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 2001 – 2200 of 2208 Newer› Newest»After ten pages, we can start over, if you like. I can go to 50 different physics forms and post that question, and it will come back that same way 49 times. You didn't get what mattered in the problem, and all of you braggadio came to nothing.
So, will you be mensch enough to admit you were wrong? We'll see.
One Brow said: 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."
Good work, Eric. A simple correct or incorrect answer will not "prove" anything to me. I am looking for an explanation, and for answers to any questions I have that the answer itself may generate. I have been to the forum and posted my first question. I hope this board is lively enough that I (we) can get timely responses.
One Brow said: "You didn't get what mattered in the problem, and all of you braggadio came to nothing.
So, will you be mensch enough to admit you were wrong? We'll see."
So far, I'm up to about 3 pages over there. Unfortunately the "answers" so far are inconsistent and are not responsive to my questions. I hope some more participants come along.
Mere "assertion" without a consistent, rational explanation, will never convince of anything. This is especially true when 100's of rational, consistent explanations I've encountered in the past contradict the current claims.
These guys may be right in their conclusions, but I have no way of assessing that if they won't reveal and/or will not explain the premises those conclusions are derived from.
I have a couple of questions pending addressed to Doc Al that he has not responded to. Maybe he'll respond, maybe he won't. Time will tell.
I asked: "Is reading a clock an "observation?"
You responded: "In the sense Hogg uses it, probably not, unless you are right next to the clock."
Yes, my point exactly. The only "observation" of Jack's clock2 (at least the only one Fowler purports to rely on) which Jill makes is the one where she sees 10 seconds on it while she is next to it.
She could have made other observations of it, while she was approaching it, but no "image" which she saw in that mode would qualify as an "observation" until all "non-fundamental effects" (light delay, doppler effect, etc.) had been filtered out.
Well, I see the thread is up to four pages. So far, they seem to be giving you the same answers I have, from what I can tell. Do you see a difference?
One Brow said: Well, I see the thread is up to four pages. So far, they seem to be giving you the same answers I have, from what I can tell. Do you see a difference?
Heh,I don't see anything now. I just asked some questions which I would really like to see the answers to but I can't. Do NOT ever question the canonical view of SR, I tellya!
"You have been banned for the following reason:
Crackpot
Date the ban will be lifted: Never"
Honest discussion on such topics is simply NOT tolerated, it seems.
To answer your question, although the sample size was quite small, you may well be right that 90% of physicists do indeed take the hard-core Dingalian relationalist line that Colton does.
The "answers" I got in defense of this absurdity were thoroughly inconsistent and without rational explanation, although plenty of zealous dogmatic "philosophy" was tendered.
I asked two relatively simple questions of the GH Wells guy there. He strikes me as pretty thoroughly indoctrinated, but a nice guy. Do me a favor and post his answers here, if he responds, OK?
Best I can tell, Eric, they have taken what is apparently a mathematical convention adopted for the purposes of establishing a starting point for mathematical problem-solving and attempted to elevate it to the status of an absolute physical law.
Viewed in this way it is manifestly contradictory to the premises they rely on to estabish their view, and their attempts to defend it as such (a physical law) result in their assertion of transparently inconsistent propositions.
aintnuthin,
There wasn't too much more after your last set of posts, and then they trimmed the thread considerably. The forum is designed to teach more than discuss what really are crackpot ideas. I'm sure there are other forums more willing to engage in that discussion, but I thought you wanted one specifically on physics. For example, there's lots of relativity discussion on JREF. They won't ban you over your ideas. Also, I'm not going anywhere.
Besides, when you invoked Einstein and Lorentz and claimed they would hold your view, it really was indicative of both deep ignorance and deep arrogance on your part. That's not honest discussion, it's trying to bypass honest discussion with a claim of authority.
That you think the line those physicists were taking is the same as Dingle's is a further mark of your misunderstandings.
As for "inconsistent", let's be clear: I, colton, Doc Al, DaleSpam, and ghwellsjr have all given you the same answers (with different wordings). Whatever else you call it it, this is not inconsistent.
I honestly held out some small hope you would accept that you really didn't understand, but I guess that was too much to hope for.
I don't recall Wells' response, but I agree that the apparent view (that a law of physics prevent Henry from being the moving party) and that you get the same answer either way, because motion is not in any way relevant were pretty consistent with you and the other three.
I never said the view expressed was inconsistent, I just said the views themselves and the "particulars" advanced to "explain" them are inconsistent.
Do you care to answer the two questions I asked Wells, Eric?
Response from DaleSpam:
Originally Posted by DaleSpam
This conversation has become boring so I will work the problem.
Worldline of clock 1
x′=0
1.25(0.6ct+x)=0
x=−0.6ct
Worldline of clock 2
x′=6
1.25(0.6ct+x)=6
x=4.8−0.6ct
So we immediately see that the distance between the clocks is 4.8 lightseconds.
Worldline of Harriet
x′=0.6ct
1.25(0.6ct+x)=0.75c(0.6xc+t)
x=0
Finding the intersection of Harriet's worldline with clock 1 we find:
0=−0.6ct
t=0
Finding the intersection of Harriet's worldline with clock 2 we find:
0=4.8−0.6ct
t=8/c
So we see that the time was 8 seconds.
Claimant B is correct. QED.
Response from ghwellsjr, part 1:
A Frame of Reference is a set of x, y, z coordinates along with time that we use in Special Relativity to define and analyze a scenario. Each set of [t, x, y, z] coordinates is called an "Event". All observers and objects (clocks & rulers) exist in any particular FoR that we are considering.
When someone refers to Harry's FoR, they are not excluding Harriet, they are merely saying that Harry is a rest in that particular FoR and Harriet is moving. In order to talk meaningfully about Harry's FoR, we need to specify each significant event for Harry and each significant event for Harriet, all within the same FoR.
When people then talk about Harriet's FoR, they are talking about a totally different FoR in which Harriet is stationary and Harry is moving. The coordinates in these two frames are different and you use the Lorentz Transform to convert all the events from one FoR to all the same events in the other FoR.
For simplicity's sake, for scenarios like the yours, since we can assign everything to the x coordinate, we can ignore y and z components (because we can set them everywhere to zero).
So let's go back to the first post in this thread and compile the events defined there according to Henry's FoR (remember, these coordinates are for t in seconds and x in light-seconds as [t,x]):
[0,0] Location of clock1 at start of scenario
[0,6] Location of Henry and clock2 at start of scenario
[10,0] Location of clock1 at end of scenario
[10,6] Location of Henry and clock2 at end of scenario
[0,0] Location of Harriet and her clock at start of scenario
[10,6] Location of Harriet and her clock at end of scenario
Note that the length of time for the scenario to progress in Henry's FoR is the distance between Henry's two clocks divided by the relative speed which is 6/0.6 or 10 seconds.
So now we use the Lorentz Transform on each of these six events in Henry's FoR to see what they are in Harriet's FoR.
First we want to calculate gamma, γ, which is equal to 1/√(1-ß²) where ß is the speed as a fraction of c. So:
γ = 1/√(1-ß²) = 1/√(1-0.6²) = 1/√(1-0.36) = 1/√(0.64) = 1/0.8 = 1.25
Then we use these two formulas for each t and x coordinate:
t' = γ(t-vx/c²)
x' = γ(x-vt)
But since we are using units in which c=1 we can simplify them to:
t' = γ(t-vx)
x' = γ(x-vt)
Note that t' and x' are the new values based on the old values, γ, t, x, and v.
The velocity, v, is 0.6 because we want Harriet to move from an x value of 0 at the start of the scenario to an x value of 6 at the end of the scenario (according to Harry's FoR).
Now we do the detailed calculations. Some of the events are used twice so we only have to do four sets of calculations.
[0,0]:
t=0 and x=0
t' = γ(t-vx) = 1.25(0-0.6*0) = 0
x' = γ(x-vt) = 1.25(0-0.6*0) = 0
[0,6]:
t=0 and x=6
t' = γ(t-vx) = 1.25(0-0.6*6) = 1.25(-3.6) = -4.5
x' = γ(x-vt) = 1.25(6-0.6*0) = 7.5
[10,0]:
t=10 and x=0
t' = γ(t-vx) = 1.25(10-0.6*0) = 12.5
x' = γ(x-vt) = 1.25(0-0.6*10) = -7.5
[10,6]:
t=10 and x=6
t' = γ(t-vx) = 1.25(10-0.6*6) = 1.25(10-3.6) = 1.25(6.4) = 8
x' = γ(x-vt) = 1.25(6-0.6*10) = 0
REsponse from ghwellsjr, part 2:
To summarize the four sets of calculations as [Henry's FoR] > [Harriet's FoR]:
[0,0] > [0.0]
[0,6] > [-4.5,7.5]
[10,0] > [12.5,-7.5]
[10,6] > [8,0]
And substituting the coordinates from Henry's FoR to Harriet's FoR:
[0,0] Location of clock1 at start of scenario
[-4.5,7.5] Location of Henry and clock2 at start of scenario
[12.5,-7.5] Location of clock1 at end of scenario
[8,0] Location of Henry and clock2 at end of scenario
[0,0] Location of Harriet and her clock at start of scenario
[8,0] Location of Harriet and her clock at end of scenario
From this you can see that the time from start to end of the scenario for Harriet is 8 seconds.
There are many ways that Harriet can measure the distance between Henry's two clocks. Probably the simplest is for her to measure how long it takes between clock1 and clock2 arriving at her location and knowing the speed of the clocks (and Henry) she can calculate the distance as simply the speed multiplied by the time interval. This would be 0.6 times 8 or 4.8 light-seconds.
These values agree with the ones of Claimant B from post #1.
However, you may be wondering why the values for Claimant A aren't correct because we do see a location value of 7.5 light-seconds and a time of 12.5 seconds in Harriet's FoR. Well the reason why those values are not legitimate answers is because they are for events that happened simultaneously in Henry's FoR but they are not simultaneous in Harriet's FoR. For the distance between clock1 and clock2 we have to calculate a pair of events for those two clocks that occurred at the same time in Harriet's FoR. We can pick any time we want but it makes sense to use the first event where the time is zero and the location of clock1 is 0. Then all we have to do is figure out where clock2 is at time zero. We use a normal interpolation technique to do this. Looking at the second and fourth events, we find clock2 starts out at a location of 7.5 at a time of -4.5 and ends up at location 0 at a time of 8 seconds. The total time is 8 - (-4.5) = 12.5 and the total distance is 7.5 light-seconds. We want to know the ratio of 4.5 seconds out of 12.5 seconds, which is 0.36. Now if we multiple this ratio times the 7.5 light-seconds we get 2.7 light-seconds distance from the starting location which is 7.5 so 7.5 minus 2.7 or 4.8 light-seconds is the location of clock2 at time zero and that is the answer we are looking for.
Anonymous said...
I don't recall Wells' response, but I agree that the apparent view (that a law of physics prevent Henry from being the moving party)
That's not what is going on. Nothing prevents Henry from being the moving party. Rather, regardless of whether Henry is moving or not, because clock1 is in the same inertial state as Henry, Henry will measure a greater distance between himself and clock1 greater than any observer in a different inertial state will measure the distance between Henry and clock1. Again, this is regardless of whether Henry is moving or not.
and that you get the same answer either way, because motion is not in any way relevant were pretty consistent with you and the other three.
Agreed.
I never said the view expressed was inconsistent, I just said the views themselves and the "particulars" advanced to "explain" them are inconsistent.
Except, they are not inconsistent. The apparent inconsistencies come from your misinderstandings.
Do you care to answer the two questions I asked Wells, Eric?
They have been deleted. Do you remember them? I will certianly try to answer them.
One Brow said: "Henry will measure a greater distance between himself and clock1 greater than any observer in a different inertial state will measure the distance between Henry and clock1."
Well, I understand that reasoning, but does that necessarily follow from the LT?
What about the aspect of LT that says the moving clock will run slow?
I said/asked: Well, I understand that reasoning, but does that necessarily follow from the LT?
What about the aspect of LT that says the moving clock will run slow?"
My question to Colton asked, or I at least so I intended, based on the application of the LT, but it doesn't really matter. As soon as you base your entire answer on the reason you gave, you have fundamentally contradicted your own fundamental premises.
SR says BOTH parties will see the other's distance to be contracted. And yet these guys want to act like it doesn't work both ways. All while insisting that these effects are strictly mutual, no less. And that's why Doc Al started redefining "length contraction."
Take this example: I am at rest. You are going .6c. I see YOUR length to be contracted. Contracted compared to what? Compared to MY lengths.
If YOU see something to be 10 feet long, then your 10 feet is shorter, NOT LONGER than my 10 feet. Therefore I will see your 10 feet as equivalent to my 12.5 feet.
Therefore, if you are moving, and I'm not, my length will will be longer. The stationary party always has the longer length, per the LT (and per SR).
So even if you want to get strictly relational about it, this is still wrong:
One Brow said: "Henry will measure a greater distance between himself and clock1 greater than any observer in a different inertial state will measure the distance between Henry and clock1."
It should read: One Brow said: "Henry will measure a LESSER (not "greater") distance between himself and clock1 LESSER (not greater) than any observer in a different inertial state will measure the distance between Henry and clock1."
Why? Because they will all see his lengths to be shorter than theirs (whether they "really are") or not.
When confronted with this flawed reasoning, the guys at the other forum just get louder and more insistent. When their own inconsistencies become too obvious, they label you a crank, ban you, and remove your posts. Thought control at it's best, eh
aintnuthin said...
Well, I understand that reasoning, but does that necessarily follow from the LT?
Yes. That's why it's true even in LR.
What about the aspect of LT that says the moving clock will run slow?
It true, where "moving" means "In a different inertial state than you". Again, it follows from the LT; again, it refers to what Henry can measure; again, this is the same in SR and LR.
My question to Colton asked, or I at least so I intended, based on the application of the LT, but it doesn't really matter.
It is so based.
As soon as you base your entire answer on the reason you gave, you have fundamentally contradicted your own fundamental premises.
SR says BOTH parties will see the other's distance to be contracted.
Correct (and so does LR), where "see" means "measure". Each party is in a different inertial state compared to the other party.
And yet these guys want to act like it doesn't work both ways.
???? They were very clear that length contraction worked both ways. For example, Doc Al said that if harriet had set up a clock 6 light-seconds from her in her inertial state, Henry would measure that distance as 4.8 light-seconds.
All while insisting that these effects are strictly mutual, no less. And that's why Doc Al started redefining "length contraction."
He used the standard defintion.
Take this example: I am at rest. You are going .6c. I see YOUR length to be contracted. Contracted compared to what? Compared to MY lengths.
Correct, but only for objects that are the inertial state of the object that is moving.
If YOU see something to be 10 feet long, then your 10 feet is shorter, NOT LONGER than my 10 feet. Therefore I will see your 10 feet as equivalent to my 12.5 feet.
If the moving party measures 10 to an object in the stationary party's inertial state, the stationary party will measure a longer distance to that object. If the moving party measures 10 to an object in the moving party's inertial state, the stationary party will measure a shorter distance to that object.
So, the moving party can measure teh same distance to two different objects (one in the moving party's inertial state, one in the stationary party's inertial state), and the stationary party will measure different distances to those same objects.
Therefore, if you are moving, and I'm not, my length will will be longer. The stationary party always has the longer length, per the LT (and per SR).
Not in the sense you are using the terminology.
Well, actually, your post was correct, as it was stated. He will see his own distance as greater, as you said. But under SR, that is true of every frame, so you could not make a distinction between any two frames on that ground, even if what you said actually meant what you intend it to mean (which it doesn't).
This is just one example of the way SR generates confusion and contradiction by trying to make the "observer" king (always right, that is). The focus is on subjectity, not objectivity.
aintnuthin said...
So even if you want to get strictly relational
No need and no value to it. Relationalism is wrong.
It should read: One Brow said: "Henry will measure a LESSER (not "greater") distance between himself and clock1 LESSER (not greater) than any observer in a different inertial state will measure the distance between Henry and clock1."
No.
Why? Because they will all see his lengths to be shorter than theirs (whether they "really are") or not.
They see Henry using a shorter yardstick to measure that distance. Shorter yeardstick, same distance = more yards.
When confronted with this flawed reasoning, the guys at the other forum just get louder and more insistent.
Their reasoning was not flawed.
When their own inconsistencies become too obvious,
You pointed out no inconsistencies.
they label you a crank,
You are a crank.
ban you, and remove your posts. Thought control at it's best, eh
Their purpose is to educate, not debate. It became clear when you invoked Einstein/Lorentz that you were there to preach, not learn.
One Brow said: "Correct (and so does LR), where "see" means "measure".
This is wrong, as pointed out to you repeatedly and, at times, with special emphasis on the authoriative exposition of Sexl and Mansur. But you never quit repeating your errors, it seems.
And then you yourself go on and attempt to redefine length and time distortion. I guess that's because you saw Doc Al doing it and figured he must be right. TIME IS ALWAYS longer for the stationary party, remember the twin paradox? Same with length.
I can't believe the degree of denialism amongst SR advocates, I tellya.
One Brow said: "They see Henry using a shorter yardstick to measure that distance. Shorter yeardstick, same distance = more yards."
Now you're right back to trying to use the Eddington view to prove an invalid point. One which you supposedly disavowed.
One Brow said: "Their purpose is to educate, not debate."
Their purpose is to indoctrinate. Whoever indoctrinated you must have used 50 baseball bats on your ass for 50 years. They sure did a thorough job.
One Brow said: "You are a crank."
You, Eric, are no less than a fucking idiot. It doesn't fucking matter who is measuring what, in what frame. The simple objective FACT remains. At slower speeds, clocks run faster (cf. GPS, twin paradox). Length elongation comes with it. Your subjectivist tendencies overwhelm you and are evidently founded on the need to be right even when you're wrong.
aintnuthin said...
One Brow said: "Correct (and so does LR), where "see" means "measure".
This is wrong, as pointed out to you repeatedly and, at times, with special emphasis on the authoriative exposition of Sexl and Mansur.
If you were able to correctly read Sexl and Mansouri, you would understand the difference between being able to make calculations using an inertial state other than your own (which is certianly possible, and has the effects they described) versus making measurments (you can only make measurments from the inertial state you are in).
I've asked you repeatedly to produce a measurement you can make that verifies whether the train or the earth is moving. You have failed to provide one. The reason for this failue is that no such measurement exists. The lack of such a measurment is why the measurments made from a train indicate the earth clocks have slowed down.
But you never quit repeating your errors, it seems.
On the contrary, I made a few eror early on in this exchange that I have stopped making.
And then you yourself go on and attempt to redefine length and time distortion.
In what fashion?
I guess that's because you saw Doc Al doing it
I didn't say anything on SR after going to physics forums that I had not said in the last few comments pages prior to the visit there.
and figured he must be right. TIME IS ALWAYS longer for the stationary party, remember the twin paradox? Same with length.
For "stationary"="inertial" and "ALWAYS" = "as measured within that inerrtial state", sure.
I can't believe the degree of denialism amongst SR advocates, I tellya.
The difference between mainstream-SR and denialists is that mainstream-SR proponents have experimental evidence to support them.
Now you're right back to trying to use the Eddington view to prove an invalid point. One which you supposedly disavowed.
Mt sentence was intended to be illustrative of why a concept could be true, not authoritative nor explanatory.
Their purpose is to indoctrinate. Whoever indoctrinated you must have used 50 baseball bats on your ass for 50 years. They sure did a thorough job.
Well, it's easy to indoctrinate when you have a consistent, experiementally verified theory to teach.
You, Eric, are no less than a fucking idiot.
Thank you. It would have been more insulting to say I was not more than an idiot, but I'll assume that's what you meant.
Of course, I know I'm an idiot, and that I need to listen to understand what is acutally going on and why come ways of thinking are not valid, before making a decisions, rather than assuming my intuition is valid. Also, because I'm an idiot, I always try to second-guess myself and am ready to change my mind when presented with evidence or a description I can make sense of.
It doesn't fucking matter who is measuring what, in what frame.
How else do you acquire knowledge of how much time has passed unless you measure it at some point?
The simple objective FACT remains. At slower speeds, clocks run faster (cf. GPS, twin paradox).
Agreed, where "slower"="closer to the preferred inertial frame".
Length elongation comes with it.
Agreed.
Your subjectivist tendencies overwhelm you
In what way?
and are evidently founded on the need to be right even when you're wrong.
Well, I don't like being wrong. But I've found the best way to fix that is to change my thinking when I'm wrong.
The problem with so many math-oriented people is that they are rule-oriented and tend to seek "formulas" which they can mechanically apply. They want to think mechancially, because then they feel assured that the have the "right answers." And they may well have the right answer within the strict confines of the formal system they are operating under and the arbitrary conventions which have been established to govern that system. But then they start thinking those rules encapsulate, and therefore dictate, "reality."
The problem here is not difficult, Eric.
The challenge was merely to construct a frame wherein Jill was the "moving" party. No need to quibble about what "moving" means. The idea is to construct a frame where, from the information given, you can reach results which give Jill the longer time and distance. That's the stipulation.
Just take the information given and "reverse" the result you have already reached where Jack, not Jill, has the longer time and distance. That's what you are aksed to do.
The solution?:
Contruct a diagram from Jill's frame of reference, where she is 7.5 light seconds and 12.5 seconds away.
You end up with a spacetime interval of 100. The square root of that is 10, which now tells you Jack's time.
Does this possibility violate any physical laws? Of course not, it is entirely "possible."
Does it require one to adjust the "standard" approach to constructing a spacetime diagram? Yes, but so what? The conventions established for that purpose are not physical laws.
It is certainly not "impossible" to construct this scenario, where Jack's time and distance are the same as was "given" in the problem. Nor is this scenario "exactly the same as" the one where Jack was stationary and Jill was moving.
I said: "Contruct a diagram from Jill's frame of reference, where she is 7.5 light seconds and 12.5 seconds away."
Away from "event 2," that is, which is the time she will encounter Jack and clock 2.
I mixed up the names (Jack vs Jill) in parts of that penultimate post, but I'm sure you can overcome any initial confusion that may cause you, and understand which one I was intending to refer to.
Suppose Colton had said something like: "If you are asking me to change the assumptions about the inertial states of the parties, then you must realize that you are, in effect, asking me to change the problem."
Then I would have said: Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking you to do. Change the situation so that Jill is moving (i.e. ends up with the greater time and distance) rather than Jack.
But he didn't say that. He, like you, said the answer would be the same either way.
Then, when I tried to point out that we were deliberately intending to change the scenario, he simply repeated himself.
As I said, he refused to make the necessary changes to accomodate the changed circumstances requested, which would have been fairly simple. And his stated reason was that it wouldn't matter (as you had claimed). It would matter. Zero velocity is not "exactly the same as" .6c velocity.
