjective.
A "subjective" change is a different animal in each context.
OK.
aintnuthin: Once again, Jill is wrong about what Jack thinks, because Jack thinks the time elapsed is 10 seconds, not 6.4 seconds.
One Brow: Once again, this is about what Jill measures, not what she thinks.
*My* confusion? I'll say it again. Jill has not "measured" a god-damned thing in Jack's frame.
Exactly. Your confusion is that you think the 6.4 seconds is meant to represent some sort of measure in Jack's frame. It's a measure in Jill's frame only.
She is deducing conclusions from premises, that's all. She is assuming that 6.4 seconds have ACTUALLY passed in Jack's frame, and, furthermore that Jack will "measure" it to be 6.4 seconds, because, and ONLY because, she has (falsely) assumed that she is motionless and Jack is moving.
The 6.4 seconds remain unchanged even when Jill is moving and jack is motionless, because it is a measure of the time passed on jack's clock in Jill's frame.
At best she has "measured" things in her frame,
Yes.
and then "transformed" those measurements (via a mental process) into "measurements" which she supposes Jack would arrive at in his frame.
No.
By that (mental) process, she thereby arrives at what Jack will "think" the true distance is(3.84 LS) when she "knows" it to be 4.8 LS.
The 3.84 LS is the distance Jack would measure an object that is 4.8 LS from Jill (as Jill measures it) and in the same inertial state as Jill. This distance is unchanged regardless of when jack is moving or Jill is moving.
The prof., by telling you who is moving, has already told you that Jack properly measures 6 LS in his frame. In doing so, he has also told you that Jill is completely mistaken in imputing a distance of 3.84 LS to Jack's frame.
The relevance being?
The source of her mistake? Her false assumption that she is not moving while Jack is. The cause of that? The dictates of the prof (SR actually) that:
1. All observers always assume they are motionless, no matter how overwhelming the evidence to the contrary may be, and
Which of the above-stated SR postulates makes this claim?
2. The (incoherent) "dogma" that all transformations are mutually "reciprocal" as a matter of "objective physical reality."
People measure what they measure.
Refering to Sexl-Mansouri, I said "The last sentence quoted makes the point"
A point I don't disagree with.
You don't, eh? Then why have you repeatedly made the opposite claim in your long series of posts? Do you now retract all such claims?
I haven't been making the opposite claim. I've been saying for several pages of comments that LR is a valid way of interpreting the world.
One Brow said:"Jill makes the same measurements under LR or SR. The only "erroneous" claim is is whether she is measuring with accurate instruments or not."
To the extent she was actually "making measurements," in her own frame, yes. To the extent that she was imputing measurements to another frame, via deduction from pre-existing hypotheses, she would reach entirely different conclusions about time and distance in Jack's frame.
Since Fowler does have Jill do this, it's not relevant.
Is the distinction between measurement and deduction even beginning to creep up on you?
I'm well ahead of you there.
One Brow said:"I don't think that is what Jill does."
That's what the prof does, as a supposed way of "explaining" why Jill asserts that clock 1 lags 3.6 seconds behind clock 2. Again, an alternate way of saying what Jill means is to simply say that, when clock 1 read 0, clock 2 must have read 3.6, and "counted" up to 10 from there.
It true that in Jill's inertial state, clock1 reads 0 when clock2 reads 3.6 seconds.
I said:"The dogma of reciprocity (each sees the other's clock to move more slowly) is a consequence of the unproven postulates of SR, not of it's mathematical predictions."
One Brow said: "It's a common feature of SR and LR."
Jesus-fuckin-Christ, Eric. You just said you agreed with Sexl when they pointed out that this is NOT a "feature" of LR?
I don't know that Sexl-Mansouri was using "see" in the same way we have been. In LR, each sees the other's clock to move more slowly, but the truly moving party make corrections to claculate the stationary party's clock moves faster. So, I do agree with Sexl-Mansouri, but what they said does not contrdict that under LR, people in motion observe the stationary clocks as moving more slowly.
Which is it? Or is it simply, as usual, that you have misread them to say what you want them to say (i.e., to "agree with you' as all experts always do)?
Interesting that you assume, since I interpret them differently than you, that I misread them.
I said: "No matter how valid her arguments are (or could be), they still remain unsound."
You responded: "A valid LR perspective."
Just never tiring of the non sequitur "responses," eh, Eric?
Actually, it was directly relevant.
LR has nothing to do with this. This is based on the CLEARLY STATED hypothesis of Fowler, in the context of SR, not LR. According to his hypothesis, Jill is NOT motionless. Get it? Somehow I doubt it.
That Jill accelerated, and therefore has a history of motion, is non-arbitrary. That she accelerated from rest to moving, as opposed for moving to rest, is arbitrary.
Any deduction she makes which presume the contrary, must, according to Fowler, therefore be unsound. Get it? Somehow I doubt it.
I do get it, but using soundness to describe that Jill must currently be in motion, based on a history of acceleration, is taking an LR perspective. You keep trying to bring LR perspectives into the discussion, and then complaining about my reponses to those LR perspectives as non-sequiturs.
One Brow said:"Actually, she does, because she can measure the rate of Bruce's clock, and will measure it to be moving a half the speed her own clock goes."
I can't believe you even said this.
Good, now you know the way to prove SR by measurement. Why don't you share it with the world of science?
Nothing I said is new to physicists or any different thean their understanding.
Beyond that, you have just proved the impossible. You have proved that two clocks can each run slower than the other. Kudos!
No, that would be nonsense. I said "she can measure the rate of Bruce's clock, and will measure it to be moving a half the speed her own clock goes." I will also say, "Bruce can measure the rate of her clock, and will measure it to be moving a half the speed his own clock goes." There is combination of those statements that equates to "two clocks can each run slower than the other" except in the fevered confusion of peole who don't understand.
The willful ignorance displayed here is simply astounding.
Yes, but I am trying to cure it.
One Brow said: "Actually, prior in priority to "Which one?" is "Does it matter which one?". Describe a situation where a makes a difference."
Wilful ignorance on stilts.
Supplemented by dodging the question rather than answering it.
I hope not. I just wish I could somehow make myself understandable to the typical 1 year old.
since you would still be teaching them incorrect interpretations, I'd rather you didn't try.
I said: Does she have any empirical basis whatsoever for asserting that Bruce's clock read 12:45 when hers read noon? No, none whatsoever."
One Brow said: "Using the distance between her and Bruce, she can determine the clock really reads 12:45 at that instant.
It's actually an elementary calculation."
This is an EMPIRICAL caculation? Which does not misleadingly purport to "explain" time dilation by reference to irrelevant doppler and signal delays effects?
Signal delay is why Bob reads Bruce's clock to read 12:00 when Bob's clock reads 12:00.
But yes, it's an elementary calculation. Alice meausres Bruce's clock to tick at half the rate hers does, over a period of time whn her clock ticks off 30 minutes. Half of 30 is 15.
By all means, present it. You have once again solved experimental difficulties that have perplexed scientists for years.
The experiemental difficulty is in setting up the clocks, not in the concepts.
In light of the empirical observations made by all parties, and the facts known, SR (or at least the LT portion of SR) dictates only one reasonable conclusion. The time on Bruce's clock is 12:00 at that instant. It is NOT 12:45, as Alice claims.
Bruce is some .433 light-hours from Bob. How does Bob see Bruce's clock as being 12:00 when Bruce's clock actually is 12:00?
I said: "As seen from a moving system clocks in the ether system are fast and measuring rods elongated."
The last sentence quoted makes the point.
Let me spell it out for you, eh, Eric?
"As seen from a moving system clocks in the ether system are fast[that means "not slow"] and measuring rods elongated [that means "not contracted]."
Then, physics is about much more than the objective, in the context you are using it here. More to the point, it means that there are things which are neither objective nor subjective.
Next step: In LR the lorentz transformations are NOT reciprocal.
Right, because LR goes beyond what it measured into an ontological interpretation.
Get it? Somehow I doubt it.
Doubt is good.
I said: "The shadow remains a subjective appearance, not a physical object. In that sense, it is not "objective."
You said: "That's not only wrong, it's moronic It requires the additional assumption that only things which are material can be objective."
No, it only requires understanding of the context and the sense in which the word "objective" is being used here.
Something which is "objective" is that which has the characteristics of an object (hence "objective").
Then, physics is about much more than the objective, in the context you are using it here. More to the point, it means that there are things which are neither objective nor subjective.
A shadow does not appear without a subject to "perceive it." It is a merely diminishment of the amount of light one sees, due to total or partial blockage of the light source. An object, like a planet, exists independently of any sense organs, such as eyesight.
The light strikes the ground, or does not strike teh gournd, regardless of whether anyone is there to percieve it. The molecules move more rapidly, or do not move more rapidly, regardless of the presence of a thermometer. The plants photosynthesize, or do not photosynthsize, regardeless of the presense of an oxygen detector. Day and night are not subjective.
Now, if you want to claim day and night are not matieral, and therefore not objective, fine. But the definition of subjective is not "anything that is not objective". Shadows are not products of the mind. Night does not disappear just because I think it is day.
I will await Colton's response on the subject, but in the meantime, I'm curious about your answers to the following questions. It's a "fill-in-the-blank" type of question asking for one of four answers (1. faster than 2. slower than 3. the same as, or 4. none of the foregoing)
1. If Jill is stationary, and Jack is moving, then SR says Jill's clock will be ________ Jack's clock.
2. If Jill is moving, and Jack is stationary, then SR says Jill's clock will be ________ Jack's clock.
In the frame where Jill is stationary, SR says Jill's clock will be slower than Jack's clock. In he frame where Jack is stationary, SR says Jill's clock will be faster than Jack's clock.
SR says each clock will be both faster and slower than the other, or (b) none of the foregoing,
SR says nothing of the sort.
SR says that one can never know which party is moving and that therefore the question is meaningless.
Again, not true.
1. Well, like me, you have not always been careful and precise, even immediately after making the distinction.
Guilty.
2. Although I fully approve of the distinction Hogg is making, I never did like his choice of terminology. "Observe" is not the word I would have chosen, partly because "see" and "observe" are often used interchangably as synonyms.
I often use "measure" for what Hogg calls "observe".
Rather than "observe" I would have said that a distinction must be made between what one "sees" and what one "concludes" based on what one sees and in conjunction with what one otherwise knows. Then I would add a caveat that valid conclusions must be based on a valid deductive process and well as upon sound premises.
However, this goes much further than what Hogg intended. Observations/measurements are based on the knowledge that can be determined from investigating the environment as it exists now. Conclusions can include notions that are not based on measurements.
As far as terminology goes, I think you are far, far afield if you equate deductions with scientific "measurements." Two radically different things.
I agree completely, and I've mentioned before that there is a difference between what is observed (aka measured) and what can be concluded.
However, meausrements do go farther than just reading numbers, which would be seeing. For example, when you observe that at point A1 an object is at position B1, and then after t seconds it is at position B2, you meausre the speed by using (B2-B2)/t. So, measurements are not calculations/deductions, but they also are not simply what you see.
Third question:
1. If Jill is moving relative to Jack, but thinks she is stationary while Jack is moving, then SR says Jill's clock will be ________ Jack's clock.
What Jill thinks has no effect on the answers. In the frame where Jack is stationary, Jill's clock moves slower than jack's clock.
From all appearances, you would unhesitatingly say that the woman's love has now been "measured."
Which only calls into question your vision.
I have to admit that you were right about one thing. I resisted a discussion of "details" because I knew that it would probably just degenerate into a long series of ad lib changes of assumptions and equivocal reasoning. This was the type of mess which I didn't care to spend a lot time trying to clean up. But it is, of course, also true that the "devil is in the details."
By getting into specifics, you have made clear some of the very fundamental misconceptions which you have been operating under. I would never have suspected that this was your underlying mindset (silly me).
This should be amusing.
As just one example, the following has been made clear to me. For years now, you have been ceaselessly chanting the mantra that "in SR the lorentz transformations are measurably and truly mutually reciprocal as a matter of objective physical fact."
You say it, ad infinitum (without explanation or elaboration). I now see that:
1. You really have no idea what you are saying when reciting this mantra,
2. A fortiori, you really have no idea why you are saying it (i.e., no idea of either the "reason" you are repeating it or the reason why you think you are justified in saying it).
3. As would naturally follow from 1 and 2, you have no clue that your recitation contradicts other assertions you make, and it is inconsistent with other concessions you make.
I await your demonstration of 1), 2) and 3).
Why does Jill "measure" the distance between clocks 1 and 2 to be 4.8 LS while Jack measures it to be 6 LS?
Both Jack and Jill agree that the clocks are not moving with respect to each other, so, in that sense, at least, the "distance" or "space" has not changed. A = A, the "same distance"= the "same distance."
A few pages ago you were arguing that distance was an abstract concept. If it is an abstgract concept, why does it need to be the same in Jill's inertial frame as it is in jack's inertial frame?
So why does Jill "measure" it to be different? Clue: She is using "light seconds" to determine "distance." What is changing here? The distance itself, or, effectively, the speed of light?
The distance. Light-seconds is a convenient unit, but you could easily replace 6LS with 1,798,754,748 meters and 4.8LS with 1,439,003,798.4 meters, and there is no change to the scenario.
Sexl and Mansouri, after a thorough examination of "simultaneity and clock synchronization" ulimately demonstrate that, in LR, the speed of light is constant in ONLY one frame, and that this is true DESPITE the fact the lorentz transformations are still applied (non-reciprocally, of course) to relatively moving systems. How can that be?
In SR, it can not fail to be otherwise. If you take one frame as being the frame of reference, and then use the view of a different frame to make measurments, you'll get a different speed for light. This happens whenever you mix different inertial frames.
You fancy yourself to be an expert on LR, Eric, but have you ever even asked yourself that question(let alone tried to answer it)?
I'm not an expert, but the answer to the question is elementary.
1. The elasped time for Jill will be 12.5 seconds. We did not ask Colton this, but she will measure the distance between the two clocks to be 7.5 light seconds.
2. The elasped time for Jack will be 10 seconds, and the distance will be 6 seconds (a tautology, under the hypothesis we gave him).
Yet, he answered 15+ seconds and 9+ LS, just as I predicted.
Third question (not asked of Colton): If Jack falsely and erroneously assumes that he is motionless, and if he therefore "reciprocally" (and inchoherently) applies the LT to Jill, what will he think Jill thinks the time and distance is?
Answer: He will think that Jill clock reads 8 seconds and that she believes the distance to be 4.8 light seconds.
Since you based that on a false second answer, also wrong.
Just wanted to go on record, before his answer comes in.
Nice of you to do so.
Fourth question (not asked of Colton): If Jill (properly and coherently) applies the LT to Jack's frame, what will she think that Jack measures the time and distance to be (what does he "think" it is)?
Answer: He will conclude that the distance is 6 LS and that the time elapsed is 10 ten seconds.
Except, he answered with 15+ seconds and 9+ LS.
If I say that 10 will always be twice 5, most people will agree.
Does that make the statement mutually reciprocal?
In others words, will it also always be true that 5 is twice 10?
Most obviously, no. The relationship between the terms (5 and 10) is NOT mutually reciprocal in that case.
Agreed.
If I say A is faster than B, wouldn't that also necessarily imply that B is faster than A?
Ummmmm, naw, I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.
Agreed.
Going way back to a question of yours that I have not yet (for a variety of reasons) fully responded to:
Without reviewing the question, I recall you suggesting that going uptown, or say, north, would constitute a different "frame of reference" than going downtown, or, say, south. You asked if I agreed.
No, I don't agree.
So, going uptown is the same as going downtown? Since I was referring to State Street in ESL, east is the same as west? You're never driving a car I'm in, in that case.
That distinction does not square with my understanding of an "inertial frame of reference." Basically, a frame of reference is one in which co-ordinates of time and space are established. Once established, those co-ordinates do not change one iota, depending on the direction in which the frame is thought to be moving (inertially).
This is all accurate, but does not explain your disagreement. You can establish a frame of reference relative to your velocity uptown, and a different frame of reference relative to your velocity downtown. In both cases, co-ordinates of time and space are established. Once established, those co-ordinates do not change one iota, depending on the direction in which the frame is thought to be moving (inertially).
I don't think you actually believe traveling east is the same thing as traveling west. However, you have offered no reason to think they are the same frame of reference.
I will grant that the changing environment you encounter could be expected to be quite different depending on the direction, but I would maintain that the surrounding environment does not change, and has nothing to do with, the inertial frame itself.It seems to me, that as others often do with words such as "synchronize" or phrases such as "the relativity of simultaneity," you impute some "magical" and totally unexplained significance to the term "frame of reference."
I'm sure it does. I do try to demystify these concepts.
You seem to think that throwing in that phrase magically explains anything and everything that might require an explanation.
Not at all. If the phrase accomplishes anything in terms of explanation, it is to prevent the use of the intuitive, but inaccurate, notion of simultaneity that comes from a notion of universal time. However, pointing out that the intuitive notion is wrong is not an explanation.
You do not elaborate on how or why this phrase explains anything, however.
I agree the phrase explains nothing on it's own.
You just throw out the phrase "frame of reference" and are satisified that all necessary answers have thereby been provided.
Not at all. However, it is a building block of the explanation.
Our pal, Fowler, sums up his little presentation with this claim:
"However, by bringing in the other necessary consequences of the theory of relativity, the Lorentz contraction of lengths, and that clocks synchronized in one frame are out of synchronization in another by a precise amount that follows necessarily from the constancy of the speed of light, the whole picture becomes completely consistent!"
This claim is utterly bogus and completely misleading, especially this part:
"...clocks synchronized in one frame are out of synchronization in another by a precise amount that follows necessarily from the constancy of the speed of light.."
For reasons that I have already clearly elucidated:
1) They are not "out of synchronization" in any objective, physically meaningful way.
2) The lack of synchronization does NOT "follow necessarily from the constancy of the speed of light."
They are out of synchronization in Jill's frame, in an objective, physically meaningful way Jill can measure. We can conclude that from SR postulates, which include the constancy of light, that this is what Jill will measure.
It follows (a) from the incoherent and senseless adherence to the claim that the LT are "mutually reciprocal" combined with (b) the manifestly false and ad hoc claims asserted by those who wish to "save the hypothesis."
No more, no less, when you analyze it. The lack of synchronization is NOT a measurable phenomenon by any means, it is a manifestation of obstinate caprice displayed by an obstinately foolish "observer" who ignores the plain evidence.
Actually, it is ridculously easy to measure in the given scenario. Using the relative speed of .6c and that she sees her clock tick off two seconds for every one of clock1, she gets (using basic algebre with no LT) that clock1 ticks five times for every four of her clock, so one of her seconds is .8 seconds for clock1 (and the same for Jack). Eight of her seconds are 6.4 for Jack/clock1. So, from her frame, clock1 reads 6.4 seconds as she passes Jack, whose clock reads ten seconds. They are off by 3.6 seconds. None of this depends on who thinks who is moving, or even who is moving, just on the relative motion. None of this uses the LT. It's measurements based on what Jill sees. In particular, Jill makes this same measurement when she is the one who is moving.
And no, I am NOT saying this is true "as seen from an LR perspective." I am saying that it is true from entirely within the framework of SR. Then again, as Bertrand Russell said: "technically, the whole of the special theory is contained in the Lorentz transformations." So, basically I am saying that my analysis is based upon the lorentz transformations. According to Russell, those transformations "contain" the whole theory.
"Contain" as in the sense of "limit." The LT, once adopted by SR, put containments and limits upon what it can consistently assert.
Since the LT follow from SR, there is no additional limitation from the LT that was not already present.
An imaginary conversation between me and LT.
Me: Hey, LT, there, looky here: I've got two clocks, one on the ground and one on a train, which are moving relative to each other. Which one is running slower than the other.
LT: The one that is moving.
Me: But which one is that?
LT: Don't ask me. How should I know? I'm just a transformation formula. That's for you to figure out, not me.
Me: Well, given my understanding of inertia, knowing the train clock recently accelerated, knowing that it is currently consuming a shitload of fuel in order to maintain it's speed, and all, Imma just haul off and say the train is the one moving.
LT: Then the train clock is running slow.
Me: Well, then, tell me how a clock on the train would see my clock on the ground, if clocks could see, eh?
LT: Given that it is moving, it will see your clock to be running fast.
Then the LT is wrong. That's not what will be seen, although it can be calculated. Of course, you can't expect much from a math formula.
Me: Ya sure about that?
LT: As sure as a math formula can be, yeah.
Going back to Jack and Jill, please identify the statement which you feel is wrong. Assume Jill is moving and jack/clock1 are stationary:
1) When Jill passes clock1, Jill sees clock1 to read zero.
2) When Jill passes Jack, Jill sees clock1 to read 4.
3) Jill sees 8 seconds pass on her clock.
4) Jill sees 4 seconds pass on clock1.
If you agree with all four statements, in what way can you old Jill will see clock1 to be running faster than her clock?
Between you and me, I suspect that "max time" is supposed to be the time for the stationary party (which changes from scenario A to B).
Based on the pictures he provides for the second picture, where the max time was sent to 20, I would disagree. However, you did not have the benefit of seeing those pictures at the time you made this comment.
The way I see this, I can be travelling at an "absolute" rate of 0, .5c,.99c, or any other and, as long as I remain inertial, 6 light seconds will always be 6 light seconds.