Let me put it this way:
YOu can set up the initial problem (changing names to avoid the confusion) so that Wilma is stationary, that Wilbur is moving at .6c with respect to Wilma, that their is a clock1 moving with the same velocity as Wilbur, that Wilma measures the ditance between Wilbur and clock1 as 7.5 light-seconds, and thus than 12.5 light-seconds pass between clock1 passing Wilma and Wilbur passing Wilma. You can take all this information, and plug it into the LT to get the ditance Wilbur measures between himself and clock1, and then use that to find the amount of time Wilbur meaures to pass between clock1 passing Wilma and clock2 passing Wilma.
If you do that, you will get that Wilbur measures the distance as 9.375 light-seconds. This is the result of the LT. There is no other result in SR nor in LR. This means Wilbur measures 15.625seconds to pass. There is no other result from the LT.
You end up with a spacetime interval of 100. The square root of that is 10, which now tells you Jack's time.
The spacetime interval gets calculated using the coordinate differences between two events. Wilma is not moving inbetween when clock1 passes her and clock2 passes her. So, there is no distance between those events, for Wilma. In this case, the spacetime interval is 156.25.
Wilma's time difference: 12.5
Wilma's space difference: 0
12.5^2 - 0^2=156.25
Wilbur's time difference: 15.625
Wilma's space difference: 9.375
15.625^2 - 9.375^2 = 156.25
Does this possibility violate any physical laws? Of course not, it is entirely "possible."
If you accept the LT as modeling physical laws, then it would violate physical laws for Wilma to measure 7.5/12.5 while Wilbur meausres 10/6. If you don't accept the LT as modeling physical laws, then you need to come up with a model that reflects physics the way you see it.
Suppose Colton had said ...
But he didn't say that. He, like you, said the answer would be the same either way.
The answer is the same either way. The answer is the same when Jack is stationary, and when Jill is stationary.
In any scenario where you are looking for a specific answer, it is possible to change some parameters of the secnario without changing the answer. Here, you made three changes. Jack went from stationary to moving, clock1 went from stationary to moving, Jill went from moving to stationary. As a result of the three changes you made, the end result was that the numbers read on the clocks were unchanged. Alter only two of those things, and you get different answers.
Then, when I tried to point out that we were deliberately intending to change the scenario, he simply repeated himself.
Because the changes you made gave back the same answers.
As I said, he refused to make the necessary changes to accomodate the changed circumstances requested, which would have been fairly simple.
You are inferring this because you are assuming that, had the changes you requested been made, the answers came out differently. Your assumption is wrong. That renders your inferral unreliable.
Zero velocity is not "exactly the same as" .6c velocity.
Of course not. However, with the three changes together, the clock reading don't change, even though the velocities have.
Example 1: Jack and Jill are together. Jack acclerates to a speed of .6c, then turns around and head back toward Jill at that same speed. Before he reaches her, he places a clock 6 LS in front of him, then passes Jill. Who will have the greater time and distance (which is merely to ask, "who is treating as moving, and who is treated as stationary)?
Your answer: Jack will be the stationary party.
Why? Because the clocks are co-moving with him, that's why.
Example 2: Same facts with one exception: This time, while Jack is heading back to Jill she sets up a clock 6 LS away from her, and then Jack passes both clocks.
Who will have the greater time and distance (which is merely to ask, "who is treating as moving, and who is treated as stationary) this time?
Your answer: Jill will be the stationary party.
Why? Because the clocks are co-moving with her, that's why.
===
Apart from the question of which one beat the other to the task of setting up a clock, the two situations are identical.
Is that a difference dictated by the "laws of phsyics?" Do all results change when one guy sets up a clock in his frame first?
Let me rephrase this to avoid confusion. I said:
"Do all results change when one guy sets up a clock in his frame first?"
Forget that I said "all results." Here's what I meant:
Does the answer to the fundamental question of whose clock is running slower change when one guy sets up a clock in his frame first?
One Brow said: "The answer is the same either way. The answer is the same when Jack is stationary, and when Jill is stationary."
That statement is just pathetic. The LT says that if the time elapsed for Jill is 12.5 seconds, and she is stationary, then Jack the time elapsed on Jack's clock will be 10 seconds. And that is how she would calculate it regardless of what clock she is looking at.
Given that scenario, in Fowler's example, she would see 12.5 on her own clock and 10 on Jack's. Likewise, Jack would see 10 on his clock and 12.5 on hers. In Fowler's example, even though the clocks are not in her frame, Jill STILL sees 10 seconds on his clock, when she gets to it.
One Brow said:
Wilma's time difference: 12.5
Wilma's space difference: 0
12.5^2 - 0^2=156.25
Wilbur's time difference: 15.625
Wilma's space difference: 9.375
15.625^2 - 9.375^2 = 156.25
My mathematician friend says this:
There are two "events":
E: Jill and the first clock meet
F: Jill and Jack meet.
In Jill's coordinate frame F happens at (x=0,t=0) so E happens 7.5 light-seconds to the left and 12.5 seconds in the past. E happens at (x=-7.5, t=-12.5).
F - E = (Δx=7.5 light seconds,Δt=12.5 seconds) and the invariant interval is
I = (cΔt)²−(Δx)² = 100 light-seconds²
In Jack's coordinate frame, we could set up a Lorentz transform, plug in the velocity, double-check that we got the signs right, convert events E and F to x' and t' and then find out what Δx' and Δt' where. Or we could just note that by definition, Δx' = 0 since both events E and F happen to Jack. so I = (cΔt')²−(Δx')² = (cΔt')² = 100 light-seconds² and show that Δt' = 10 seconds exactly for Jack.
He wrong?
Edit: Should have said:
There are two "events":
E: Jack and the first clock meet
F: Jill and Jack meet.
Your whole Wilbur/Wilma example simply once again builds in the conclusion that Jill is MOVING, not stationary, defined as follows:
"stationary" = the party whose clock records the greater elapsed time.
"moving" = the party whose clock records the lesser time.
It's simple: Jill sets up clocks 7.5 LS apart in her frame. Jack will "see" this distance as 6LS. His clock will actually record 10 seconds and Jill's will actually record 12.5.
Now the problem has been altered to make Jill the "stationary" party, which is all I asked. Colton said it had been done already, because the answer was the same, whoever was moving(a blatant contradiction, given the definitons above).
One Brow said: I've asked you repeatedly to produce a measurement you can make that verifies whether the train or the earth is moving. You have failed to provide one. The reason for this failue is that no such measurement exists. The lack of such a measurment is why the measurments made from a train indicate the earth clocks have slowed down.
I repeatedly gave you many measurements, and there are many. Just because you may not have one when confined to one frame says nothing. You have to compare and contrast two frames to detected any difference, that's a given. Yet you ignore it.
And, as always, you think your unfounded assumptions prove your point. Your whole "thought process" seems to boil down to the assumption that if you say it, or think it, the proposition you advance have been proven.
You say: "The lack of such a measurment is why the measurments made from a train indicate the earth clocks have slowed down." You have it exactly reversed. The fact that you can compare the rate of a clock on a train to one on the ground is just one (of many) ways to determine which one is moving.
You have been so completely brain-washed that you think every disproof of your beliefs proves them.
Did you even read Fowler's example for substance? Of course not. He makes it clear that when Jill and Jack actually observe each other's clocks they will see what each one reads, NOT see it "slower." Jack will see Jill's slower, precisely because it IS slower. Jill will see Jack's faster, precisely because it IS faster. There's your "measurment."
aintnuthin said...
Example 1: Jack and Jill are together. Jack acclerates to a speed of .6c, then turns around and head back toward Jill at that same speed. Before he reaches her, he places a clock 6 LS in front of him, then passes Jill. Who will have the greater time and distance (which is merely to ask, "who is treating as moving, and who is treated as stationary)?
Your answer: Jack will be the stationary party.
Why? Because the clocks are co-moving with him, that's why.
The actual answer is that "either one can be treated as stationary". Let's say Jack and JIll are together, moving at .6c. Jack accelerates to what Jill measures as .6c (I think that would be .84c, but I'm not sure) for a while, then stops dead. Jill passes Jack at .6c. There are no measurements you can make that distinguish what you wrote from what I wrote. So, for the purpose of running experiments, either description is equally valid, and either Jack or Jill can be treated as stationary.
Example 2: Same facts with one exception: This time, while Jack is heading back to Jill she sets up a clock 6 LS away from her, and then Jack passes both clocks.
Who will have the greater time and distance (which is merely to ask, "who is treating as moving, and who is treated as stationary) this time?
Your answer: Jill will be the stationary party.
Why? Because the clocks are co-moving with her, that's why.
As above.
Apart from the question of which one beat the other to the task of setting up a clock, the two situations are identical.
Is that a difference dictated by the "laws of phsyics?" Do all results change when one guy sets up a clock in his frame first?
Nothing changes based on who set up a clock first. If Jill sets up a clock before Jack, but we ignore it, it does not change the answers with regard to Jack's clock.
Let me rephrase this to avoid confusion. I said:
"Do all results change when one guy sets up a clock in his frame first?"
Forget that I said "all results." Here's what I meant:
Does the answer to the fundamental question of whose clock is running slower change when one guy sets up a clock in his frame first?
I think the issue is that you think there is a fundamental question about difference in speeds. In the only manner I can interpret "fundamental", all the clocks always run at the same speed. Any differences in speed are due to how things get measured in different inertial frames, because when two objects are in diferent inertial frames, thy move through spacetime (that is, both space and time) differently.
One Brow said: "The answer is the same either way. The answer is the same when Jack is stationary, and when Jill is stationary."
That statement is just pathetic. The LT says that if the time elapsed for Jill is 12.5 seconds, and she is stationary, then Jack the time elapsed on Jack's clock will be 10 seconds. And that is how she would calculate it regardless of what clock she is looking at.
When you were asked to work through the full LT, you refused. No big deal. However, people worked it through for you, and showed you that's not wht the LT say. You can keep repeating your claim ad infinitum, but the LT don't say that, never have, and never will. It is inconsistent to keep using the LT and to keep making that claim.
In Jill's coordinate frame F happens at (x=0,t=0) so E happens 7.5 light-seconds to the left and 12.5 seconds in the past. E happens at (x=-7.5, t=-12.5).
Your mathematician friend does not undertand that, in Jill's coordinate frame, Jill's x value is always 0.
... since both events E and F happen to Jack.
Event E does not happen to Jack. Event E happens to Jill and clock1. Jack is not present.
He wrong?
Yes.
Edit: Should have said:
There are two "events":
E: Jack and the first clock meet
F: Jill and Jack meet.
In the Jack/Jill scenario we have been discussing, Jack and clock1 do not meet.
Your whole Wilbur/Wilma example simply once again builds in the conclusion that Jill is MOVING, not stationary, defined as follows:
"stationary" = the party whose clock records the greater elapsed time.
"moving" = the party whose clock records the lesser time.
Jack/Jill (and Wilma/Wilbur) see different amounts of time recorded on Jack's (Wilber's) clock. This means that Jack measures Jill to record less time than Jack records, and Jill measures Jack to record less time than Jill records. They both agree Jill records 8 seconds, but disagree on how much Jack records.
It's simple: Jill sets up clocks 7.5 LS apart in her frame. Jack will "see" this distance as 6LS. His clock will actually record 10 seconds and Jill's will actually record 12.5.
Changing the scenario so that clock1 is in Jill's inertial state is a significant change, and would result in different answers. Previously, you have not spcified that change.
You have to compare and contrast two frames to detected any difference, that's a given.
Contrasing two frames does not tell you which frame is moving. If you think otherwise, describe an experiment that could verify which object is moving. Use two spaceships and as many clocks as you want.
And, as always, you think your unfounded assumptions prove your point. Your whole "thought process" seems to boil down to the assumption that if you say it, or think it, the proposition you advance have been proven.
My thought process is based on the limitations of what experiments can detect. If you can provide a counter-example, I'm listening. Railing and complaining is not a counter-example.
You have it exactly reversed. The fact that you can compare the rate of a clock on a train to one on the ground is just one (of many) ways to determine which one is moving.
Describe the measurement process that confirms this. Any day now. Describe who sees what, and when.
You have been so completely brain-washed that you think every disproof of your beliefs proves them.
You'll need to provide a dis-proof.
He makes it clear that when Jill and Jack actually observe each other's clocks they will see what each one reads,
Of course.
NOT see it "slower."
That would require taking two readings. You measure speed (whether of a clock or a velocity) by taking reading at two different point, subtracting, and adjusting for any interfering factors (such as angle of incidence and Doppler effects). Reading a clock at one point is measuring nothing.
Jack will see Jill's slower, precisely because it IS slower. Jill will see Jack's faster, precisely because it IS faster. There's your "measurment."
If you want to use "see", Jack sees Jill's clock move twice as fast as his (he sees her clock to move from 0 to 8 while his moves from 6 to 10). If you use "observe", Jill observes Jack's clock to move slower.
One Brow said: "The actual answer is that "either one can be treated as stationary".
Only one can have the slower time, and only one can have the faster, as a matter of fact, and irrespective of any "treatment" you give things in any hypothetical problem. You still don't haven't the slightest clue about this because you have heard and absorbed so much relationalist propaganda that you can't even think in any other terms.
Like Colton, who says it doesn't matter who's "moving." In SR "moving" simply means you have the slower clock. And given that, one of two objects always, in every case, has that. And that depends on an absolute difference in relative speed. It is not a mere matter of perception. As soon as you conclude that either Jack or Jill records less time, you have designated who is (relatively) moving and who is (relatively) stationary.
But I guess you are far too much of a subjectivist to ever understand that.
One Brow said: "My thought process is based on the limitations of what experiments can detect. If you can provide a counter-example, I'm listening.'
You don't listen to a damn thing. Look at a highly accurate atomic clock that is moving at 10 mph, and you will "observe" a time change. I have already given you the citations. Look at what the accurate operation of the GPS tells you. Yes, clocks really do slow down with increased speed, beleive it or not. For you, it's "not," no matter what the contrary evidence might say.
You simply cannot process this information. You blow it off with some crankish comment that clocks can't be compared because of light delays, and that the end of it for you.
One Brow said: "Jill observes Jack's clock to move slower."
More crankishness. We've been over the difference between empirical observation and inferences from demonstrably unsound premises a hundred times and you still ignore the difference.
Your whole "all time and distance distortions can be explained without the LT" line fell apart, but you ignore that too.
Only one can have the slower time, and only one can have the faster, as a matter of fact, and irrespective of any "treatment" you give things in any hypothetical problem.
You error is the notion that there is some unique slower time or faster time in scenarios involving obejects moving inertially. It doesn't exist.
You still don't haven't the slightest clue about this because you have heard and absorbed so much relationalist propaganda that you can't even think in any other terms.
Since I'm not a relationalist, that's an unlikely explanation.
Like Colton, who says it doesn't matter who's "moving."
That's not relationalism.
In SR "moving" simply means you have the slower clock. And given that, one of two objects always, in every case, has that.
Where "given case" means "as measured from some inertial state".
And that depends on an absolute difference in relative speed.
Agreed.
It is not a mere matter of perception.
Agreed.
As soon as you conclude that either Jack or Jill records less time, you have designated who is (relatively) moving and who is (relatively) stationary.
Jill measures Jack to recrod less time than Jill. Jack measures Jill to record less time than Jack. So, there is no overriding conclusion to be had aobut who records less time.
But I guess you are far too much of a subjectivist to ever understand that.
You're far to much of a crank to deal with the actual science, so far.
You don't listen to a damn thing.
Quit whining and present a real argument.
Look at a highly accurate atomic clock that is moving at 10 mph, and you will "observe" a time change.
So will the moving clock observe a time change. The moving clock and my clock will each observe the other to be slower.
I have already given you the citations. Look at what the accurate operation of the GPS tells you.
Name one aspect of the GPS that disagrees with SR. Make sure to quote some mainstream-SR proponent on this.
Yes, clocks really do slow down with increased speed, beleive it or not.
Agreed.
For you, it's "not," no matter what the contrary evidence might say.
You must be the kindof person who doesn't take "yes" for an answer.
You simply cannot process this information.
Which information don't I process?
You blow it off with some crankish comment that clocks can't be compared because of light delays, and that the end of it for you.
Of course clocks can be compared after factoring in light delays. You just need to be careful about it.
One Brow said: "Jill observes Jack's clock to move slower."
More crankishness.
Actually, simple math based on what Jill can see. Math you asked questions about, but did not dispute. Math you never offered an alternative interpretation to.
We've been over the difference between empirical observation and inferences from demonstrably unsound premises a hundred times and you still ignore the difference.
However, this math is based on no premises you have rejected as unsound. What is teh unsound premise?
Your whole "all time and distance distortions can be explained without the LT" line fell apart, but you ignore that too.
Again,m you confuse "explained" with "measured". Neither the LT nor my analysis of using what Jill sees to measure Jack's clock rate is an explanation. Explanaitons are the province of theories like SR and LR, the LT are the equivalent of laws.
I said: "Look at a highly accurate atomic clock that is moving at 10 mph, and you will "observe" a time change."
"So will the moving clock observe a time change. The moving clock and my clock will each observe the other to be slower."
Dingle on, Mr. Dingle. I can read both my clock and the moving clock's readings just fine, but it can't do the same because it's hallucinatory, eh? Read Fowler and quit playing the fool. Both Jack and Jill can see, it's just that, like you, Jill can't think. She tries to deny what she clear sees with absurd logic.
One Brow said:"Jill measures Jack to recrod less time than Jill. Jack measures Jill to record less time than Jack. So, there is no overriding conclusion to be had aobut who records less time."
The clocks measure and record the time, Mr. Dingle, but Dingle on with your bad self, there, eh? I passed out at Red's Road House last week and they threw me out in the back alley. When the sun came up, I "measured" the elapsed time to be nuthin. My watch said it was 8:00 A. M., but I KNEW that was wrong.
One Brow said: Changing the scenario so that clock1 is in Jill's inertial state is a significant change, and would result in different answers. Previously, you have not spcified that change."
This is so disingenous, Eric? *I* didn't specify? You kept rewriting my question because you knew it wouldn't give you the answer you were looking for. I quit reading your proposals carefully because I figure Colton's response could be used to clarify any ambiguities.
YOU changed the problem, not me. I just wanted the numbers changed, not the premises. In the problem the clocks were in the frame of the stationary problem. I didn't ask that that be changed. Only that Jack's original numbers (6 LS, 10 seconds) be preserved.
But there no clarification was possible with Colton because the thought the Dingle view gave all answers and clarified all possible questions. I still can't believe that a physics professer would offer that kind of "explanation."
One thing was certainly clarified on the phsyics board: i.e., that is is completely wrong to say that it's the exact same situation either way and to claim that merely sliding the switch on the "observer view" serves to make the other party the "stationary" one. Nor does a change in inertial frames give you the exact same answer because "it's all relative" and there is no substance to it.
This is just another one of your cheap-ass sophistical tricks. I don't know why I ever held out any hopes of having an honest discussion with you. You're not capable of it.
One Brow said: "However, this math is based on no premises you have rejected as unsound. What is teh unsound premise?"
We've been over this 100 times. According to the premises set forth by Fowler, Jill is, in fact, moving. Her false premise is that she aint.
===
With respect to your ongoing assertions that the Lortentz transform and the "laws of physics" dictate a given result depending on the frame of the clocks is just absurd to any thinking person (but not to math robots).
The frame the clocks are in is not determinative in the least, not from the standpoint of the LT, anyway (which is what I told Colton the question was based on).
The LT does NOT say which party is moving. It only says that one of the two is (relatively) moving. There is nothing inherent in the LT which prevents Jack from seeing his length contracted. If he did, he would calculate Jill's time to be 12.5 seconds and her distance to be 7.5 LS.
Those who have been rigidly trained in the mathematical conventions of SR, which distort the LT to comply with theory, start thinking the theory is the LT, and that the corresponding math dictates "reality."
They think the "laws of physics" say that Jack's length can only be contracted, because "there is no room for further contraction for him" on their graph paper. But, of course, there is room for expansion, and neither the LT nor any physical law prohibits that.
Their self-imposed limitation is an artifact of philosophy, not math, and not physics. Yet they think the mathematical schemes they have adopted to suit their philosophy are "inherent in the LT."
Fraid not, but don't ever try telling a math robot that.
I can read both my clock and the moving clock's readings just fine, but it can't do the same because it's hallucinatory, eh?
Each clock reads the other just fine. Each clock sees the other as going slower.
Both Jack and Jill can see, it's just that, like you, Jill can't think.
Funny how you say this while ignoring any description of what Jill sees in favor of conclusions based on what jill does not see nor measure.
The clocks measure and record the time,
That's what I said.
This is so disingenous, Eric? *I* didn't specify? You kept rewriting my question because you knew it wouldn't give you the answer you were looking for.
If at any point you mean to revise the scenario so that clock1 was in Jill's inertial state, and I failed to reflect that, I apologize. I won't bother re-writing things again.
I didn't ask that that be changed. Only that Jack's original numbers (6 LS, 10 seconds) be preserved.
My recollection differs. For one, if clock1 had been moved to Jill's inertial frame, I would have agreed with you all along, as would colton, Doc Al, DaleSpam, and ghwellsjr.
I still can't believe that a physics professer would offer that kind of "explanation."
It's so much easier for you to assume everyone else is indoctrinated than that you are wrong.
One thing was certainly clarified on the phsyics board: i.e., that is is completely wrong to say that it's the exact same situation either way and to claim that merely sliding the switch on the "observer view" serves to make the other party the "stationary" one.
What part of the exchange clarified that for you?
Nor does a change in inertial frames give you the exact same answer because "it's all relative" and there is no substance to it.
What's the situatin where a change in inertial frames gives you different answers?
This is just another one of your cheap-ass sophistical tricks. I don't know why I ever held out any hopes of having an honest discussion with you. You're not capable of it.
I have no idea what's going on with you right now, and don't particularly care. I do know that you accusing me of dishonesty in the same post where you now claim you meant to switch clock1 from Jack's inertial state to Jill's inertial state is, at the very least, ironic.
One Brow said: "However, this math is based on no premises you have rejected as unsound. What is teh unsound premise?"
We've been over this 100 times. According to the premises set forth by Fowler, Jill is, in fact, moving. Her false premise is that she aint.
The math is not based on the premise Jill is really stationary. In fact, it ignores whether Jill is really moving or not, and uses only that she is inertially moving.
With respect to your ongoing assertions that the Lortentz transform and the "laws of physics" dictate a given result depending on the frame of the clocks is just absurd to any thinking person (but not to math robots).
Being in different inertial states is a physical difference, and had physical effects. Acceleration (changing from one inertial state to another) is absolute, remember?
The frame the clocks are in is not determinative in the least, not from the standpoint of the LT, anyway (which is what I told Colton the question was based on).
You base on personally going through the LT? I think not.
The LT does NOT say which party is moving.
Agreed.
It only says that one of the two is (relatively) moving.
Agreed.
There is nothing inherent in the LT which prevents Jack from seeing his length contracted.
Agreed.
If he did, he would calculate Jill's time to be 12.5 seconds and her distance to be 7.5 LS.
To a clock in Jill's inertial state, sure. To a clock in Jack's inertial state, no.
Those who have been rigidly trained in the mathematical conventions of SR, which distort the LT to comply with theory, start thinking the theory is the LT, and that the corresponding math dictates "reality."
The LT say the same thing in LR that they do in SR.
They think the "laws of physics" say that Jack's length can only be contracted, because "there is no room for further contraction for him" on their graph paper.
*guffaw*
The crank searches for explanations on why peole don't agree with him, never realizing that the crank is simply wrong.
But, of course, there is room for expansion, and neither the LT nor any physical law prohibits that.
Expansion of the edges of the graph doesn't change where the lines intersect.
Their self-imposed limitation is an artifact of philosophy, not math, and not physics.
Tell youself whatever you want. The lines intersect where the intersect. You can renounce the LT if you want, makes no nevermind to me. You can even pretend the LT are being misused while refusing to work them through yourself. You might even convince some other people how right you are. It won't wash with me.
Yet they think the mathematical schemes they have adopted to suit their philosophy are "inherent in the LT."
The mathematics of the LT are not particularly complicated.
One Brow said: "Tell youself whatever you want. The lines intersect where the intersect. You can renounce the LT if you want, makes no nevermind to me...The mathematics of the LT are not particularly complicated."
No,they're not.
1. Is there a physical law which says if two clocks synchronized in one frame then that frame must have a lower relative speed? Yes, or no?
2. Does the LT prevent any party from using it from having the higher speed? Yes, or no?
3. Are you capable of putting 1 and 2 together? Yes, or no?
Hint, if Yes to either 1 or 2, then you don't understand the LT. If you don't, then, so far, at least, the answer to 3 is clearly no.
One Brow said: "Each clock reads the other just fine. Each clock sees the other as going slower."
Yeah, you been mindlessly chanting this mantra for two years without the slightest bit of justification or thought. You're a programmed robot.
Tell me, how in the FUCK can Jill looks straight at Jack's clock and see a faster time? Why doesn't that CLOCK (not her ignorantly slutty mind) say 6.4 seconds have passed?
"Clocks" can see each other just fine. Idiots refuse to believe clocks, that's all.
You actually think that whether Jill looks at the clock or not makes it run differently, don't you?
Work it out from the standpoint where Jill does nothing but stare at Jack's clock for the whole 10 seconds. Then tell mpoint at which, because Jill is looking at it, it suddenly jumps backwards in time by 3.4 seconds as she is staring at it.
I can put two stops watches in front of me that are set to run at different rates and watch them both from second to second, millisecond to millisecond. I will see the total divergence accumulate and be greater with each passing second. After the faster has run for one hour, I can stop them both and know the other one will show less, and exactly how much time.
So can anybody, after adjusting for, and eliminating, known non-fundamental distortions, if the two clocks happen to be moving with respect to each other.
Where does one "jump" by just the exact amount necessary to match the bogus "relativity of simultaniety" formula when you're looking at them both the whole time?
Hmmmmm? It doesn't, because that doen't happen. It is not an objective occurrence. It is a subjective one, happening only in the minds of ignorant sluts.
Jill sees 10 seconds pass on Jack's clock, and 8 on hers, a difference which quite co-incidentally, is EXACTLY what she would predict it to be if she relied on the LT and the assumption (fact in this case) that she was the one moving.
I said:"After the faster has run for one hour, I can stop them both and know the other one will show less, and exactly how much time."
Let's say after 30 minutes on the faster one, the slower one shows 20 minutes. Now I can put either one of them face down, and predict what the other one will say when I later stop them both.
If I put the slower one face down, and stop them both when the faster one says one hour has passed. Then without even looking at it I know that, absent malfunction, the other (slower clock) will read 40 minutes.
Likewise, if I put the faster one face down and stop them both when the slower one reads 40 minutes, then I know the faster one will read 60 minutes.
It aint no rocket science.
Now take me out of the picture and just have the clocks face each other. It aint no different. Each will "see" that one is running faster than the other, and they will agree 100% on which one is slower and which one is slower.
It would take an ignorant slut to deny that. Or maybe a robot that just would just recite whatever it was pre-programmed to say, irrespective of any and all facts or observations.
aintnuthin said...
1. Is there a physical law which says if two clocks synchronized in one frame then that frame must have a lower relative speed? Yes, or no?
I'm sure you meant for that question to have a meaning, but I don't know what a "lower relative speed" is supposed to be when you have two clocks in the same inertial state. Their speed relative to each other is zero. If you bring in a third object, each has the same relative speed to that third object, and that third object has the same relative speed compared to the either of the first two objects.
2. Does the LT prevent any party from using it from having the higher speed? Yes, or no?
No.
3. Are you capable of putting 1 and 2 together? Yes, or no?
First, you'll have to ask 1. in an intelligible fashion.
Hint, if Yes to either 1 or 2, then you don't understand the LT. If you don't, then, so far, at least, the answer to 3 is clearly no.
Hint: from a standpoint of basics physics, 1) has no meaning, as written.
One Brow said: "Each clock reads the other just fine. Each clock sees the other as going slower."
Yeah, you been mindlessly chanting this mantra for two years without the slightest bit of justification or thought. You're a programmed robot.
*Yawn*
Tell me, how in the FUCK can Jill looks straight at Jack's clock and see a faster time?
The same way Jack can look at Jill's clock and see a faster time. Jill sees Jack's clock move from -6 to 10 (a difference of 16) while hers moves from 0 to 8 (a difference of 8), Jack sees Jill's clock move from 0 to 8 while his moves from 6 to 10 (a difference of 4). Each sees the other clock move faster.
Why doesn't that CLOCK (not her ignorantly slutty mind) say 6.4 seconds have passed?
It does. 10 - 3.6 = 6.4. The passage of time is measured by subtracting two time readings.
"Clocks" can see each other just fine. Idiots refuse to believe clocks, that's all.
Yes, they do. But I'll still trying to persuade you.
You actually think that whether Jill looks at the clock or not makes it run differently, don't you?
No.
Work it out from the standpoint where Jill does nothing but stare at Jack's clock for the whole 10 seconds.
What 10 seconds? Jill stares at Jack's clock for 8 seconds, during which she sees it move from -6 to 10.
Then tell mpoint at which, because Jill is looking at it, it suddenly jumps backwards in time by 3.4 seconds as she is staring at it.
No such point. She sees it smoothly count out 16 seconds, no jumps.
I can put two stops watches in front of me that are set to run at different rates and watch them both from second to second, millisecond to millisecond. I will see the total divergence accumulate and be greater with each passing second. After the faster has run for one hour, I can stop them both and know the other one will show less, and exactly how much time.
Agreed.
So can anybody, after adjusting for, and eliminating, known non-fundamental distortions, if the two clocks happen to be moving with respect to each other.
Agreed.
Where does one "jump" by just the exact amount necessary to match the bogus "relativity of simultaniety" formula when you're looking at them both the whole time?
No jump. Jack's clock was measured to reqad 3.6 seconds right from the start, as and even before Jill passed clock1.
Hmmmmm? It doesn't, because that doen't happen.
No jump. Agreed.
It is not an objective occurrence. It is a subjective one, happening only in the minds of ignorant sluts.
No, it is an objective lack of simultaneity, which can be recorded even if no conscious observer is present.
Jill sees 10 seconds pass on Jack's clock, and 8 on hers,
Jill sees 16 seconds pass on Jack's clock, not 10.
a difference which quite co-incidentally, is EXACTLY what she would predict it to be if she relied on the LT and the assumption (fact in this case) that she was the one moving.
Jill can calculate Jack will measure 10 seconds to pass on Jack's clock even if she believes she is stationary.
Let's say after 30 minutes on the faster one, the slower one shows 20 minutes. Now I can put either one of them face down, and predict what the other one will say when I later stop them both.
Agreed.
Now take me out of the picture and just have the clocks face each other. It aint no different.
Agreed.
One Brow said: "It does. 10 - 3.6 = 6.4. The passage of time is measured by subtracting two time readings....No, it is an objective lack of simultaneity, which can be recorded even if no conscious observer is present."
Heh.
Now tell me all about how Rev. Moon is master of the universe, eh?
One Brow said:"No, it is an objective lack of simultaneity, which can be recorded even if no conscious observer is present."
There is a lack of synchronization and that lack is indeed measured. That's why Jack's clock reads 10 and Jill's only 8. End of story.
One Brow said: "Jack's clock was measured to reqad 3.6 seconds right from the start..."
Yeah, who measured that? Why didn't she "see" 12.4 seconds from the git-go, instead of 16?
===
I said: "So can anybody, after adjusting for, and eliminating, known non-fundamental distortions, if the two clocks happen to be moving with respect to each other."
You said: "Agreed."
No, you don't agree.
I said: "Jill sees 10 seconds pass on Jack's clock, and 8 on hers..."
You responded: "Jill sees 16 seconds pass on Jack's clock, not 10."
One Brow said: "One Brow said: "It does. 10 - 3.6 = 6.4. The passage of time is measured by subtracting two time readings."
Lemme git this straight, eh? Jack's clock measures 10 seconds, and, per Fowler, it is 10 seconds, but since Jill erroneously concludes it's 6.4 seconds, Jill's misconceptions "measure" the time? "Objectively," no less. So, clocks don't measure time, Jill does, that the idea?
You have no clue what "objective" even means, Eric.
aintnuthin said...
There is a lack of synchronization and that lack is indeed measured. That's why Jack's clock reads 10 and Jill's only 8. End of story.
That is one lack of synchronization.
One Brow said: "Jack's clock was measured to reqad 3.6 seconds right from the start..."
Yeah, who measured that?
Jill.
Why didn't she "see" 12.4 seconds from the git-go, instead of 16?
Why would she see that?
I said: "So can anybody, after adjusting for, and eliminating, known non-fundamental distortions, if the two clocks happen to be moving with respect to each other."
You said: "Agreed."
No, you don't agree.
Except, I do agree.
I said: "Jill sees 10 seconds pass on Jack's clock, and 8 on hers..."
You responded: "Jill sees 16 seconds pass on Jack's clock, not 10."
As we have been using the term, "see" does not adjust for, and eliminate, known non-fundamental distortions. this is not a limitation on what people can do.
One Brow said: "One Brow said: "It does. 10 - 3.6 = 6.4. The passage of time is measured by subtracting two time readings."
Lemme git this straight, eh? Jack's clock measures 10 seconds, and, per Fowler, it is 10 seconds, but since Jill erroneously concludes it's 6.4 seconds, Jill's misconceptions "measure" the time?
You don't perform measurements with conceptions, you perform them with clocks, rulers, and basic mathematics.
"Objectively," no less. So, clocks don't measure time, Jill does, that the idea?
Of course clocks measure time. In particular, Jack's clock measure 6.4 seconds, as measured from Jill's inertial state.
One Brow said: "Of course clocks measure time. In particular, Jack's clock measure 6.4 seconds, as measured from Jill's inertial state."
Keep on chanting that mantra, Mr. Dingle.
I've been told you can't measure anything that doesn't exist, but that's wrong. I measured 3 ghosts last night, and one of them was over 10 feet tall, too.
I've seen this kinda phenomenon somewhere before. Where was that?
You know, the phenomenon where pliable, gullible disciples, anxious to please their superiors, anxious be fit in and be accepted, and anxious to have the absolute truth revealed to them, unquestionably, willingly, and zealously digest, then reguritate every contradictory claim that comes down the pike, eh?
Where was that? Oh, yeah, now I remember. Sunday school.
Sunday School Teacher: Nobody knows the will of God. He doesn't want you to know. He has glorious plans for you, but those plans would be spoiled if you knew them. He wants you to make choices when the outcome is uncertain.
Stupid-ass student: How do you know that?
SST: You best gitcho mind right, boy. Repeat after me: "NOBODY knows God's will."
SSA: Except you, you mean, don't you?
SST: God will punish you for this insubordinance. He doesn't like your kind. You wanna spend eternity in hell? Now, repeat after me: "NOBODY knows God's will."
Not mantra, mathematics, based on Jill seeing Jack's clock go from -6 to 10 while hers goes from 0 to 8, and the relative speed.
Funny, in Sunday School I don't recall ever working out those things on my own.
One Brow said:"...mathematics, based on Jill seeing Jack's clock go from -6 to 10 while hers goes from 0 to 8..."
After adjusting for light delays and doppler effects, Jill "observes" the clock go from exactly 0 to exact 10, one second at a time (or 1/1000th of a second at a time). Any "mathematics" which says otherwise is wrong.
aintnuthin said...
One Brow said:"...mathematics, based on Jill seeing Jack's clock go from -6 to 10 while hers goes from 0 to 8..."
After adjusting for light delays and doppler effects, Jill "observes" the clock go from exactly 0 to exact 10, one second at a time (or 1/1000th of a second at a time). Any "mathematics" which says otherwise is wrong.
Actually, after adjusting for light delays and doppler effects, Jill observes Jack's clock to go from 3.6 to 10. Jill can measure from doppler effects that jack's clock ticks .8 seconds to every second of hers (post on June 27). She also knows that the between the image of clock2 reading -6 and the actual clock2 is increasing by .4c * t (c=speed of light, t=time), and that this distance is currently 4.8 light-seconds (as Jill measures it). 4.5 ls/.4c = 12 seconds, which is the amount of time in the past that clock2 generated the image of reading -6. 12 * .8 = 9.6 seconds having passed on clock2 since it generated the image of reading -6. -6 + 9.6 = 3.6, the current reading of clock2, as measured by Jill.
One Brow said:"Actually, after adjusting for light delays and doppler effects, Jill observes Jack's clock to go from 3.6 to 10."
Completely wrong. Try again. Work it out, second by second. She sees it go from ZERO to 10, just as you have acknowledged all along. You keep starting (correctly) with the assumption that she will start out seeing -6 (which is ZERO minus 6 seconds light delay--no doppler, because no movement yet).
Jill will end up observing, after adjustments, 1.25 seconds for each second of hers.
Conversing for every second she observes as passing on Jack's clock, her clock will record only 8/10ths of a second pass.
Clock ticks are scalars, and there's no use trying to turn some miscalculation into "objective reality." The "ticks" don't just disappear. In the time her clock makes 8 ticks she will observe his clock to tick 10 times, not 6.4 times.
You still have no idea of what's going on here, or why.
After 1 second on her clock, she has gone 1/8 of the total distance. After 1 second on Jack's clock, she has gone 1/10 of the total distance. His clock ticks 10 times, hers 8.
You don't even need to do the math to see that the ratio will be 1.25 ticks for Jack for every 1 tick for Jill.
That's why Fowler, or anyone else wishing to deceive by mixing subjective notions with objective events NEVER follow it step by step.
They have Jill insist that clock 1 is "now" reading 6.4 seconds, and then resort to frame switching to make it sound plausibe. But any step by step analysis, so they avoid that.
Meant to say:
"But any step by step analysis [would prove otherwise], so they avoid that."
Put another way, if Fowler had Jill stare at clock 1 the whole time, then, after adjustments, she would also observe that clock record 10 seconds of time passing, not 6.4
Jill INSISTS that only 6.4 seconds have passed on Jack's clock for only one reason. And that insistence is based upon a DENIAL, not an acknowledgment, of her actual observations.
She says Jack's clock "MUST" have recorded 6.4 seconds based solely upon:
1. Her use of the LT, combined with
2. Her false assumption that she is stationary.
She never "observes" 6.4 seconds pass. She observes 10, if she is observant at all.
She "calculates" 6.4 seconds based on a false premise, that's all.
aintnuthin said...
Completely wrong. Try again. Work it out, second by second. She sees it go from ZERO to 10, just as you have acknowledged all along. You keep starting (correctly) with the assumption that she will start out seeing -6 (which is ZERO minus 6 seconds light delay--no doppler, because no movement yet).
I'm not sure what you mean by "no movement yet", since Jill is moving inertially at .6c relative to Jack/clock1.
If you think Jill can make any observations/measurments that say Jack's clock reads 0 when clok1 reads 0, what are those measurements? Hint: Jack claiming that the clocks are synchronized is not a measurement.
Clock ticks are scalars, and there's no use trying to turn some miscalculation into "objective reality."
I'm not sure what you mean by "no movement yet", since Jill is moving inertially at .6c relative to Jack/clock1.
Numbers on clocks separated by neglible spacetime at specfic events are scalars. Clock ticks are separated by non-negligible spacetime.
The "ticks" don't just disappear.
Agreed.
In the time her clock makes 8 ticks she will observe his clock to tick 10 times, not 6.4 times.
To show this, you have to show how she observes the 0 on Jack's clock. You have not done so.
After 1 second on her clock, she has gone 1/8 of the total distance. After 1 second on Jack's clock, she has gone 1/10 of the total distance.
As measured in jack's inertial state, sure. As measured from Jill's inertial state, it 1/8 and 1/6.4.
They have Jill insist that clock 1 is "now" reading 6.4 seconds, and then resort to frame switching to make it sound plausibe. But any step by step analysis would prove otherwise, so they avoid that.
I disagree. Describe the step-by-step analysis you believe proves otherwise.
Put another way, if Fowler had Jill stare at clock 1 the whole time, then, after adjustments, she would also observe that clock record 10 seconds of time passing, not 6.4
I disagree. Jill would see four seconds pass on clock1 smoothly. By making corrections for relative speed, she would calculate that meant 6.4 seconds passed.
Jill INSISTS that only 6.4 seconds have passed on Jack's clock for only one reason. And that insistence is based upon a DENIAL, not an acknowledgment, of her actual observations.
Describe the observations Jill can make that would say otherwise.
She says Jack's clock "MUST" have recorded 6.4 seconds based solely upon:
1. Her use of the LT, combined with
As I demonstrated, Jill does not need to use the LT to make these observations.
2. Her false assumption that she is stationary.
Being stationary makes no difference in the LT.
One Brow said:"To show this, you have to show how she observes the 0 on Jack's clock. You have not done so."
It's a given in the setup and you always trying change the assumptions doesn't make an argument.
Fowler clearly says, when later referring back to the problem"
"As the astronaut, conveniently moving at 0.6c, passed the first ground clock, both that clock and her own clock read zero."
See that? "...both that clock and her own clock read zero."
It's very clear that clock 1 and clock 2 will always read the same--they are synchronized. If clock 1 reads 0 (or 2, or 4, or whatever) so does clock 2.
All I meant by "no movement yet" was that, freezing time, no movement has occurred the instant the clocks pass each other.
One Brow said:"If you think Jill can make any observations/measurments that say Jack's clock reads 0 when clok1 reads 0, what are those measurements?"
Fowler again:
"We know that as she passes that clock, it reads 10 seconds and her own clock reads 8 seconds. We must figure out what she would have seen that second ground clock to read had she glanced at it through a telescope as she passed the first ground clock, at which point both her own clock and the first ground clock read zero. But at that instant, the reading she would see on the second ground clock must be the same as would be seen by an observer on the ground, standing by the first ground clock and observing the second ground clock through a telescope. Since the ground observer knows both ground clocks are synchronized, and the first ground clock reads zero, and the second is 6 light seconds distant, it must read -6 seconds if observed at that instant."
I know you will misread this, so let me point out a few phrases:
"...the first ground clock reads zero, and the second is 6 light seconds distant, it must read -6 seconds if observed at that instant."
You opened two threads based on the premises that she would see -6, due solely to 6 light seconds delay, when the first two clocks met.
Now, suddenly, you question that any such measurements could be made. Just another case where you change you tune and contradict your prior claims when they (the prior claims) get in the way of a new claim you are trying to "prove" with sophistry.
One Brow said:
"Being stationary makes no difference in the LT."
The LT says, as between two given clock in uniform motion, relative to each other..
1. One and ONLY ONE clock will be slower, while,
2. One and ONLY ONE clock will be faster.
The LT tells you which is which. The one running faster is the stationary clock. The one running slower is the moving clock.
Here: Jill is moving, so she has the slower clock (only 8 seconds) and Jack is stationary, so he has the faster clock(10 seconds).
You have, from the outset of this thread, effectively denied the efficacy of the LT, all while purporting to agree with the mathematics.
The LT, in itself, NEVER says each clock is moving slower than the other. That is strictly an SR claim, but the LT does not accomodate that claim.
So much the worse for SR, eh, since it specifically adopts the LT. It needs a different set of formulas to match it's claims. Any such formula would have to be based on effects which were merely apparent, with no objective time difference whatsover resulting. That's what a truly relationist theory (which SR strives to be, but aint) would dictate.
Fowler is simply relying on what is implicit in the premises he established. At least he understands (while you don't) that SR does not give one carte blanche to "create" hallucinations in order to "prove" one's argument.
Two observers viewing the same thing (whether close or remote) at the same time from the same place MUST see identical things. Too bad that "objective reality" gets in the way of your agruments so often, eh?
One Brow said:"As I demonstrated, Jill does not need to use the LT to make these observations."
You made no such demonstration--not even remotely close. You still don't know what an "observation" is, do you?
You make completely half-baked arguments that are easily disproven and then, as usual, come out claiming that you proved your point.
There's no point in attempting to hold a reasonable discussion with someone who routinely thinks irrational thought is "reasonable."
One Brow said: "Describe the observations Jill can make that would say otherwise."
It's totally unnecessary, but go ahead an plug through the math, millisecond by millisecond if that's what it takes to convince you.
Jill will see 10 ticks (with the 10th tick occuring at the instant she meets Jack. The preceding 9 ticks will be seen by her at varying distances. But you've already conceded the outcome:
I said: "The "ticks" don't just disappear."
You responded: "Agreed."
So just think through where your "agreement" takes you. You do this all the time. You purport to "agree" with a proposition and then immediately turn around and deny the necessary implications of what you just agreed to.
She does NOT see 6.4 ticks. She sees 10. Why? Because that's what Jack's clock recorded, and that's what she's looking at, that's why.
Could it be any more obvious?
When Jack's clock generates the image of "1," Jill will have alread decreased her distance from Jack by 1/10. She will perceive that 1/10 to be .484 LS while he perceives to be .6 LS, but either way, it is 1/10 of the total difference for each.
Of course that image of "1" will still take time to reach her, and during that interim, she will further close the distance. I'm not going to dig out the doppler formula to get a precise number, because it's unnecessary. But this second image will not take another full 6 light seconds to reach her for 2 reasons:
1. It was emitted when she was only 9/10th's as far away, and
2. She is still approaching it (and therefore further closing the distance) as it also travels toward her.
The point is that at *some* point on her journey she will see Jack's clock recording "1." At *some* point she will see his clock recording "2," and so on.