That not to say that identical absolute distances would give me those same measurements. Those would have to be different from frame to frame for me to measure 6 light seconds in each frame.
But, whatever my speed, 6 LS in my frame is still 6 LS in my frame. That's what I understood the scenario to be in the question we posed. The distance in Jack's frame remains the same for him, but in one scenario he is "stationary" while, in the other, Jill is "stationary."
I believe that is incorrect, assuming you are treating LS as an actual measurement of distance. But I'm not quite sure what you mean, and it could be you mean something I would agree with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_spaceship_paradox
Another possible ambiguity...The question presupposes an absolute view in each separate scenario, not one that depends on which party (ies) "think" they are motionless. Colton may be viewing it otherwise.
I don't think colton's applet includes an place to enter what people are thinking.
I notice that a post I made a while ago (which I'm pretty sure I later saw in "published" form) has now disappeared. Spam, I spoze.
I retrieved it.
One Brow said: "The answer to the second question will be "no" (Bob does not measure the length as 6 light-seconds nor the time as 10 light seconds)."
Again, I'm interested in what clocks read, not "measurements," if that is interpreted to mean anything other than what a party's clock will read in his own frame.
Bob is travelling .6c. He has established two clocks, snychronized in his frame, which are 6 light seconds apart, in his frame. Clock 1 passes point A when it (and clock 2) read 0. When Bob, and clock 1 pass point A clock 2 (still synchronized with clock 1 will read:
15.625 seconds?
That's your answer? So 6 light seconds in Jack's frame, as measured by him in his frame is "actually" 9.375 light seconds? He cannot accurately measure, in his own frame, distance, in his own frame, that the idea?
In the Jack/Jill scenario, Jill meaured the distance as 4.8 LS. In Alice/Bob, Alice measured it as 7.5 LS. Only your misunderstanding of SR led you tho think that Jack and Bob would both get 6 LS as the distance.
And, as contrasted will Jill, who is stationary, Jack, who is moving, has clocks which run FAST (15.6 seconds vs 12.5) and length which EXPANDS(9.75 LS vs 7.5 LS)?
Who knew?
I did, because I understood the relevant factor was that clock1 was in Jack's/Bob's inertial state, not who was moving.
Let's go back to Scenario A for a minute.
Jack saw 10 accumulated seconds on his clock, and so did Jill.
Jill neither sees nor measures Jack's clock to accumulate 10 seconds. She sees Jack's clock accumulate 16 seconds. After correcting for the Doppler shift, she measures it to accumulate 6.4 seconds.
Jack does not see 10 seconds accumulate on his clock. When he sees Jill pass clock1, he is witnessing an event six seconds after it happened. Jack sees four more seconds accumulate on his clock before Jill passes. However, after correcting for lightspeed delay, Jack measures ten seconds to accumulate on his clock between the two events.
Jack saw 8 accumulated seconds on her clock, and so did JIll.
I agree.
Jill screamed "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!," of course, but she still saw Jack's (synchronized) clock read 10 seconds, just as Jack did.
What an odd thing to scream.
She screamed: "ONLY 6.4 SECONDS COULD POSSIBLY HAVE PASSED FOR JACK IN HIS FRAME," of course, but she still saw 10 seconds on his clock.
She screamed that JACK MUST BE READING 6,4 SECONDS ON HIS CLOCK IN HIS FRAME!, but Jack still read 10 seconds.
She screamed: JACK MUST MEAURE THE DISTANCE TO BE ONLY 3.84 SECONDS IN HIS FRAME, yet he carefully measured 6 light seconds.
It sounds like this Jill doesn't know the first thing about SR..
So, Jill was right, and Jack was wrong in reading his own clock in his own frame and measuring distance in his own frame, that the idea?
No.
It just get's curiouser and cursiouser with the denalism and denialism supporters round here.
Yes, but I'll keep trying to get you over that.
Back to the doppler effect (completely-pseudo) "explantion" for time dilation in SR which time dilation has now, apparently overnight, suddenly become direction dependent?
The Doppler effect is not an explanation for time dilation. It onluy allows you to measure time dilation.
Of course the Doppler effect is direction dependent. It is for sound waves, why would it be otherwise for light waves? Why do you think they refer to "red-shifting" and "blus-shifiting".
I thouht we had been throught this whole line of equivocal crap before. I'm interest in time dilation and clock readings, not light delay and/or doppler effects, which are, I thought we had agreed, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to those questions.
Irrelevant as explanations, sure. Do you agree there is a difference between detecting a phenomenon and explaining it?
One Brow said: "For example, when Jack is moving at .6c relative to and toward Jill, Jill sees two seconds pass on Jack's clock for every second on her clock...Notice that at no point was the Lorentz transform used."
Secret formula, eh?
I gave you the formula. It's based on basic algebra, using distance = rate * time. If you like, I can put up a post with a picture showing the derivation of it.
Takes care of all doppler, delay, conraction, time dilation, and other effects in one fell swoop, while reducing SR to mere sense perception and completely dispensing with the LR, ya say? Well, aint that special.
No, it just tells you the amount of time dilation based on relative speed and how often you see another clock tick compared to your own identical clock. It certainly doesn't explain anthing about it, like SR/LR do.
In scenario one, if Jill deemed to be motionless, as she falsely believes herself to be, then the time in Jack's frame is 6.4 and the distance in Jack's frame is deemed to be 3.84 light seconds.
For an item in Jill's inertial state (this would not include clock1), to which Jill measures a distance of 4.8 LS, Jack will measure a distance of 3.84LS. For an item in Jack's inertial state (such as clock1), to which Jill measures a distance of 4.8 LS, Jack will measure a distance of 6LS.
On the other hand, if she is deemed to be moving at .6c, as Jack knows she it, then the time in Jack's frame is 10 seconds and the distance is 6 light seconds.
Either way, her time and distance remains absolutely constant (8 seconds, 4.8 light seconds).
Nothing changes whatsover for Jill, but Jack's time and distance swing wildly.
Jack's distance to clock1 is 6 LS, regardless of who is moving. No swing involved.
New problem: Identical to scenario 1 with one slight exception: Jack's clock's are 7.5 light seconds apart, instead of 6.
Now what?
Time and distance for (motionless) Jack: 12.5 seconds, 7.5 light seconds.
Time and distance for (moving Jill): 6 light seconds, 10 seconds
Time and distance (per Jill) for moving Jack: 4.8 light seconds, 8 seconds.
Once again, Jill smack dap in the middle with a constant time and distance: 6 light seconds,10 seconds. Why do those numbers sound familiar? Oh, yeah, Jill here was Jack in the origial scenario, but what's in a name, eh?
In the original scenario, clock1 was in Jack's inertial state, and not in the same inertial state as Jill. In this new problem, Newclock1 is also in the same inertial state as NewJack, and not as NewJill. Since clock1 is not in the same inertial state as Jill and Newclock1 is in the same inertial state as NewJack, NewJack is not Jill.
Once again, Jack's time and distance swings wildly, depending on who's moving. But, either way, Jill stays at 6 light seconds, 10 seconds clock time.
Jill moves from scalar event to scalar event. Jack does not.
The clocks are moving with Alice, not Bob in the example I intended.
That would indeed change the answers.
Scenario 1.
Louie is at spot A, motionless, and has been there, motionless, for decades. I don't mean that he "thinks" he is motion, I mean he IS absolutely motion.
Off in the distance Louie sees two rockets approaching him, one behind the other by a certain distance.
These 2 rockets, also moving in tandem for decades at .6c relative to Louie. The ARE moving, even if they think they're not. In their frame, they are six light seconds apart, and have synchonized clocks.
They pass Louie, seriatum, 10 seconds apart, in their frame. If his both clocks read 0 when the first one passed, then they both read 10 when the second one passed Louie.
In the frame of the rockets. OK.
Question 1. How much time will elapse on Louie's clock between the two events?
8 seconds.
Scenario 2
Reverse the motion. The rockets have been sitting, motionless, 6 light second apart (in their frame) for decades. Louie approaches them at .6c, and then passes them, one at a time.
Question 2. How much time will elapse on Louie's clock between the two events this time?
8 seconds.
Question 3. How much time will elapse on the synchronized rocket clocks this time?
10 seconds.
General question:
Obviously the time distance (light seconds) between the two rockets remains the same in their own frame (6 light seconds) in both cases. Just as obviously the "absolute" length (number of meters, miles, or whatever) varies between the two scenarios. So,
Question 4. In which case is the absolute distance between the two rockets greater. How much greater?
I interpret "absolute distance" to be "distance as measured by the perspective of the obejct not in motion". If you meant soemthing else, I'm not sure what it is. In scenario 2, this is obviously 6LS. In scenario 1, it is 4.8 LS.
Maybe this isn't so obvious. Will light always travel the same ABSOLUTE distance in 6 seconds, i.e about 1.1 million ABSOLUTE miles, no matter how fast you are going?
What's an absolute mile?
Or will that just be 1.1 million relative miles, in your frame (of which there are an infinite number)?
How can you be in more than one inertial state at the same time?
Put another way: In the original scenario 1, the distance between the two clocks as measured by Jack (in his frame) was about 1.1 million miles (6 light seconds in his frame).
In Jill's frame, that was distance was only .8 of that (about 900,000 of her "relative" miles)?
Were those two distances the same absolute distance, only nominally different? Since the clocks never moved with respect to each other, did they remain the same distance apart? Or was it really 900,000absolute miles in Jill's frame? That is, the two clocks did actually move closer to each other for Jill, and Jack just see them doing it?
Jill only needs to travel 4.8 LS to get between the two points. I'm not sure what absolute distance is supposed to be.
Or is there just really no way to ever say? Could be either--SR never says--whichever you prefer, space and time are not separately distinguishable, only spacetime intervals are invariant?
It's both. There is one distance for Jack, another distance for Jill.
If the latter, why did Fowler give the distance in miles (or meters) instead of simple spacetime interval units?
Why not?
I'm beginning the think the Greek might be right--maybe it's all too vague and undefined to even be intelligently discussed. Anybody can prove or refute just about any point they care to.
I'm sure it can seem like that from one point of view.
The inherent contradictions of the "mutually reciprocal" assumptions apparently incorporate themselves into the math, and everything then enters into a senseless infinite regression.
Only when you confuse what's actually impoortant to resolving these scenarios.
In the original assumption, Jill time and distance (8 seconds, 4.8 light seconds) was determined to be what it was only by reference to Jack and his synchronized clocks.
But, now, having been determined, it is absolute.
If we tell Colton that Jill time is that, and say that Jack is travelling at .6c relative to her (as he was when we derived Jill's "absolute" time and distance) THEN he will tell us Jack's time and distance is 6.4 seconds and 3.84 LS).
Except, he didn't.
Which is it for Jack? 6 or 3.84 LS? 10 or 6.4?
6LS to clock1. 3.84LS to an object in Jill's inertial state that is 4.8 LS away as measured by Jill. 10 seconds for Jill's trip. Nothing is 6.4 seconds for Jack.
Of course none of these times and distances depend in the least upon who is moving. How could it? They both know they are motionless, and they are both correct.
Knowing which one is motionless does not change anyh of the numbers.
Imaginary (well, semi-actual, really) between me and a high school teacher in a segment of physics class called "introduction to special relativity."
Given our conversation, I'm not at all surprised you remember the conversation that way.
Maybe that's your point, or question?"
Yes, it's my question, and my point.
Your point amounted to asking questions with incomplete information and then noting there were no unique answers.
Take this example:
Earth observer measures the distance to a star, which star has always motionless with respect to it, to be 4 light years. Earth then crosses paths with a rocket which is moving at a speed of .6c relative to it (and relative to the distance star).
Question: How far does the rocket perceive the distance to be?
If the rocket is moving from the earth to the star, 3.2 light-years.
Answer: No way to say, given the current information. You must tell me which object is moving--the earth, or the rocket?
The rocket. OK, then the rocket will see the distance to be 3.2 light years.
Wait, I got it wrong. It's the earth (and the star) that are moving at .6c, but the earth still measures the distance to be 4 light years in it's frame.
New, revised answer: Then the rocket will see the distance to be 5 light years, not 3.2.
Wrong. the rocket still measures it to be 3.2 light-years.
Notice that the answer to the question of 'which one is moving" is always "contained in" (implied by) the answer.
Whoever measures the distance to be shorter is the one moving. Same with time.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. The answer is based the respective inertial states, not on notion.
Under one scenario (earth stationary), Colton should should put 4 years as the "max time" on his machine.
Under the other (earth moving), he should put 5 years as the max time.
Why not 10? That way the graph gets really large.
Machines don't give you the right answer if you don't give them the right information.
Sure. Neither do interpretations of scientific theories.
When Jill and Jack both see that her clock is running slower than his, they should both agree that she is moving and he is stationary--if they give any credence to SR.
But they don't both see that. Jack sees 8 seconds tick off Jills clock while his ticks off four.
One Brow said: "maximal distance is measured by a person in the same inertial state."
"Same inertial state" as what?
As the object you ae measuring the distance to.
No, they are not. The determination of which object is moving does indeed involve consideration of factors which the LT themselve do NOT provide, I grant you that, and in fact, have only asked that you CONSISTENTLY acknowledge that fact.
If that was all you asked, this discussion would have ended on page 1. I've been saying all along that you could make that determination using methods outside of relativity.
But the proper application of the LT is NOT a mathematical part of the formula itself.
Of course not.
No more than a computer simulation which generates probability distributions can tell you WHEN IT IS BEING PROPERLY APLIED. Remember?
I learned that lesson, but you seem not to have learned it. Perhaps it can only be learned by experience.
The LT simply tell you that the moving clock runs slower. If Jill's clock is slower, then she is the one moving.
Exactly. If Jill is moving faster in the chosen inertial frame, her clock will be running slower.
One Brow said: "One Brow said: "the Lorentz transforms are based on which objects are in the same inertial state, not which is moving."
I said: "No, they are not."
Just to be clear, I meant "no, they are not BASED ON which objects are in the same inertial state (your way of saying "not moving")."
My way of saying what? What kind of a moron would confuse "same inertial state" with "not moving"?
You are confusing the data in with the data out, and the relationship between the two. As is typical, you seem to think that the data out determines the data in, when the reverse is the case.
Actually, you are confusing the relevant information with irrelevant information.
You tell the LT which object is moving(data in) and then(and ONLY then) it will tell you which clock is slower and which one is faster (data out).
Of course. You can even tell it based on arbitrary determinatons.
Of course. The term "stationary" here, in this context, simply means "relatively stationary," as applied between two inertial states moving with respect to each other.
That was completely unintelligible. Inertial states don't move, they are the ways in whcih objects move free of external influences. If two objects are in different inertial states, they are not relatively stationary. This was like reading word salad.
Does your distinction make a bit of difference in the context I am using it.. Or is just that if I ever say "cat" you will insist that I should say "feline?"
I might be saying "feline", but you are saying "quijonoxias".
One Brow said:"In particular, my understanding is that...she can calculate Jack will see/observe 10 seconds to pass on his clock."
If she uses the LT, AND assumes she is stationary, then she will not, and CANNOT, "calculate" that 10 seconds will pass on Jack's clock.
Of course not. Are you under the impression that your statement disagrees with mine? If so, you are wrong. Jill observes that 6.4 seconds passes on Jack's clock, and calculates that Jack will observe it to be 10 seconds. Both are true.
I said:"If she uses the LT, AND assumes she is stationary, then she will not, and CANNOT, "calculate" that 10 seconds will pass on Jack's clock."
Jill doesn't need to use the LT for her observations of how much time passes on Jack's clock.
On the other hand, if she uses the LT, AND assumes that she is moving at .6c while Jack remains (relatively, OK?relatively...relatively.....relatively...do you now know what I mean) stationary, then I agree with you 100% and you agree with me 100%
Using the LT, or not, and assuming she is moving, or not, do not affect the time Jill measures to pass on Jack's clock.
What she calculate AlL depends upon her premise about which of them is moving (faster, OK?..moving faster....moving faster...has a higher speed....is moving faster--do you now know what I mean--
I know what you mean. You're just wrong.
or do I have to say "feline" instead of "cat' for you to have a clue?).
Unfortunately, you have note the meagerest clue, and therefore none to pass on to me.
One Brow said:"Similarly, if Jill were dragging along some clock4 4.8 LS (as measured by Jill)..."
Will the frame-switching and equivocation never end? We you and I have to pursue the infinite regression to eternity, here?
There alreay ARE two clocks involved which Jill measures to be 4.8 light seconds apart IN HER FRAME, i.e., the two clock we have been dealing with.
Let Jill drop clock 4--synchronized with the one she carries--next to jack's clock when she passes.
When she is through, clock 4 will be 4.8 light seconds away from her in her frame, and will read 8 seconds in her frame when she meets Jack.
Jack will see the two clock to be 6 light seconds apart, not 3.84 light seconds apart.
Under those conditions, clock4 would read 6.4 seconds in Jill's frame and 10 in Jack's, just like clock1.
I said:"Let Jill drop clock 4--synchronized with the one she carries--next to jack's clock when she passes."
I can anticipate the red herring you will whip out already. You will say that can't be done...you will say that would change everything because now clock 4 has been accelerated as it has "changed inertial states."
Before dragging that crap out, please read up on "the clock hypothesis," OK?
What about the clock hypothesis makes that wrong?
A couple comments on the "magical" relativity of simultaneity.
1. As I have noted many times, and as most (if not all) scientists will acknowledge, what Al calls the "relativity of simultaneity," does not necessarily involve any relative motion at all. It follows from the mere finite speed of light, regardless of what speed that is, and regardless of whether all inertial frames measure that speed to be the same. Spatial separation is ALL that is required for the phenomenon. If you are 10 miles away from me, you will see a light ray which you generate before I do, even if we are absolutely motionless with respect to each other.
Agreed.
2. As my prior analysis of Al's "proof" of the ROS shows, it is all based upon the refusal of subjective observer (on a train) to concede that he is moving. If he didn't unreasonably refuse to concede this, the events would be simultaneous for all concerned (including those on the embankment), after appropriate correction for light delay.
Bascially, if the observer on the train takes all his obervations and translates them into the rest frame of the ground, the observer on the train can calculate things in the way the observers on the ground measure them. Agreed.
3. The phenomenon is totally subjective in nature. It does not change the time at which each lightning strike actually hit the train. No two observers, wherever they are (even right next to each other) will EVER see the same phenomenon in exactly the same way. If that is what is required to call an event an "objective" one, then there never was, never is, and never will be any event that can be called "objective."
They may not see them the same, but they can be measured to be the same.
I said: "When she is through, clock 4 will be 4.8 light seconds away from her in her frame, and will read 8 seconds in her frame when she meets Jack.
Jack will see the two clock to be 6 light seconds apart, not 3.84 light seconds apart."
Let me be a litte more specific and precise here.
The clock, once dropped, will then "actually show" 10 seconds passed in Jack's frame. Using that information, and using the LT (properly and accurately, since he is stationary) Jack will conclude that Jill will perceive the clock's to be 4.8 light seconds apart in her frame, and that, given the rate at which her clocks tick, that would be the equivalent of 8 seconds in her frame(as her clock in fact shows).
Agreed. But this mean it will not read 8 seconds in Jill's frame, only 6.4, just as clock1 does.
ince 1905? What are you talking about? Newton, like Galileo before him, ...
Then even more so, not novel nor unique.
To the extent that you (or Colton, for that matter) want to contend that Jack's clock "will always" read 10 seconds and that Jill's "will always" read 8 seconds, then you have made my point for me. That is simply to say that Jill is really moving (relative to Jack) and that Jack is "really stationary" relative to Jill.
The clocks read that way even when Jill is stationary.
You will also concede that the LT are NOT "mutually reciprocal," and in fact only work in one direction, not both.
Except, teh reciprocity means the clocks read that way even when Jill is stationary.
One Brow said: "Jill's distance and time can be calculated from jack's clocks, but it is deermined by her rulers and her clocks."
OK, sure. At least if you take the would "determined" to mean "physically measured, with her instruments of measurement."
So, what's your point?
Just that.
Here's my point: Jack "calculates" that Jill's clock will read 8. And guess what? It does, in fact, read 8. Why? Because he has accurately and properly applied the LT, based on the correct assumption that she is moving and he aint.
Even if he is moving and Jill is not. the correct application of the LT says Jill's clock will read 8.
On the other hand, Jill improperly applies the LT in her attempt to calculate what Jack's clock will read. It is inaccurately and improperly applied on the (incorrect ex hypothesis) assumption that Jack is moving, and she aint. And guess what? She does inaccurately calculate what his clock will say.
Jill does predict Jack's clock to read 10, based on what it read when she passes clock1 (-6) and that she sees it move two seconds for every one of hers.
She predicts that his clock will read 6.4 seconds, but sees that it in fact reads 10, not 6.4.
No, she measures that 6.4 seconds will pass, after which the clock will read 10.
Most scientists will concede that when their pet theory predicts outcomes which are clearly contradicted by the empircally observed facts, then there must be a flaw in their theory.
However, they do not concede that when someone uses a theory incorrectly and predicts outcomes contradicted by the empircally observed facts, then there must be a flaw in their theory. the more common response is "Use it correctly, dummy!".