By the time his clock hits "9," she will have already traversed 90% of the distance, but it will still take time to reach her, so she will be even closer when the image strikes her eye.
The last(10th) tick will require no travel time whatsoever, because it will occur at the precise time she pulls even with Jack.
She will see 10 ticks, not 6.4.
The obvious conclusion if she knows the LT? Simple. It's that Jack's clock is running faster than hers so it is undeniable that she is the one(relatively) moving, not Jack.
What you're doing is that you are NOT correcting for the doppler effects and time delays. Jill knows that when she "sees" -6 on the clock it could not possibly be reading that "now" (now being the time she encounters clock 1).
But she can, retrospectively, after gathering information throughout her journey, "reconstruct" what Jack's clock was reading at all times. But she doesn't have to do that. She knows that the clocks are synchronized in Jack's frame, even though they are not synchronized with her clock.
She therefore knows that clock 2 read 0 when clock 1 reads zero. The -6 she sees actually tells her immediately that the distance is 6 light seconds in Jack's frame. This is EXACTLY what she would predict it to be using the LT if she acknowledged that she is moving.
If she "sees" the distance as 4.84 light seconds, and she knows he sees the distance as 6 LS, she immediately knows that distances are longer in Jack's frame, and that, therefore, relative to her he is stationary and she is the one moving.
In all these examples the "trick" to getting one party to completely fail to understand the situation is to pretend that information which is easily deducible from the observations is somehow "unavailable" to one party. It aint. Just as Jack can, by using the LT, accurately predict what Jill's clock will read, Jill can, by using the LT, accurately predict what Jack's clock will read. She knows one of them is moving, and, guess what? It's her, as her observations clearly demonstrate.
Jill's claim that, when she sees -6seconds, Jack's clock 2 reads 3.6 seconds (not zero) just can't possibly work out mathematically. That's a difference of 9.6 seconds. To even get it down to zero from -6, (a difference of only 6 seconds) using the LT she has to acknowledge that Jack is stationary and therefore that his clock is faster and his lengths longer. She can't (1) assume that his clock is slower and his lengths shorter, (2) start out with a 9.6 LS difference, and (3)still end up seeing 10 seconds on his clock at the end.
Using her own frame, if she expected Jack's clock to read 3.6 seconds at the outset, she would expect it "see" it as -1.2 seconds (not -6) at the outset. It doesn't show that when she looks at it through a telescope. It shows -6.
Why? Because the clock IS 6 light seconds away from her in Jack's frame, not 3.84 in his frame.
Remember that Hogg said that "observations" can only be made by "ideally knowledgable observers." So long as Jill presumes she is stationary, when she aint, she can't make "observations," as Hogg uses the term.
I said:
"The LT says, as between two given clock in uniform motion, relative to each other..
1. One and ONLY ONE clock will be slower, while,
2. One and ONLY ONE clock will be faster."
Even assuming you are completely ignorant and have no information whatsoever about which is which, then you have to conclude that the odds are 50-50 that YOU have the moving clock, if you rely on the LT.
Any fool who denies that it could possibly be them might just as well claim that a coin that just came up heads "actually" cames up tails because "it has to be tails." That's just the kinda thing fools do, ya know?
aintnuthin said...
One Brow said:"To show this, you have to show how she observes the 0 on Jack's clock. You have not done so."
It's a given in the setup and you always trying change the assumptions doesn't make an argument.
The set-up is from Jack's inertial frame. I am asking for an observaiton Jill can make that says Jack's clock reads 0 when Jill passes clock1.
Fowler clearly says, when later referring back to the problem"
"As the astronaut, conveniently moving at 0.6c, passed the first ground clock, both that clock and her own clock read zero."
See that? "...both that clock and her own clock read zero."
Agreed.
It's very clear that clock 1 and clock 2 will always read the same--they are synchronized.
Describe the measurement Jill can make to verify they are synchronized.
If clock 1 reads 0 (or 2, or 4, or whatever) so does clock 2.
True for observatons made from Jack's inertial state, not true for observations made from Jill's inertial state.
Fowler again:
... it must read -6 seconds if observed at that instant."
Agreed.
Now, suddenly, you question that any such measurements could be made.
Not at all. -6 is what she sees. What are the observations Jill makes that tells her it reads 0. Remember, Jill measures the distance as 4.8 light-seconds at the time she crosses clock1.
Just another case where you change you tune and contradict your prior claims when they (the prior claims) get in the way of a new claim you are trying to "prove" with sophistry.
Just another case where you replace reading/understaning with bluster. In the comment at August 9, 2011 11:05 AM, I described what jill could actually measure, and it meant that clock2 read 3.6 seconds while Jill saw -6. If you think that was wrong, describe the correct procedure, using meausrements Jill would make in her inertial state.
The LT says, as between two given clock in uniform motion, relative to each other..
1. One and ONLY ONE clock will be slower, while,
2. One and ONLY ONE clock will be faster.
So far, every authoritative interpretation of the LT I have seen disagree. If youwant to prove this, pull out the actual LT and show it.
The LT, in itself, NEVER says each clock is moving slower than the other.
Of course not, that would be stupid.
That is strictly an SR claim,
Actually, that is not an SR claim.
but the LT does not accomodate that claim.
With good reason.
Two observers viewing the same thing (whether close or remote) at the same time from the same place MUST see identical things.
Agreed.
Too bad that "objective reality" gets in the way of your agruments so often, eh?
How so? I see your misunderstanding of my arguments get puffed up as objections to my arguments, but nothing more than that.
You made no such demonstration--not even remotely close. You still don't know what an "observation" is, do you?
Actually, I do. Observations are conclusions about the state of reality an experiementer can verify. You are the one struggling with the notion of observations crossing inertial frames.
You make completely half-baked arguments that are easily disproven
The disprove them.
There's no point in attempting to hold a reasonable discussion with someone who routinely thinks irrational thought is "reasonable."
Nonetheless, I keep trying.
Jill will see 10 ticks (with the 10th tick occuring at the instant she meets Jack.
Jill sees 16 ticks. She measures 6.4 ticks.
The preceding 9 ticks will be seen by her at varying distances. But you've already conceded the outcome:
I said: "The "ticks" don't just disappear."
You responded: "Agreed."
So just think through where your "agreement" takes you.
On the contrary, I know exactly where the agreement leads. The problem is that you don't know where the agreement leads.
You do this all the time. You purport to "agree" with a proposition and then immediately turn around and deny the necessary implications of what you just agreed to.
Because the implications you think you have drawn are based on faulty reasoning.
She does NOT see 6.4 ticks. She sees 10. Why? Because that's what Jack's clock recorded, and that's what she's looking at, that's why.
Except, from Jill's inertial state, Jacks clock does not start at 0, it starts at 3.6.
Could it be any more obvious?
It's not obvious enough for you, apparently.
When Jack's clock generates the image of "1," Jill will have alread decreased her distance from Jack by 1/10. She will perceive that 1/10 to be .484 LS while he perceives to be .6 LS, but either way, it is 1/10 of the total difference for each.
You're mixing observation from different inertial states again, which always leads to nonsense. From Jill's inertial state, when Jack's clock strikes 1, Jill has not yet passed clock1.
The point is that at *some* point on her journey she will see Jack's clock recording "1." At *some* point she will see his clock recording "2," and so on.
Jill sees Jack's clock read "1" when herse reads 3.5. She sees Jack's clock read "2" when hers reads "4". She sees Jack's clock read "-5" when hers reads ".5". She sees Jack's clock read "-4" when hers reads "1". Etc.
She will see 10 ticks, not 6.4.
Actually, she will see 16 ticks, and measure 6.4.
What you're doing is that you are NOT correcting for the doppler effects and time delays. Jill knows that when she "sees" -6 on the clock it could not possibly be reading that "now" (now being the time she encounters clock 1).
Agreed.
But she can, retrospectively, after gathering information throughout her journey, "reconstruct" what Jack's clock was reading at all times.
She doean't need to wait. She can gather that information all the way through her journey, using her relative spped to Jack, her distance from Jack, and what she sees of Jack's clock (all things Jill can measure).
But she doesn't have to do that. She knows that the clocks are synchronized in Jack's frame, even though they are not synchronized with her clock.
Whether she knows it or not, she can not measure it. When Jill measures clock1 and clock2 for synchronization, they are off by 3.6 seconds.
She therefore knows that clock 2 read 0 when clock 1 reads zero.
Jill's knowledge is irrelevant. Do you realize how ironic it is that you (inaccurately) complain about mainstream SR relying on subjective information, and then turn around and use subjective information to try and make your point?
The -6 she sees actually tells her immediately that the distance is 6 light seconds in Jack's frame.
However, the actual distance in Jill's frame is 4.8 ls (not 4.84, just 4.8).
This is EXACTLY what she would predict it to be using the LT if she acknowledged that she is moving.
If she "sees" the distance as 4.84 light seconds, and she knows he sees the distance as 6 LS, she immediately knows that distances are longer in Jack's frame, and that, therefore, relative to her he is stationary and she is the one moving.
Actually, this tells her that clock1 is in jack's inertial state. Because, even when Jill is stationary and both Jack and clock1 are moving, Jack will still measure a longer distance to clock1. The LT are very clear and unambiguous on this, whether you use the SR or LR interpretation.
In all these examples the "trick" to getting one party to completely fail to understand the situation
The knowledge of the parties involved does not affect what they can measure/observe.
Jill's claim that, when she sees -6seconds, Jack's clock 2 reads 3.6 seconds (not zero) just can't possibly work out mathematically. That's a difference of 9.6 seconds. To even get it down to zero from -6, (a difference of only 6 seconds) using the LT she has to acknowledge that Jack is stationary and therefore that his clock is faster and his lengths longer. She can't (1) assume that his clock is slower and his lengths shorter, (2) start out with a 9.6 LS difference, and (3)still end up seeing 10 seconds on his clock at the end.
I talked about this in the comment on August 9, 2011 11:05 AM. Jill is much further from clock2 when it generates the image of reading -6 than when she sees the image, and Jill and the image are approaching each other at 1.6c. I can work the math out another way, it you like, but it will always come back to 3.6 as the current clock reading.
Using her own frame, if she expected Jack's clock to read 3.6 seconds at the outset, she would expect it "see" it as -1.2 seconds (not -6) at the outset.
Only if clock2 was stationary.
It doesn't show that when she looks at it through a telescope. It shows -6.
Agreed.
Why? Because the clock IS 6 light seconds away from her in Jack's frame, not 3.84 in his frame.
Agreed. Becasue the clock is 6 ls away and not moving in Jack's frame, and 4.8 ls away moving at .6c in Jill's frame. Both results give the same -6 when clock1 measures clock2 to read 0 while Jill measures clock2 to read 3.6.
Remember that Hogg said that "observations" can only be made by "ideally knowledgable observers." So long as Jill presumes she is stationary, when she aint, she can't make "observations," as Hogg uses the term.
You have misunderstood Hogg. Knowledge of "who is really moving" is not what Hogg classifies as a part of "ideally knowledgeable".
One Brow said: "Describe the measurement Jill can make to verify they are synchronized."
What's happening does not depend on what Jill knows, or measures. Whether the clocks are synchronized can later be deduced if she watches clock 2 from the time she passes it.
Like I said, all these SR examples always rely on keeping one party ignorant of facts known to all others. If Jill doesn't know the clocks are synchronized, just another reason why she is not "ideally informed." Just hypothesize this: As she approaches, Jack, via radio contact, TELLS Jill the clocks are synchronized and that he did that so they could both test to find out who's "really moving."
Would that changes anything in your mind at all?
One Brow said:"So far, every authoritative interpretation of the LT I have seen disagree. If youwant to prove this, pull out the actual LT and show it."
What!? What authoritative interpretation? It's a TRANSFORMATION, get it? It presupposes that the times and lengths are DIFFERENT, not the same, in different frames. Since they are DIFFERENT, one clock is faster, one slower.
Invariably it tells you that the moving clock is slower, and the stationary clock is faster. Knowing that is what allows the GPS to function.
One Brow said:"Just another case where you replace reading/understaning with bluster. In the comment at August 9, 2011 11:05 AM, I described what jill could actually measure, and it meant that clock2 read 3.6 seconds while Jill saw -6. If you think that was wrong, describe the correct procedure, using meausrements Jill would make in her inertial state."
You already started two posts with this crap and I'm not going to bother with it any more. Among other things, in that incomprehensible post you say: "Jill can measure from doppler effects that jack's clock ticks .8 seconds to every second of hers (post on June 27)."
If you really think that doppler effects measure and explain time dilation you need to go back to school. If you don't, then it's just more sophistry, as usual.
The undisputed and kwown facts in this case are as follows:
1. Jack's clock records 10 seconds (not 6.4)
2. Jill's clock records 8 seconds in the same duration.
The very fact that you actually think you can "prove" that Jill's measures Jack's clock to reveal something that if false and contrary to the known facts just shows what an addiction to sophistry you have, and what an utter disregard for known truth that you have.
Pathetic.
aintnuthin said...
What's happening does not depend on what Jill knows, or measures.
Half right. It does not depend on what Jill knows. Describing what Jill measures and contrasting it with what jack measures is what the LT are for.
Whether the clocks are synchronized can later be deduced if she watches clock 2 from the time she passes it.
At no point on her journey will Jill measure the clocks to be synchronized. Not at the start, not at the end. It can be deduced from the LT at any point in the journey, but never measured to be such.
Like I said, all these SR examples always rely on keeping one party ignorant of facts known to all others.
You can say it as often as you please, but it won't be right. What Jill knows or does not know does not change what she measures.
Just hypothesize this: As she approaches, Jack, via radio contact, TELLS Jill the clocks are synchronized and that he did that so they could both test to find out who's "really moving."
It wouldn't work. After jack synchronizes teh clocks in his frame, the numbers come out the same, regardeless of who is really moving.
Would that changes anything in your mind at all?
What Jill knows or does not know does not change what she measures.
... are DIFFERENT, not the same, in different frames. Since they are DIFFERENT, one clock is faster, one slower.
In each frame, one is faster. The question of which is faster is frame-dependent.
Invariably it tells you that the moving clock is slower, and the stationary clock is faster. Knowing that is what allows the GPS to function.
GPS is done in one frame.
You already started two posts with this crap and I'm not going to bother with it any more.
OK. I'll extend you the same courtesy. As long as you keep repeating the same junk about how Jill measure the same time on Jack's clock that Jack measures, I'll ignore it.
If you really think that doppler effects measure and explain time dilation you need to go back to school.
Half correct. Measure, yes; explain, no.
The very fact that you actually think you can "prove" that Jill's measures Jack's clock to reveal something that if false and contrary to the known facts
Actually, it's completely consistent with the known facts.
One Brow said: "It wouldn't work. After jack synchronizes teh clocks in his frame, the numbers come out the same, regardeless of who is really moving."
Yeah, the numbers would come out the same, under these circumstances, the same, every damn time, sho nuff. 10 seconds on Jack's clock, 8 on Jill's.
One Brow said: "In each frame, one is faster. The question of which is faster is frame-dependent."
Heh, back to your recurring claim that so-called "objective reality," which every good Dinglite knows does NOT exist, is "frame dependent," eh?
One Brow said: "Actually, it's completely consistent with the known facts."
Yeah, right, it's a known fact that each clock does indeed run slower than the other, eh?
Suppose that some guy gets on the witness stand a swears that he "observed" me murder some guy.
Now suppose that it didn't happen--I wasn't even in the country at the time.
Now, what can you say in this guy's defense? Well, you can argue, that given the facts he knew, and given his subjective assumptions, erroneous conclusions he drew was understandable. Such a case may be weak, as yours is here, or it could, in some circumstances be strong.
But what you can never say is that he actually "observed" me killing anyone, because it didn't happen. Just like it didn't happen that Jack's clock only recorded 6.4 seconds.
Dingle on, Eric!
aintnuthin said...
Heh, back to your recurring claim that so-called "objective reality," which every good Dinglite knows does NOT exist, is "frame dependent," eh?
What you measure is frame-dependent. Why you think that is unusual or odd, I don't know.
Yeah, right, it's a known fact that each clock does indeed run slower than the other, eh?
As I have said many times, that is nonesense.
Now, what can you say in this guy's defense? Well, you can argue, that given the facts he knew, and given his subjective assumptions, erroneous conclusions he drew was understandable.
We're talking about taking measurments, not drawing conclusions, about which clock it faster. Regardless of what you know or don't know, the measurment simply is there.
But what you can never say is that he actually "observed" me killing anyone, because it didn't happen. Just like it didn't happen that Jack's clock only recorded 6.4 seconds.
That's what Jill measures it to record, whether it "happened" or not.
One Brow said: "That's what Jill measures it to record, whether it "happened" or not."
Naw, it aint.
1. Your math is all wrong to begin with.
2. But, that aside, that's only what you've been told she will "measure." She aint comin to no conclusions without first having assumptions. To wit, that she MUST be absolutely motionless. How does she measure that, pray-tell?
3. Epistemology aint ontology. Don't go mixin up the testimony of a sworn witness with the truth. Aint necessarily the same.
I said: "Your math is all wrong to begin with."
You can select numbers and use the LT (together with the assumption that Jill is stationary) and comes up with transformations for Jack which yield the numbers of 6.4 seconds and 3.84 LS.
But you can never reach those results by combining these two assumptions:
1. Jack's clock 2 reads 3.6 seconds when she as at clock 1, and
2. When she is at clock 1, looking through a telescope, she sees -6 seconds on clock 2.
Like I done said: "Too bad that "objective reality" gets in the way of your agruments so often, eh?"
aintnuthin said...
One Brow said: "That's what Jill measures it to record, whether it "happened" or not."
Naw, it aint.
But it is.
1. Your math is all wrong to begin with.
making the claim is easy. Demonstrate your claim, if you can.
2. But, that aside, that's only what you've been told she will "measure."
Exactly!
She aint comin to no conclusions without first having assumptions. To wit, that she MUST be absolutely motionless.
After she makes her measurements, she can use the LT to some to conclusions based on any assumptions about her velocity that she shooses. There is no reason Jill has to assume she is motionless. Her measurements don't change based on that assumption.
How does she measure that, pray-tell?
She can't.
3. Epistemology aint ontology. Don't go mixin up the testimony of a sworn witness with the truth. Aint necessarily the same.
Don't confuse the epistemological/ontological divide with the objective/subjective divde, either. Physics is an epistemological enterprise cioncerning objective information. SR is an epistemological theory concerning objective measurements and how they vary from inertial state to inertial state.
You can select numbers and use the LT (together with the assumption that Jill is stationary) and comes up with transformations for Jack which yield the numbers of 6.4 seconds and 3.84 LS.
Only if clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jill. If clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jack (moving at .6c relative to Jill) and Jill is stationary, teh LT say that Jack will measure teh distance as 6 ls and the time as 10 seconds.
But you can never reach those results by combining these two assumptions:
1. Jack's clock 2 reads 3.6 seconds when she as at clock 1, and
2. When she is at clock 1, looking through a telescope, she sees -6 seconds on clock 2.
Those are not assumptions. #1 is a measurement based on relative speed (a measurement), distance (a measurement), and #2; #2 is an observation.
Like I done said: "Too bad that "objective reality" gets in the way of your agruments so often, eh?"
Except it doesn't.
One Brow said: "making the claim is easy. Demonstrate your claim, if you can...Except it doesn't."
I already made 25-30 comments on these claims in the two separate threads you made on this topic alone. I've seen no response to them. You're the one who just keeps making unsubstantiated assertions.
Follow your own advice. Leave all the irrelevant light delay and doppler crap out, and use the LT. Show it.
The -6 seconds must correspond to some some starting point on clock 2. That "starting point" can't just be anything, like 1 hour, or one day. In your scenario it must correspond to a starting point on clock 2 of 3.6 seconds, which, if the clock is reading -6 is a difference of 9.6 seconds. So you have a "light delay" of 9.6 seconds.
Put that into the LT. What distance would that correspond to?
More specifically, how would it correspond to a "calculated" distance of 3.84 light seconds for Jack?
Hmmmmm?
aintnuthin said...
One Brow said: "making the claim is easy. Demonstrate your claim, if you can...Except it doesn't."
I already made 25-30 comments on these claims in the two separate threads you made on this topic alone.
In all of them, you refuse to pull out the LT and demonstrate your claim. Makes no nevermind to me, mind you. It only matter if you want ot convince me the LT say what you claim.
I've seen no response to them. You're the one who just keeps making unsubstantiated assertions.
I haven't directly applied the LT in a while, but both DaleSpam and ghwellsjr did that for us. Why do you think I would produce anything different from them?
Follow your own advice. Leave all the irrelevant light delay and doppler crap out, and use the LT. Show it.
The -6 seconds must correspond to some some starting point on clock 2.
You suggested I leave the light delay out of it, and then to explain a number that both Jill and clock1 see as a result of light delay. HOw can I see this as being anything other than a sign of confusion on your part?
That "starting point" can't just be anything, like 1 hour, or one day. In your scenario it must correspond to a starting point on clock 2 of 3.6 seconds, which, if the clock is reading -6 is a difference of 9.6 seconds. So you have a "light delay" of 9.6 seconds.
Jill has a light delay of 9.6 seconds, but not from the current position of clock2 when she passes clock1. Rather, the delay is 9.6 seconds from the distance clock2 was from Jill when it generated the image reading -6, which is much further away from Jill than the position of clock2 when Jill sees the image reading -6 seconds.
Put that into the LT. What distance would that correspond to?
The LT doesn't measure light delay effects.
More specifically, how would it correspond to a "calculated" distance of 3.84 light seconds for Jack?
As long as clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jack, the measured distance for jack to clock1 is 6 ls, even if Jack is moving and Jill is stationary. This is the output of the LT.
Just about everything you said in that last post demonstrates your total lack of conceptual understanding.
I do notice, however, that you just resort to reassertion of your claims with no demonstration at all.
Show it. Show me the math.
If you tell me that you have two single digits numbers that add up to 10,003, and ask me to figure out what they are, I won't spend a split second with a pen and paper, writing down all potential single digit numbers and trying to get two to "fit the bill." That would be the kinda fool's errand that you seem likely to pursue.
One Brow said:" the delay is 9.6 seconds from the distance clock2 was from Jill when it generated the image reading -6, which is much further away from Jill than the position of clock2 when Jill sees the image reading -6 seconds."
"Much further away," eh? Jack and Jill are approaching each other, not receding from each other. Do you even think for a second before spewing out your next spurious "argument?"
One Brow said:"You suggested I leave the light delay out of it, and then to explain a number that both Jill and clock1 see as a result of light delay. HOw can I see this as being anything other than a sign of confusion on your part?"
By not being a fool, maybe?
We know Jack ends up with 10 on his clock, so we need only calculate the light delay ONCE, at one time, in one place, to get the "starting point" which -6 represents. Once we have the starting and end (10 seconds) points, show how the LT is compatible.