But not Jill!! She insists that her theory is accurate, and instead says that when Jack's clock 1 read 0, then, at that very instant, his clock 2 actually read 3.6. The fact that Jack, reading his clock in his frame, did NOT see it reading 3.6 at that time is ignored. Whether he saw it that way or not, that's the way it was, Jill insists.
Ya talk about an ignorant slut, eh?
In what way is she wrong? In her inertial state, jack's clock does indeed read 3.6 when Jill passed clock1.
I will give our pal, Fowler, credit for one thing: He is very clever and cunning in the deceptive way he makes his claims.
It helps that he is correct.
He doesn't, as most straightforward authors do, slip in the bogus "relativity of simultaneity" formula by starting at the beginning. That would make Jill's absurd claims too obvious.
What absurd claims?
He does not say (directly, that is, although he is saying it indirectly) that Jill is insisting that when Jack's clock 1 read 0, then, at that very instant, his clock 2 must have read 3.6. Nor can he say that when her clock read 0, Jack's read 3.6 at that time. He can't say that, because she is looking at both clocks when they start.
It's not like Jill sees both clocks to read 0.
So the 3.6 seconds must get added on at the end, rather than the beginning. Most authors put the "lack of synchronization" at the beginning, but that makes it's absurdity a little too obvious.
What absrudity?
Laws of physics, my ass. In this case the "lack of synchronization" is solely the product of Jill's ignorant sluttiness.
Except, it isn't. Jill knowledge or lack thereof does not and can not de-synchronize clocks.
A philosopher of physics from St. Petersburg, Russia, Ravil Kalmykov,
...
An interesting argument, which I have not tried to analyze in detail. It does have an air of plausibility to it, from my perspective, though.
It could easily be an interpretation that works. I don't see how it makes different predictions from the usual SR, at least in any experiements conducted so far. A test of Bell's paradox might distinguish them, or not.
One Brow said: "What two events? Distance to what? If you don't specify this, there are no unique answers.
Maybe that's your point, or question?"
Yes, it's my question, and my point.
I fully acknowledge that if you don't supply enough information to get a unique answer to something, no unique answer can be obtained. So?
Take this example:
Earth observer measures the distance to a star, which star has always motionless with respect to it, to be 4 light years. Earth then crosses paths with a rocket which is moving at a speed of .6c relative to it (and relative to the distance star).
Question: How far does the rocket perceive the distance to be?
3.2 light-years.
Answer: No way to say, given the current information. You must tell me which object is moving--the earth, or the rocket?
Incorrect. It is 3.2 light-years, regardless of which one is moving.
The rocket. OK, then the rocket will see the distance to be 3.2 light years.
Agreed.
Wait, I got it wrong. It's the earth (and the star) that are moving at .6c, but the earth still measures the distance to be 4 light years in it's frame.
New, revised answer: Then the rocket will see the distance to be 5 light years, not 3.2.
Incorrect. It is still 3.2 light-years.
Notice that the answer to the question of 'which one is moving" is always "contained in" (implied by) the answer.
Whoever measures the distance to be shorter is the one moving. Same with time.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. The earth and the star are in the same inertial state. There fore, the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter.
Under one scenario (earth stationary), Colton should should put 4 years as the "max time" on his machine.
Under the other (earth moving), he should put 5 years as the max time.
He could use "10". "max_time" seems to control the graph size only.
Machines don't give you the right answer if you don't give them the right information.
True, but not relevant.
When Jill and Jack both see that her clock is running slower than his, they should both agree that she is moving and he is stationary--if they give any credence to SR.
Jack sees Jill's clock move eight seconds to his four.
In the meantime, I have given my own answers. If you agree, then maybe there's no need to ask him anything as far as "settling a disagreement" goes.
Answer to the first question: I think this question will seem confusing to him. Ultimately, whether he is stationary or moving at .6c doesn't change the answers tot he problem.
Answer to the second problem: Yes, that is wrong.
But don't forget to include the "thank you" to Colton, OK?
Done.
One Brow asked: "...are you saying we have a way of knowing that the Sun, inner planets, etc. weren't all moving to beging with, and when Pioneer blasted off, it blasted to stop and let everything else go by? What's that way?"
Let me respond to that with a question of my own:
"...are you saying we have a way of knowing we're not all just brains in a vat? What's that way?"
"Just because" answers are better for philosophy than science.
A couple of excerpts from the previous page. Do you see any hint whatsover of inconsistency in your own statements?:
Excerpt 1:
I said: "The math of SR (and Lorentz) says that if two clocks are moving with respect to each other, one and ONLY one will run slower than the other. And it will always be the moving clock, not both."
You responded: "I agree. One you determine which clock is moving, the math says that clock will run slower."
Excerpt 2:
"aintnuthin said...
First you claimed that, if the motion was reversed, Jack's clock would still read 10 and Jill's would still read 8.
I stand by that claim."
Why should a statement about what a clock face will say be contradictory with how much time passes on that clock? You claim of a contradiction makes no sense.
One Brow said: "Once you determine which clock is moving, the math says that clock will run slower."
If your also gunna say that SR tells you that you can never tell who's moving, this presents a little bit of a dilemma, don't it?
Why? I've said all along that you make such determinaitons outside of SR.
It becomes worthless. Not a theory of physics at all. Simply a metapysical assertion.
Only in your misinterpretations.
All of it's "ability to predict" is illusory. It won't tell you a damn thing until you know something which it says you can never know--kinda like "God's will," know what I'm sayin?
Which of the postulates says you can never know?
One Brow said: "Of course, what you think of as a change in birthday is actually a change in birthplace, metaphorically."
As usual, you miss the whole point of the analogy.
The analogy centers around the idea that being born at a different time means a different life expectancy, despite what the actuary says. You think I missed that?
This is typical of some. They just can't seem to grasp analogical reasoning. As soon as they find some literal difference, they dismiss all analogies as "stupid" and "irrelevant."
Actually, the term I would use is "inapt" or "misapplied". It's a fine analogy, but in this case it doesn't apply, because you have mistaken an analogous change in birth place for a change in birth year, and vice-versa.
Your reaction to my statements throughout this thread have been very consistent.
Your seem not to have learned a thing over the course of this discussion, and still insist on miksinterpreting things.
You will deny what I say, on any "grounds" that occur to you, no matter what it is. Even if it is something you have just agreed to.
Considering the number of times I have used "OK" or "Agreed" as a response in this thread, how can I take this seripously? How can you?
This is why I say that it is not my idea of an honest, intelligent discussion. It give me certain tactical advantages from a "debate contest" point of view, though. I can easily get you to contradict yourself simply by contradicting myself. I have deliberately done this, in the hope of pointing out "your" self-contradiction, and thereby inducing you to analyze your own claims in more depth.
That hasn't worked, though. You simply deny that you ever said the two contradictory things. Again, not my idea of an honest, intelligent discussion.
If your idea of a contradiction was to claim that the reading on a clock face could contradict the amount of time passed on that clock, than your right in that I deny they are contradictory. Fuirther, were the positions reversed, you would never accept such a contrast as a genuine contradiction. You are so enamored of your own argument that you refuse to apply to it the same skeptical bias you apply to what I say. You may also claim I don't, however, I have been willing to revise my positions over the course of this thread. How about you? After over seven pages of comments, has your opinion changed at all? have you learned anything new about relativity theory? If you were engaging in honest discussion, you should be able to list a few things you learned.
I will give in one more shot. I should have given more prominence to this recent claim of yours:
"In particular, my understanding is that...she can calculate Jack will see/observe 10 seconds to pass on his clock."
YES. You are absolutely correct. We agree. You are right. She can in fact do that, rather easily, too.
All it requires is for to reform her ignorant slut ways and acknowledge the truth that Fowler has already asserted, i.e., that she is moving, not stationary, as she falsely insists.
Jill will make this calculation regardless of whether Jack is moving or not. Even if Jill is stationary, Jack will measure 10 seconds to pass on his clock.
It has, I hear-tell, become criminal to question any aspect of SR.
Any relativity-deniers go to jail? Or, criminal in the sense that any doctor who promotes homeopathy risks his reputation? Any biologist who claims the blood-clotting system could not have evovled, or geologist who claim the earth is 6000 years old would risk his reputation? Why should it be otherwise? When you romote positions that run counter to the evidence, you risk your reputation.
In Newtonian terms, considering the solar system as a system, we know the pioneer is moving because we know it has not gone to, and then parked itself at, the point which is the center of matter of the system.
Why would it need to "park itself", much less at the center of matter?
Considering the universe as a whole, we also know that it did not park itself at the center of mass of that system either. If it did, everything in the solar system (as well as the entire universe) would be revolving around that point, and it aint.
Why do you think this is relevant to what inertial frame is at rest?
If we fire Pioneer toward the center of mass of the universe, would it not be moving slower than we are compared to the cneter of mass of the universe?
Since physics, broadly speaking, is the study of "matter in motion," the assertion that you "can never tell who's moving" is a denial of the whole body of physics and the denial of the possiblility of ever having an intelligible physics.
I agree. Good thing SR doesn't say that. Instead, it says you "can never tell whose moving just by making measurements". See the difference.
The irony is that this absurd position doesn't even "save" Al's relativity principle, as it is designed to do.
It's not even a part of SR. How coud it save what it is not a part of?
This is just another failed attempt to implicitly equate epistemology with ontology. Even if the claim that "you can never tell who's moving" were 100% true, it would still imply no more than an epistemological limitation.
OK.
It would not place a limit on actual possibilities.
Agreed.
Much less would it require "reality" to be self-contradictory.
Incorrect. An inability to determine can not impose contradicitons.
"You can't tell who's moving" is still a completely different claim than either:
1. Because you can't tell who's moving, neither can be moving, or
2. Because you can't tell who's moving, both are moving faster/slower than the other.
None are a part of SR to begin with.
SR apologists can't stop with a mere epistemological claim, because that alone can't cure the logical self-contradiction their position entails. So they go to step two, and try to assert (1) and/or (2) from above and pretend that gives the theory consistency.
I am sure there are SR apologists who get teh issue confused, as Dingle did. That does not make them correct.
I said: "They do NOT say that a train is not moving."
You replied: "Of course not. Neither does Einstein's relativity principle."
Yes, it does. The only way Al's RP can work out is if BOTH the train AND the embankment are viewed as motionless. Without that, you simply have straight LR.
If either one concedes that it is moving, Al's whole RP goes straight to hell. You still don't know this?
I said: "The LT say the moving clock will run slower."
"Actually, they say the clock mo0ving in a different inertail state from you will run slower."
Do you think you are saying something different than I did?
Are you suggesting, for example, that the LT suggest that "each clock is running slower than the other?"
Wrong, if that's what you intend, and I suspect it is.
One Brow said: "Actually, the LT say that you will observe the time and length of objects in different inertial states to be distorted."
Yes, it does, but not in the way you are thinking.
Example: Earth stationary, train moving, now what?
Now LT says:
1. Earth will see the time on train dilated and the length contracted--an obvious distortion compared to it's frame.
2. Train will see the time on earth contracted (it's clocks run fast) and the length elongated (yardsticks are longer)--an obvious distortion compared to it's frame.
You can't have one without the other.
If (AND ONLY IF) you treat the earth as moving and the train as motionless, you will get the opposite result, but, either way, the LT does NOT (and cannot logically) say that each will run slower than the other. Either way, one runs faster and one runs slower--both do not run slower.
I said: "For another, to the extent the postulates imply that you can never tell which of two moving objects is moving, then ALL predictions of SR are inconsistent with the postulates, because then all predictions are meaningless and impossible."
"Well, which of those two postulates do you take to mean "you can never tell who is moving"? Because if you can't derive that from the postulates, then what does that say of your continued criticism in that vein?"
My criticism? I said "to the extent." See that? You are the one who has repeatedly assured me that "mainstream SR" makes that claim. Where do YOU get that from the postulates?
Iasked:"What "incorrect assertion" would that be."
One Brow saidY:"Your assertion that observers in a moving object will measure the clocks on a stationary object to be going faster."
No moving observer "measures" anything in the other's frame. He measures things in his frame, then based on certain assumptions, which may be right or wrong, he imputes (transforms) those measurement to another frame.
Do you understand that?
A "moving observer" will "measure"(a complete misnomer, but it's the word you incorrectly use) the clocks on a stationary object to be entirely different depending on his assumptions. For example:
1. Jill will "measure" the time on Jack's clock to be 6.4 seconds if she FALSELY assumes that she is stationary and he is moving.
2. She will "measure" (and actually see, in this case) 10 seconds to have actually been recorded on Jack's clock IF she does not mistakenly, without cause, assume that she is motionless.
Imputation via deduction based on premises is not "measurement."
One Brow said:"Somehow, you still seem to think the choice matters in determining the objective facts. It doesn't. Jill makes the same measurements whether she believes she is moving or whether she believes Jack is moving."
In her frame, yes. She will always measure a time of 8 seconds and a distance of 4.8 light seconds IN HER FRAME.
What she imputes to Jack's frame is NOT measurment. If you think Hogg said otherwise you should re-read him. If he did say otherwise, or can be read that way, then he is simply wrong.
And wrong in the same way you were when you suggested that your computer simulations "measured" the facts. You have a way of thinking your personal conclusions are self-proving. If you drew the conclusions, then they are FACTS, not inferences.
If your interpretation is right, then you can "observe" and "measure" a woman's love for you by counting flower petals.
One Brow said: "That would be the assumption of memorylessness."
Well, aint that special? An assumption contrary to all experience. How quaint.
You said: "However, if you can describe a measurement Jill can make in the present that reveals a history of acceleration in her past, I'm all ears."
She can look at her speedometer reading 100, instead of 0, as one of a million ways.
One Brow said:"If you mean, "the view that A is at rest" is equally valid with "the view B is at rest", of course it is. Do you have a reason to say one is more valid than the other?"
Because I can distinguish epistemology from ontology, I have plenty of reason to say one IS more valid than the other. That is indubitable. I'll say it again: One IS more valid than the other. Do you have any reason to deny that?
As to "which one?" I've given you dozens of example which anyone isn't a brain in a vat can easy understand.
Don't bother asking for more, Mr. Memoryless Brain-in-vat.
I said:"It is not "arbitrary" to say that a car going 100 mph has been accelerated more in the recent past than the car currently parked in your garage."
You said: "I agree. But it can be wrong."
Anything and everything "can be wrong." Is that your entire argument throughout this whole thread? That if it "can be wrong" then it's unreliable, and hence "is" wrong? Is THAT all you're saying?
One Brow said:"Actually, my claim is that the historical acceleration is meaningless in determining the present situation, because the acceleration may have been from a moving state to a rest state. Tht is different from declaring the history to not have existed."
It "may" have been? Heh. So you're sayinng it "may not" have been? Why would the history be irrelevant?
Say you have 33 cars roaring around the track at the Indy 500. Any one of them, like one in the middle of the pack, "may" be at rest? With the lead car moving faster and the trailing car moving slower(how do you move "slower" than someone "at rest?---or are they just "moving backwards," like the spectators in the stands?).
Are you an absolutist? If it doesn't comport with your Platonic ideal Form of motion, then it is a false illusion, that the idea?
It's either absolute motion, or no motion at all? Too bad neither Al or Newton shared your philosophy. They've already corrupted people who will now be unlikely to acknowledge your superior notion of motion being independent of acceleration.
One Brow said:"One of the identifers of what is objective is that it looks the same to all oberservers, regardless of perspective."
Then you have just defined "objective" out of existence. NOTHING ever looks the same to all observers. Unless you're God, maybe, you can't see anything "regardless of perspective" and no two observers can ever share the exact same perspective at the same time.
One Brow said: "Jill's clock reades 0 and clock1 reads 0 when Jill passes clock1. Jill's clock reades 8 and Jack's clock reads 10 when Jill passes Jack. Every honest observer capapble of viewing those events will agree on that. If you want to go with another definitiion of objective, feel free, but it will incorporate that idea, at the very least."
I'm fine with this idea. Now what about Jill's "observation" (I put that in the scariest of scare quotes) that clock 2 read 3.6 when clock 1 read 0. Is that "objective?" If so, why didn't Jack see it that way?
A lightning bolt hits a train. Does the time I see it change the time it happened? Has my (subsequent) subjective observation of that event gone back in time and retractively made an objective change in either the train or the lightning bolt? Is my observation the least bit relevant to the event itself? Does the time I see it change the time it happened?
I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.
One Brow said:"The light arrives at the same time on earth whether there is an observer there or not. The effects of the events are simultaneous on earth, whether there is an observer on earth or not."
I agree. I just don't agree that "the effects" of the event ARE the event.
Are you able to make that distinction? If so, why do you mention all of these obvious things?
One Brow said:"Sorry, but changes in the spatial relationship between two objects are also objective changes. Night is objectively different from day, even though there is no change in the sun or the earth, just in how they are oriented with respect to each other."
Yeah, so?
I can see the chair in my living room right now. When I go to the bar, I can't. Does that mean the chair in my living room has "disappeared" as an objective matter?
My departure for the bar puts me in a different spatial relationship with my living room chair, a spatial change which is objective.
Does that affect the chair? The chair is the object in question here, not space, and not me.
One Brow said:"Exactly. Your confusion is that you think the 6.4 seconds is meant to represent some sort of measure in Jack's frame. It's a measure in Jill's frame only."
A measure of what? It just dawned on me to ask: Are you back to equivocating by referring to measurements of the irrelevant fucking doppler effects which I thought we agreed to leave out of it?
She arrives at 6.4 seconds via the Lorentz transformations, not by looking at irrelevant light delays.
Do you still think otherwise?
Which is it? Will you ever stop equivocating?
Do you think that time dilation is SR is in any way caused by, or explained by, doppler effects?
Yes or no?
One Brow said: "Actually, they say the clock mo0ving in a different inertail state from you will run slower."
Explain exactly what you are trying to say here, if you can.
One Brow said: "Jack sees Jill's clock move eight seconds to his four."
So, when Jill's clock ends up reading exactly 8 seconds, Jack's only reads 4 seconds, instead of 10seconds, like he thought, that the idea?
One Brow said:"Yes, I disagree. The earth and the star are in the same inertial state. There fore, the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter."
Never, eh? Explain to me, if you can, exactly what this means and the reason (math formula, whatever) for it. Have you ever read this in any physics text, any online source, or anywhere else where I can see an expert explanation of it?
Take two sets of clocks. A and B, in the "same inertial state" (what is that supposed to mean, exactly) 4 light years apart from each other in their frame.
The other set of clocks, C and D, are also 4 light years apart in their frame.
The two sets are closing in on each at the rate of .6c.
Which of these two sets "can never measure the distance between them as being longer" than the other set measures their distance to be?
Would the answer differ if I happened to mention clocks C and D first, instead of A and B?
A and B?
Or C and D?
Clocks B and C cross paths first. At that instant B still measures the distant to clock A ("trailing" him in his frame) to be 4 light years.
At that moment, what does clock C meaure the distance between A and B to be?
At that very same instant clock C meaures the distance to clock D ("trailing" him in his frame) to be 4 light years.
At that same moment, what does clock B measure the distance between C and D to be?
How are these measures arrived at?
Will Clock A and C encounter each other at the same time that clock B encounters D?
Is the distance that any of these clocks "see" in any way related to the rate at which they run?
Don't even think about trying to answer by switching back and forth between visual sensations and mechanical clock readings.
If clocks A and B are synchronized(in their frame) and if clocks C and D are synchronized (in their frame) and if Clocks B and C both read 0 when they pass each other, then:
How much time will have elapsed (not "passed" in some absolute sense, but how much time passage will the CLOCKS register):
1. On clock B when B encounters D?
2. On Clock D when B encounters D?
3. On Clock C when when C encounters A?
4. On Clock A when C encounters A?
aint, I done look through the whole blues thread. No digs.
Please come to Jazzhacks.com and set forth the light about Science Fiction re "now".
thanks
Eric, you have made quite a few errors in your recent comments, but, right now, I'm not sure I can stomach even looking at them.
IT REALLY FUCKING PISSES ME OFF THAT YOU WILL NOT CEASE WITH YOUR STUPID EQUIVOCATION EVEN AFTER AGREEING TO DESIST.
I don't care to waste my time discussing things a transparent child who thinks he's fooling everybody.
You know, and I know, that delays due to light rays hitting Jill's eyes have NOTHING to do with the Lorentz Transformations or the operation of mechancal clocks.
You know, and I know, that the same is true of Doppler effects.
You know, and I know that I have told you several times that this discussion is about mechanical clocks, not subjective "observations."
You know, and I know, that Fowler had Jill arrive at her results via the LT (and then tried to justify her erroneous conclusion via the bogus "relativity of simultaneity formula). You know, and I know, that he didn't not use doppler effects, etc. to get the 3.6 seconds difference.
You know, and I certainly know, that it is sophistic to try to equate one with the other.
You know, and I know, that it is pure equivocation to arrive at Jack's numbers via the LT and Jill's number by reference to appearances in a manner which ignores Hogg's demand for "observation."
You know, and I know, that your persistence in acting stupid is not a game that I will fall for or will enjoy.
I have asked you for some intellectual honesty and reason in this discussion. Apparently that is beyond your ability to implement. You go right on with your stupid games as though I am going to be fooled.
Not everybody is as gullible as you are. You might think about that th next time you try dish out pull this stupid-ass crap. Save it for your 10 year olds kids.
Coltons response:
Originally Posted by One Brow
ainuthin had a message, with a few questions, for you.
Thanks for your assistance. We may have conveyed the wrong impression to you about what we were asking.
You said that "Scenario B is exactly the same as Scenario A"
We intended to convey a difference in the two scenarios to you, as follows:
Scenario A: Jack is (absolutely--or in relation to Jill) stationary. Jill is (absolutely--or relative to Jack)) moving at .6c.
Scenario B: Jill is (absolutely--or in relation to Jack) stationary. Jack is (absolutely--or relative to Jill) moving at .6c.
Are you saying that Jack being absolutely stationary would constitute the "exact same" frame of reference as he would have if he accelerated to a speed of .6c, then cruised inertially?
Yes, once the 0.6c is reached it's the same scenario, just viewed from two different viewpoints. (Minor quibbling about +0.6c vs -0.6c aside.)
In the comments accompanying your graph, you say that the "second picture" (where the "max time" is set at 10) is indentical to "Jill’s frame of reference in scenario A."
But please remember that Jill is MOVING, not stationary in scenario A.
I have been led to believe that if Jill's frame of reference in scenario A is CHANGED to a view where she is stationary, rather than moving, she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6).
Is that wrong? That is, is it wrong to conclude that "she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6)" if she is deemed to be stationay?
Assuming no acceleration is present, it's irrelevant whether she is "stationary" or "moving". In fact, those are not even good terms to use, because you always must specific "stationary with respect to whom?" "Moving with respect to whom?" Thus the only important thing is her speed relative to Jack. As long as her speed relative to Jack is the same in both situations, she MUST calculate Jack's time and distance to be the same in both cases.
___
Question for One Brow: I assume you only come to me when you have disagreements between the two of you. Out of curiosity, if you don't mind saying, whose viewpoint do I typically ratify? Or have I been ratifying each of you at about the same frequency?
My answer to colton:
In the last three requests, you have been offering the answers I expected. I'm not expert enough to say that ratifies my viewpoint. If you want to judge that for yourself, the latest page of comments is http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2010/12/maverick-philosphers-quest-for.html?commentPage=10 .
aintnuthin said...
I said: "They do NOT say that a train is not moving."
You replied: "Of course not. Neither does Einstein's relativity principle."
Yes, it does. The only way Al's RP can work out is if BOTH the train AND the embankment are viewed as motionless. Without that, you simply have straight LR.
Actually, Einstein's relativity principle is that you can not measure/conduct experiements to verify who is moving. It does not rule out saying who is moving by other methods. You keep complaining that I am confusing ontology with epistemology, yet you are trying turn epistemological claims into ontological claims.
The only difference between SR and LR is ability to select an arbitrary inertial frame as the rest frame versus a pre-determined rest frame.
If either one concedes that it is moving, Al's whole RP goes straight to hell. You still don't know this?
I know what people concede is irrelevant to the results of the experiements they conduct and the measurements they make. Therefore, what people concede does not change the findings of SR.
I said: "The LT say the moving clock will run slower."
"Actually, they say the clock mo0ving in a different inertail state from you will run slower."
Do you think you are saying something different than I did?
Yes. If you are moving, that the clock is stationary, the stationary clock is in a different inertial state than you, and from and you will measure it to run slower than your clock.
Are you suggesting, for example, that the LT suggest that "each clock is running slower than the other?"
No, becasue the quoted statement is nonsense as it stands. The LT says that if clock1 is moving with respsect to clock2, then measurements made from the inertial state of clock1 will show that clock2 moves more slowly than clock1, and measurments made from the inertial state of clock2 will show that clock1 moves more slowly than clock2. This does not mean "each clock is running slower than the other".
One Brow said: "Actually, the LT say that you will observe the time and length of objects in different inertial states to be distorted."
Yes, it does, but not in the way you are thinking.
Example: Earth stationary, train moving, now what?
Now LT says:
1. Earth will see the time on train dilated and the length contracted--an obvious distortion compared to it's frame.
2. Train will see the time on earth contracted (it's clocks run fast) and the length elongated (yardsticks are longer)--an obvious distortion compared to it's frame.
#2 is wrong. The train will measure the clocks on the earth to run slower, and the yardsticks on the earth to be shorter.
You can't have one without the other.
On the contrary, you must have both together.
If (AND ONLY IF) you treat the earth as moving and the train as motionless, you will get the opposite result,
There is no "opposite result". If the train is stationary and the earth moving, the results are the same.
but, either way, the LT does NOT (and cannot logically) say that each will run slower than the other.
Of course not. That statement, as it stands, is nonsense.
Either way, one runs faster and one runs slower--both do not run slower.
Agreed. Both do not run slower.
I said: "For another, to the extent the postulates imply that you can never tell which of two moving objects is moving, then ALL predictions of SR are inconsistent with the postulates, because then all predictions are meaningless and impossible."
"Well, which of those two postulates do you take to mean "you can never tell who is moving"? Because if you can't derive that from the postulates, then what does that say of your continued criticism in that vein?"
My criticism? I said "to the extent." See that? You are the one who has repeatedly assured me that "mainstream SR" makes that claim. Where do YOU get that from the postulates?
I don't make that claim. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the closest would be that you can never tell which of two inertial obejcts is moving from meaurements or experiments. Any extension of that claim beyond that is from you.
One Brow saidY:"Your assertion that observers in a moving object will measure the clocks on a stationary object to be going faster."
No moving observer "measures" anything in the other's frame.
Of course not. He observes the clock of the other person while staying in his own frame.
He measures things in his frame, then based on certain assumptions, which may be right or wrong, he imputes (transforms) those measurement to another frame.
Do you understand that?
Yes, and the quoted statement did not say otherwise. The measurements from a moving object are made of the stationary object, but in the moving object's frame. The result of that meausrement will show the stationary clock is going slower.
A "moving observer" will "measure"(a complete misnomer, but it's the word you incorrectly use) the clocks on a stationary object to be entirely different depending on his assumptions.
Wrong. Assumptions about who is moving do not affect measurements. You only need to know the relative speed between you and a clock to translate how often you see seconds pass into how ofter those those seconds actually pass.
For example:
1. Jill will "measure" the time on Jack's clock to be 6.4 seconds if she FALSELY assumes that she is stationary and he is moving.
2. She will "measure" (and actually see, in this case) 10 seconds to have actually been recorded on Jack's clock IF she does not mistakenly, without cause, assume that she is motionless.
Jill measures 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is stationary and Jack/clock1 are moving. Jill measures 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is moving and Jack/clock1 are stationary. Jack measures 10 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is stationary and Jack/clock1 are moving. Jack measures 10 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is moving and Jack/clock1 are stationary.
Imputation via deduction based on premises is not "measurement."
Agreed. Jill's numbers don't change, and neither do Jack's.
One Brow said:"Somehow, you still seem to think the choice matters in determining the objective facts. It doesn't. Jill makes the same measurements whether she believes she is moving or whether she believes Jack is moving."
In her frame, yes. She will always measure a time of 8 seconds and a distance of 4.8 light seconds IN HER FRAME.
Agreed.
What she imputes to Jack's frame is NOT measurment.
Agreed.
And wrong in the same way you were when you suggested that your computer simulations "measured" the facts. You have a way of thinking your personal conclusions are self-proving. If you drew the conclusions, then they are FACTS, not inferences.
Here, you are making the error I made then. I was person enough to admit my error. We shall see if you are person enough to admit yours.
If your interpretation is right, then you can "observe" and "measure" a woman's love for you by counting flower petals.
Sorry, but that is not what I meant by measure.
One Brow said: "That would be the assumption of memorylessness."
Well, aint that special? An assumption contrary to all experience. How quaint.
You think a car has any memory of what speed it went 5 days ago, or even 5 minutes? Memorylessness refers to non-conscious objects not carrying their history around in some mystical fashion that can alter experiements, but only with present physical markers.
You said: "However, if you can describe a measurement Jill can make in the present that reveals a history of acceleration in her past, I'm all ears."
She can look at her speedometer reading 100, instead of 0, as one of a million ways.
That only tells her what her current relevant speed is. How does the speedometer know that the road has not accelerated? For example, how does Jill know she is not on a treadmill? Sure, she can look outside the car. That just transfers the assumption to saying the earth is not moving, instead. There is no *measurement* you can make to say the earth is still and the car is moving.
One Brow said:"If you mean, "the view that A is at rest" is equally valid with "the view B is at rest", of course it is. Do you have a reason to say one is more valid than the other?"
Because I can distinguish epistemology from ontology, I have plenty of reason to say one IS more valid than the other.
I don't think you know what "valid" means, at least in this context. By analogy, do you know the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument?
That is indubitable. I'll say it again: One IS more valid than the other. Do you have any reason to deny that?
Yes. Either view can be used to construct a coordinate system that complies with all know physical laws and properties. Either view is equally useful for making predictions. That's all validity requires.
I said:"It is not "arbitrary" to say that a car going 100 mph has been accelerated more in the recent past than the car currently parked in your garage."
You said: "I agree. But it can be wrong."
Anything and everything "can be wrong." Is that your entire argument throughout this whole thread? That if it "can be wrong" then it's unreliable, and hence "is" wrong? Is THAT all you're saying?
Just being unreliable will do fine, whether it is right or wrong. APhysics likes to use what is reliable, not what is unreliable. Predictions get tricky when you base them on the unreliable.
One Brow said:"Actually, my claim is that the historical acceleration is meaningless in determining the present situation, because the acceleration may have been from a moving state to a rest state. Tht is different from declaring the history to not have existed."
It "may" have been? Heh. So you're sayinng it "may not" have been? Why would the history be irrelevant?
Because it has no effect on the current state.
Say you have 33 cars roaring around the track at the Indy 500. Any one of them, like one in the middle of the pack, "may" be at rest?
Yes.
With the lead car moving faster and the trailing car moving slower(how do you move "slower" than someone "at rest?---or are they just "moving backwards," like the spectators in the stands?).
Yes. If you take a car moving at middle speed as being in an inertial rest state, the slower cars and spectators are moving backwards.
Are you an absolutist? If it doesn't comport with your Platonic ideal Form of motion, then it is a false illusion, that the idea?
I don't see how this involves Platonic forms at all. I'm not promoting an absolute motion.
Then you have just defined "objective" out of existence. NOTHING ever looks the same to all observers. Unless you're God, maybe, you can't see anything "regardless of perspective" and no two observers can ever share the exact same perspective at the same time.
However, they can make the same measurements.
One Brow said: "Jill's clock reades 0 and clock1 reads 0 when Jill passes clock1. Jill's clock reades 8 and Jack's clock reads 10 when Jill passes Jack. Every honest observer capapble of viewing those events will agree on that. If you want to go with another definitiion of objective, feel free, but it will incorporate that idea, at the very least."
I'm fine with this idea. Now what about Jill's "observation" (I put that in the scariest of scare quotes) that clock 2 read 3.6 when clock 1 read 0. Is that "objective?" If so, why didn't Jack see it that way?
Any observer who conducts measurements while in Jill's inertial state will get the same results. So yes, that difference is objective. However, Jack is not in Jill's inertial state. Since acceleration is an absolute, and acceleration is the process of moving from one inertial state to another, that means the difference in inertial states is an absolute. Absolute physcial differences can cause changes in how things are measured. In particular, the difference in inertial states between Jack and Jill mean that Jack measures the clocks to be synchronized, while Jill does not.
A lightning bolt hits a train. Does the time I see it change the time it happened? Has my (subsequent) subjective observation of that event gone back in time and retractively made an objective change in either the train or the lightning bolt? Is my observation the least bit relevant to the event itself? Does the time I see it change the time it happened?
I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.
Agreed.
One Brow said:"The light arrives at the same time on earth whether there is an observer there or not. The effects of the events are simultaneous on earth, whether there is an observer on earth or not."
I agree. I just don't agree that "the effects" of the event ARE the event.
Agreed.
Are you able to make that distinction?
I believe so.
If so, why do you mention all of these obvious things?
Because we were discussing the relativity of simultaneity, which is about measuring events in different locations to be simultaneous or not.
One Brow said:"Sorry, but changes in the spatial relationship between two objects are also objective changes. Night is objectively different from day, even though there is no change in the sun or the earth, just in how they are oriented with respect to each other."
Yeah, so?
So, hopefullly I will stop seein you are that physical properties of teh relationships between objects, like the angle of incidence of light on an object, and the resultant phenomena, like a shadow, are just perspectives with no physical meaning. To argue that is to argue there is no difference between night and day.
I can see the chair in my living room right now. When I go to the bar, I can't. Does that mean the chair in my living room has "disappeared" as an objective matter?
No.
My departure for the bar puts me in a different spatial relationship with my living room chair, a spatial change which is objective.
Does that affect the chair?
Technically, yes, but by a very small amount, and not in a way relevant to this discussion.
The chair is the object in question here, not space, and not me.
Sometines the phenomenon under discussion is, metaphorically, your interaction with the chair, which is affected by whether you are in the same room or not.
One Brow said:"Exactly. Your confusion is that you think the 6.4 seconds is meant to represent some sort of measure in Jack's frame. It's a measure in Jill's frame only."
A measure of what? It just dawned on me to ask: Are you back to equivocating by referring to measurements of the irrelevant fucking doppler effects which I thought we agreed to leave out of it?
Accounting for doppler effects and light-speed delays are how Jill can measure the time to pass on Jack's clock.
She arrives at 6.4 seconds via the Lorentz transformations, not by looking at irrelevant light delays.
Jill can use the relative velocity she has to Jack and the LT. That would be a calculation, not a measurement. However, she can also use the relative velocity she has to Jack, the fact that she sees Jack's clock tick twice to every tick of hers, and basic algebra to get the same 6.4 seconds. That is a measurement.
Do you still think otherwise?
I think either method is available to Jill.
Which is it?
Why not both?
Will you ever stop equivocating?
Do you think that time dilation is SR is in any way caused by, or explained by, doppler effects?
Yes or no?
No, the effects of SR are not caused by doppler effects. I am not claiming that they are. I am talking about ticks that Jill can measure, not the effects of SR. Do you deny that you can use doppler effects to measure how fast a clock is currently ticking?
One Brow said: "Actually, they say the clock moving in a different inertail state from you will run slower."
Explain exactly what you are trying to say here, if you can.
You can see how fast a clock ticks when you approach it, or when you leave it, and compar that to how fast hyour clock ticks. For example, Jill sees click1 to tick off 4 seconds while hers ticks off 8 and Jack's clock ticks off 16. Using only the relative velocity, basic algebra, and the tick rates that Jill sees, without using the LT, Jill can measure how many ticks each clock will go through while her clock uses 8 ticks. The answer in each case is 6.4 ticks. This will be true whether Jill is moving or not. I'll do a post on this sometime this week, with a couple of diagrams.
One Brow said: "Jack sees Jill's clock move eight seconds to his four."
So, when Jill's clock ends up reading exactly 8 seconds, Jack's only reads 4 seconds, instead of 10seconds, like he thought, that the idea?
No. The light of Jill passing clock1 takes six seconds to reach Jack. When Jack sees Jill pass clock1, Jack's clock will read 6. He will see his clock move four more seconds to reach 10, while seeing Jill's clock move from 0 to 8.
One Brow said:"Yes, I disagree. The earth and the star are in the same inertial state. There fore, the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter."
Never, eh?
Never.
Explain to me, if you can, exactly what this means and the reason (math formula, whatever) for it. Have you ever read this in any physics text, any online source, or anywhere else where I can see an expert explanation of it?
It's a farily straightforward from the LT, but I don't recall seeing is worded quite that way. Another question for colton?
Take two sets of clocks. A and B, in the "same inertial state" (what is that supposed to mean, exactly) 4 light years apart from each other in their frame.
The other set of clocks, C and D, are also 4 light years apart in their frame.
The two sets are closing in on each at the rate of .6c.
Shades of Dingle.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath317/kmath317.htm
Which of these two sets "can never measure the distance between them as being longer" than the other set measures their distance to be?
To keep the mathe easier later on, I'm converting the 4 lightyears into 48 lightmonths (mc), if you do not mind. That way I'll avoid fractions when talking about the clock readings.
A and B measure the distance between them as 48 mc, which is longer than C or D measure the distance between A and B (38.4 mc). C and D measure the distance between them as 48 mc, which is longer than A or B measure the distance between C and D (38.4 mc).
Would the answer differ if I happened to mention clocks C and D first, instead of A and B?
No.
A and B?
Or C and D?
Pretty much.
Clocks B and C cross paths first. At that instant B still measures the distant to clock A ("trailing" him in his frame) to be 4 light years.
Agreed.
At that moment, what does clock C meaure the distance between A and B to be?
38.4 mc.
At that very same instant clock C meaures the distance to clock D ("trailing" him in his frame) to be 4 light years.
Agreed.
At that same moment, what does clock B measure the distance between C and D to be?
38.4 mc.
How are these measures arrived at?
However you like. Feel free to use a 48mc ruler, if you wish.
Will Clock A and C encounter each other at the same time that clock B encounters D?
What does that mean? There is an inertial state which will have the the two event occur simultaneously. however, none of those clocks are in that inertial state.
Is the distance that any of these clocks "see" in any way related to the rate at which they run?
There is no direct connection that I can think of.
Don't even think about trying to answer by switching back and forth between visual sensations and mechanical clock readings.
Agreed.
If clocks A and B are synchronized(in their frame) and if clocks C and D are synchronized (in their frame) and if Clocks B and C both read 0 when they pass each other, then:
How much time will have elapsed (not "passed" in some absolute sense, but how much time passage will the CLOCKS register):
1. On clock B when B encounters D?
2. On Clock D when B encounters D?
3. On Clock C when when C encounters A?
4. On Clock A when C encounters A?
1. 64 months
2. 80 months
3. 64 months
4. 80 months
Would you like the derivations of those numbers? You need to be able to calculate how unsynchronized clocks C and D are when observed from the inertial states of A and B (or vice-versa). This page goes over the formula and how it is derived.
Eric, you have made quite a few errors in your recent comments, but, right now, I'm not sure I can stomach even looking at them.
IT REALLY FUCKING PISSES ME OFF THAT YOU WILL NOT CEASE WITH YOUR STUPID EQUIVOCATION EVEN AFTER AGREEING TO DESIST.
Your annoyance comes from your confusion of what I say, not what I acutally say.
You know, and I know, that delays due to light rays hitting Jill's eyes have NOTHING to do with the Lorentz Transformations or the operation of mechancal clocks.
Agreed.
You know, and I know, that the same is true of Doppler effects.
Agreed.
You know, and I know that I have told you several times that this discussion is about mechanical clocks, not subjective "observations."
Agreed.
You know, and I know, that Fowler had Jill arrive at her results via the LT (and then tried to justify her erroneous conclusion via the bogus "relativity of simultaneity formula). You know, and I know, that he didn't not use doppler effects, etc. to get the 3.6 seconds difference.
Agreed. This does not mean that Fowler's method is the only way to get the number 6.4.
You know, and I certainly know, that it is sophistic to try to equate one with the other.
Agreed.
You know, and I know, that it is pure equivocation to arrive at Jack's numbers via the LT and Jill's number by reference to appearances in a manner which ignores Hogg's demand for "observation."
Agreed.
You know, and I know, that your persistence in acting stupid is not a game that I will fall for or will enjoy.
Agreed. Hence, I did not undertake such.
Now that that is out of the way, alow me to explain the confusion I just referred to. While Fowler used the LT to say Jill would calculation 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock, Jill can actually make a measurement confirming this calculation. This measurement is dependent only on the relative speed, the rate at which Jill can see Jack's clock to tick, and basic algebra. This measurement is not an explanation for SR. It does not replace SR. It does nothing to say *why* the time delay occurs. It is only a measurement of the actual delay, a physical observation jill can make to confirm a theory.
Again, do you deny that Jill can use a measured relative velocity, a measurement of Jack's clock tick rates as she sees them, a measurement of her own ticks rate, and basic algebra to determine the actual tick rate of Jack's clock? Or, will you acept this provisionally while awaiting my post?
I asked: "Is that wrong? That is, is it wrong to conclude that "she will calculate Jack's time and distance to be 6.4 seconds and 3.84 light seconds(instead of 10 and 6)" if she is deemed to be stationay?"
Colton answered: "Assuming no acceleration is present, it's irrelevant whether she is "stationary" or "moving". In fact, those are not even good terms to use, because you always must specific "stationary with respect to whom?" "Moving with respect to whom?" Thus the only important thing is her speed relative to Jack."
If I am reading this the way it's intended, then this answer is contrary to every explanation I've every heard( (which would include explanations from Al himself, Professors of Physics from Havard, Yale, Berkeley, and many others, including Fowler, who's example the question was derived from.
This is are part that don't square with the standard explanation:
"...it's irrelevant whether she is "stationary" or "moving."
I agree with the part which says the only important thing TO HER is her relative speed. I disagree with the part which says the question of who's moving versus who's stationary is irrelvant.
In Fowler's example, both Jack and Jill caculate Jill's time/distance to be 8 seconds/4.8 light years.
Yet they come to entirely different conclusions about the time/distance in Jack's frame. Jack thinks(knows) its 10 seconds/light seconds. Jill on the other hand, thinks his time/distance is 6.4 seconds/3.84 ligt years.