I remember the time you claimed that if a student got a C in a class, then he had to be averaging a C at every instant during the semester. You made the same naive claim about travel time, like if I averaged 50 mph between St. Louis and LA, that mean I HAD to be going exactly 50 mph at every instant during the trip.
For a self-professed "mathematician," you sure demonstrate a shocking lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts. I tried hard to disabuse you of the conceptual confusion at the time, but you are right back to it in the presentation of your incoherent claims in the two separate threads you started.
If you still don't understand the source or the significance of the -6 seconds, go back and read Fowler's explanation of it, which I have already quoted.
It has nothing to do with anyone "moving" at all. It is what she sees at a "frozen" instant in time, i.e, the frozen instant when she is at clock a.
It aint rocket science. If, when clock 2 reads -6, it is right next to clock 1, then no adjustment for light delay is called for, and -6 "corresponds" to itself, so -6 = -6.
If the image came from 1 light second away, then an adjustment of 1 light second is called for, and -6 (image) corresponds to -5 (actual reading on clock 2 at that time).
If the image came from 2 light seconds away, then an adjustment of 2 light seconds is called for, and -6 (image) corresponds to -4 (actual reading on clock 2 at that time).
And so on.
An image of 3.6 seconds to appear it would have to have come from a distance of 9.6 light seconds away.
Problem is, the total distance is only 6 for Jack to begin with. Jill would see that same distance as 4.8 light seconds (not 9.6) and, using the LT while assuming that Jack is moving, she would calculate that he sees the distance as being 3.84 light seconds (again, not 9.6 light seconds). So it seems that no image coming from 9.6 light seconds away is possible, given the facts, eh?
See the problem yet?
I got distracted when I composed this: "An image of 3.6 seconds to appear it would have to have come from a distance of 9.6 light seconds away."
Meant to say this:
For an image of -6 to correspond to an actual clock reading of 3.6 seconds, it would have to come from a distance of 9.6 light seconds away.
I said: "If the image came from 2 light seconds away, then an adjustment of 2 light seconds is called for, and -6 (image) corresponds to -4 (actual reading on clock 2 at that time).
And so on."
I skipped over it, but I guess I should stress that, proceeding "so on," if the image came from 6 light seconds away, then an adjustment of 6 light seconds is called for, and -6 (image) corresponds to ZERO (actual reading on clock 2 at that time).
ZERO is the only possibility that is compatible with the LT in these circumstances.
So, as Jack knows, as Jill knows, and as she can calculate if she didn't already know, when clock 1 read zero, so did clock 2.
That means 10 seconds have passed on Jack's clock since the initial encounter between Jill and clock 1, and that Jill can easily deduce that fact from the observation she made when looking at clock 2 when she was at clock 1. It should be obvious, but let me add this: 10 does NOT equal 6.4
I said: "That means 10 seconds have passed on Jack's clock since the initial encounter between Jill and clock 1, and that Jill can easily deduce that fact from the observation she made when looking at clock 2 when she was at clock 1."
But even though Fowler ends up acknowledging all this indirectly, he never puts it all together in one place. Why not? Why give students misleading impressions, as he obviously attempts to do when originally discussing the problem?
There is an answer to this, but it is not an admirable one.
One Brow said: "As long as clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jack, the measured distance for jack to clock1 is 6 ls, even if Jack is moving and Jill is stationary. This is the output of the LT."
This is wrong, but if you can't even the simple proposition about the impossiblility of the 3.6 second "starting point" for clock 2, you'll never understand this.
The LT does not dictate this. Arbitrary conventions established for the purpose of standardizing "invariant" spacetime intervals" dictate it, that's all.
As this article explains, partial derivatives for time dilation from the LT can yield either time dilation or time contraction, just depending on the way the measurement is made (which this article calls a "paradox of special relativity." Hence the need for rules of "standarization."
http://home.fnal.gov/~skent/cosmo/cosmo2.pdf
The same point about the ambiguities and incongruencies which arise from derivatives is made in much more detail in this article:
http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping10.pdf
Among other things, this author notes that:
"..the trick of Einstein is: using Lorentz transformation (10) formula to get time dilation result and then using Lorentz reverse transformation (11) formula to get length contraction result...
If we adopt the above methods of Einstein, and reverse the calculation methods of ① and ②, we will get the conclusion of time contraction and length dilation. If both are used ‘reverse transformation’, there will be time and length contraction. Otherwise, if both are used ‘positive transformation’, there will be time and length dilation....
...if we reverse Einstein’s calculation method, it will be time contraction and length dilation; if both are used ‘reverse transformation’, it will be time and length contraction. On the other hand, if both are used ‘positive transformation’, it will be time and length dilation."
There is simply no PHYSICAL law which says that if two clocks are synchronized in one frame, then that frame must have the longer length.
Unfortunately far too many mathematicians end up thinking that their aribitrarily-adopted conventions ARE physical law. Therefore, they must necessarily reject any "crank" who raises any question about the relationship between mathematical conventions and physics from all discussions.
The assumption that math dictates physics is sancrosanct to them, and MUST NOT be questioned. Neophytes yet to be indoctrinated cannot be allowed to view discussions about any such questions.
One Brow said: "One Brow said: "As long as clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jack, the measured distance for jack to clock1 is 6 ls, even if Jack is moving and Jill is stationary. This is the output of the LT."
I misread this as merely repeating some of your earlier claims (which earlier claims my response was directed to).
I completely agree with your statement, as it stands.
aintnuthin said...
Show it. Show me the math.
Show you the math for what?
One Brow said:" the delay is 9.6 seconds from the distance clock2 was from Jill when it generated the image reading -6, which is much further away from Jill than the position of clock2 when Jill sees the image reading -6 seconds."
"Much further away," eh? Jack and Jill are approaching each other, not receding from each other. Do you even think for a second before spewing out your next spurious "argument?"
You didn't bother to read what I wrote. You just told me to use that they are approaching each other when that's exactly what I used. This is too monotonous.
We know Jack ends up with 10 on his clock, so we need only calculate the light delay ONCE, at one time, in one place, to get the "starting point" which -6 represents. Once we have the starting and end (10 seconds) points, show how the LT is compatible.
The LT convert measurements to measurements. The -6 is not a measurement.
If you still don't understand the source or the significance of the -6 seconds, go back and read Fowler's explanation of it, which I have already quoted.
It has nothing to do with anyone "moving" at all. It is what she sees at a "frozen" instant in time, i.e, the frozen instant when she is at clock a.
Yes, but the frozen instant of time in which Jill sees the image of -6 is not eh frozen instant in time where the image was generated. The image was much further from Jill when it was generated.
It aint rocket science. If, when clock 2 reads -6, it is right next to clock 1, then no adjustment for light delay is called for, and -6 "corresponds" to itself, so -6 = -6.
Agreed.
If the image came from 1 light second away, then an adjustment of 1 light second is called for, and -6 (image) corresponds to -5 (actual reading on clock 2 at that time).
Agreed.
If the image came from 2 light seconds away, then an adjustment of 2 light seconds is called for, and -6 (image) corresponds to -4 (actual reading on clock 2 at that time).
Agreed.
For an image of -6 to correspond to an actual clock reading of 3.6 seconds, it would have to come from a distance of 9.6 light seconds away.
Agreed. That's how far they were, as measured by Jill, when the image of -6 was generated.
Problem is, the total distance is only 6 for Jack to begin with.
Agreed, if you ae talking about the distance from clock1 to Jack as measured by Jack, as opposed to the distance between Jack and Jill when Jack's clock generateds the image of -6.
Jill would see that same distance as 4.8 light seconds (not 9.6) and
Agreed, if you ae talking about the distance from clock1 to Jack as measured by Jill, as opposed to the distance between Jack and Jill when Jack's clock generateds the image of -6.
, using the LT while assuming that Jack is moving, she would calculate that he sees the distance as being 3.84 light seconds (again, not 9.6 light seconds).
Agreed, if you ae talking about the distance from clock4 (clock4 being in Jill's inertial state and 4.8 ls from JIll as measured by Jill) to Jill as measured by Jack, as opposed to the distance between Jack and Jill when Jack's clock generateds the image of -6.
So it seems that no image coming from 9.6 light seconds away is possible, given the facts, eh?
See the problem yet?
Yes. Actually, I had the same dificulty a couple of weeks ago. I ran through the math, and it didn't seem to add up. Then I reread Fowler, and figured out what was going on. Your treating Jack's clock as if it were stationary with respect to Jill. However, the image of jack's clock reading -6 is generated further away from Jill than Jack is from Jill at the time Jill sees Jack's clock.
I skipped over it, but I guess I should stress that, proceeding "so on," if the image came from 6 light seconds away, then an adjustment of 6 light seconds is called for, and -6 (image) corresponds to ZERO (actual reading on clock 2 at that time).
Agreed.
ZERO is the only possibility that is compatible with the LT in these circumstances.
For clock1, in Jack's inertial state, agreed.
So, as Jack knows, as Jill knows, and as she can calculate if she didn't already know, when clock 1 read zero, so did clock 2.
She cna calculate that using the LT to convert her measurements to Jack's frame, sure. However, she measures it to read 3.6.
That means 10 seconds have passed on Jack's clock since the initial encounter between Jill and clock 1, and that Jill can easily deduce that fact from the observation she made when looking at clock 2 when she was at clock 1.
Jill can calculate that for Jack's frame based on her measurements. However, Jill measures 6.4.
It should be obvious, but let me add this: 10 does NOT equal 6.4
Agreed.
I said: "That means 10 seconds have passed on Jack's clock since the initial encounter between Jill and clock 1, and that Jill can easily deduce that fact from the observation she made when looking at clock 2 when she was at clock 1."
But even though Fowler ends up acknowledging all this indirectly, he never puts it all together in one place. Why not? Why give students misleading impressions, as he obviously attempts to do when originally discussing the problem?
There is an answer to this, but it is not an admirable one.
The answer is that Fowler is giving his student the correct impression, and you have the physics wrong.
One Brow said: "As long as clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jack, the measured distance for jack to clock1 is 6 ls, even if Jack is moving and Jill is stationary. This is the output of the LT."
This is wrong,
It's been confirmed by four people, at least two of them professional physicists, as two independent sources. It is the output of the LT. If you think it's wrong, do the math. Now, you can just deny the LT, no skin off my back. However, all the protests in the world don't change the math.
but if you can't even the simple proposition about the impossiblility of the 3.6 second "starting point" for clock 2, you'll never understand this.
*chuckle*
The LT does not dictate this. Arbitrary conventions established for the purpose of standardizing "invariant" spacetime intervals" dictate it, that's all.
The invariance of spacetime intervals is a result of the LT, not an independant notion.
As this article explains, partial derivatives for time dilation from the LT can yield either time dilation or time contraction, just depending on the way the measurement is made (which this article calls a "paradox of special relativity." Hence the need for rules of "standarization."
http://home.fnal.gov/~skent/cosmo/cosmo2.pdf
The word "paradox" did not appear in that link. Regardless, I agree that for any preactical problem, there needs to be a standardization. That's standard SR.
The same point about the ambiguities and incongruencies which arise from derivatives is made in much more detail in this article:
http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping10.pdf
Among other things, this author notes that:
"..the trick of Einstein is: using Lorentz transformation (10) formula to get time dilation result and then using Lorentz reverse transformation (11) formula to get length contraction result...
*chuckle* Did you notice the length formula in (10) and (11) were basically the same formula, with reverse coordinates? The both produce length contraction. It's an amusing crank paper, but doesn't actually say anything significant.
There is simply no PHYSICAL law which says that if two clocks are synchronized in one frame, then that frame must have the longer length.
Not really sure what that is supposed to mean. I think you abbreviated too much.
Unfortunately far too many mathematicians end up thinking that their aribitrarily-adopted conventions ARE physical law.
Actually, the law itself is a mathematical construct to describe physical behavior and make predictions. There is no such thing as "physical law", just the way things behave.
Therefore, they must necessarily reject any "crank" who raises any question about the relationship between mathematical conventions and physics from all discussions.
The cranks are the ones who disregard teh wealth of evidence supporting the reliability of the law in favor of less reliable evidence, or "common sense".
The assumption that math dictates physics is sancrosanct to them, and MUST NOT be questioned. Neophytes yet to be indoctrinated cannot be allowed to view discussions about any such questions.
You don't teach neophytes about relativity cranks, just like you don't teach them young-earth theories, homeopathy, nor creationism. They are unscientific ideas that flout experiemental evidence.
"One Brow said: "As long as clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jack, the measured distance for jack to clock1 is 6 ls, even if Jack is moving and Jill is stationary. This is the output of the LT."
I misread this as merely repeating some of your earlier claims (which earlier claims my response was directed to).
I completely agree with your statement, as it stands.
That was my earlier claim. Glad to see you now agree.
The point I was making was addressed to comments (and many similar ones) like this:
One Brow said: "After she makes her measurements, she can use the LT to some to conclusions based on any assumptions about her velocity that she shooses. There is no reason Jill has to assume she is motionless. Her measurements don't change based on that assumption."
Her measurements don't change, based on her assumptions, but her conclusions do. And she can't "use the LT" to form those assumptions. The LT does not (unlike invariant spacetime interval constructions which "build in" assumptions) tell her which of the two has the faster clock and the longer lengths.
Properly used, the LT, based on sufficient given information, can, by necessary implication, "tell you" which party is moving. Having given you the necessary conclusion, you can then (retroactively) determine what premises are required to generate that conclusion.
One Brow said: "There is no reason Jill has to assume she is motionless."
Of course not. But she MUST (falsely) assume that if, using the LT, she is going to conclude that Jack's time is 6.4. Of course this assumption is flatly contradicted by the known facts. The larger point being that the LT does not dictate the facts, the facts themselves do that. All the LT tells you is that, given factual set X, then party Y will be moving and party Z will be stationary (relative to Y).
Here, all the facts indicate that the LT implies that Jack is the static party. Given that, using the LT properly, Jill would conclude that in Jack's frame the time passed is 10 seconds (not 6.4 as she falsely claims)
One Brow said:"Then I reread Fowler, and figured out what was going on. Your treating Jack's clock as if it were stationary with respect to Jill. However, the image of jack's clock reading -6 is generated further away from Jill than Jack is from Jill at the time Jill sees Jack's clock."
Heh, if you think that answers all questions, then you better read Fowler and reflect on what's happening some more. If Jill could consistently conclude that the image came from 9.6 light seconds away, she could just as "consistently" conclude that it came from 100 million light years away, but it just so happens that she reached it in only 8 seconds.
I won't bother explaining this to you again. Fowler already has, as I have.
One hint: We are talking about frozen moment in time here when two things arrive at clock 1 simultaneously. Those two things are (1) Jill and (2)an image from Jack's clock reading -6 seconds.
Eric, there is simply no use in trying to talk reasonably with you so long as you think some hand-waving reference to "much farther away" (which is itself a mistake) gives you absolute liberty to create any hallucination for Jill that you care to dream up.
Save it for all of you solipsistic homeys, eh?
aintnuthin said...
The point I was making was addressed to comments (and many similar ones) like this:
One Brow said: "After she makes her measurements, she can use the LT to some to conclusions based on any assumptions about her velocity that she shooses. There is no reason Jill has to assume she is motionless. Her measurements don't change based on that assumption."
Her measurements don't change, based on her assumptions, but her conclusions do.
That's what I said.
And she can't "use the LT" to form those assumptions.
Agreed. Her assumptions about who is moving do not derive from the LT.
The LT does not (unlike invariant spacetime interval constructions which "build in" assumptions) tell her which of the two has the faster clock and the longer lengths.
True in a trivial sense (since no clock is inherently faster and no length inherently longer), but with an incorrect parenthetical comment. The LT are the precise transformtions that render the spacetime intervals invariant. The invariant spcetime intervals use no more assumptions than the LT use.
Properly used, the LT, based on sufficient given information, can, by necessary implication, "tell you" which party is moving.
Not true, and you saw this for yourself on physicsforums. given the starting assumption Jill was stationary, with no prior discussion about Jill moving (so no opportunity to confuse the issue), the LT showed the same results as when Jill was moving. The LT do not tell you who is moving.
Of course not. But she MUST (falsely) assume that if, using the LT, she is going to conclude that Jack's time is 6.4.
If Jill assumes Jack is motionless, she will measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock. If Jill assumes she is motionless, she will measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock.
Of course this assumption is flatly contradicted by the known facts.
Not any of which I am aware.
The larger point being that the LT does not dictate the facts, the facts themselves do that.
Agreed.
All the LT tells you is that, given factual set X, then party Y will be moving and party Z will be stationary (relative to Y).
No, they don't tell you that.
Here, all the facts indicate that the LT implies that Jack is the static party.
The numbers are teh same if Jack/clock1 are moving and Jill is stationary.
Given that, using the LT properly, Jill would conclude that in Jack's frame the time passed is 10 seconds
Agreed.
(not 6.4 as she falsely claims)
The 6.4 seconds is not time passed in Jack's frame (which implies it is being measured in Jack's frame). The 6.4 seconds is time Jill measures to have passed in Jack's frame.
Heh, if you think that answers all questions,
Not all.
If Jill could consistently conclude that the image came from 9.6 light seconds away, she could just as "consistently" conclude that it came from 100 million light years away, but it just so happens that she reached it in only 8 seconds.
There are 12 seconds between when the image is generated and when Jill sees it, and 8 more to reach the clock.
From August 9, 2011 11:05 AM
She also knows that the between the image of clock2 reading -6 and the actual clock2 is increasing by .4c * t (c=speed of light, t=time), and that this distance is currently 4.8 light-seconds (as Jill measures it). 4.8 ls/.4c = 12 seconds
The actual distance of clock2 from Jill, at the point where clock2 generates the image of -6, is 12 light-seconds as measured by Jill.
I won't bother explaining this to you again. Fowler already has, as I have.
One hint: We are talking about frozen moment in time here when two things arrive at clock 1 simultaneously. Those two things are (1) Jill and (2)an image from Jack's clock reading -6 seconds.
Agreed. From Jack's point of view, how far apart were they when the image was generated? In those 6 seconds, the light moved 6 light-seconds, and Jill moved 3.6 light seconds. So, as measureed by Jack, Jill was 9.6 light-seconds away when clock2 generated the image of -6.
Eric, there is simply no use in trying to talk reasonably with you so long as you think some hand-waving reference to "much farther away" (which is itself a mistake) gives you absolute liberty to create any hallucination for Jill that you care to dream up.
I think it's fair to 9.6 light-seconds is much further than 6 light-seconds (as Jack measures the distances) and 12 light-seconds is further than 4.8 light-seconds (as Jill measures the distances).
At any rate, you have chosen to ignore the mathematical elaborations. When you take away those, what's left will seem like hand-waving. So, I find you persepctive to be the result of you closing your eyes, not of my lacking information.
One Brow said: "There are 12 seconds between when the image is generated and when Jill sees it, and 8 more to reach the clock."
This is totally irrelevant. The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with where Jill was when the image "is generated." You're saying that Jill was not "at clock 1" WHEN the image was GENERATED? Yeah, so what?
The question is merely about how long it took the -6 image to get to clock 1. How long it took Jill to get there is totally irrelevant. From the time Jill was 1 light year away from clock 1 it took her a year to get there. So what?
The question is about what Jill sees WHEN she is at clock 1, not about what she "would have seen" if she were somehwere else. Until you understand that there's nothing we can discuss.
One Brow said:
Here ya go, here's some "math" for you.
From the time Jill was 20 million light years from clock 1, it took her 33.33333333333333333 million years to get there.
So, then, there ya go.
Purty obvious, aint it?
If she had stayed 20 million light years away, it would have taken over 33 million years for -6 to reach her. In HER frame, not Jack's. HER FRAME, get it?
Q.E.D.
20 million light years...
light travels at .6c
= 33.333333333333333333 million light years.
Prove my math wrong...just try.
One Brow said: "So, I find you persepctive to be the result of you closing your eyes, not of my lacking information."
The irony of it all.
You said: "The numbers are teh same if Jack/clock1 are moving and Jill is stationary."
I said: "Given that, using the LT properly, Jill would conclude that in Jack's frame the time passed is 10 seconds"
You said: "Agreed."
=====
"If Jill assumes Jack is motionless, she will measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock. If Jill assumes she is motionless, she will measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock."
===
Contradict yourself much? Will you EVER understand that Jill never "measures" a God-damn thing in Jack's frame? Will you ever understand that everything she concludes about Jack's time is a "prediction?" Will you ever understand that what she predicts is 100% dependent on her assumptions about her own state of motion? In other words will you ever understand that this is false?:
"The numbers are teh same if Jack/clock1 are moving and Jill is stationary."
Jill will NEVER "measure" nor will the LT allow her to conclude that Jack's time is 6.4 seconds if she assumes that he is motionless relative to her and that she is in motion relative to him.
"...the LT showed the same results as when Jill was moving. The LT do not tell you who is moving."
This is wrong. The LT, as such, shows no such thing, and in fact shows the opposite.
You will never understand this because you are utterly incapable of analyzing and understanding the ASSUMPTIONS upon which your math is founded. You swallow the assumptions whole, undigested and thereafter think the math proves the assumption. Just like when you kept referring me to "computer simulations" to "prove" your conclusion.
One Brow said: "The LT are the precise transformtions that render the spacetime intervals invariant. The invariant spcetime intervals use no more assumptions than the LT use."
Wrong.
Do you remember telling the frame in which the two clocks are stationary with respect to each other will ALWAYS have the greater distance (i.e., will be the stationay party)? This is nonsensical as a matter of physics. So where does that conclusion come from? What assumption is it based on?
Hint: It aint the LT proper.
One Brow said: "*chuckle* Did you notice the length formula in (10) and (11) were basically the same formula, with reverse coordinates?"
*chuckle* Did you notice that that is exactly his point, that they are the "reverse" co-ordinates?
*chuckle* Did you notice that you missed the point completely?
*chuckle* Do you realize that you have no clue whatsoever as to how this relates to everything else said in this post?
"This paper indicates that the calculation of time dilation in relativity theory is as the indirect calculation of 't from ‘positive transformation’. While, the calculation of the length contraction is different. X is gotten from the ‘inverse transformation’, and then 'x is resolved."
http://www.wbabin.net/weuro/qingping10.pdf
This guy, who you, with your typical thoughtless ideological rhetoric, immediately call a "crank," obviously knows 20 times more about math in general, and the LT in particular, than you do.
Is the statement I quoted wrong? Is that what you're contending? If it is not wrong, what are the implications? How does this relate to Minkowski's rules for establishing an "invariant spacetime interval? Reading his paper may help you analyze, rather than merely spew assertions about, the subject you claim to be such an authority on.
What the LT predicts, and what experiments show, is that two clocks moving with respect to each other will ACTUALLY (not merely "apparently") run at different rates.