Why the difference? The difference is clear in Folwer's example:
Scenario 1:
A. Jack measures his time to be 10, then, BASED ON the assumption that he is stationary and that Jill is moving at .6c...
B. He then calculates, via the LT, that those times in his frame will measure out to be 8/4.8 in Jill's frame.
Scenario 2:
A. Jill measures her time to be 8, then, BASED ON the(CONTRARY) assumption that SHE is stationary and that Jack is moving at .6c...
B. She then calculates, via the LT, that those times in her frame will measure out to be 6.4/3.84 in Jill's frame.
The only difference?
In Scenario 1 Jack is the one deemed to be stationary, with Jill moving. In Scenario 2 Jill is the one deemed to be stationary, with Jack moving.
NOTE: Both arrive at their conclusion ONLY on the LT, with doppler effects, light delays, etc., playing no part in their observations. They observe objective readouts on mechanical clocks from the same place at the same time, and based their conclusions on that fact alone.
One Brow said:"Again, do you deny that Jill can use a measured relative velocity, a measurement of Jack's clock tick rates as she sees them, a measurement of her own ticks rate, and basic algebra to determine the actual tick rate of Jack's clock."
I haven't read any of your posts, other than the one from Colton. I don't care, either way. Fowler explicitly says that Jill uses the LT to calculate 6.4 seconds. She doesn't base her conclusion on anything else. Every basis for her rationalization, "contracted length, dilated time," etc. is based on the LT, but her rationalizaton is bogus anyway. That is not how she arrived at the 6.4 second figure.
My question is about the LT only, and actual readings on the clocks(not the "passage of time" while ignoring the clocks).
I see you have invited Colton to participate, if he's interested. My disagreement, and my reasons for it are here, if he wishes to repond.
aintnuthin said...
If I am reading this the way it's intended, then this answer is contrary to every explanation I've every heard( (which would include explanations from Al himself, Professors of Physics from Havard, Yale, Berkeley, and many others, including Fowler, who's example the question was derived from.
Actually, no. It is completely in line with every other explanation you have read by mainstream-SR proponents. You have just not realized this. You have been reading people and interpreting them in your own pre-conceived notions, rather than what they intended to say.
This is part that don't square with the standard explanation:
"...it's irrelevant whether she is "stationary" or "moving."
When answering the quesitons presented, that *is* the standard explanation.
I disagree with the part which says the question of who's moving versus who's stationary is irrelvant.
If you had asked diffeent questions, then it might have been relevant. For the questions you asked, it was not.
In Fowler's example, both Jack and Jill caculate Jill's time/distance to be 8 seconds/4.8 light years.
Agreed.
Yet they come to entirely different conclusions about the time/distance in Jack's frame.
Wrong. As I have pointed out before, you have misread Fowler. Jill's measurements of the objects in Jack's inertial state are different from Jack's measurements. Jill can come to conclusions about Jack's frame, but that is different than measuring things from her own frame, and Jill conclusions about what Jack measures will match what Jack measures.
Jack thinks(knows) its 10 seconds/light seconds. Jill on the other hand, thinks his time/distance is 6.4 seconds/3.84 ligt years.
Wrong. Jack's measurement of the time passed on clock1 is 10 seconds. Jill's measurement of the time passed on clock1 is 6.4 seconds. However, that 6.4 is *her* time passed on clock1. not Jack's.
Why the difference?
Because clock1 is in Jack's inertial state, not Jill's.
The difference is clear in Folwer's example
You have misunderstood Fowler's example.
The only difference?
In Scenario 1 Jack is the one deemed to be stationary, with Jill moving. In Scenario 2 Jill is the one deemed to be stationary, with Jack moving.
Agreed. Howeer, you have the conclusions for scenario B wrong.
NOTE: Both arrive at their conclusion ONLY on the LT, with doppler effects, light delays, etc., playing no part in their observations. They observe objective readouts on mechanical clocks from the same place at the same time, and based their conclusions on that fact alone.
Agreed.
I haven't read any of your posts, other than the one from Colton. I don't care, either way. Fowler explicitly says that Jill uses the LT to calculate 6.4 seconds. She doesn't base her conclusion on anything else.
If the LT are correct, then they will agree with any other way Jill has of measuring the time passed on Jack's clock. Fowler chose one way, but why should we limit ourselves to that?
Every basis for her rationalization, "contracted length, dilated time," etc. is based on the LT, but her rationalizaton is bogus anyway.
Wrong. The LT are mathematical equations. They do not explain or rationalize anything.
The basis for contracted length, dilated time, etc. is difference in dimensional orientation, caused by movement in different inertial states. The different is always reciprocal, which is the the LTs can be used reciprocally.
That is not how she arrived at the 6.4 second figure.
My question is about the LT only, and actual readings on the clocks(not the "passage of time" while ignoring the clocks).
We use the clocks to measure the passage of time.
One Brow said: "One Brow said:"Yes, I disagree. The earth and the star are in the same inertial state. There fore, the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter."
One Brow said:"Jill measures 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is stationary and Jack/clock1 are moving. Jill measures 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is moving and Jack/clock1 are stationary. Jack measures 10 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is stationary and Jack/clock1 are moving. Jack measures 10 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is moving and Jack/clock1 are stationary."
Completely wrong, according to every authoritative account I've ever read.
In the first quote you seem to be referring to "proper length," which (like "proper time") is not a part of the LT. Nor does it have anything to do with what can "never happen." Each frame can have it's own "proper time" and "proper length."
Proper time and proper length are Minkowski's creation, which were components of his "invariant" spacetime intervals. He established "conventions" which, effectively, determine who is moving, generally speaking. This is all part of the necessity of finding some absolutes (invariants) to replace "the ether."
Some people refer to proper times and lengths as scalars, but they are not. They are completely frame dependent (and depend on motion). They are invariant only it the sense that, given the length and time measured in any given frame, all other frames will calculate (not "see") the same numbers.
Your second claim abolishes the relativity principle. It also contradicts the clear statements of the professor I quoted in conection with the "Alice, Bob, and Bruce" scenario he laid out. He was applying the LT, not trying to create an "invariant." Don't pretend you are expounding on "mainstream SR," when you are merely re-writing it to suit your claims.
One Brow said: "This page goes over the formula and how it is derived."
I don't see anything on this page which supports your claims by way of a formula. The formula is the same one Fowler gave.
It says "We introduce three clocks U1, Um and U2 moving in relationship to each other like Epstein’s small fleet, that is, at constant distance from each other with velocity v in the x-direction of the black, at rest, non-prime system A. x' is the distance of neighboring clocks in the red, fast-moving, prime system B; x is the corresponding value measured in the black system. x' is larger than x." It goes on to say:"That is the time difference for the black system, which knows however that the red clocks run more slowly than its own."
So the state of motion is a required item of knowledge. Every problem on that page starts by first telling you who is moving.
"Proper length" is always longest in the stationary frame. On the other hand "proper time" is always longest in the stationary frame. These assignments are NOT made irrespective of motion. The state of motion is implicit in them. Still, they are not predictions of the LT, where the answers always depend on who is moving. They are components of an different calculation which is designed to yield an "invariant" number. To reiterate, they are merely components in the creation of a "spacetime interval," which is a completely different thing that the LT itself.
continued in next post
Take the Jack and Jill example. Using the LT, when comparing two observers, the moving party will always have BOTH the shorter distance and the slower time. Not so with proper length and time. Proper time is the one with the longest time, which, in turn, is the one that is "stationary" (Jack) whereas "proper distance" is always the shorter length, i.e. the distance measured by the person moving. (Jill). You must take something from each frame to concoct something "invariant." So it is a mere "mish-mash" of the "actual situation," which is determined by the LT.
According to SR (but not LR) each party will always assume it is motionless when "predicting" the time and distance in the other frame. Hence at least one of them must be wrong as a matter of fact(as opposed to a mere matter of mathematical formalism).
One Brow said: "We use the clocks to measure the passage of time."
Yes, we do, except when someone doesn't and claims that "ONLY 6.4
seconds pass on Jack's clock."
Jack's clock records 10 seconds. That is what the CLOCK measures. That is his time for LT purposes, not what Jill "thinks' it is. Jill sees 10 seconds, and that is Jack's time in Jack's frame (as she has every reason to know and believe), whatever else she might "think" based on false assumptions
See, you make that statement after spending hours trying to assert the opposite. You seem incapable of distinguishing "objecive time" from "subjecive time."
One Brow said:"Actually, no. It is completely in line with every other explanation you have read by mainstream-SR proponents. You have just not realized this. You have been reading people and interpreting them in your own pre-conceived notions, rather than what they intended to say."
Stop with the lame bluffs, and go read them yourself instead of thinking you already know what they say. Show me where I have misread them. Quit bluffing and educate yourself.
One Brow said:"Actually, no. It is completely in line with every other explanation you have read by mainstream-SR proponents. You have just not realized this. You have been reading people and interpreting them in your own pre-conceived notions, rather than what they intended to say."
Stop with the lame bluffs, and go read them yourself instead of thinking you already know what they say. Show me where I have misread them. Quit bluffing and educate yourself.
What Colton is saying is quite reasonable and comports with what anyone would naturally expect.
That alone tells you it is not SR. His claim (to the extent it says each person will get identical readings for his own and the moving party's clock) is consistent with LR, but not SR.
The LR tells you that the moving clock will be slower. SR takes it another step and insists that EACH clock be considered as stationary. That's why two observers never agree in SR.
I said: "Yet they come to entirely different conclusions about the time/distance in Jack's frame."
You said:"Wrong. As I have pointed out before, you have misread Fowler. Jill's measurements of the objects in Jack's inertial state are different from Jack's measurements. Jill can come to conclusions about Jack's frame, but that is different than measuring things from her own frame, and Jill conclusions about what Jack measures will match what Jack measures."
You say I'm wrong, then go on to repeat everything I've said, except you can't distinguish objective from subjective time.
How does Jill arrive at her "measurement" of Jack's time and distance. What does Fowler say about that? He says:
"Jill’s own clock reads 8 seconds at that instant, so she concludes that C1 is running slow by the appropriate time dilation factor of 4/5."
The 4/5 comes from the Lorentz transform, when she assumes (falsely) that she is moving.
Fowler also clearly says:
"In fact, all her clocks, including her pulse, are slowed down by this factor according to Jack. Jill is aging more slowly because she’s moving!
But this isn’t the whole story—we must now turn everything around and look at it from Jill’s point of view. Her inertial frame of reference is just as good as Jack’s. She sees his light clock to be moving at speed v (backwards) so from her point of view his light blip takes the longer zigzag path, which means his clock runs slower than hers...This phenomenon is called time dilation."
In SR, Jill's clock is slower than Jack's, and Jack's clock is slower than Jill's. See that? They don't both calculate the exact same thing for their own and the other's clocks?
Why? How can this be? Because each assumes the HE/SHE is stationary and the other is moving when making their calculations, that's why.
Needless to say, one of them MUST be wrong in their assumptions.
One Brow said:"Wrong. Jack's measurement of the time passed on clock1 is 10 seconds. Jill's measurement of the time passed on clock1 is 6.4 seconds. However, that 6.4 is *her* time passed on clock1. not Jack's".
1. Fowler says she "concludes" (NOT "measures") that only 6.4 seconds have passed. This is based on (A) The LT coupled with (B) the assumption that she is stationary.
2. At no time does Folwer EVER say (nor would he say under these circumstances) that Jack's CLOCK EVER recorded 6.4 seconds passing. That is simply Jill's (false) conclusion.
Just a post back you said "time passed" is measured by clocks. THEN you instantly contradict yourself with this post. You generally do this 30 times a day, minimum.
One Brow said:"...and Jill conclusions about what Jack measures will match what Jack measures."
How, pray-tell, does 6.4 = 10?
All you have to say on behalf of Jill is "her inertial frame" to say that she is stationary. It's automtically implied (which is probably why some people tend to forget it and think motion is irrelevant).
All you have to say on behalf of Jack is "his intertial frame" to say that he is stationary.
Within the context of SR, I mean. Outside of SR, the mere phrase "his/her inertial frame" says NOTHING about motion, in and of itself.
One Brow said: "If you had asked diffeent questions, then it might have been relevant. For the questions you asked, it was not."
You steadfastly refused to comment on, or even acknowledge the existence of, my question. I got so tired of reading your version that I quit paying much attention.
Not sure it would have made the slightest difference, given Colton's explanation of his answer.
Many have expressed amazement that SR has seemingly been accepted by most physicists. They often speculate that it is because the typical physicist "thinks" about SR in terms of LR, and (unconsciously) gives it LR interpretations.
It's premises and arguments are so ambigous and/or contradictory that the natural tendency is to try to interpret it in a consistent way, regardless of what it might literally say.
The website you referred me to about the (bogus) "relatitivity of simultaneity" formula frankly states: "...one cannot do without this formula, if one wants to present the whole situation without contradiction..."
And that's what it is. An ad hoc, senseless "fudge factor" which is absolutely necessary to the appearance of avoiding contradictions inherent in SR's self-contradictory claims. I have already commented at extended length about this "concept" and the mathematical "epicycle" it supposedly generates.
It is necessary to "undo," mathematically, the premises of SR.
Edit. Meant to say
"The 4/5 comes from the Lorentz transform, when she assumes (falsely) that she is NOT moving.
I stated this inaccurately:
"It is necessary to "undo," mathematically, the premises of SR."
More precisely, the formula is used to "explain" how blatant self-contradiction can somehow be seen as internally consistent. The "explanation" fails miserably.
Why does 6.4 = 10?
Because 6.4 + 3.6 = 10, that's why.
But you didn't say that.
No need to say it. It's always implicit. If I say 5 = 10 I am merely saying that 5 + 5 = 10.
But why not just say 10 = 10?
Because that would refute Al's relativity principle. Such utterances are strictly forbidden.
One Brow said: "If the LT are correct, then they will agree with any other way Jill has of measuring the time passed on Jack's clock. Fowler chose one way, but why should we limit ourselves to that?"
The LT are (let's assume) correct, but that doesn't mean they can't be incorrectly applied. If Jill misapplies them, based on false assumptions, then her calculation is wrong. Hence any other method of arriving at an incorrect conclusion is also wrong.
As I said before, and you (at that time, anyway) agreed, the LT give an answer to every situation involving two relatively moving parties, and that answer is always the same, to wit: The moving clock runs slow and the lengths in it's frame are contracted.
That is (or should be) the end of it. That necessarily implies that the "stationary" clock runs fast (not slow) relative to the moving clock and that the length's in it's frame are relatively elongated (not contracted). The only trick now is to find out which one is moving.
Like I said---end of story. But not with SR. That's where the false assumptions (by one observer) are demanded in order to establish the (false) appearance of a relativity principle. Unless EACH (BOTH) observers make the mutually exclusive assumption that HE is stationary, you have no relativity principle. This is why Poincare (for example) saw through it as a "legitimate" proposition.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If
1. Jill knows the LT, and
2. Goes by the empirical facts (i.e., that Jack's clock has recorded 10 seconds elapsed while her's only recorded 8, THEN
3. She would conclude that (believe it or not) she is the one moving and Jack is the one who is (relatively) stationary.
That's what the LT, standing alone as a mathematical formula, tells you.
However, in SR, the LT is not allowed to "stand alone," and it's mathematical implications are flatly denied. In SR Jill CANNOT be allowed to accept the mathematical consequences of the LT.
Here's a website discussing length contraction (and expansion) and some formulas for calculating it. A few excerpts:
"Our formula for linear expansion is:
∆L=L0.α. ∆T
Where; ∆L is the amount of change in the length of the rod, L0 is the initial length of the road, α is the coefficient of linear expansion and ∆T is the change...[The] inverse of the expansion is called contraction"
http://www.physicstutorials.org/home/heat-temperature-and-thermal-expansion/thermal-expansion-and-contraction
I said: "For one thing, to the extent, if any, that the postulates say the the LT are mutually reciprocal, then that is inconsistent with the LT themselves, which say that, as between two relatively moving objects, only one has it's measurments of time and length distorted."
You responded: "Actually, the LT say that you will observe the time and length of objects in different inertial states to be distorted.
Dr. Fowler said: "...according to Jack. Jill is aging more slowly because she’s moving!...we must now turn everything around and look at it from Jill’s point of view. Her inertial frame of reference is just as good as Jack’s. She sees his light clock to be moving at speed v (backwards) so from her point of view his light blip takes the longer zigzag path, which means his clock runs slower than hers...This phenomenon is called time dilation."
See that? "Because she is moving." Get it? Somehow I doubt it. I am misreading him, no doubt. He really doesn't mean a word he says. Same with other prominent physicists throughout the world, eh?
Dr. Fowler said: "...we must now turn everything around and look at it from Jill’s point of view. Her inertial frame of reference is just as good as Jack’s."
There's the "mutually reciprocal" dogma, based on the over-generalization that leads to the assertion that a guy on a moving train is "equally entitled" to claim that every fixed thing on the planet is moving while he remains motionless. People on a train ask if Chicago (or New York) stops here.
Without that, there is no requirement that some party falsely INSIST that he is motionless when, as a logical matter, one must be moving.
The "mutual reciprocity" dogma can be forced into channels where it is mathematically consistent, but it can NEVER be consistent with an actual state of affairs.
Website said:""Our formula for linear expansion is:
∆L=L0.α. ∆T"
It also says:
"When you give heat to matters; speed of its particles increase and distance between them also increase which results in the increase of the volumes of matters..."
See that? Speed AND distances change!
I have a radical new metaphysics which changes our entire understanding of the universe, I tellya!
It adds a 5th co-ordinate, called "temp." The resulting geometry creates a whole new physical reality consisting of what I call "spacetemptime."
I haven't worked out all the implications, but one of them that I have figured out is that One Brow has a future in hell.
I made a couple of posts pointing out the difference between the LT itself and Minkowski's attempt to "absolutize" time and distance, according to stated conventions, in order to generate an "invariant" spacetime interval. Minkowski's conventions have nothing to do with what can "never happen." The conventions established do implicitly assign a state of motion to each party, so even they are not applied "irrespective" of motion. They are not part of the LT itself, and they can only be generated by "mismatching" frames (taking the time from one frame and the length from another--which is generally presumed to be an error in any interpretation of SR).
So, these "conventional rules" are not SR and are not the LT.
In one of those posts, I made this statement: "Proper length" is always longest in the stationary frame. On the other hand "proper time" is always longest in the stationary frame."
The "on the other hand" part makes no sense (not sure what I had in mind). "Proper time" and "proper length" has different meanings in different context, and takes on different meanings when comparing and contrasting two objects which are moving with respect to each other, but that doesn't change the point I am making in the least. When one talks about the LT, the various "rules" which guide the concoction of an invariant spacetime interval can't simply be substituted for the LT itself.
Apart from making no sense
I said:"When one talks about the LT, the various "rules" which guide the concoction of an invariant spacetime interval can't simply be substituted for the LT itself."
It was implied, but to be explicit, it appears that Colton has done the above, and that is why I said I didn't think he understood the question.
As I said in a previous post:
To the extent that you (or Colton, for that matter) want to contend that Jack's clock "will always" read 10 seconds and that Jill's "will always" read 8 seconds, then you have made my point for me. That is simply to say that Jill is really moving (relative to Jack) and that Jack is "really stationary" relative to Jill.
You will be wrong in saying that you have "reversed" your assumptions about the state of motion of each party before coming to that conclusion, but you will be right that it is an objective fact (by hypothesis) and that no amount of "calculation" can change that fact.
You will also concede that the LT are NOT "mutually reciprocal," and in fact only work in one direction, not both."
In essence, the application of Minkowskian rules for deterterming "proper time" and
"proper length" when comparing objects in relative motion merely turns SR into LR. But SR is NOT LR. No wonder there is so much confusion when discussing the theory.
Minkowski's "reinterpretation" of Al's SR changed the theory, and should NOT be called "Einstien's theory of special relativity," but historically no real distinction has been made. A more appropriate description would be "Minkowski's geometrization of Lorentzian Relativty." Minkowski chose to maintain a "tip of the cap" to Al for the sake of appearances. He purported to retain Al's notions of "mutual reciprocity" but he actually eliminated that proposition in practice. With it goes the "relativity principle" as such.
Minkowski himself rechristened the "relativity postulate" as "the postulate of the absolute world."
So, which is it? What's the "real" theory? The "theory of relativity," or the "theory of the absolute world?"
One Brow said:"Even if he is moving and Jill is not. the correct application of the LT says Jill's clock will read 8."
The LT says exactly the opposite, even if Minkowski tells you that you must think otherwise.
One Brow said: "The earth and the star are in the same inertial state. There fore, the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter."
Think about what you are saying here. What physical reason prevents ANY observer from making a measurement of distance in his own frame? What physical reason would then assure me that (since I have measured a distance in my frame) I can't be moving with respect to the Sun. You should become a theoretician for the flat-earthers and heliocentrists, eh?
How does this square with the assertion you've been making for two years that "you can never tell who's moving?" YOU can tell INSTANTLY and infallibly, because "the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter."
Never, eh?
You seem to ever really think about the rules and formulas you have been trained to memorize and apply. You just apply them, like a robot.
Do you even see what I'm saying? Why couldn't Jack set up two clocks and then fly past Jill? Do you try to maintain even the slightest connection to physical possibilites when you make these "never" claims?