One will actually, not just apparently, run faster. That will, as a matter of physics, be the (relatively) stationary clock.
The other will actually, not just apparently, run slower. That will, as a matter of physics, be the (relatively) moving clock.
Nobody can "observe" the (actually) faster clock to be running slower. Why? Because it aint happening. You can't "observe" something that doesn't ever happen to begin with.
Jill CANNOT "observe" Jack's clock to register only 6.4 seconds. She can only miscalcuate it to do so.
One Brow said: "If Jill assumes she is motionless, she will measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock."
This is wrong.
If Jill assumes that she is motionless then she can only predict (but not "measure") that Jack's clock will record only 6.4 seconds.
If she is right in her assumption about her state of motion, then her prediction will be accurate.
Conversely, if she is wrong in her assumption about her state of motion, then her prediction will be inaccurate.
In this case her prediction is wrong. Fowler: "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."
How did Jill come to predict the time (6.4) on Jack's clock? Did he "measure" it? No, she "concluded" it. "Concluded" based on what? The LT, assuming she is motionless.
Of course I have pointed all this out many times before, but you refuse to pay the least bit of attention to Fowler or anyone else. You keep insisting that Jill "measures" one thing and "concludes" another. And you insist that what you erronously refer to as her "measurement" of Jack's clock is based on "observation." It aint. It's based on calculation, starting from certain (false) premises
One Brow said: "If Jill assumes she is motionless, she will...use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock."
She will indeed predict that Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock, if, and only if, she acknowledges that she is moving and that Jack is stationary. That said...
For you to suggest that this is what she would predict is contrary to the relativity principle, which you claim to adhere to.
I agree that, given the knowledge that she has, and the observations she makes, she really has no reasonable choice but to conclude that Jack's clock is faster than hers. So why doesn't she? Why does Fowler have her "predict" a time of 6.4 seconds for Jack?
To do so would be tantamount to a rejection of the relativity principle, that's why. Therefore the farcical charade where he attempts to "justify" her erroneous conclusion follows.
His attempt requires equivocal "logic" and fails on a physical level. It's ultimate "justification" is attributed to the physically meaningless "formula" which introduced, ad hoc, to "reconcile" the obvious inconsistencies generated by the relativity principle (which is based on subjective, not objective, phenomena). Like an epicycle in ptolemic astronomy.
One Brow said: "Not true, and you saw this for yourself on physicsforums. given the starting assumption Jill was stationary, with no prior discussion about Jill moving (so no opportunity to confuse the issue), the LT showed the same results as when Jill was moving. The LT do not tell you who is moving."
For the most part all I saw there was the solemn, robotic pronouncement of Dingalian doctrines which are self-refuting in the context of the LT.
SR is a theory of MOTION. The LT predicts changes in clock rate based solely on MOTION. Anyone who purports to expound on SR while claiming that motion is irrelevant simply proves they have no underlying understanding of the LT. Even more, they display no understanding of the PHYSICAL (as opposed to mathematical) implications of the LT.
You do NOT get the same answer regardless of who is moving. Colton does NOT, as he thinks, change the assumptions about who is moving by simply sliding his "observer view" switch back and forth. That changes NOTHING of substance, and merely retains Jack as the stationary party.
The guys at the physics board agreed with that, i.e., the answer would be different (not "the same") if Jill was "moving" (i.e. had the longer length).
What they were essentially saying was that the length "could not" be changed.
The "short answer" for this was that there was "no room" on their graph paper in which to contract Jack's length.
There was, as I understood them, room to "expand" Jill's length (effectively "contracting" Jack's relative to Jill) but the "rules" for solving such problems didn't permit that.
What it boiled down to was basically this: If two clocks are stationary in a given frame, then the rules for "solving" problems dictated that frame "must" be treated as having the longest length (which is just a disguised way of saying that frame "must" be treated as the stationary one).
But again, this is not a law of physics, nor is it an inherent part of the LT proper. It is simply a matter of convention.
You have repeatedly denied this, but the fact remains that, in order to create an "invariant spacetime interval," you must combine the length from one frame with the time from the other (when possible). This was also confirmed by the physics board.
In some other contexts, "proper" time and length are simply identified with "local" time in the same frame, which is the case you are trying to limit the meaning to.
Example of constructing a space time interval:
A and B are planets. C and D are brothers. Brother C is on planet A. Planet B is not moving with respect to planet A. Brother B travels to planet B, from A. For purposes of constructing an invariant interval,
Who has the "proper time?" Brother D
Who has the "proper length?" Brother C.
Notice that Brother C now has the "improper" time but the "proper" length, while Brother D has the "proper" time but the "improper" length.
Each frame has a combination of both proper and improper time and length. This is part of the point the (somewhat poorly translated) paper written by the chinese author was noting, indirectly).
The "effect" of the LT is retained this way, however. The frame which has the longest time also has the longest length (this is the "stationary" one). Similarly, the frame which has the shortest time also has the shortest length (this is the "moving" one).
This is the mathematical convention, but as you yourself have noted: "As long as clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jack, the measured distance for jack to clock1 is 6 ls, even if Jack is moving and Jill is stationary."
Put another way Jack could set up clocks 6 light seconds apart in his frame whether he is moving relative to Jill, or not. That alone cannot be used to determine, as a matter of physics (rather than as a matter of arbitrary mathematical convention), that Jack is stationary relative to Jill. Jack's (local) distance will always be 6 light seconds but that does not mean it has to be longer than Jill's (local) length.
edit: This should be
"Brother D (not B) travels to planet B, from A.
I said: "Jack's (local) distance will always be 6 light seconds but that does not mean it has to be longer than Jill's (local) length."
Anyone who denies this simply doesn't understand the underlying concepts. That would be true whether their denials are based on philosophical relationalism, "physics," the math of the LT, or any other "reason."
Any such denial immediately undermines a claim that "you can't tell who's moving" because the claim that Jack's length "must" be the longer of the two gives you a simple and immediate answer to that question.
You're saying that Jill was not "at clock 1" WHEN the image was GENERATED? Yeah, so what?
So that's why she measures 9.6 seconds different between the time she sees and the time she measures when she is at clock1.
The question is merely about how long it took the -6 image to get to clock 1.
6 seconds as measured by jack, 12 seconds as measured by Jill.
The question is about what Jill sees WHEN she is at clock 1, not about what she "would have seen" if she were somehwere else.
She sees -6, the same as clock1 sees.
One Brow said: "So, I find you persepctive to be the result of you closing your eyes, not of my lacking information."
The irony of it all.
Indeed.
You said: "The numbers are teh same if Jack/clock1 are moving and Jill is stationary."
I said: "Given that, using the LT properly, Jill would conclude that in Jack's frame the time passed is 10 seconds"
You said: "Agreed."
=====
"If Jill assumes Jack is motionless, she will measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock. If Jill assumes she is motionless, she will measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock."
===
Contradict yourself much?
No, not at all.
Will you EVER understand that Jill never "measures" a God-damn thing in Jack's frame?
Of course not. That's why I went out of my way to specify "she will measure". Any mesurements Jill performs are in her own frame. Adding "in her frame" to "she will measure" is redundant. For that matter, the same applies to "she will see". Anytine I refer to "see" or "measure", it is always from the frame of the seeer/measurer. How could it be otherwise?
Will you ever understand that everything she concludes about Jack's time is a "prediction?"
Well, Jill can make conclusions about what Jack has seen/measured in the past, so it's not really a "prediction". But I agree with your general sentiment here.
Will you ever understand that what she predicts is 100% dependent on her assumptions about her own state of motion?
When I forget the basics of physics and adopt crankish positions, or when physics itself changes. Don't hold your breath.
In other words will you ever understand that this is false?:
I understand your position. You're just wrong.
"The numbers are teh same if Jack/clock1 are moving and Jill is stationary."
Jill will NEVER "measure" nor will the LT allow her to conclude that Jack's time is 6.4 seconds
Agreed. Jill does not measure Jack's time, and the LT do not tell Jack's time is 6.4 seconds. The 6.4 seconds is the amount of time Jill measures to pass on Jack's clock (redundantly: in Jill inertial frame), but Jill and Jack measure different amounts of time to pass on Jack's clock.
if she assumes that he is motionless relative to her and that she is in motion relative to him.
Nor if she assumes that she is motionless and jack is in motion.
"...the LT showed the same results as when Jill was moving. The LT do not tell you who is moving."
This is wrong. The LT, as such, shows no such thing, and in fact shows the opposite.
According to everyone we've asked, that's exactly what they show. If you disagree, demonstrate it.
You will never understand this because you are utterly incapable of analyzing and understanding the ASSUMPTIONS upon which your math is founded. You swallow the assumptions whole, undigested and thereafter think the math proves the assumption.
Not at all. The physical experiements performed support teh assumptions, and frankly, I doubt yo can even properly state the assmptions.
Just like when you kept referring me to "computer simulations" to "prove" your conclusion.
I learned my lesson then. You may not be capable of learning it.
One Brow said: "The LT are the precise transformtions that render the spacetime intervals invariant. The invariant spcetime intervals use no more assumptions than the LT use."
Wrong.
Actually, right.
Do you remember telling the frame in which the two clocks are stationary with respect to each other will ALWAYS have the greater distance (i.e., will be the stationay party)?
Actually, will measure the greater distance.Every other frame will measure a smaller distance between the clocks. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean to "have" a greater distance. this is regardless of whether they are stationary or not.
This is nonsensical as a matter of physics.
That they "have" a distance is nonsensical as a matter of English.
So where does that conclusion come from? What assumption is it based on?
Fairy dust from the moon?
One Brow said: "*chuckle* Did you notice the length formula in (10) and (11) were basically the same formula, with reverse coordinates?"
*chuckle* Did you notice that that is exactly his point, that they are the "reverse" co-ordinates?
Nice of you to acknowledge the LT are reciprocal, since (10) was the inverse translation to (11). Outside of that, why should it be a big deal when you use (10) or (11) to make length translations, since they come out the same either way?
*chuckle* Did you notice that you missed the point completely?
Not at all. I caught the point. Mot my fault it was silly.
*chuckle* Do you realize that you have no clue whatsoever as to how this relates to everything else said in this post?
Actually, I understand the relation. It's just silly.
This guy, who you, with your typical thoughtless ideological rhetoric, immediately call a "crank," obviously knows 20 times more about math in general, and the LT in particular, than you do.
Even if that were true (and it's not, the LT math is not that difficult), what about that makes him non-crankish? sorry, but the argument from authority covers no water when you authority differs from 95% of the actual authorities.
Is the statement I quoted wrong? Is that what you're contending?
Yes. You can get length contraction from (10), it does not need to be (11).
How does this relate to Minkowski's rules for establishing an "invariant spacetime interval?
It doesn't. The invarient spacetime interval does not determine whether you use the regular or inverse translation.
Reading his paper may help you analyze, rather than merely spew assertions about, the subject you claim to be such an authority on.
I'm sure you felt it helped you. I told you a couple of pages back, I'm not taking the time to read this stuff anymore. It never says what you claim, either through your misinterpretation or the authors errors, frequently both. I have other things to do with my life; better uses of my time.
What the LT predicts, and what experiments show, is that two clocks moving with respect to each other will ACTUALLY (not merely "apparently") run at different rates.
One will actually, not just apparently, run faster. That will, as a matter of physics, be the (relatively) stationary clock.
The other will actually, not just apparently, run slower. That will, as a matter of physics, be the (relatively) moving clock.
Once you get yhat "relatively" means "relatively", and not "actually", you'll start to understand this. Right now, this is blather.
Jill CANNOT "observe" Jack's clock to register only 6.4 seconds.
Nothing stops Jill from looking at Jack's clock and making measurements based on that. When she does, she'll measure 6.4 seconds.
One Brow said: "If Jill assumes she is motionless, she will measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock and use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock."
This is wrong.
Except, it been confirmed by every physics expert we've asked. So, I don't accept that it's wrong.
If Jill assumes that she is motionless then she can only predict (but not "measure")
Nothing stops jill from looking at jack's clock and making measurements based on that.
If she is right in her assumption about her state of motion, then her prediction will be accurate.
Conversely, if she is wrong in her assumption about her state of motion, then her prediction will be inaccurate.
She concludes jack measures 10 seconds because jack actually measure 10 seconds, regardless of who is moving.
How did Jill come to predict the time (6.4) on Jack's clock? Did he "measure" it? No, she "concluded" it. "Concluded" based on what? The LT, assuming she is motionless.
Fowler chose to use the LT, but nothing stops Jill from confirming this by direct measurement.
Of course I have pointed all this out many times before, but you refuse to pay the least bit of attention to Fowler or anyone else.
I paid close attention to Fowler. I pay close attention to you. That does not stop you from being wrong. You seem to think that if I only understood you, I'd agree. I do understand you, you're just wrong.
You keep insisting that Jill "measures" one thing and "concludes" another.
Of course. Jill measures what happens (redundantly: from her frame), and makes conclusions on the measurments Jack will make (redundantly: from his frame). Their is no reason that Jack and Jill would have all their measurement come out the same.
And you insist that what you erronously refer to as her "measurement" of Jack's clock is based on "observation." It aint. It's based on calculation, starting from certain (false) premises
Fowler did it that way, but Jill can make direct measurements.
One Brow said: "If Jill assumes she is motionless, she will...use the LT to predict Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock."
She will indeed predict that Jack will measure 10 seconds on his clock, if, and only if, she acknowledges that she is moving and that Jack is stationary.
Either way. If Jill assumes she is stationary and Jack is moving, she will still predict/conclude Jack will measure 10 seconds in his frame.
That said...
For you to suggest that this is what she would predict is contrary to the relativity principle, which you claim to adhere to.
You think this only because you still don't understand the relativity principle.
I agree that, given the knowledge that she has, and the observations she makes, she really has no reasonable choice but to conclude that Jack's clock is faster than hers. So why doesn't she? Why does Fowler have her "predict" a time of 6.4 seconds for Jack?
Fowler does not have Jill do that. Fowler has Jill measure 6.4 seconds on Jack's clock. That is a different number than Jack measures (10) on his own clock.
One Brow said: "Not true, and you saw this for yourself on physicsforums. given the starting assumption Jill was stationary, with no prior discussion about Jill moving (so no opportunity to confuse the issue), the LT showed the same results as when Jill was moving. The LT do not tell you who is moving."
For the most part all I saw there was the solemn, robotic pronouncement of Dingalian doctrines which are self-refuting in the context of the LT.
As much as you choose to mischaracterize the results, the predictions of the LT were unambiguous.
SR is a theory of MOTION.
SR is a theory of how relative motion affects measurments.
The LT predicts changes in clock rate based solely on MOTION.
Relative motion.
Anyone who purports to expound on SR while claiming that motion is irrelevant simply proves they have no underlying understanding of the LT.
Anyone who purposts to expound on SR while claim that velocity is relevant simply proves they have no understanding of the LT.
Even more, they display no understanding of the PHYSICAL (as opposed to mathematical) implications of the LT.
Damn physicists and their lack of understanding of physics.
You do NOT get the same answer regardless of who is moving.
Except, you do.
Colton does NOT, as he thinks, change the assumptions about who is moving by simply sliding his "observer view" switch back and forth.
That's what the slide does.
That changes NOTHING of substance,
Agreed.
and merely retains Jack as the stationary party.
Both wrong and non-substantive.
The guys at the physics board agreed with that, i.e., the answer would be different (not "the same") if Jill was "moving" (i.e. had the longer length).
No, they were very clear the answers are unchanged regardless of who was considered to be moving.
The "short answer" for this was that there was "no room" on their graph paper in which to contract Jack's length.
They didn't produce any graphs.
What it boiled down to was basically this: If two clocks are stationary in a given frame, then the rules for "solving" problems dictated that frame "must" be treated as having the longest length (which is just a disguised way of saying that frame "must" be treated as the stationary one).
The former is not a disguised way of saying the latter, it is a distinct statement independent of the latter.
You have repeatedly denied this, but the fact remains that, in order to create an "invariant spacetime interval," you must combine the length from one frame with the time from the other (when possible). This was also confirmed by the physics board.
Actually, no such thing was confirmed. Spectime intervals are measured from one inertial frame.
In some other contexts, "proper" time and length are simply identified with "local" time in the same frame, which is the case you are trying to limit the meaning to.
Example of constructing a space time interval:
A and B are planets. C and D are brothers. Brother C is on planet A. Planet B is not moving with respect to planet A. Brother D travels to planet B, from A. For purposes of constructing an invariant interval,
Who has the "proper time?" Brother D
Who has the "proper length?" Brother C.
Notice that Brother C now has the "improper" time but the "proper" length, while Brother D has the "proper" time but the "improper" length.
Brother D is traveling inertially, so experiences proper time. Brother C is in teh same inertial state as the two planets, and can measure proper length. Agree,
What does this have to the with the invarient spacetime interval?
Each frame has a combination of both proper and improper time and length. This is part of the point the (somewhat poorly translated) paper written by the chinese author was noting, indirectly).
The "effect" of the LT is retained this way, however. The frame which has the longest time also has the longest length (this is the "stationary" one). Similarly, the frame which has the shortest time also has the shortest length (this is the "moving" one).
Right. That's why the spacetime intervals can be invariant, even though each frame measurs the interval based on different numbers.
This is the mathematical convention, but as you yourself have noted: "As long as clock1 is in the same inertial state as Jack, the measured distance for jack to clock1 is 6 ls, even if Jack is moving and Jill is stationary."
Right. Nothing you quoted from the chinese author disagrees with that comment.
Put another way Jack could set up clocks 6 light seconds apart in his frame whether he is moving relative to Jill, or not. That alone cannot be used to determine, as a matter of physics (rather than as a matter of arbitrary mathematical convention), that Jack is stationary relative to Jill.
Agreed.
Jack's (local) distance will always be 6 light seconds
Agreed.
but that does not mean it has to be longer than Jill's (local) length.
As long as clock1 is in Jack's inertial state and Jill is not, Jack will measure a longer length.
Anyone who denies this simply doesn't understand the underlying concepts.
I understand your concepts. You're just wrong. You seem to think everyone has to agree on a single number when they measure something while in different inertial states. They don't.
I said: "The question is merely about how long it took the -6 image to get to clock 1."
You said: "6 seconds as measured by jack, 12 seconds as measured by Jill."
Hahahaha.
Dingle on, Eric!
You are obviously lacking even the most basic understanding of the significance of light delay. No reasonable discussion with you is possible.
Tellya what, Eric...why doncha go back to the time when her clock reads 15, then tell me what she sees on Jack's clock at that time.
Then 14
Then 13
Then 12 (Does she see -6 on Jack's clock at that time? Somehow, I don't think so. Does she see -6 "being generated" at clock 2 then, and then track that image thereafer? Somehow, I don't think so.
Then 11
Then 10
Let me know when she gets to clock 1 and tell me what she sees on her clock THEN, because that the only thing relevant here, OK?
edit--meant to say:
"Let me know when she gets to clock 1 and tell me what she sees on his [not her] clock THEN, because that the only thing relevant here, OK?
You are obviously lacking even the most basic understanding of the significance of light delay.
Ridicule is so much easier than showing someone is wrong. I gues you took the easy path.
aintnuthin said...
Tellya what, Eric...why doncha go back to the time when her clock reads 15, then tell me what she sees on Jack's clock at that time.
Then 14
Then 13
Then 12 (Does she see -6 on Jack's clock at that time? Somehow, I don't think so. Does she see -6 "being generated" at clock 2 then, and then track that image thereafer? Somehow, I don't think so.
Then 11
Then 10
Let me know when she gets to clock 1 and tell me what she sees on his [not her] clock THEN, because that the only thing relevant here, OK?
I'll do the whole -15 to 15 for you, just to be sure it's covered. all of this is what Jill sees the clocks to read at the same time, not what she measures them to read.
Jill's clock___clock1___Jack's clock
-15___-30___-36
-14___-28___-34
-13___-26___-32
-12___-24___-30
-11___-22___-28
-10___-20___-26
-9___-18___-24
-8___-16___-22
-7___-14___-20
-6___-12___-18
-5___-10___-16
-4___-8___-14
-3___-6___-12
-2___-4___-10
-1___-2___-8
0___0___-6
1___0.5___-4
2___1___-2
3___1.5___0
4___2___2
5___2.5___4
6___3___6
7___3.5___8
8___4___10
9___4.5___10.5
10___5___11
11___5.5___11.5
12___6___12
13___6.5___12.5
14___7___13
15___7.5___13.5
One Brow said:
"0___0___-6" Looks right...
Thing is, you told me she would "see" his clock at 3.5, not zero, at this point, remember?
One Brow said: "8___4___10"
Looks right too. Now she knows clocks 1 and 2 are six light seconds apart in his frame, and that his clock went from 0 to 10 in the time hers went from 0 to 8.
Perfect. Now she also knows that Jack is stationary and she is moving.
All as it should be. Now, where, exactly does she "measure his clock to record only 6.4 seconds?
edit:"Thing is, you told me she would "see" his clock at 9.6 [not 3.5], not zero, at this point, remember?"
aintnuthin said...
"0___0___-6" Looks right...
Thing is, you told me she would "see" his clock at 3.5, not zero, at this point, remember?
I would have said she measured it to read 3.6 at this point. Unless you are right next to the clock, what you see is not what you measure it to read. Light delay. I'm glad that's been cleared up.
One Brow said: "8___4___10"
Looks right too. Now she knows clocks 1 and 2 are six light seconds apart in his frame, and that his clock went from 0 to 10 in the time hers went from 0 to 8.
She can use the LT to conclue that, of course.
Perfect. Now she also knows that Jack is stationary and she is moving.
the numbers come out teh same even if Jill is stationary and Jack/clock1 are moving.
All as it should be. Now, where, exactly does she "measure his clock to record only 6.4 seconds?
As I detail in the post on July 26, Jill measures that 6.4 seconds pass on Jack's clock for 8 seconds on her clock, based on relative speed and the frequency with which Jill sees seconds pass on Jack's clock.
One Brow said: "As I detail in the post on July 26, Jill measures that 6.4 seconds pass on Jack's clock for 8 seconds on her clock..."
Forget your post of July 26, and forget all the irrelevant doppler effects.
Correct me if I am wrong. So far you have agreed that:
1. When Jill is at clock 1 and sees clock 2 reading -6 through her telescope at that time, then the -6 corresponds to *some* (perhaps currently unknown) "actual" reading on clock 2.
2. What "actual" reading the -6 reading corresponds to is strictly dependent on how far away clock 2 is from her at that time.
3. The farther away clock 2 is, the bigger the difference between the -6 and the actual time will be. Conversely, the closer it is the less the difference between the -6 and the actual time will be.
Agree?
One Brow said:"-4___-8___-14"
If I understood your post referring to Jill's "12 seconds," that would be what you are here calling -4, right?
aintnuthin said...
Forget your post of July 26, and forget all the irrelevant doppler effects.
As long as you don't bring up something related tot hem, OK.
Correct me if I am wrong. So far you have agreed that:
1. When Jill is at clock 1 and sees clock 2 reading -6 through her telescope at that time, then the -6 corresponds to *some* (perhaps currently unknown) "actual" reading on clock 2.
I'm not sure what you meant by "corresponds". clock2 did read -6 at some time before Jill saw it. At the time Jill sees the -6, Jill measures clock2 as being 3.6.
2. What "actual" reading the -6 reading corresponds to is strictly dependent on how far away clock 2 is from her at that time.
It also depends of the relative velocity of Jill to clock2.
3. The farther away clock 2 is, the bigger the difference between the -6 and the actual time will be. Conversely, the closer it is the less the difference between the -6 and the actual time will be.
Agree?
Yes. Also, the greater the relative velocity, the greater the actual time difference.
One Brow said:"-4___-8___-14"
If I understood your post referring to Jill's "12 seconds," that would be what you are here calling -4, right?
No it would be at -12___-24___-30 when clock2 generated the image of -6.
One Brow said: "Jill measures clock2 as being 3.6."
What does she measure? This?
"No it would be at -12___-24___-30 when clock2 generated the image of -6."
How does that measure 3.6 on Jack's clock as of the time she is at clock1?
One Brow said: "It also depends of the relative velocity of Jill to clock2."
How is the time it takes light to get from clock 2 to clock 1 in any way dependent on the velocity of Jill or the velocity of any other thing in the universe, other than clocks 1 and 2 themselves. How could Jill's speed possibly affect that?
aintnuthin said...
One Brow said: "Jill measures clock2 as being 3.6."
What does she measure? This?
"No it would be at -12___-24___-30 when clock2 generated the image of -6."
No single observation can measure anything. A measurement requires at least two observations.
How does that measure 3.6 on Jack's clock as of the time she is at clock1?
Jill can measure the distance to clock2 by bouncing a light beam off of it, using the time it leaves and time it arrives. If she does this twice, she can get a velocity for clock2. She can use the distance, velocity, and the times she sees on clock2 to measure what clock2 currently reads.
One Brow said: "It also depends of the relative velocity of Jill to clock2."
How is the time it takes light to get from clock 2 to clock 1 in any way dependent on the velocity of Jill or the velocity of any other thing in the universe, other than clocks 1 and 2 themselves.
It doesn't depend on that. No matter what Jill's velocity is, clock1 measures teh itme as 6 seconds.
How could Jill's speed possibly affect that?
Jill's speed only affects how much time Jill measures for theimage to travel from clock2 to clock1.
One Brow said: "Jill's speed only affects how much time Jill measures for theimage to travel from clock2 to clock1."
According to Fowler, that distance is 4.8 light seconds for Jill(and she imputes a distance of 3.84 light seconds). So how does she calculate the distance to be double that (9.6 light seconds)?
One Brow said: ""No it would be at -12___-24___-30 when clock2 generated the image of -6."
1. She's measuring a 6 light second difference between the clocks (-30 - -24).
2. How could she possibly see the image of "-6" on clock 2 at this point? According to you she's seeing an image of -30, not -6, coming from clock 2. There's a good reason why she doesn't see -6 until she is at clock 1, eh?
aintnuthin said...
According to Fowler, that distance is 4.8 light seconds for Jill(and she imputes a distance of 3.84 light seconds). So how does she calculate the distance to be double that (9.6 light seconds)?
First, corrections to numbers:
1) Jill never concludes nor imputes a distance of 3.84 light-seconds.
2) Jill measures the time on Jill's clock for the light to cover the distance to be 12 seconds, not 9.6. The 9.6 is the time she measures to pass on clock2.
Now, as for why it is 12 seconds, that is because clock1 is moving at .6c and the image of clock2 reading -6 is moving at c. That means the image gains ground on clock1 at a rate of .4c. d/r = t, and 4.8 ls/.4c = 12 seconds.
One Brow said: ""No it would be at -12___-24___-30 when clock2 generated the image of -6."
1. She's measuring a 6 light second difference between the clocks (-30 - -24).
No, she is measuring a 6-second difference between the clocks, whcih can be a combination of lightsecond difference and lack of synchronization.
How could she possibly see the image of "-6" on clock 2 at this point?
She can't. She sees clocks to say -30. Hence, -12___-24___-30. Are you asking how she could measure it to say -6?
According to you she's seeing an image of -30, not -6, coming from clock 2. There's a good reason why she doesn't see -6 until she is at clock 1, eh?
Right. At the time when Jill sees the image of clock2 reading -30, clock2 is generating the image of -6.
One Brow said:"Right. At the time when Jill sees the image of clock2 reading -30, clock2 is generating the image of -6."
So what? You act as this could be even remotely relevant. Where JILL is when the -6 "was generated" is totally irrelevant. Right down the line, beginning at your -30, she sees a difference in 6 light seconds between the two clocks (not 9.6). That's her measurement. She should expect to see -6 when Jack's clock is actually reading zero. She would never expect it to read 3.6 when she sees the image of "-6." Nothing you're saying makes the least bit of sense.
On August 15, 2011 4:28 PM, aintnuthin said:
If I understood your post referring to Jill's "12 seconds," that would be what you are here calling -4, right?
On August 16, 2011 4:48 PM, aintnuthin said...
One Brow said:"Right. At the time when Jill sees the image of clock2 reading -30, clock2 is generating the image of -6."
So what? You act as this could be even remotely relevant. Where JILL is when the -6 "was generated" is totally irrelevant.
Then, why did you bring it up?
Right down the line, beginning at your -30, she sees a difference in 6 light seconds between the two clocks (not 9.6).
Agreed, until time 0. After that, the difference gradually decreases to -6.
That's her measurement.
Measurement of what, besides the difference in clock readings?
She should expect to see -6 when Jack's clock is actually reading zero.
Why? Between the distance and the relative motion, she will not measure it to see this.
She would never expect it to read 3.6 when she sees the image of "-6." Nothing you're saying makes the least bit of sense.
Jill's expectations are not relevant. What she measures is what she she measures, regardless of her expectations.
I'm not sure why you see a disconnect, except perhaps you are mixing frames again.
Look at the pattern you've created. Not that it's even relevant, but the image of -6 was obviously "generated" when Jill saw this on the clocks:"-8___-16___-22."
How could you ever think it was showing this:"One Brow said:"Right. At the time when Jill sees the image of clock2 reading -30, clock2 is generating the image of -6."
Just because that's what you're trying to prove (which is impossible)? What's you reasoning? You've given me your conclusions 100's of time, but not your reasoning process.
aintnuthin said...
Look at the pattern you've created. Not that it's even relevant, but the image of -6 was obviously "generated" when Jill saw this on the clocks:"-8___-16___-22."
Why do you think that?
How could you ever think it was showing this:"One Brow said:"Right. At the time when Jill sees the image of clock2 reading -30, clock2 is generating the image of -6."
That's when Jill's clock reads -12.
Just because that's what you're trying to prove (which is impossible)? What's you reasoning? You've given me your conclusions 100's of time, but not your reasoning process.
Sorry, I thought it was clear. Everything blow is what can be mdeasured by Jill (redundantly: in Jill's frame).
Light moves at c, for Jill, while clock1 moves at .6c. That means the image of clock2 reading -6 needs to catch up to clock1. The difference speed is c - .6c, which is .4c. That is the speed at which the image of the clock reading -6 catches up to clock1, according to Jill.
Jill measures the distance between clock2 and clock1 as 4.8 light-seconds. rate = distance/time, and we can solve that for time, so time = distance/rate. The distance the image of clock2 reading -6 needs to make up is 4.8 ls, and the speed is .4 c, so the time is 4.8 ls / .4c = 12 seconds.
That means it takes 12 seconds for the image of clock2 reading -6 to catch up to clock1. Since Jill's clock reads 0 when this happens, it read -12 when the image was generated.
I said: "She should expect to see -6 when Jack's clock is actually reading zero."
You said: "Why? Between the distance and the relative motion, she will not measure it to see this."
What!? Light travels 1 light second per second, to state the obvious. She sees the clocks as being perfectly synchronized as far as rate of time-keeping goes. One is farther away from her. 6 seconds farther away, i.e., Six light seconds when she is looking at images that are delayed solely due to the travel time of light.
You repeatedly use the word "measure" without reference to anything except some irrelevant numbers you pull out of the air. Your numbers are meaningless.
One Brow said: "Agreed, until time 0. After that, the difference gradually decreases to -6."
Only while she is moving between the two clocks. As soon as she passes clock 2, the time between the two remains constant at 6 seconds, indicating that the distance betweeen them is 6 light seconds.
"9___4.5___10.5
15___7.5___13.5"
One Brow said:
"Light moves at c, for Jill, while clock1 moves at .6c."
Jill's motion is totally irrelevant to the question at issue, which is: At the time Jill is at clock 1 (and ONLY that instant) what does clock 2 read? 0 or 3.5?
She could have been moving for centuries, but that is totally irrelevant to this question. We are talking about a single instant in time...not before, and not after.
You can't see that?
That said, everything she sees both before and after she reaches the clocks indicates the same 6 light second distance which, per Fowler, ACTUALLY exists.
One Brow said: "Jill measures the distance between clock2 and clock1 as 4.8 light-seconds. rate = distance/time, and we can solve that for time, so time = distance/rate. The distance the image of clock2 reading -6 needs to make up is 4.8 ls, and the speed is .4 c, so the time is 4.8 ls / .4c = 12 seconds."
This is senseless. It takes Jill 8 seconds, by her clock, to go between the two. She would have to be 8 seconds away from clock 1 when the image which she sees when she gets there "is generated" in order for the image to meet her at clock 1.
When it is generated is irrelevant, but even so she could not be 12 seconds away (by her clock) when the image is generated.
If I see a starlight hit my eyes "now" it could have left the star centuries ago. But where *I* was centuries ago is irrelevant. If I want to determine exactly "when" the starlight left the star, I only need to know how far apart 2 things are: (1) Me, when I saw it, and (2) the star when the image was generated. The star could have since moved trillions of miles away from the point of origin. I could have moved trillions of miles before reaching the point where I saw the light "now." All totally irrelevant to the question of when the light I am seeing "now" left the star.
One Brow said:"Jill measures the distance between clock2 and clock1 as 4.8 light-seconds."
Which is 8 seconds for her, not 12.
But she can't "track" the image of -6 from the time it leaves clock2 to begin with. She never sees that image at all until the exact instant she meets clock 1. She never saw it before that time, and she will never see it again after that time.
It's very simple. In order for an image of -6 to correspond to an actual clock reading of 3.6, it would had to have come from 9.6 light seconds away. Why? Because light travels 1 second per light second. Jill is not "travelling" at any speed at the instant she arrives at clock 1. It takes time to travel, and we are talking about a frozen instant in time, not a series of instants.
I said: "She should expect to see -6 when Jack's clock is actually reading zero."
You said: "Why? Between the distance and the relative motion, she will not measure it to see this."
What!? Light travels 1 light second per second, to state the obvious.
Agreed.
She sees the clocks as being perfectly synchronized as far as rate of time-keeping goes.
Agreed.
One is farther away from her. 6 seconds farther away, i.e., Six light seconds when she is looking at images that are delayed solely due to the travel time of light.
Actually, clock2 is 4.8 light seconds further away than clock1, as Jill measures it.
You repeatedly use the word "measure" without reference to anything except some irrelevant numbers you pull out of the air. Your numbers are meaningless.
I'm happy to discuss any measurements you feel are unjustified. None of it is "out of the air".
One Brow said: "Agreed, until time 0. After that, the difference gradually decreases to -6."
Only while she is moving between the two clocks.
Right, the decrease stops at a difference of -6, when Jill sees 10 on clock2 and 4 at clock1.
As soon as she passes clock 2, the time between the two remains constant at 6 seconds,
-6 seconds. Using clock1-clock2, it goes from 0 - -6 = 6 to 4 - 10 = -6.
indicating that the distance betweeen them is 6 light seconds.
Unless the cocks are out of synchronization, which they are as Jill measures them.
"Light moves at c, for Jill, while clock1 moves at .6c."
Jill's motion is totally irrelevant to the question at issue, which is: At the time Jill is at clock 1 (and ONLY that instant) what does clock 2 read? 0 or 3.5?
According to clock1, at that moment in time clock2 reads 0. According to Jill, at that moment in time clock2 reads 3.6.
Is there a reason they need to say the values are the same?
We are talking about a single instant in time...not before, and not after.
OK, but it is an instant in time where there is relative motion.
...the same 6 light second distance which... ACTUALLY exists.
Only for objects in teh same inertial state as clock1/clock2.
One Brow said: "Jill measures the distance between clock2 and clock1 as 4.8 light-seconds. rate = distance/time, and we can solve that for time, so time = distance/rate. The distance the image of clock2 reading -6 needs to make up is 4.8 ls, and the speed is .4 c, so the time is 4.8 ls / .4c = 12 seconds."
This is senseless. It takes Jill 8 seconds, by her clock, to go between the two.
What does that have to do with how long it takes for light to go from clock2 to clock1 according to Jill (12 seconds), or for that matter to go from clock1 to clock2 (3 seconds)? Jill has a different relative motion from clock1 than a light beam has.
She would have to be 8 seconds away from clock 1 when the image which she sees when she gets there "is generated" in order for the image to meet her at clock 1.
Actually, 12. You're comparing two numbers that are not really comparable.
When it is generated is irrelevant, but even so she could not be 12 seconds away (by her clock) when the image is generated.
Why not? Do you have a better argument than pretending two different speeds are equal?
If I want to determine exactly "when" the starlight left the star, I only need to know how far apart 2 things are: (1) Me, when I saw it, and (2) the star when the image was generated.
Agreed.
One Brow said:"Jill measures the distance between clock2 and clock1 as 4.8 light-seconds."
Which is 8 seconds for her, not 12.
Jill is not moving at c from clock2 to clock1.
But she can't "track" the image of -6 from the time it leaves clock2 to begin with. She never sees that image at all until the exact instant she meets clock 1. She never saw it before that time, and she will never see it again after that time.
True. However, the Jack&Jill scenario is an explanation of relativity, not an experiment.
It's very simple. In order for an image of -6 to correspond to an actual clock reading of 3.6, it would had to have come from 9.6 light seconds away.
Only if clock2 ticks off seconds at the same rate Jill does. If clock1 tciks off, say, .8 seconds (as measured by Jill, redundantly in Jill['s inertial frame) for every second of Jill's clock, then 12 * .8 = 9.6, and clock2 would have ticked off 9.6 seconds to Jill's twelve.
One Brow said: "distance the image of clock2 reading -6 needs to make up is 4.8 ls, and the speed is .4 c, so the time is 4.8 ls / .4c = 12 seconds."
Which comes to a distance of 7.2 light seconds. This is not even the 3.6 second difference you are striving (futilely) to generate. It is a difference of 2.4 light seconds.
Your figures have nothing to do with anything. They don't constitute any "measurment" by Jill to begin with. If they did, they would relate to, and hence explain, NOTHING at issue here.
Why do you think they are relevant? How do they explain how Jill supposedly "measures" Jack's clock 2 to be reading 3.6 seconds when she is at clock 1?
One Brow said: "Jill is not moving at c from clock2 to clock1."
OBVIOUSLY NOT. Why do you even mention this?
===
I said: "It's very simple. In order for an image of -6 to correspond to an actual clock reading of 3.6, it would had to have come from 9.6 light seconds away."
"Only if clock2 ticks off seconds at the same rate Jill does."
Maybe you haven't heard. Light travels at the speed of light regardless of any clock, or anybody else's speed. LIGHT carries the image, not a spaceship. She sees what she sees, whether that's -6 or -60. The only question is how long did it take that image, TRAVELLING AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT, to reach her. It's coming from clock 2 and has arrived at clock 1.
You're saying it took 9.6 seconds (at the speed of light) to reach her. Tautologically, that equals a distance of 9.6 light seconds.
Put another way: Your claim is that, at the time she sees the image of -6 coming from clock 2, that very self-same clock was ACTUALLY, at that very instant, reading 3.6 seconds because there was a light delay, due to travel time, of 9.6 seconds.
Fraid not.
The rate at which the clock is running is totally irrelevant. It could be running 20 times as fast as Jill's, or twenty time slower. Either way, whatever image she sees at clock 1 took *some* time to reach her. The question is "how much time?"
She could be looking at Jack, not his clock, or Jack's pet turtle, not his clock. The question would be the same--how long did it take the image to reach her? That wouldn't vary depending on "what" she was looking at.
The answer to that question is dependent on one, and only one, thing. How far away did the image come from? We know that light carries the image, whatever it is, and we know it's speed.
Jill sees the 2 clocks keeping rates of elapsed time which are uniform with each other, indicating that they are perfectly synchronized with each other. The only reason Jill "sees" a difference is because they are not the same distance from her. So the question is "how far apart are they?"
There is no question about whether the clocks are moving away from each other. Both Jack and Jill understand that. Whatever Jack's or Jill's speed is, the distance between the clocks remains constant. So motion is irrelevant to the question being asked.
The only possible answer, given all the information she has seen, firsthand, is 6 light seconds.
aintnuthin said...
One Brow said: "distance the image of clock2 reading -6 needs to make up is 4.8 ls, and the speed is .4 c, so the time is 4.8 ls / .4c = 12 seconds."
Which comes to a distance of 7.2 light seconds. This is not even the 3.6 second difference you are striving (futilely) to generate. It is a difference of 2.4 light seconds.
I have no idea how you are throwing numbers together here. A diference fo 2.4 light seconds between what and what?
I mean, I agree that Jill travels 7.2 light-seconds (as measured by Jill) in the 12 seconds it takes the image of clock2 reading -6 to reach clock1, so that Jill was 7.2 light-seconds away from clock1 when the image was generated. but I don't see what the other distanct of 2.4 light-seconds is supposed to be aobut, unless you have that confused with the 9.6 seconds? Light-seocnds are distance, seconds are time. You can subtract one from the other.
Your figures have nothing to do with anything. They don't constitute any "measurment" by Jill to begin with.
The amount of time between a light image leaving a clock and reaching another clock is not a measurement of time?
If they did, they would relate to, and hence explain, NOTHING at issue here.
OK. I'll drop it if you stop asking questions about it.
Why do you think they are relevant? How do they explain how Jill supposedly "measures" Jack's clock 2 to be reading 3.6 seconds when she is at clock 1?
Again, Jill measures 12 seconds for the light from clock2 to reach clock1. She measures that clock1 clikcs off .8 seconds for every second of hers. .8 * 12 = 9.6. 9.6 + -6 = 3.6.
One Brow said: "Jill is not moving at c from clock2 to clock1."
OBVIOUSLY NOT. Why do you even mention this?
Because in your reasoning of the situation, it seemed like you were using this idea, possibly without realizing it.
==
I said: "It's very simple. In order for an image of -6 to correspond to an actual clock reading of 3.6, it would had to have come from 9.6 light seconds away."
"Only if clock2 ticks off seconds at the same rate Jill does."
Maybe you haven't heard. Light travels at the speed of light regardless of any clock, or anybody else's speed. LIGHT carries the image, not a spaceship.
Agreed. However, the light beam leaving clock2 does not control how fast Jill measures clock2 to tick after the light beam leaves the clock. So, your objection is not well-founded.
You're saying it took 9.6 seconds (at the speed of light) to reach her. Tautologically, that equals a distance of 9.6 light seconds.
No, I have specifically said Jill measures the time as 12 seconds, and clock1/clock2 measure it as 6 seconds. Neither party measures it as 9.6 seconds. The 9.6 is the time Jill measures to have passed on clock2 during teh 12 seconds it takes for the light to make the journey.
Put another way: Your claim is that, at the time she sees the image of -6 coming from clock 2, that very self-same clock was ACTUALLY, at that very instant, reading 3.6 seconds because there was a light delay, due to travel time, of 9.6 seconds.
Half right. clock2 reads 9.6 seconds from a combination of a light-delay of 12 seconds and a slowage of time for clock2 by a fator of .8. 12 * .8 = 9.6,
The rate at which the clock is running is totally irrelevant. It could be running 20 times as fast as Jill's, or twenty time slower. Either way, whatever image she sees at clock 1 took *some* time to reach her. The question is "how much time?"
You don't think whether a clock has beening running faster or slower for the past twelve seconds affects the amount of time the clock will show to have passed?
The question would be the same--how long did it take the image to reach her? That wouldn't vary depending on "what" she was looking at.
Agreed. The answer is 12 seconds as Jill measures it, 6 seconds as Jack/clock1 measures it.
The answer to that question is dependent on one, and only one, thing. How far away did the image come from? We know that light carries the image, whatever it is, and we know it's speed.
Agreed. clock2 is 12 light-seconds away from Jill when it generates the image of .-6.
Jill sees the 2 clocks keeping rates of elapsed time which are uniform with each other, indicating that they are perfectly synchronized with each other.
"Synchronized", at least for time pieces, means more than running at the same rate, it means showing the same time. Jill sees the clocks running at the same rate, but they are not synchronized.
The only reason Jill "sees" a difference is because they are not the same distance from her. So the question is "how far apart are they?"
Jill can measure the distance to each clock separately, and the difference will be 4.8 light-seconds.
There is no question about whether the clocks are moving away from each other. Both Jack and Jill understand that. Whatever Jack's or Jill's speed is, the distance between the clocks remains constant. So motion is irrelevant to the question being asked.
The only possible answer, given all the information she has seen, firsthand, is 6 light seconds.
Except, Jill can measure the distance, and it is 4.8 light-seconds.
Nothing you're saying is adding up, Eric. Let's review the situation.
Jill does not "measure" 6.4 seconds on Jack's clock and CANNOT measure that, because it isn't there to be measured. 10 seconds pass on his clock, as she can see.
Because she sees 10 seconds on his clock, and because she is (for invalid reasons repeated below) adamant that the time for him is 6.4 seconds, she merely asserts (without basis) that clock 2 "must" have read 3.6 seconds when she was at clock 1.
One flaw in that attempt is that, since Jack's time is 10 seconds, not 6.4, by shifting his clock forward on clock 2, she puts clock 1 out of balance. She knows it read 0. Although she is claiming that Jack will only measure 6.4 seconds total for the ENTIRE trip, she is now (indirectly) claiming that it took 9.6 light seconds (-6 to 3.6) for the image (-6) to get from clock 2 to clock 1. Because she arbitrarily shorted the back end (10-3.6 = 6.4) she has overloaded the front end. Which is just more evidence that her claim can't be accurate.
Why does she claim Jack's clock only reads 6.4? Because she claims she is stationary and Jack is moving which means she, not Jack, will have the longer length and faster time.