If that happened, the LT (which is what we're supposedly talking about here, not Minkowski) Jill's clock would show 12.5 seconds on her clock if his read 10. Per the LT, that is.
Anyone who says the two situations are "exactly the same" seems to mistake formal rules for physical reality.
When Jill sees 10 seconds on Jack's clock THAT is her "observation," not her illogical denials of the empirical data.
The simple observation is that her clock runs at a slower rate than his does. The only valid conclusion, given the LT, is that she, not Jack, is moving.
The question I asked you a long time ago, which I don't recall you answering, was this:
Why is it Jack's clock that reads 10 seconds, and Jill's 8? Why isn't it the other way around?
Do you have an answer to that question?
One problem with the light clock "illustrations" used to "explain" why "each observer sees the other person's clock as running slow" is that it explains nothing.
There are plenty of phenomenological appearances that are "mutually reciprocal." But in each case they are merely appearances, like each person "seeing" the other get smaller as the distance between them increases (or larger as they approach each other). None of those "changes" are objective. An it's only because they are not objective changes that they can be "mutually reciprocal." Each person cannot "actually" get smaller than the other as they recede. Therefore, they explain nothing about actual time dilation effects (which are NOT reciprocal).
I really can't fathom why they are presented as being something "explanatory," unless you are tring to explain a wholly relational theory in which there are no "real" changes in the times and distances in the frames involved.
I have a feeling that I need to be very specific about what I'm saying here (and even then I don't really expect comprehension, but, who knows?)
I start with an example like this:
Suppose I measure a star which not moving with respect to me to be 1 light year away (and start to continue)
You butt in and say: "Say no more. That answers all questions about the motion between you and every other object in the universe.
Me: How could it?
You: Because, with respect to all other objects, you have the "proper length."
Me: Yeah, so?
You: So all other objects which view the distance between you and that star will measure a lesser distance.
Me: Yeah, so?
You: The moving party always has the shorter distance. Since you will ALWAYS have the longer distance, you are always stationary.
Me: I thought the question of who's moving one was kinda an open one in SR.
You: Hell no. It's basically predetermined, actually. Just set up any object that is not moving in your frame, and then you will always be stationary. It's a snap to know who's really moving. You have been eternally fixed as stationary so long as you have something else in your frame that is co-moving with you.
Me: Who knew?
Me: So, since my frame has the "proper length," I guess my frame has the "proper time," too, eh?
You: Wrong, fool. The other guy, whoever he is, wherever he is, even if there are millions of them all moving at different speeds, all now have the proper time. Since you have the proper length, your time must be improper.
Me: Why is that? Doesn't sound consistent and doesn't seem to make much sense.
You: It's because Minkowski said so, chump. Until you read the SR bible, you'll never know or understand anything.
One Brow said: "The readings would be the same if Jill is at rest and Jack/clock1 was moving past. Jack's clock would read 10, and Jill's would read eight...
I understood the relevant factor was that clock1 was in Jack's/Bob's inertial state, not who was moving...
Using the LT, or not, and assuming she is moving, or not, do not affect the time Jill measures to pass on Jack's clock."
====
As soon as I saw you making statements like this, and understanding that you took them literally, I was absolutely shocked and flabergasted. For two years we have been talking about this topic, and all this time you have been laboring under a most fundamental misapprehension about the LT and about the relativity principle.
Needless to say, I was even more shocked to see that Colton shared that same misapprehension.
I see now that you both have a total disconnect between the formulas you routinely and unthinkingly apply and the concepts they (1) relate to and/or(2) were derived from.
You each display a complete misunderstanding of the LT. You both effectively deny the principle of relativity while purporting to be espousing it, which indicates that you don't understand it to begin with.
I really can't speak for Colton, but you feel compelled to argue for the standard assumptions underlying Al's relativity principle out of a presumed sense of duty. Your arguments could not be based on an understanding, or you would see that you are contradicting yourself on a regular basis when you undertake to do so while holding such mistaken views as I quoted at the top.
Those views (reached via different reasoning) may be fine, but they are NOT compatible with the premises of SR.
I now doubt that you can ever understand this, because you are simply incapable of separating subjective from objective events/explanations.
Despite all I've said, you continue to use such self-contradictory phrasing as "what Jill measures on Jack's clock" when referring to the figure of 6.4 seconds.
I will say it one more time. Jill "measures" one, and only one, "time on Jack's clock." That is 10 seconds. She knows that his clocks are synchronized with each other, even if they are not synchronized with hers. She knows that both their clocks are set to 0 when they pass each other. She therefore knows, via direct observation, that 10 seconds have passed in Jack's frame.
Any other figure she arrives at is NOT based on any measurement OF HIS CLOCK.
I know that I can point this out a thousand times, and explain exactly why it is true a thousand times, and you will still just deny it. You have no idea of what "observation" even is. You cannot distinguish objective clock time, as recorded by mechanical clocks, from someone's imputation of their subjective conclusions, drawn from the subjective premises, onto that clock.
You think they are the exact same things, somehow.
I saw a young kid, maybe 9 or 10 years old, at a county fair once. His parents had given him $10 (a small fortune, back then) to use to enjoy himself.
He went straight to a carny game booth where he could pick a floating plastic duck out of the water for only a dime. If the number on the bottom of the duck matched certain numbers, you could win a prize with that number on it.
He had his eyes on a stuffed panda bear which you could win if the duck you picked had the number "17" on it. After he had spent about a dollar without winning the panda bear, I pulled him aside.
I said, looky here, son: You're never gunna win that bear. There is no number "17" under any of those ducks. Why don't you go ride some rides and have some fun. Don't waste your money at this sucker trap.
He was old enough to understand what I was saying, but he refused to believe it--he WANTED that bear. I stayed around. After he had blown a few more dollars, I once again tried to dissuade him from further pursuit of his folly. But, he WANTED that panda bear.
An hour or so later, he had spent every last dime trying to win that bear, and he was bawling uncontrollably. He hadn't enjoyed the use of the $10 at all, and had in fact made himself miserable. But did he learn anything?
Fraid not. All he wanted was another dollar so that he could, this time, win that bear for sure!
As Fred Nietzsche said once: "Faith does not move mountains. On the contrary, it erects mountains where there were none."
aintnuthiin said...
One Brow said: "One Brow said:"Yes, I disagree. The earth and the star are in the same inertial state. There fore, the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter."
One Brow said:"Jill measures 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is stationary and Jack/clock1 are moving. Jill measures 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is moving and Jack/clock1 are stationary. Jack measures 10 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is stationary and Jack/clock1 are moving. Jack measures 10 seconds to pass on Jack's clock when Jill is moving and Jack/clock1 are stationary."
Completely wrong, according to every authoritative account I've ever read.
Then you have misread the truly authoritative accounts and possibly relied on the non-authoritative accounts.
In the first quote you seem to be referring to "proper length," which (like "proper time") is not a part of the LT. Nor does it have anything to do with what can "never happen." Each frame can have it's own "proper time" and "proper length."
"Proper time" refers to the amount of time that is measured by an inertial traveler moving between two events, as I understand it. For any given pair of events, there is only one amount of proper time. Any other observer moving between those two events measures less time. Proper length is indeed the distance between two objects in the same intertial frame, as measured in that inertial frame.
Proper time and proper length are Minkowski's creation, which were components of his "invariant" spacetime intervals. He established "conventions" which, effectively, determine who is moving, generally speaking. This is all part of the necessity of finding some absolutes (invariants) to replace "the ether."
Actually, they don't determine who is moving, nor is that relevant.
Some people refer to proper times and lengths as scalars, but they are not.
Agreed.
They are completely frame dependent (and depend on motion).
This is accurate for proper length, in a fashion, but not for proper time. The proper time bewteen any two events will be invariant.
They are invariant only it the sense that, given the length and time measured in any given frame, all other frames will calculate (not "see") the same numbers.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Scalar are numbers that are the same for all frames. Proper time and proper length are not scalars.
Your second claim abolishes the relativity principle.
The second claim is practically a direct application the postulate of experimental invariance. It is the essence of the relativity principle.
It also contradicts the clear statements of the professor I quoted in conection with the "Alice, Bob, and Bruce" scenario he laid out. He was applying the LT, not trying to create an "invariant." Don't pretend you are expounding on "mainstream SR," when you are merely re-writing it to suit your claims.
It does not contradict what the Alice-Bob-Bruce example says.
One Brow said: "This page goes over the formula and how it is derived."
I don't see anything on this page which supports your claims by way of a formula. The formula is the same one Fowler gave.
You didn't see how the formula was dervied on that page? Need anything explained to you on it?
So the state of motion is a required item of knowledge. Every problem on that page starts by first telling you who is moving.
I guess you think the analysis would be different if the states of motion were reversed. You're wrong.
"Proper length" is always longest in the stationary frame. On the other hand "proper time" is always longest in the stationary frame. These assignments are NOT made irrespective of motion.
Proper length is always longest, and always between two objects in the same inertial state, even when that state is moving at .9c. Proper time is always longest, and always measured by an object in an inertial state, even when that inertail state is moving at .9c.
The state of motion is implicit in them. Still, they are not predictions of the LT, where the answers always depend on who is moving. They are components of an different calculation which is designed to yield an "invariant" number. To reiterate, they are merely components in the creation of a "spacetime interval," which is a completely different thing that the LT itself.
Actually, depending on the interval, the LT may be exactly what is used to calculate proper time or proper distance (technically, a path integral based on the LT).
Take the Jack and Jill example. Using the LT, when comparing two observers, the moving party will always have BOTH the shorter distance and the slower time. Not so with proper length and time. Proper time is the one with the longest time, which, in turn, is the one that is "stationary" (Jack) whereas "proper distance" is always the shorter length, i.e. the distance measured by the person moving. (Jill). You must take something from each frame to concoct something "invariant." So it is a mere "mish-mash" of the "actual situation," which is determined by the LT.
So many misconceptions is such a small paragraph. I'll try to parse them out for you.
First, you are missing an important conception in proper time, the movement between the two events. In the Jack&Jill scenario, the two events are a) Jill passes clock1 and b) Jill passes Jack. Jill is the observer who is present at both events, and Jill is moving inertially between teh two events, so Jill's time is the proper time (8 seconds).
Second, proper time only refers to observers who are present at both events. Jack is not there when Jill passes clock1, so Jack is not restricted by the amount of proper time. Instead, lets talk about Jane, who passes clock1 at the same time Jill passes clock1, but at some speed higher than .6c. Jane travels at that speed untill she reaches Jack, and then stops and waits for Jill to catch up. So, Jane is present at both events. Jane did not move inertially, and so measures less time than Jill for those events. That's how proper time is applied.
Third, when you are just looking at Jack/Jill/clock1, exactly two of those observers are in the same inertial state (clock1 and Jack), so you can measure a proper length only between them. If you add the clock4 I mentioned earlier, you could measure a proper length between Jill and clock4.
Fourth, there is no mixing of "proper time" and "proper lenght", they are not combined in some "proper description" of spacetime. They are evaluated independently and do not affect each other.
According to SR (but not LR) each party will always assume it is motionless when "predicting" the time and distance in the other frame. Hence at least one of them must be wrong as a matter of fact(as opposed to a mere matter of mathematical formalism).
Assumptions are irrelevant to SR, and play no part in it. SR is about measurment. The only events that are elevated to an ontological status would be those that are the same to every observer.
One Brow said: "We use the clocks to measure the passage of time."
Yes, we do, except when someone doesn't and claims that "ONLY 6.4
seconds pass on Jack's clock."
10 - 3.6 = 6.4. You make basic subtractions to perform measurements.
Jack's clock records 10 seconds. That is what the CLOCK measures.
To any observer in Jack's inertial state, sure.
That is his time for LT purposes, not what Jill "thinks' it is.
Agreed.
Jill sees 10 seconds,
No, Jill sees 16 seconds pass and measures 6.4 seconds to pass. She sees the clock read 10, but does not see it nor measure it to go from 0 to 10.
and that is Jack's time in Jack's frame (as she has every reason to know and believe), whatever else she might "think" based on false assumptions
Jill can use the LT to calculate what Jack will measure in his frame, and that will be 10 seconds. This does not change the 6.4 seconds Jill measures to pass on Jack's clock or on clock1.
See, you make that statement after spending hours trying to assert the opposite. You seem incapable of distinguishing "objecive time" from "subjecive time."
It's hard to distinguish concepts you make up in your mind. Let's try keeping it to concepts in physics, like measured time.
Stop with the lame bluffs, and go read them yourself instead of thinking you already know what they say.
I've spent months reading them with you, until I tired of you misrepresenting what was said.
Show me where I have misread them.
I have gone over this regularly.
Quit bluffing and educate yourself.
I've learned a few things over the past few months, and will be the first to acknowledge I have more to learn.
How about you? What have you learned about mainstream-SR, specifically, in the last eight months that you did not previously understand about it?
hat Colton is saying is quite reasonable and comports with what anyone would naturally expect.
If only you meant that.
That alone tells you it is not SR. His claim (to the extent it says each person will get identical readings for his own and the moving party's clock) is consistent with LR, but not SR.
Since SR and LR would make the exact same predictions in each case (as even Van Flandern acknowledged), that's acutally not possible.
The LR tells you that the moving clock will be slower. SR takes it another step and insists that EACH clock be considered as stationary. That's why two observers never agree in SR.
SR makes no limitations on what humans can agree to.
I said: "Yet they come to entirely different conclusions about the time/distance in Jack's frame."
You said:"Wrong. As I have pointed out before, you have misread Fowler. Jill's measurements of the objects in Jack's inertial state are different from Jack's measurements. Jill can come to conclusions about Jack's frame, but that is different than measuring things from her own frame, and Jill conclusions about what Jack measures will match what Jack measures."
You say I'm wrong, then go on to repeat everything I've said, except you can't distinguish objective from subjective time.
If that were true, then one of us has a serious problem reading the other. However, it's good of you to finally acknowledge the 6.4 seconds is not what Jill thinks Jack will measure in mainstream-SR.
How does Jill arrive at her "measurement" of Jack's time and distance. What does Fowler say about that? He says:
"Jill’s own clock reads 8 seconds at that instant, so she concludes that C1 is running slow by the appropriate time dilation factor of 4/5."
The 4/5 comes from the Lorentz transform, when she assumes (falsely) that she is moving.
The Lorentz transformation is the method that Fowler uses, but it is not the only method at Jill's disposal for measuring the time delay in jack's clock.
Fowler also clearly says:
"In fact, all her clocks, including her pulse, are slowed down by this factor according to Jack. Jill is aging more slowly because she’s moving!
But this isn’t the whole story—we must now turn everything around and look at it from Jill’s point of view. Her inertial frame of reference is just as good as Jack’s. She sees his light clock to be moving at speed v (backwards) so from her point of view his light blip takes the longer zigzag path, which means his clock runs slower than hers...This phenomenon is called time dilation."
In SR, Jill's clock is slower than Jack's, and Jack's clock is slower than Jill's. See that?
No, that's not what Fowler says, it's just silly nonsense. Fowler says Jill will measure Jack's clock to be slower, and Jack will measure Jill's clock to be slower.
They don't both calculate the exact same thing for their own and the other's clocks?
They can make reciprocal calculations, sure.
Why? How can this be? Because each assumes the HE/SHE is stationary and the other is moving when making their calculations, that's why.
The calculations are based on differing relative speed, and the notion of moving/stationary is not relevant.
Needless to say, one of them MUST be wrong in their assumptions.
Since the notion of which one is moving is not relevant, neither is figuring out who is wrong in the assumption of who is moving.
One Brow said:"Wrong. Jack's measurement of the time passed on clock1 is 10 seconds. Jill's measurement of the time passed on clock1 is 6.4 seconds. However, that 6.4 is *her* time passed on clock1. not Jack's".
1. Fowler says she "concludes" (NOT "measures") that only 6.4 seconds have passed. This is based on (A) The LT coupled with (B) the assumption that she is stationary.
The LT is used to predict what Jill will measure, but Jill's actual measurments do not come from the LT.
2. At no time does Folwer EVER say (nor would he say under these circumstances) that Jack's CLOCK EVER recorded 6.4 seconds passing. That is simply Jill's (false) conclusion.
That's a valid statement from an LT perspective.
Just a post back you said "time passed" is measured by clocks. THEN you instantly contradict yourself with this post. You generally do this 30 times a day, minimum.
6.4 seconds pass on Jack's clock from Jill's inertial state. From Jill's inertial state, 6.4 seoncds pass for obujects in Jack's inertial state. There is no contradiction between saying this and saying that for objects in Jack's inertial state, 10 seconds pass for objects in jack's inertial state. Measurements of time passed are not contradictory (though they can seem paradoxical).
One Brow said:"...and Jill conclusions about what Jack measures will match what Jack measures."
How, pray-tell, does 6.4 = 10?
It doesn't, but Jill never concludes Jack will measure 6.4, so your question is moot.
All you have to say on behalf of Jill is "her inertial frame" to say that she is stationary. It's automtically implied (which is probably why some people tend to forget it and think motion is irrelevant). All you have to say on behalf of Jack is "his intertial frame" to say that he is stationary.
Within the context of SR, I mean. Outside of SR, the mere phrase "his/her inertial frame" says NOTHING about motion, in and of itself.
Wrong. Being in an inertial frame/state says that the motion, whatever it's velocity, is unaccelerated. That is a significant statement about motion.
One Brow said: "If you had asked diffeent questions, then it might have been relevant. For the questions you asked, it was not."
You steadfastly refused to comment on, or even acknowledge the existence of, my question. I got so tired of reading your version that I quit paying much attention.
I passed your exact question to colton on the third set, and if you have any more direct questions for him, I'll start passing them unaltered.
Not sure it would have made the slightest difference, given Colton's explanation of his answer.
Well, he's just the professional physicist, and the expert we both agreed upon. I can see why you would not take his opinion too seriously. It's just like the opinions of 90+% of physicists. It must be wrong.
Many have expressed amazement that SR has seemingly been accepted by most physicists. They often speculate that it is because the typical physicist "thinks" about SR in terms of LR, and (unconsciously) gives it LR interpretations.
There you go. Most physicists don't understand what they think, and never really consider their ideas. That task falls to the few, the proud, the cranks. This notion is not at all based in ego or an inflated sense of superiority. Physicist really are that stupid and sheeplike.
It's premises and arguments are so ambigous and/or contradictory that the natural tendency is to try to interpret it in a consistent way, regardless of what it might literally say.
Which of the two postulates is the ambiguous or contradictory one?
The website you referred me to about the (bogus) "relatitivity of simultaneity" formula frankly states: "...one cannot do without this formula, if one wants to present the whole situation without contradiction..."
And that's what it is. An ad hoc, senseless "fudge factor" which is absolutely necessary to the appearance of avoiding contradictions inherent in SR's self-contradictory claims. I have already commented at extended length about this "concept" and the mathematical "epicycle" it supposedly generates.
Yes, but your comment have been based in a determination to make the physics work as you think they should work, rather than acept them as they actually work. The purveyor of epicycles here is you, clinging to notions that build contradicitons where none exist in physics, and then blaming physics for the contradicitons you have generated.
It is necessary to "undo," mathematically, the premises of SR.
Which premise?
I stated this inaccurately:
"It is necessary to "undo," mathematically, the premises of SR."
More precisely, the formula is used to "explain" how blatant self-contradiction can somehow be seen as internally consistent. The "explanation" fails miserably.
There is no self-contradiction.
Why does 6.4 = 10?
Because 6.4 + 3.6 = 10, that's why.
But you didn't say that.
I've been saying it for a while.
No need to say it. It's always implicit. If I say 5 = 10 I am merely saying that 5 + 5 = 10.
But why not just say 10 = 10?
Because that would refute Al's relativity principle. Such utterances are strictly forbidden.
10 does equal 10, but as a matter of physics, Jill does not measure 10.
One Brow said: "If the LT are correct, then they will agree with any other way Jill has of measuring the time passed on Jack's clock. Fowler chose one way, but why should we limit ourselves to that?"
The LT are (let's assume) correct, but that doesn't mean they can't be incorrectly applied. If Jill misapplies them, based on false assumptions, then her calculation is wrong. Hence any other method of arriving at an incorrect conclusion is also wrong.
So, reality is determined by the correct application of the model, and not the other way around? Any measurements Jill makes must be wrong if they don't support the model you like better? You used to rail against that sort of thinking.
As I said before, and you (at that time, anyway) agreed, the LT give an answer to every situation involving two relatively moving parties, and that answer is always the same, to wit: The moving clock runs slow and the lengths in it's frame are contracted.
Agreed. I also gave the proviso the the determination of which clock was moving was arbitrary, enough times that it was hopefully understood even when I did not explicitly include it.
That is (or should be) the end of it. That necessarily implies that the "stationary" clock runs fast (not slow) relative to the moving clock and that the length's in it's frame are relatively elongated (not contracted). The only trick now is to find out which one is moving.
Ultimately, that determination is arbitrary, at least by what can be measured.
Like I said---end of story. But not with SR.
Actually yes, with SR as well.
That's where the false assumptions (by one observer) are demanded in order to establish the (false) appearance of a relativity principle. Unless EACH (BOTH) observers make the mutually exclusive assumption that HE is stationary, you have no relativity principle.
How do assumptions about who is moving change what is measured by people?
This is why Poincare (for example) saw through it as a "legitimate" proposition.
I see no reason to believe or disbelieve your understand of Poincare is accurate, and certainly don't see why it is relevant.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If
1. Jill knows the LT, and
2. Goes by the empirical facts (i.e., that Jack's clock has recorded 10 seconds elapsed while her's only recorded 8, THEN
3. She would conclude that (believe it or not) she is the one moving and Jack is the one who is (relatively) stationary.
However, Jill actually measures 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and 6.4 seconds to pass on clock1. Those are her empirical facts.
That's what the LT, standing alone as a mathematical formula, tells you.
For the LT to tell you about reality, you need to use the reality people experience.
However, in SR, the LT is not allowed to "stand alone," and it's mathematical implications are flatly denied.
SR and LR use the LT in the same way.
In SR Jill CANNOT be allowed to accept the mathematical consequences of the LT.
What Jill measures is not changed by the LT. Mathematical models don't reach out and change how fast clocks run.
Here's a website discussing length contraction (and expansion)
Based on temperature changes. So?
Dr. Fowler said: "...according to Jack. Jill is aging more slowly because she’s moving!...we must now turn everything around and look at it from Jill’s point of view. Her inertial frame of reference is just as good as Jack’s. She sees his light clock to be moving at speed v (backwards) so from her point of view his light blip takes the longer zigzag path, which means his clock runs slower than hers...This phenomenon is called time dilation."
See that? "Because she is moving." Get it? Somehow I doubt it. I am misreading him, no doubt. He really doesn't mean a word he says.
He means what he says, but not what you read him to say. Notice that he referred to Jill moving *before* he turned everything around. In Jack's inertial state, Jill is moving.
Same with other prominent physicists throughout the world, eh?
You misread many of them.
There's the "mutually reciprocal" dogma, based on the over-generalization that leads to the assertion that a guy on a moving train is "equally entitled" to claim that every fixed thing on the planet is moving while he remains motionless. People on a train ask if Chicago (or New York) stops here.
More precisely, while the train is moving inertially, there is no measurement that a person on the train can make that says he is moving instead of the world. This changes at train stops, of course, since the train accelerates when it stops.
Without that, there is no requirement that some party falsely INSIST that he is motionless when, as a logical matter, one must be moving.
What is the measurement he can make to support this conclusion as a logical matter?
The "mutual reciprocity" dogma can be forced into channels where it is mathematically consistent, but it can NEVER be consistent with an actual state of affairs.
since it refers to measurments, it already is consistent with the actual state of affairs.
I have a radical new metaphysics which changes our entire understanding of the universe, I tellya!
It adds a 5th co-ordinate, called "temp." The resulting geometry creates a whole new physical reality consisting of what I call "spacetemptime."
I haven't worked out all the implications, but one of them that I have figured out is that One Brow has a future in hell.
When you work out any new implicaitons that are different from the standard model, let a few physicists know.
I made a couple of posts pointing out the difference between the LT itself and Minkowski's attempt ...
I see no need to covers the mistakes a second time, at this point.
So, these "conventional rules" are not SR and are not the LT.
When looking as inertial motion only, Minkowskis results agree with SR.
I said:"When one talks about the LT, the various "rules" which guide the concoction of an invariant spacetime interval can't simply be substituted for the LT itself."
It was implied, but to be explicit, it appears that Colton has done the above, and that is why I said I didn't think he understood the question.
Ask another. I won't change a word.
As I said in a previous post:
To the extent that you (or Colton, for that matter) want to contend that Jack's clock "will always" read 10 seconds and that Jill's "will always" read 8 seconds, then you have made my point for me. That is simply to say that Jill is really moving (relative to Jack) and that Jack is "really stationary" relative to Jill.
What a curious way to interpret the answers. Let's be clear. We tell you that is Jill is stationary, and jack and clock1 pass by Jill, that Jack will still measure the time as ten seconds, and you response is that Jill is moving?
You will be wrong in saying that you have "reversed" your assumptions about the state of motion of each party before coming to that conclusion, but you will be right that it is an objective fact (by hypothesis) and that no amount of "calculation" can change that fact.
Actually, you are wrong about the relevant factors in the analysis.
You will also concede that the LT are NOT "mutually reciprocal," and in fact only work in one direction, not both."
Why would I concede what is false?
In essence, the application of Minkowskian rules for deterterming "proper time" and
"proper length" when comparing objects in relative motion merely turns SR into LR.
You don't understand Minkowski's formulations, SR, or LR well enough to make that determination, so it is no surprise you are wrong.
But SR is NOT LR. No wonder there is so much confusion when discussing the theory.
Well, no wonder you are so confused.
Minkowski's "reinterpretation" of Al's SR changed the theory, and should NOT be called "Einstien's theory of special relativity," but historically no real distinction has been made.
*chuckle*. Thank goodness the brilliance of aintnuthin is around to clear things up for all those poor, confused physicists.
A more appropriate description would be "Minkowski's geometrization of Lorentzian Relativty." Minkowski chose to maintain a "tip of the cap" to Al for the sake of appearances.
Riiiiight. What Physicist would want the fame, recognition, or respect that would come from making a significant improvement to SR? It's amusing how ofter the concepts of hero-worship appear in crankish thought.
He purported to retain Al's notions of "mutual reciprocity" but he actually eliminated that proposition in practice. With it goes the "relativity principle" as such.
Actually, not.
Minkowski himself rechristened the "relativity postulate" as "the postulate of the absolute world."
So, which is it? What's the "real" theory? The "theory of relativity," or the "theory of the absolute world?"
A rose by any other name smells as sweet.
One Brow said:"Even if he is moving and Jill is not. the correct application of the LT says Jill's clock will read 8."
The LT says exactly the opposite, even if Minkowski tells you that you must think otherwise.
Properly applied, they say Jill's clock will read 8.
One Brow said: "The earth and the star are in the same inertial state. There fore, the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter."
Think about what you are saying here. What physical reason prevents ANY observer from making a measurement of distance in his own frame?
None. I just said measurement will be shorter, but you can make the measurement. It will be shorter.
How does this square with the assertion you've been making for two years that "you can never tell who's moving?" YOU can tell INSTANTLY and infallibly, because "the rocket can never measure the distance between them as being longer than the earth does, only shorter."
This is true whether the rocket is moving or whther the earth/sun are moving.
You seem to ever really think about the rules and formulas you have been trained to memorize and apply. You just apply them, like a robot.
Applying principles corectly involves thought.
Do you even see what I'm saying? Why couldn't Jack set up two clocks and then fly past Jill?
He can. He will measure the distance between the clocks to be longer than Jill will measure it.
Do you try to maintain even the slightest connection to physical possibilites when you make these "never" claims?
I am hoping that at some point you will show more comprehension than you have so far.
If that happened, the LT (which is what we're supposedly talking about here, not Minkowski) Jill's clock would show 12.5 seconds on her clock if his read 10. Per the LT, that is.
Except, you're wrong. First, "per the LT" means nothing, because the LT are meaningless without a theory to tell you how to apply them. Second, whether you use SR or LR, Jill will see * seconds. In the LR interpretation, Jack is measuring the distinace between the clocks to be much larger than it really is, by a factor of 1.25, and so overmeasures the time it takes by 1.25.
Anyone who says the two situations are "exactly the same" seems to mistake formal rules for physical reality.
The measurements come out the same.
When Jill sees 10 seconds on Jack's clock THAT is her "observation," not her illogical denials of the empirical data.
Jill doesn't see "10 seconds", she sees a clock reading 10.
The simple observation is that her clock runs at a slower rate than his does. The only valid conclusion, given the LT, is that she, not Jack, is moving.
She measures jack's clock to be moving slower, regardless of who is moving.
The question I asked you a long time ago, which I don't recall you answering, was this:
Why is it Jack's clock that reads 10 seconds, and Jill's 8? Why isn't it the other way around?
Jack and clock1 are in the same inertial state, and so Jack measures the distance between himself and clock1 to be more than Jill measures the distance between Jack and clock1. Thus, it takes more time for Jack.
One problem with the light clock "illustrations" used to "explain" why "each observer sees the other person's clock as running slow" is that it explains nothing.
OK.
There are plenty of phenomenological appearances that are "mutually reciprocal." But in each case they are merely appearances, like each person "seeing" the other get smaller as the distance between them increases (or larger as they approach each other). None of those "changes" are objective.
However, the distance is objective, and can have other objective effects that are not merely perspective.
An it's only because they are not objective changes that they can be "mutually reciprocal." Each person cannot "actually" get smaller than the other as they recede. Therefore, they explain nothing about actual time dilation effects (which are NOT reciprocal).
The gravitational effect of each item on the other gets smaller. Some effects get objectively smaller in a reciprocal fashion.
I really can't fathom why they are presented as being something "explanatory," unless you are tring to explain a wholly relational theory in which there are no "real" changes in the times and distances in the frames involved.
The changes come from being in different inertial states. It's a real phenomenon based on real phenomenon.
You: Wrong, fool. The other guy, whoever he is, wherever he is, even if there are millions of them all moving at different speeds, all now have the proper time. Since you have the proper length, your time must be improper.
Actually, if you have two different events occur at the same place, the person who stayed in that place inertially measures both the proper distance and ther proper time..
More generally, you didn't mention two events, so there can be no proper time.
One Brow said: "The readings would be the same if Jill is at rest and Jack/clock1 was moving past. Jack's clock would read 10, and Jill's would read eight...
I understood the relevant factor was that clock1 was in Jack's/Bob's inertial state, not who was moving...
Using the LT, or not, and assuming she is moving, or not, do not affect the time Jill measures to pass on Jack's clock."
====
As soon as I saw you making statements like this, and understanding that you took them literally, I was absolutely shocked and flabergasted. For two years we have been talking about this topic, and all this time you have been laboring under a most fundamental misapprehension about the LT and about the relativity principle.
*chickle*. Guess again.
Needless to say, I was even more shocked to see that Colton shared that same misapprehension.
Thank goodness the great Google scholar aintnuthin is here is correct us poor folks that actually studied this stuff in a formal setting.
I see now that you both have a total disconnect between the formulas you routinely and unthinkingly apply and the concepts they (1) relate to and/or(2) were derived from.
The disconnect is yours.
You each display a complete misunderstanding of the LT. You both effectively deny the principle of relativity while purporting to be espousing it, which indicates that you don't understand it to begin with.
*chuckle*
I really can't speak for Colton, but you feel compelled to argue for the standard assumptions underlying Al's relativity principle out of a presumed sense of duty.
Actually, because I have a case of SIWOTI, and I usually end up learning something in conversations with you.
Your arguments could not be based on an understanding, or you would see that you are contradicting yourself on a regular basis when you undertake to do so while holding such mistaken views as I quoted at the top.
If yo found contradictions, you would have a point. However, the contradiction are your inventions, not mine.
Those views (reached via different reasoning) may be fine, but they are NOT compatible with the premises of SR.
Except, they are.
I now doubt that you can ever understand this, because you are simply incapable of separating subjective from objective events/explanations.
Loud declaration of your superiority and the inderiorness of others. How typically crankish.
Despite all I've said, you continue to use such self-contradictory phrasing as "what Jill measures on Jack's clock" when referring to the figure of 6.4 seconds.
I will say it one more time. Jill "measures" one, and only one, "time on Jack's clock." That is 10 seconds.
That's not a measure, that's a reading. To measure, she needs to read two times, then subtract, adjusting for the fact that she and jack are approaching each other at .6c.
She knows that his clocks are synchronized with each other, even if they are not synchronized with hers.
Synchronization can be measured. Jill can measure the synchronization of clock1 and jack's clock, and will measure jack's clock to be 3.6 seconds behind clock1. What Jill "knows" is irrelevant.
She knows that both their clocks are set to 0 when they pass each other.
What she measures is that jack's clock is 3.6 seconds behind clock1, regadless of what she knows.
She therefore knows, via direct observation, that 10 seconds have passed in Jack's frame.
She measures that 6.4 seconds have passed in jack's frame, regardless of what she "knows".
Any other figure she arrives at is NOT based on any measurement OF HIS CLOCK.
Sure it is. I demonstrated how she measures that in Tuesday's post.
I know that I can point this out a thousand times, and explain exactly why it is true a thousand times, and you will still just deny it.
I will continue to correct you when you are wrong.
You have no idea of what "observation" even is.
*Yawn*
You cannot distinguish objective clock time, as recorded by mechanical clocks, from someone's imputation of their subjective conclusions, drawn from the subjective premises, onto that clock.
Measurements are not subjective.
You think they are the exact same things, somehow.
Coming from a person who thinks measurements are subjective, this means little to me.
He was old enough to understand what I was saying, but he refused to believe it--he WANTED that bear.
Such a wonderful description of you. You want the One Frame to Rule Them All so badly, you just keep looking for the right argument to prove it. There is no duck #17 for you. You'll keep going, ah reckon.
What does Jack see on Jill's clock using this "method?"
Jack sees Jill's clock move from 0 to 8 while his clock moves from 6 to 10. He also Jill's clock click twice for every once of his ticks, and thus measures Jill's clock to tick at a speed of .8 compared to his clock.
1. You first say "without using the LT," at one point, then later say "for every second Jill observes on her clock, she observes .8 seconds to pass on Jack's clock."
Where does the ".8" come from?
The two seconds that actually pass on jack's clock divided by the 2.5 seconds it takes for the image of clock2 to move 2.5 lightseconds.
2. Who's frame tells her that only .8 seconds pass in her frame?
The .8 seconds is what passes on jack's clock.
3. You say:"Since the image of clock2 reading -6 and the image of clock2 reading -4 are 1 light-second (ls) apart."
How does she determine that they are 1 light second apart?
The arrive 1 second apart, and are traveling at the speed of light. d = r * t.
4. You say: "Over the course of all 8 seconds Jill observes on her clock, this becomes 8 * .8 = 6.4 seconds. Again, this is what she observes to pass on the clocks..."
If she's looking at this second clock the whole time (beginning with "seeing" it read -6) why does she "see it" end up displaying (according to you) 6.4 seconds when it actually says 10 seconds when she gets there?
She observes that 6.4 seconds passed on it, but sees 16 seconds pass. Neither numbder affects the final reading of 10.
The issue arises from the question of what Jill, not Jack, sees on Jack's clock 2 when she reaches it (which is 10 seconds, not 6.4).
I've agreed all along Jack's clock reads 10.
I really can't follow your example at all, and get lost as soon as you say this: "is 1/.4 which is 2.5 ls."
Where does the .4 come from?
The image of clock2 reading -6 is moving at c. clock2 is moving at .6c. that means clock2 and it's image are separatiing by a ratio of c/.4c, or 1/.4.
In any event, you have clearly overlooked the fact that each succeeding image will have less far to go to reach her.
That's what the .4 came represents, the smaller distance the image of the clock reading -4 travlews than the clock reading -6.
To illustrate this, if the total distance for her in her frame is 4.8 light seconds, then, after 7 seconds, she will be only .6 light seconds away from clock 2. Yet you have tried to establish an implicitly "constant" travel distance of 2.5 light seconds for every subsequent image received.
By your reasoning, when she saw his clock read 8 (i.e. when her clock reads 7), it would have to travel 2.5 light seconds to reach her. How could it travel 2.5 light seconds if the TOTAL distance is only .6 light seconds?
The real issue is the ratio. If Jill sees clock2 is reading 8 while her clock reads 7, and sees clock2 read 8.2 while her clock reads 7.1. You can make the same construction with the scale reduced (.25 ls instead of 2.5 ls, etc) and show that clock2 is still being measured by jill as clicking .8 seconds for evdery second of Jill's clock. You can use that clock2 reads 8.0000002 when Jill's clock reads 7.0000001. The reasoning holds.
The whole example is inherently illogical. I can see that much even if I can't discern how you arrive at your figures
Keep asking questions, it may all come together for you.
I do think it shows something about your thought patterns, all the same. You start out with a goal in mind, i.e. to establish a "constant rate" of .8. As soon as you think you have found the "answer" you are seeking, all further reflection on your part ceases.
If that were true, then I would have come up with a diagram that didn't work for .8c, or .96c, etc. This diagram works for any speed (with the slock values suitably adjusted.
Eric, I don't think you'll understand this, but you seem to having completely ignored, or misunderstood, the crucial distinction Hogg was trying to make between "seeing" and "observering." You consistently claim to be honoring, respecting, and adhering to this distinction when you are in fact abusing it and crapping all over it.
Possibly, but I believe I am respecting it.
Hogg is trying to make the crucial distinction between subjective and objective factors. Between fundamental (objective) differences and mere differences of perspective. He is insisting that all subjective factors be eliminated, not intensified and emphasized.
Agreed. this is what I am doing, as well. I am removing the subjective factor of seeing how fast the clock ticks into an objective measure of it. I saw nothing in your quote to indicate I am not respecting his decision.
In our case, Jill could make an accurate measurement which is NOT an "observation" by Hogg's definition. Any "measurement" she made which she believed indicated that Jack's clock was running slower than hers would have to be based on less than "ideal knowledge" because any such appearance is not of a "real effect." The fact of the matter is that her clock is running slower than Jack's, not the other way around. Furthermore, to the extent assumes she is stationary, she cannot be "ideally informed," since she is in fact moving.
This is your misinderstanding of SR and Hogg's point. Feel free to email Hogg and see if he will confirm it. I guarantee he will not.
That's one reason why I asked you why you are working so hard to "prove" that a false conclusion by Jill (that the time in Jack's frame was 6.4 seconds rather than 10) was a legitimate "observation."
Nor is that what I am trying to prove. Jill does not think the time in jack's frame is 6.4 seconds, and I have continued to repeat that. Jill observes 6.4 secondes to pass on Jack's clock. Those statements are not the same.
I don't think you are capable of accurately and consistently separating "real" from "apparent" effects, because you don't appear to even think in those terms. For you, there are no "real" effects. All is mere appearance. All subjective sensations are "real" for you because they "really occur." You don't appear to even think in terms which presuppose an "objective reality." This was, of course, the mathguy's main beef against Dingle (who, by the way, changed his view when he matured, intellectually speaking, just as Einstien did).
You may pay lip service to the notion of an objective reality, but your thought patterns indicate otherwise. An underlying presumption that subjective phenomena are indicative of what you call "objective" reality and/or that "objective reality" does not exist seems to emerge in your claims. Many people think the same way. When that is their tacit assumption they can't really even think in terms of an objective reality.
*Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*.
Hogg, by the way, appears to be fully aware of where his distinction between "real" and "apparent" effects could ultimately lead.
Hogg and I are in agreement. You presented nothing of Hogg that I disagreed with.
So, here we are...First he acknowledges that time dilation is not mutually reciprocal. That implies a way to determine which one is really moving. Logically speaking, it would be an effective way of determining one's relative speed. But such logic is forbidden because that would undermine the principal of relativity.
This logic is also reciprocal. Jack could use it to say Jill is not moving, and vice-versa.
I suspect, without even wanting to take the time to think it through, that you have now (in "part 2") actually done what I asked Colton to do, i.e.: reverse your assumptions about who is moving.
It doesn't matter who is moving, just that there is relative movement.
Applying (inappropriately and irrelevantly) Minkowski "conventions for absolutizing time and distance" in reverse, you have made (by those standards) Jill the stationary party (and Jack the moving party) in this "part 2." She is no longer viewed as moving past clock 1, but instead, in effect, clock 1 is treated as moving past her.
The diagram is simpler that way.
One Brow said: "However, in particular I'm trying to point out that Jill, regardless of whether she is moving, does not measure Jack's clock to be going faster."
Yet that's what Colton said she would do, regardlesss, and which (incorrect) answer you wish to cling to as an absolute. He said Jack's time would always be faster, moving or not (10 is faster than 8, aint it?).
No, ten is more than 8, but 6.4 is slower than 8.
She will never measure Jack's clock to be going faster IF:
1. She is stationary, and
2. She (correctly) views herself as being stationary.
As long as Jack is in a different inertial state than Jill, Jill measures jack's clock to be slower.
One Brow said: "I don't know if this has been done, but experiments like this could certainly serve as another validation of SR."
It's not clear what you mean by "this," but, yes, you're right. It could also serve as an invalidation of the relativity postulate of SR (insofar as it tries to ratify Jill's conclusions inferred from false assumptions).
If you understood teh assumption better, it wold be clearer this is not true.
To answer your question, yes, it has been done. Read up on the GPS system and you'll see that.
GPS satellites don't move inertially.
I see this addition: "So, Jack sees the entire trip in 4 seconds. In that time, Jill's clock moves from 0 to 8. Jack can use the same logic as above to measure Jill's clock to tick off .8 seconds for every seconds of his.
Same logic? Same lack of logic? If Jack sees the entire trip in 4 seconds, how is that .8 of his?
It isn't. The ratio of seeing 8 seconds pass for Jill to seeing 4 seconds pass for him allows him to use teh same logic to conclude l.8 secnds passes on Jill's clock for every second on his.
By your own "logic" Jill sees 16 of his seconds tick off to her 8 (a 50% rate, not 80%), and Jack sees 8 of her seconds pass in 4 of his (also a 50% rate, not 80%).
Yes. Hence the distinction between "see" and "measure".