She wants to say the total distance is only 3.84 LS for Jack, and yet she has his clock taking 9.6 seconds for the time she sees light traversing it.
She says she is stationary out of adherence to dogma only. She doesn't, and CAN'T, see or observe that to be the case. The observations prove otherwise to her, but she is ignoring all observation in her devotion to dogma.
Your vague references to unspecified "measurement" and polymorphous "clock rates" is symptomatic of the same acritical dogmatic thinking Jill is displaying.
By your own (invalid) reasoning on another score, if Jill "knows her SR" then she will INSTANTLY conclude that her lengths MUST be shorter than Jack's, because the clocks are stationary in Jack's frame. She will, without hestitation, claim that she must be the moving party, and that therefore her clock must be slower, not faster, than Jack's. She would never for one instant claim that something which she cannot possibly observe or measure (6.4 second's on Jack's clock) was the case, eh?
One of my posts went into the spam bin.
aintnuthin said...
Nothing you're saying is adding up, Eric. Let's review the situation.
OK. When we add things up, we have to be careful to add things from Jill's frame only to other things from Jill's frame, and things from Jack's frame only to things from Jack's frame.
Jill does not "measure" 6.4 seconds on Jack's clock and CANNOT measure that, because it isn't there to be measured. 10 seconds pass on his clock, as she can see.
In what sense does Jill "see" this? She sees Jack's clock go from -6 to 10, which is 16 seconds. If Jill tries to measure the syunchronizaiton of clock2 to clock1, Jill will measure that clock2 is 3.6 seconds behind clock1.
Because she sees 10 seconds on his clock,
Seeing a clock reading does not tell you how much time has passed. To do that, you need to read a clock *twice*, and then subtract.
and because she is (for invalid reasons repeated below) adamant that the time for him is 6.4 seconds, she merely asserts (without basis) that clock 2 "must" have read 3.6 seconds when she was at clock 1.
That is one way, but it is not the only way Jill can reach the 3.6 figure. Without using a lick of the LT, Jill can measure how fast clock2 is traveling (.6c), measure how fast she sees the seconds to go by on clock2 (2 seconds to every second of hers), use these to measure how fast clock2 is actually ticking (.8 seconds to every second of hers), measure the distance between clock2 and herself at the time the image of -6 is generated (12 light-seconds), measure how much time has passed on clock2 (9.6 seconds), and then measure what clock2 must currently read (3.6). So, Jill does not need to assert the reading of clock2 without basis, she can verify the reading of clock2 by physical, objective measurements, which do not rely on the LT nor even on clock1.
One flaw in that attempt is that, since Jack's time is 10 seconds, not 6.4, by shifting his clock forward on clock 2, she puts clock 1 out of balance.
Jill does not "put" clock1 out of balance. Jill can measure the time on clock1 in the same way she measures the time on clock2. When she measures them both, clock2 will be 3.6 seconds ahead of clock1. Again, this is without using the LT, and measuring each clock independently.
She knows it read 0. Although she is claiming that Jack will only measure 6.4 seconds total for the ENTIRE trip,
The only way for Jill to know what jack will measure, as opposed to what Jill will measure, is to use the LT. When Jill uses the LT, she finds that Jack measures 10 for the entire trip.
she is now (indirectly) claiming that it took 9.6 light seconds (-6 to 3.6) for the image (-6) to get from clock 2 to clock 1.
1) Light-seoncds is a distance, not a time. I never hear people say a trip "took" 300 miles (although I do hear them say they traveled 300 miles and it took them 5 hours). When you say something took 9.6 light-seonds, it reads like an unit error to me.
2) She is measuring (not claiming) it took 12 seconds, not 9.6.
3) Because Jill measures clock2 to be slowed compared to hers, she measures that 9.6 seconds pass on clock2. This is not the same thing as saying 9.6 seoncds passed, because for her, clock2 looses one second in every five.
Because she arbitrarily shorted the back end (10-3.6 = 6.4) she has overloaded the front end.
If you use only the LT to get your numbers, and nothing else, it does indeed seem arbitrary, I fully acknowledge that. ONe of the great pleasures of this exchange with you has been discovering how the LT are not necessary for either party to measure what happens to object in a different inertial state.
Why does she claim Jack's clock only reads 6.4? Because she claims she is stationary and Jack is moving which means she, not Jack, will have the longer length and faster time.
Jill's measurements of distance and time do not change if Jill assumes she is moving. That's basic Galilean relativity.
She wants to say the total distance is only 3.84 LS for Jack,
Why would she want to do that? She can't measure Jack's distance directly, and the LT tell her it is 6 LS for Jack (whether Jill is moving or not).
and yet she has his clock taking 9.6 seconds for the time she sees light traversing it.
Correct. Jack measures the light to take six seconds to make the journey in either direction, and sence Jill's clock is slowed as jack measures it, 4.8 seconds to pass on Jill's clock. Jill measures the light to take 12 seconds in one direction, 3 in the other direction, with appropriate slowing applied to what she measures on clock1/clock2.
She says she is stationary out of adherence to dogma only.
Whether Jill is stationary does not change her measurements.
She doesn't, and CAN'T, see or observe that to be the case.
Agreed. Jill can not measure whether she is stationary or not.
The observations prove otherwise to her, but she is ignoring all observation in her devotion to dogma.
The observations are identical, whether Jill is statioary or not, as you just acknowledged.
Your vague references to unspecified "measurement" and polymorphous "clock rates" is symptomatic of the same acritical dogmatic thinking Jill is displaying.
Do you want specifics of ways you could take each measurement?
By your own (invalid) reasoning on another score, if Jill "knows her SR" then she will INSTANTLY conclude that her lengths MUST be shorter than Jack's, because the clocks are stationary in Jack's frame.
She will know that Jack will measure her rods to be shorter. Is that what you meant?
She will, without hestitation, claim that she must be the moving party, and that therefore her clock must be slower, not faster, than Jack's.
She will know that Jack will measure her clock to be slower. Is that what you meant?
She would never for one instant claim that something which she cannot possibly observe or measure (6.4 second's on Jack's clock) was the case, eh?
Jill does measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock, so she can possibly measure it.
One of my posts went into the spam bin.
I looked, and it wasn't there. Sorry.
One Brow said:"ONe of the great pleasures of this exchange with you has been discovering how the LT are not necessary for either party to measure what happens to object in a different inertial state."
Well, you've "discovered" something nobody else ever has, and that should tell you something about your "reasoning." Why is it that you think Jill can "measure" something which does not exist? Can you measure a ghost?
As Hogg and all other authorities point out, doppler effects and light delays are non-fundamental. There are matters of mere appearance only, and do not affect clock rates in the least.
You thinking you can select an arbitrary, meaningless number here, another there, and somehow end up concocting, from appearances, a way to "measure" the effects predicted by the LT just shows how determined you are to reach a preconceived result come hell or high water.
aintnuthin said...
Well, you've "discovered" something nobody else ever has,
Why would you think that? That's how the mainstream-SR reads.
Why is it that you think Jill can "measure" something which does not exist?
I don't. What do you believe I say she is measuring that is non-existant (a different claim than saying she will get a different nmumber)?
As Hogg and all other authorities point out, doppler effects and light delays are non-fundamental.
Agreed. That's why you adjust them out when performing measurements.
There are matters of mere appearance only, and do not affect clock rates in the least.
Agreed. That's why you look at clock rates after adjusting them out.
You thinking you can select an arbitrary, meaningless number here, another there,
Not arbitrary nor meaningless.
and somehow end up concocting, from appearances, a way to "measure" the effects predicted by the LT
Your refusal to discuss the details of which measurements can be performed, how they can be performed, and how they are interpreted is not a limit on what I can consider.
just shows how determined you are to reach a preconceived result come hell or high water.
You mean, the result accepted by mainstream physics? How terrible.
One Brow said: "The observations are identical, whether Jill is statioary or not, as you just acknowledged."
Of course I agree with this, using "observation" in Hogg's sense.
One Brow said: "Jill measures the light to take 12 seconds in one direction, 3 in the other direction..."
This is CERTAINLY not Hogg's sense of the word "observe" (measure). Jill knows that light doesn't quadruple it's speed when going different directions. Your addiction to attempting to "prove" something by use of mere appearances is appalling.
One Brow said: "Whether Jill is stationary does not change her measurements."
No, and that's why your ongoing mantra that each "sees" the other's clock to be moving slower is so misguided. She "measures" 10 seconds on his clock, NOT 6.4 seconds.
I said: "She wants to say the total distance is only 3.84 LS for Jack,..."
You responded: "Why would she want to do that?"
Under the circumstances, that's a great question. Why don't you ask Fowler why he says that. I know why, and have told you why many times. I'll tell you again in a second.
You further responded: "She can't measure Jack's distance directly, and the LT tell her it is 6 LS for Jack (whether Jill is moving or not)."
1. That's not what Fowler said. You are so quick to change all the facts to suit your arguments. I agree your statement. But this whole discussion is about why Fowler claims otherwise.
2. It is flatly inconsistent with the relativity principle to claim that she calculates Jack's time to be 10 seconds. I'm happy to see that you have, in effect, abandoned the absurd "mutual reciprocity" doctrine.
One Brow said: "Jill does measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock, so she can possibly measure it."
You don't know what a "measurement" is. Fowler SAYS Jack's clock actually records 10 seconds. Therefore Jill cannot "measure it" to be otherwise unless she makes grave mistakes in her thinking and her calculations, as you have done. She can baselessly ASSERT that only 6.4 seconds have passed on Jack's clock, but she cannot measure it to be the case. All her observations add up to only one thing in any event, i.e., Jack's clock records 10 seconds, not 6.4.
One Brow said: "Your refusal to discuss the details of which measurements can be performed, how they can be performed, and how they are interpreted is not a limit on what I can consider."
Your inability to understand any discussion is a limit on what you can understand, though. Your "chart" indicates the following:
For centuries, as she approaches, Jill will see the readings on clock 2 lag 6 seconds behind the readings on clock 1. That means the light from clock 2 is taking 6 seconds longer to reach her.
For centuries, as she RECEDES, Jill will see the readings on clock 1 lag 6 seconds behind the readings on clock 2. That means the light from clock 1 is taking 6 seconds longer to reach her.
If light travels the distance between the clocks in 6 seconds, someone going .6c will take 10 seconds to traverse that distance.
Why does her clock record only 8 seconds? Because she is moving and hence her clock has slowed down.
aintnuthin said...
This is CERTAINLY not Hogg's sense of the word "observe" (measure). Jill knows that light doesn't quadruple it's speed when going different directions.
In one direction, clock1 is moving away from the source of light, so it takes more time for the light to catch up. In the other direction, clock2 is moving toward teh source fo light, so it takes less time for the light to reach it.
I honestly wonder if you think about what I post at all.
One Brow said: "Whether Jill is stationary does not change her measurements."
No, and that's why your ongoing mantra that each "sees" the other's clock to be moving slower is so misguided.
Go on. Present an example of it.
She "measures" 10 seconds on his clock, NOT 6.4 seconds.
TEn seconds is a reading, not a measure. A measure requires two readings. Describe where Jill measures the "0", in your opinion, and describe how she gets that measurement.
Except, you can't, of course. But it would still be fun to see you try.
I said: "She wants to say the total distance is only 3.84 LS for Jack,..."
You responded: "Why would she want to do that?"
Under the circumstances, that's a great question. Why don't you ask Fowler why he says that.
Fowler never says it. Feel free to try to find a quote otehrwise. You won't. Regardless of who is moving, the LT say Jack measures 6 LS.
I know why, and have told you why many times. I'll tell you again in a second.
That will be amusing, no doubt.
You further responded: "She can't measure Jack's distance directly, and the LT tell her it is 6 LS for Jack (whether Jill is moving or not)."
1. That's not what Fowler said. You are so quick to change all the facts to suit your arguments. I agree your statement. But this whole discussion is about why Fowler claims otherwise.
Fowler does not claim otherwise.
2. It is flatly inconsistent with the relativity principle to claim that she calculates Jack's time to be 10 seconds.
It is central to the relativity principle that Jill, using the LT, calculates Jack's time to be 10 seconds.
I'm happy to see that you have, in effect, abandoned the absurd "mutual reciprocity" doctrine.
I have no idea why you think that. Jack measure Jill's clock to run slower, Jill measures jack's clock to run slower. This does not change because Jill can use teh LT to determine jack's measurements.
One Brow said: "Jill does measure 6.4 seconds to pass on Jack's clock, so she can possibly measure it."
You don't know what a "measurement" is.
Sure I do. Measurements are things you make with rulers and clocks, or light beams and clocks, and basic algebra, in your own inertial frame.
Fowler SAYS Jack's clock actually records 10 seconds.
Of course. That's Jack's measurement.
Therefore Jill cannot "measure it" to be otherwise
Why not?
unless she makes grave mistakes in her thinking and her calculations, as you have done.
Name the mistakes.
aintnuthin said...
Your "chart" indicates the following:
For centuries, as she approaches, Jill will see the readings on clock 2 lag 6 seconds behind the readings on clock 1. That means the light from clock 2 is taking 6 seconds longer to reach her.
Agreed.
For centuries, as she RECEDES, Jill will see the readings on clock 1 lag 6 seconds behind the readings on clock 2. That means the light from clock 1 is taking 6 seconds longer to reach her.
Agreed.
If light travels the distance between the clocks in 6 seconds, someone going .6c will take 10 seconds to traverse that distance.
That's a big "if". Where is your proof that Jill measures light to take 6 seconds to travel between the clocks?
In fact, Jill does not measure the light traveling between the clocks to take six seconds (whether approaching or receding), so your "if" is wrong.
One Brow said: "I honestly wonder if you think about what I post at all."
I think about it, and it's irrelevant. For about the 10th time:
NEITHER LIGHT DELAYS NOR DOPPLER EFFECTS HAVE A GOD-DAMNED THING TO DO WITH CLOCK RATES.
You want to argue a subtantive point from merel appearances. Typical of you. You simply can't separate the wheat from the chaff; the objective from the subjective; deceptive appearance from underlying reality.
The very fact that every point you try to make about what Jill supposedly "measures" has to do with uncorrected distortion of appearance says it all to begin with. It's not relevant to what Hogg calls "observation."
It's a waste of time to even talk in those terms.
One Brow said:"In fact, Jill does not measure the light traveling between the clocks to take six seconds (whether approaching or receding), so your "if" is wrong."
The clocks are keeping uniform time in their frame, and they are synchronized with each other. As I said, I'm using your chart--which I'm not at all convinced is correct, but it's what you are relying for your "proof." I can't even see what you think you are proving.
She can measure the distance to be 4.8 seconds, and she can see that, by her clock, it only takes 8 seconds, but she looking at Jack's clocks here. She knows his clocks are running faster than hers, which simply tells her that, relatively speaking, she is moving, not Jack. It is her motion that slows her clock down, and that it obvious to her upon scrutiny of all the facts.
The point is that it's taking 6 seconds in Jack's frame. Again, this comes from your numbers, not mine. For every 8 seconds on her clock, Jack's ticks 10, and she can (and does) see that clearly. That's what she "measures." She does not measure his clocks to be ticking 6.4 seconds to every 8 of hers.
One Brow said: "Fowler does not claim otherwise."
Fowler clearly says that, applying the LT, Jill DENIES that 10 seconds have passed on Jill's clock, while you have her using it to AFFIRM that 10 seconds passed on Jack's clock. So he clearly says "otherwise."
===
One Brow said: "Name the mistakes."
The claims you are making are so mixe up and irrelevant that they're "not even wrong."
You started two new threads where you somehow calculated a "rate" which you applied uniformly to the whole trip. This is an obvious mistake.
When Jill sees "-6" Jack's clock reads 0, so the images of -5,-4, -3,-2, and -1 are already "in transit.
Image 0 is being transmitted "now" and all other images will be transmitted in the future.
As an example, the image of 9 will not be transmitted until Jill has traveled 9/10th's of the total distance. At that point she will be less than 1/2 second away in her frame (.6 seconds away using Jack's clock). And when it leaves, she will be moving toward it at .6c, so, just approximating, it will strike her eye when is about 95% of the distance to the clock has already been covered.
The point? She will see the images of -5 through +9 coming at a faster and faster rate, not a constant rate. You tried to apply the rate for the very first image to the whole series, but each successive image will need to travel a shorter and shorter distance to reach her. You can't just take the distance for the first image and apply it to all the remaining ones.
From wiki:"When the source of the waves is moving toward the observer, each successive wave crest is emitted from a position closer to the observer than the previous wave. Therefore each wave takes slightly less time to reach the observer than the previous wave."
See that? "...each successive wave crest is emitted from a position closer to the observer than the previous wave."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
aintnuthin said...
One Brow said: "I honestly wonder if you think about what I post at all."
I think about it, and it's irrelevant.
You say that, and show the opposite in the next sentence. You obviously don't think about it much at all.
For about the 10th time:
NEITHER LIGHT DELAYS NOR DOPPLER EFFECTS HAVE A GOD-DAMNED THING TO DO WITH CLOCK RATES.
For the tenth time, I agree that neither doppler effects nor light delays have any effect on clock rates. Maybe you should repeat it an eleventh or twelth time. who knows, I might disagree then. Probably not, though.
You want to argue a subtantive point from merel appearances.
Appearances still show what the surface looks like.
You simply can't separate the wheat from the chaff; the objective from the subjective; deceptive appearance from underlying reality.
That's pretty funny, coming from someone who thinks measurement made with clocks and rods are subjective and can't make an argument from the numbers without mixing numbers from different frames.
The very fact that every point you try to make about what Jill supposedly "measures" has to do with uncorrected distortion of appearance says it all to begin with. It's not relevant to what Hogg calls "observation."
The fact that you think I'm leaving what Jill measures uncorrected from their appearance also says you don't think at all about what I post.
It's a waste of time to even talk in those terms.
Yet I persist, hopeful.
One Brow said:"In fact, Jill does not measure the light traveling between the clocks to take six seconds (whether approaching or receding), so your "if" is wrong."
The clocks are keeping uniform time in their frame, and they are synchronized with each other.
Like I said, you can't make an argument without mixing frames together. The clocks are keeping uniform time, but are not synchronized in Jill's frame.
As I said, I'm using your chart--which I'm not at all convinced is correct, but it's what you are relying for your "proof." I can't even see what you think you are proving.
I made that chart for your benefit. It's not proof of anything in particular, other than what Jill sees the clocks to read.
She can measure the distance to be 4.8 seconds, and she can see that, by her clock, it only takes 8 seconds, but she looking at Jack's clocks here. She knows his clocks are running faster than hers,
Regardless of what Jill "knows", she measures Jack's clock to move more slowly than hers.
The point is that it's taking 6 seconds in Jack's frame.
In jack's frame, clock2 ticks 10 seconds. In Jill's frame, clock2 ticks 6.4 seconds.
Again, this comes from your numbers, not mine.
Only half of my numbers.
For every 8 seconds on her clock, Jack's ticks 10, and she can (and does) see that clearly.
That's not what Jill sees.
That's what she "measures."
That's also not what Jill measures.
If you think otherwise, give the details of the measurements Jill can make that show it.
She does not measure his clocks to be ticking 6.4 seconds to every 8 of hers.
Except, she does.
One Brow said: "Fowler does not claim otherwise."
Fowler clearly says that, applying the LT, Jill DENIES that 10 seconds have passed on Jill's clock,
I assume you mean Jack's clock. I agree with fowler. Jills measures 6.4 seconds to pass on jack's clock, not 10.
while you have her using it to AFFIRM that 10 seconds passed on Jack's clock.
Jill can use the LT to calculate what Jack measures. I'm not sure how this qualifies as "AFFIRM".
So he clearly says "otherwise."
Fowler and I are saying the exact same thing.
One Brow said: "Name the mistakes."
The claims you are making are so mixe up and irrelevant that they're "not even wrong."
You don't have that problem. Your claims are as mixed-up as you claim mine to be, but they are definately wrong.
You started two new threads where you somehow calculated a "rate" which you applied uniformly to the whole trip. This is an obvious mistake.
At which point does the rate change?
When Jill sees "-6" Jack's clock reads 0, so the images of -5,-4, -3,-2, and -1 are already "in transit.
Agreed, from Jack's frame of reference.
Image 0 is being transmitted "now" and all other images will be transmitted in the future.
Agreed, from Jack's frame of reference.
As an example, the image of 9 will not be transmitted until Jill has traveled 9/10th's of the total distance.
Agreed, from Jack's frame of reference.
At that point she will be less than 1/2 second away in her frame (.6 seconds away using Jack's clock). And when it leaves, she will be moving toward it at .6c, so, just approximating, it will strike her eye when is about 95% of the distance to the clock has already been covered.
Agreed, from Jack's frame of reference.
The point? She will see the images of -5 through +9 coming at a faster and faster rate, not a constant rate.
At what time on Jill's clock, precisely? Can you do the math?
You tried to apply the rate for the very first image to the whole series, but each successive image will need to travel a shorter and shorter distance to reach her.
Agreed. That was important to the calculation, in fact.
You can't just take the distance for the first image and apply it to all the remaining ones.
Agreed.
From wiki:"When the source of the waves is moving toward the observer, each successive wave crest is emitted from a position closer to the observer than the previous wave.
Agreed.
Therefore each wave takes slightly less time to reach the observer than the previous wave."
Agreed.
See that? "...each successive wave crest is emitted from a position closer to the observer than the previous wave."
Agreed. Now, at what point does the rate change, and in what fashion? Can you do the math to show it, or are you just making claims?
One Brow asked: "Agreed. Now, at what point does the rate change, and in what fashion? Can you do the math to show it, or are you just making claims?"
The rate is constantly changing. This link shows a graph involving satellite tracking via doppler over a 7 minute period:
http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Doppler.php
Among other things the text says: " As the satellite passes, the received frequency appears to fall but not in a constant manner. The rate of change starts off slow, is greatest at the time of closest approach and then tails off towards the end of the transit."
Per wiki: "If the source approaches the observer at an angle (but still with a constant velocity), the observed frequency that is first heard is higher than the object's emitted frequency. Thereafter, there is a monotonic decrease in the observed frequency as it gets closer to the observer, through equality when it is closest to the observer, and a continued monotonic decrease as it recedes from the observer. When the observer is very close to the path of the object, the transition from high to low frequency is very abrupt. When the observer is far from the path of the object, the transition from high to low frequency is gradual."
There is a gradual, ever-changing, frequency shift, on both approach and recession. It is not one constant rate.
The doppler shift formula applies to a given observation at a particular time. You can also get an "average" rate of change, over time and distance, but that will not reflect the instantaneous rate. Just like a person who "averages" 50 mph by car from St. Louis to Los Angeles never travels at exactly 50 mph every inch of the way. It is merely an average, and it is NOT constant from second to second.
I've already pointed this out. You said you had learned your lesson. Fraid not.
Post a Comment