Of course your own logic doesn't square with the facts, either, because he ends up seeing her 8 to his 10, and she sees the same.
Do you agree or disagree that when Jack sees Jill pass clock1, his clock reads 6.
10 - 6 = 4.
Light delay, which can affect the way a clock appears, but not the clock itself, is indeed "mutually reciprocal," but time dilation is not.
Actually, both are.
I said:"...and Jack sees 8 of her seconds pass in 4 of his (also a 50% rate, not 80%)."
I don't think you figure(4 seconds for Jack is even right), but if is notice that although the 50% "rate" is the same, then Jill sees double (16 to her 8) while Jack sees half (4 to her 8). How can you possibly get .8 out of each of these?
That was the point in part 1 of the discussion.
One Brow said: "...in particular I'm trying to point out that Jill, regardless of whether she is moving, does not measure Jack's clock to be going faster...So, if clock1 waits for t seconds between sending the image of 0 and sending the image of 1, the separation distance between the image of 0 and the image of 1 will be 1.6ct. Since 1.6ct = 2 ls, we get t=1.25 seconds."
If t (Jack's frame) is 1.25, then that times 8 = 10.
The post is discussing what Jill measures. Jill doesn't measure anything in Jack's frame.
You go on to say "Thus, the fraction of seconds as measured by clock1 to seconds Jill measures for clock is 1/1.25, which is again .8."
You appear to have the numerator and demoninator reversed. 1.25(Jack's frame) divided by 1 (Jill's frame) = 1.25, not .8.
No. The clock moves from 0 to 1, 1 - 0 =1second passing on clock1. This happens over the course of 1.25 seconds as Jill measures them. (clock1 as Jill measures)/(Jill's clock on the same events) = 1/1.25.
That said, you still have you ratios wrong, either way. The images will not come at a constant rate, so you can't take any ratio (right or wrong) for reception of the first image and project it over the whole trip.
If Jill is moving straight at Jack/straight away form clock1, it will be constant.
And this exact same model of scenario permeates virtually every explantion of SR. First you must:
1. Establish 2 observers, each with their own unique "frame of reference." Recall that "frame of reference" is code for "motionless" in this context.
It's code for "Inertial state". "Motionless" is not relevant.
2. Now you start talking about one of them moving while they continue, (by virtue of the "frame of refence" they have been assigned) to see things as though they were both simultaneously motionless.
I talk about what they can measure. You still have not offered a measure to detect motion, except when you assume some other thing is motionless.
3. Now you have handy points of equivocation along virtually every front, which you can cleverly exploit to "prove" any point you want, just depending on what pieces of information you take from what frame of reference.
The anualysis is so rigorous they have a computer application to handle it.
This part, in particular, seem appropriate: These guys end up confusing themselves more than the hapless listeners they suck in, I swear.
Your confusion is apparent, but self-inflicted.
So, the question becomes, how does she square her actual observation (10 seconds elapsed on Jack's clock) with her erronous conclusion? Obviously she should question her erroneous conclusion, not her indisputable observation, but she chooses NOT to do that. So, what does she do?
In denialist fashion, she simply rejects that empirical evidence and insists (without cause or basis) that Jack's clock 2 read 3.6 seconds when clock 1 read 0.
Jill can measure the difference between clock1 and clock2 long before she reaches clock2.
If you're really trying to prove her view, you must honor her claims. She would NOT see clock 2 to read -6 when she is at clock 1, she would read it as only -2.4.
How do you get that? Remeber that from Jill's inertial frame, clock2 moves between when it generates teh image of -6 and when Jill sees the image of -6.
But she doesn't (and can't) see that.
Nor should see, in SR.
She can only falsely assert it in an attempt to justify and rationalize her unsound logic.
In SR, there is no need to assert what she does not see nor measure.
There is so much equivocation and frame-switching in your examples that it is hard to keep track of them all (and not worth the effort to try).
The diagrams are (both) entirely from Jill's frame.
But here's one: You say she will see -6 seconds on clock 2 when she is at clock 1. But that is based on a distance of 6 light seconds between the two (taken from Jack's frame). Why would she "see" a separation of 6 light seconds when, it her frame, the distance is only 4.8 light seconds?
In Jill's inertial frame, clock2 is not in the same place when it generates theimage Jill sees as it is when Jill sees the image. The image of what Jll sees started much further away from Jill than the current location of clock2.
Are the reasons why I thought that a "reprint" of comments made long was appropriate any clearer, now?
Yes, it's clear you have not understood what is happening.
One Brow said:"First, you are missing an important conception in proper time, the movement between the two events."
Movement is totally irrelevant, remember. SR is purportedly a theory of relative motion wherein all questions of motion are entirely irrelevant and all answer are immediately derived from looking at a frame which has more than one object in it.
The more you say, Eric, the more you prove that you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of the concepts fundamental to SR. You have merely memorized some rules which you don't understand and therefore don't know where their content came from, how to apply them, or when to apply them. You think your rules determine absolute motion in the universe. Typcial for a solipist who can't think independently and just asks for rules in an attempt to "understand."
I may come back and make further comments, and I may not. I will read through them all, but I can already that, as usual, they are chock full of flat assertions and flat denials withouy in any way addressing the arguments I've made and without advancing any arguments whatsover to support your claims.
You remind me of my 3 year old great-great grandbaby who feels quite confident that he has proved his point and won an argument if he is the last to say "IS NOT!!"
For now I will make this comment:
One Brow said: "Proper length is always longest, and always between two objects in the same inertial state, even when that state is moving at .9c. Proper time is always longest, and always measured by an object in an inertial state, even when that inertail state is moving at .9c."
One Brow said:"Second, proper time only refers to observers who are present at both events."
Contradict yourself much? As I said, the meaning of "proper time" varies with the context, something you seem to acknowledge, without understanding.
One Brow said: "Fourth, there is no mixing of "proper time" and "proper lenght", they are not combined in some "proper description" of spacetime."
Wrong. When constructing a spacetime interval time is, whenerever possbile, always taken from one frame while the distance is taken from the other(and vice versa). Do you deny this, Mr. "I have formal training?"
My main point was that the construction of space intervals is totally irrelvant to:
1. Any question I asked Colton--where were about the LT
2. Determining, as opposed to arbitrarily specifiying, which of two objects is physically capable of moving.
For Colton to say that a person who is stationary is "exactly the same" as one going .6c is absurd, as a matter of physics. Whether such a claim would satisfy a convention estabish to create spacetime intervals is irrelevant.
Likewise, it is just as absurd for you to say that the fact that New York and Chicago are at rest with respect to each other means the earth must always be treated as stationary with respect to all other moving objects--which is all you're saying. All this while trying to deny that motion is even a factor.
A long time back I posted a quote from Al where he talked about dull people who have seen millions of trees, but never a forest. You, Eric, have apparently never seen a forest.
I asked Colton to reverse the assumptions about who was moving. He didn't do that. He seems to think that, if he leaves the factual situation totally unchanged, but slides his "observer view" switch back and forth, he has changed the assumptions about motion.
He hasn't and I can't say for sure why he thinks he has, but I am guessing that, like you, he beleives that Minkowski conventions for creating spacetime intervals makes it "impossible" for the other party to be moving and that "therefore"(certainly a conclusion that does not follow) the two situations are "exactly the same."
A very fundamental error. But you would have to understand the concepts you are working with you understand that, I guess.
I asked Colton to reverse the assumptions about who was moving. He didn't do that. He seems to think that, if he leaves the factual situation totally unchanged, but slides his "observer view" switch back and forth, he has changed the assumptions about motion.
He hasn't and I can't say for sure why he thinks he has, but I am guessing that, like you, he beleives that Minkowski conventions for creating spacetime intervals makes it "impossible" for the other party to be moving and that "therefore"(certainly a conclusion that does not follow) the two situations are "exactly the same."
A very fundamental error. But you would have to understand the concepts you are working with you understand that, I guess.
I said: "I now doubt that you can ever understand this, because you are simply incapable of separating subjective from objective events/explanations."
===
You now quote me as saying:"Jill sees 10 seconds,
Then comment: "No, Jill sees 16 seconds pass and measures 6.4 seconds to pass. She sees the clock read 10, but does not see it nor measure it to go from 0 to 10."
Thanks for proving my point.
You have concocted all these preposterous scenarios about what Jill would supposedly "see" (as if light delays and/or doppler effects were somehow RELEVANT) if she eyeballed Jack's clock, non-stop, from the get-go. Tell me, at what point would she "see" the clock suddenly advance 3.6 seconds?
It's really no problem to reverse Jack and Jill's motion in the original problem while "obeying" Minkowski's interval rules in the first place, so it's not really clear why you or Colton think it can't be done, or think that it has been done when it hasn't.
Example: Assume that, relative to Jill, Jack has been moving at the rate of .6c for centuries. In that time, Jack as set up a synchonized clock 6 LS away from him (in his frame). He carries with him the clock which it is synchronized with (clock2).
Now his lead clock passes Jill.
First question: Who's length is the "proper length" as between the two?
Answer: Jack's, because the two objects (clocks) are in his frame (i.e. stationary with respect to each other).
Second question: So what is the proper length?
Answer: 6 LS.
Third question: Who has the proper time in this case?
Answer: Jill does, because her clock will be present at both events, i.e., it will be present when Jack's "lead" clock passes her, and it will be present when Jack himself (with clock2 in tow) passes her.
OK, now what? Apparently you and Colton think that, because Jack is deemed to have the "proper length" in both cases, and because that length (6 LS)is the same in each case, THAT MEANS JILL'S TIME AND DISTANCE MUST ALSO BE THE SAME IN EACH CASE.
Wrong. Completely wrong, per the LT. Jill's clock will now tick off 12.5 seconds in the time between event1 (clock1 passes her) and event2 (she encounters clock2).
Jack will still see his own time and distance to be 10 seconds and 6 light seconds. Jill will now see time and distance of 12.5 and 7.5 LS in her frame. She is the stationary frame. Both her time and her length will therefore be longer.
Why in the world would ANYONE say all times would remain the same if the motion was reversed? On the basis of what assumptions would that follow? What would the basis for such assumptions be?
Again, I can only speculate. I guess it is the mistaken assumption that "because Jack is deemed to have the "proper length" in both cases, and because that length (6 LS) in each case, THAT MEANS JILL'S TIME AND DISTANCE MUST ALSO BE THE SAME IN EACH CASE."
To say that the question who is moving is irrelevant to the measurements one makes is to fundamentally and hideously misunderstand SR. In order to even think for a second (let alone say) that the measurements made will always be the same, for both parties, regardless of who is moving, one must be totally oblivious to the most fundamental tenents of SR and the LT.
I said: "In order to even think for a second (let alone say) that the measurements made will always be the same, for both parties, regardless of who is moving, one must be totally oblivious to the most fundamental tenents of SR and the LT." <---- This summarizes the "second claim" of yours which is referred to below.
One Brow said: The second claim is practically a direct application the postulate of experimental invariance. It is the essence of the relativity principle."
So, it's the "essence of the relativity principle," eh? This had gone beyond being merely pathetic. Now it's getting to be fucking hilarious.
One Brow said: "You didn't see how the formula was dervied on that page? Need anything explained to you on it?
I never said I didn't see how it was derived. I said it didn't support your claims that Jack and Jill will ALWAYS measure 10 and 6 and 8/4.8 for each other regardless of who is moving.
You obviously don't even understand the relevance of this formula, how and why it was created, or why Fowler ever even brought it up. All that would be irrelevant if Jill would AlWAYS see the same on Jack's clock whether she was moving or not.
Tell ya what, Eric, stop your baseless assertions and PROVE me wrong, and yourself right.
I say Colton is wrong. I say you are wrong. I doubt Colton's wants to respond to my points, so do this.
Go to one of the many physics forum and start a thread asking your question.
Explain to them that you have encountered an idiot who doesn't understand the "essence of special relativity." This idiot thinks that if the motion of Jack and Jill was reversed, then one of the party's (i.e. Jill's) measurments would be different. Just remember to tell them that the clocks are still 6 LS apart in Jack's frame (now going .6c, while Jill is stationary).
Give me the forum address, once you do that, eh?
I said:"Jill's clock will now tick off 12.5 seconds in the time between event1 (clock1 passes her) and event2 (she encounters clock2).
Jack will still see his own time and distance to be 10 seconds and 6 light seconds. Jill will now see time and distance of 12.5 and 7.5 LS in her frame. She is the stationary frame. Both her time and her length will therefore be longer."
Now let's take it one more step. What will Jack calculate Jill's time and distance to be this time, if he assumes he is stationary.
Well, exactly the same as he did before, when he actually was stationary: 8 seconds and 4.84 LS. That part IS the same. But now he's wrong about the facts, whereas he was right the first time.
He was right the first time, because then he actually was stationary. He is wrong this time, because he erroneously thinks he's stationary when he actually the one moving.
So, now lets bring in the bogus "relativity of simultaneity" formula. How does that work out this time?
Like this: lv/c2 = (l/c) x (v/c) = 7.5 x .6 = 4.5.
So what does the 4.5 "tell" us? It tells us that if Jack now wants to start playing the ignorant fool (as the participants in SR examples are always required to do), when he sees 12.5 seconds pass on Jill's clock he will start screaming:"THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! I'M THE ONE MOVING. HER CLOCK HAD TO READ 4.5 SECONDS, NOT 0, WHEN SHE WAS AT CLOCK 1!"
Just kinda co-incidentally, 12.5 - 4.5 = 8, i.e., the amount of time which Jack will insist, in denial of all empirical evidence, was the amount of time that passed in Jill's frame between the two events.
Edit: Meant to say:
"THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE! I'M NOT THE ONE MOVING."
Kinda funny that, according to SR, no one ever knows who is moving, and yet they all get belligerently assertive and so absolutely positive about their own state of motion, eh? No doubt about it to them. So positive they are that they will deny the empirical facts to "prove" their "knowledge."
One Brow said:"Well, he's just the professional physicist, and the expert we both agreed upon. I can see why you would not take his opinion too seriously. It's just like the opinions of 90+% of physicists."
If 90% of physicists make that same elementary mistake, then the world of physics has more trouble than it can ever handle.
One Brow said: "There you go. Most physicists don't understand what they think, and never really consider their ideas."
Colton wouldn't be the first phsyics professor to ever make a mistake about a topic in his own field. I can't explain why he made the mistake he did--if he ever realized his mistake, he could probably reconstruct the erroneous thought process that led him there. Probably something simple.
I don't claim to be any genius, but nor to I hang my claims on appeals to authority. Anyone who can't see that his, and your, claims on this matter are wrong just isn't thinking (or can't think). Maybe "won't think" is more accurate than "can't think," but there is an obvious lack of thought underlying these claims.
One Brow said:"So, reality is determined by the correct application of the model, and not the other way around? Any measurements Jill makes must be wrong if they don't support the model you like better?"
Get it straight, Eric. Fowler, not me says Jack is stationary. Fowler, not me, says the time registered on Jack's clock IS 10 seconds. Fowler, not me, says the time registered on Jill's clock IS8 seconds. Fowler, not me, says Jill IS moving, and not stationary.
And then Fowler, not me, says the Jill DENIES that she is moving. HE, not me, says she is WRONG in that assumption.
No question about any of that as far as a "model" goes.
Jill IS wrong when she claims that only 6.4 seconds passed in Jack's frame for Jack. Jill IS wrong when she claims, in effect, that Jack's clock2 read "3.6" when she was at clock1.
Still, all Fowler's model, not mine--although I accept everything he says.
Now, the question is, why does he wan't to try to "justify" a conclusion on Jill's part that he knows, and we know (if for no other reason than because he tells us) is wrong?
Hmmmm?
Why is there the persistent attempt, in SR, to insist that known falsehoods are "somehow" true? Why does it rely on known falsehoods to estabish it's claims?There is an answer to that, but the reason behind it is invalid.
I said: "That's where the false assumptions (by one observer) are demanded in order to establish the (false) appearance of a relativity principle. Unless EACH (BOTH) observers make the mutually exclusive assumption that HE is stationary, you have no relativity principle."
One Brow asked: "How do assumptions about who is moving change what is measured by people?"
They don't, and can't. If you understood what an "observation" is you would understand that. If you understood what a "measurement" was, you would understand that. "Assumptions" about motion can change nothing. However, actual motion can, and does, affect what they measure.
But as long as you think SR says that both parties will always make the exact same measurements, regardless of their state of motion, there is no way that I can even begin to discuss the topic with you in any intelligent fashion,
One Brow said: "Jill actually measures 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and 6.4 seconds to pass on clock1. Those are her empirical facts."
Eric, I'm sorry, but this is simply one of the stupidest things that I can imagine anyone saying. Nobody, not even Fowler, makes that claim.
You simply have no clue about what "empirical" means and no clue about what "measurement" is.
I've told you a thousand times why it is "stupid" and a thousand other people could explain it to you a thousand times, and I'm now postive that you would NEVER understand it.
I said: "Without that, there is no requirement that some party falsely INSIST that he is motionless when, as a logical matter, one must be moving.
You asked: "What is the measurement he can make to support this conclusion as a logical matter?"
Logic doesn't require "measurement." The guy on the train thinks: I know that the train and the tracks can't both be stationary. Therefore I know that at LEAST ONE is moving. Therefore it could be me moving."
SR forbids this line of thought. For SR to work everybody, everywhere, at all times, must INSIST that they can't be moving.
One Brow said:" When you work out any new implicaitons that are different from the standard model, let a few physicists know."
What is the "standard model?" Minkowski spacetime? That is now radically changed by my geometry. My geometry has changed the entire universe. From this hour on, the notion of "spacetime" will been seen as a mere shadow. Enter reality: Spacetemptime!!
Ya see, an aluminum rod in Buttfuck, Alaska, aint the same length as one at the equator. Changing length changes time. Spacetime is utterly ignorant of these substantial changes, and makes no account of them. Even GR, which at least incorporates gravitational influences when calculating time and space distortion, ignores the very real effects of temperature on time and space.
It is known, for example, that under extreme cold, light itself can be slowed to a mere 38 mph. Every car on the freeway would run over it at that rate. They would all race into the future. The implications, long ignored by stupid physicists, but easily spotted by those with a mathematical approach, are astonishing.
The universe has now changed, I tellya!
One Brow said:"We tell you that is Jill is stationary, and jack and clock1 pass by Jill, that Jack will still measure the time as ten seconds, and you response is that Jill is moving?"
Let's be clear. I have said from the beginning that Jack's clock would still read 10 seconds. That aint, and never has been, the issue. If Jill was stationary, then her clock, under those circumstances would read 12.5 seconds, not 8 (although Jack would still calculate her time to be 8 IF he still thought he was stationary).
It's Jill's measurements, not Jack's, that would change.
To claim that she would still measure 8 is the same as either:
1. Refusing to honor the request that her motion be reversed before answering, or
2. As is the case with you, an utter misunderstanding of LT and the effects of motion on time/distance measurements.
A relationist view holds that "only relative motion" can be considered. Many have been trained to claim as much on behalf of SR. In a relationalist theory, there would be no change of measurement. But, then again, in such a theory, all changes in clocks would be merely apparent all clocks would maintain identical rates in reality. In such a theory, there would never be an "actual" dilation of time.
I asked: "Why couldn't Jack set up two clocks and then fly past Jill?"
You answered: "He can. He will measure the distance between the clocks to be longer than Jill will measure it."
Wrong, and the LT shows that. Jack can still be considered to have the "proper length" (as between him and Jill), but in this case she will measure it to be shorter. If Jill is stationary she will have the longer distance, but, in this context (i.e., as between the two), she will also be deemed to have the "improper length."
You seem to be confusing two different meanings of "proper distance." I made an earlier post on this topic which I don't see now. The meanings of "proper time" and "proper distance" change when constructing an invariant spacetime interval. That process generally involves matching the "proper time" from one frame with the "proper length" from the other, and vice versa.
This is likely the source of your confusion, but the fact that you do not realize that without prodding shows that you don't even consider overall consistency.
The fact that you utterly deny any confusion when the contradictions are repeatedly brought to your attention shows an utter lack of understanding.
One Brow said: "That's not a measure, that's a reading."
Just keep making semantical changes, Eric, as is your habit. Earlier you said you used "measurement" as a synonym for "observation." Is reading a clock an "observation?"
It makes no difference, either way. Jill never "measures" anything which shows Jack's clock suddenly "jumping" 3.6 seconds. She asserts it, but never measures it. She CAN'T measure it, because it doesn't happen,
I googled "physics forum" and went to the first forum listed.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=518450
Just out of curiousity, if they agree with my answers ("Claimant B"), will that prove anything to you, or will you say they did not understand the question? If you want me to ask a different question, I have no objection.
The quesiton has been answered as "claimant B". What is your opinion now? Was the question sufficiently well-worded? Is this another guy who doesn't understand physics? Maybe it's you?
Is reading a clock an "observation?"
In the sense Hogg uses it, probably not, unless you are right next to the clock.
However, I would agree that measure is probably not a good synonym for observation, in that it takes two observations to make a measurement.
A relationist view holds that "only relative motion" can be considered. Many have been trained to claim as much on behalf of SR.
Here, you again confuse relative motion with relative velocity. Relative velocitiy is compatible with absolute acceleration. Relative motion is not. SR uses relative velocity, not relative motion.
Post a Comment