Your claim of "Bullshit" does not clearly define the point you wish to make.
[A] Scientist defends Truth.
[A] Fanatic - religious dogma.
(Indefinite articles added to make the Russian-to-English grammatically correct. Abuse of color and font removed to make the post civil.) Your sloganeering is reminiscent of
Mao's Little Red Book. However it does not accurately portray the role and work of scientists. Truth is under the jurisdiction of philosophers who claim to be able to define it and logicians and mathematicians who claim to be able to manipulate it with precision. Scientists work with observations of phenomena and models of classes of phenomena -- keeping only the models that best match the observations. So if you want a more accurate slogan, perhaps:
"Science is a precise, communicable description of phenomena. -- Наука точного описания явлений, которые можно научить других." We know it's precise because scientific theories get tested over and over. We know that it is communicable because scientific papers are cited when their ideas or observations are reused.
Your parable about blind people creating a hypothetical generalized Galilean transform where $$K^{\tiny -\frac{1}{2}}$$ is the speed of sound is inapposite to the reasoning that lead to the development of special relativity. For example, within the precision of experiments to distinguish the difference, the speed of sound is not constant relative to the observers, but relative to the air. Thus
post #602 supports my claim that you do not understand special relativity.
coordinates are not real -- they are man-made inventions to describe geometry in the language of number and algebra.
There is no such thing as a real coordinate system. In Newtonian theory or Special Relativity, all inertial coordinate systems are special in that inertial motion in an inertial coordinate system is always linear motion. Further, Galilean and Lorentz transformations give us two separate alternatives for converting between inertial coordinate systems. Further, all experiments precise enough to favor one alternative over the other favors Special Relativity over Galileo and Newton.
Master theory is not up to the task because what is Master-transformed cannot be Master-transformed back such that Alice to Bob to Alice is not the same as Alice to Alice (i.e. no transformation).
Space time has, under every test we have ever run, the same local structure as the hyperbolic geometry of Minkowski space. So if we do form different inertial coordinate systems we can be assured that $$c^2 ( \Delta t)^2 - \vec{\Delta x}^2 = c^2 ( \Delta t')^2 - \vec{\Delta x'}^2$$ and calling the different man-made coordinate systems names like "real" or "visual" doesn't change the fact they are both equally man-made inventions bases on human choices of origins and standards of rest.
Why would Masterov want to criticize special relativity when he has never understood it, or coordinates, or linear algebra or analytic geometry? For years he raise the same feeble strawmen and kicks them over without doing the slightest damage to the world of facts and engineering that demonstrate special relativity works.
...
Why would Masterov want to criticize special relativity when he has never understood it, or coordinates, or linear algebra or analytic geometry? For years he raise the same feeble strawmen and kicks them over without doing the slightest damage to the world of facts and engineering that demonstrate special relativity works.
You're the first one who told me about this.
Surely not. Everyone who understands special relativity and bothers to respond to your posts tells you that you do not understand special relativity.
James R started
a thread just to teach you what an inertial coordinate system was. You failed to recognize linear algebra as a valid way to describe linear motion in
post #611 and many others. And my post
#765 discussed analytic geometry in the context of a Euclidean plane in a way analogous to the Lorentz transform.
You have no any arguments in physics, and you look them up somewhere else.
My arguments are my own. What I look up are facts. I looked up the facts of what the Bertozzi paper said. I looked up the facts of
what the Fan paper measured (and specifically
what it did not measure). I looked up what speed and energies
the OPERA experiment measured. And I looked up the facts about the GPS system
directly confirming the predictions of Relativity with respect to clock timings.
Why would Masterov want to criticize special relativity when he has never understood it, or coordinates, or linear algebra or analytic geometry? For years he raise the same feeble strawmen and kicks them over without doing the slightest damage to the world of facts and engineering that demonstrate special relativity works.
What's not to understand? Masterov have both experimental results and theoretical justification.
I entirely disagree. Theoretically, Masterov's theory is ill-defined and self-contradictory. Experimentally, it is contraindicated by everyday experience.
Because while I think trying to fix a persecution complex and delusional thinking is a fundamentally doomed effort, I am curious what motivated you to fixate on special relativity when you lack the math background to discuss linear motion or the physics background to discuss the inadequacies of the experimental design of the Fan paper. You must have some motive. I suspect it is envy of the respect that Einstein received plus an overreliance on the popular saying that Einstein was "only a Swiss patent clerk" in 1905 when in fact he was a newly minted Ph.D. Rather than being a physics outsider, he was there in turn-of-century Europe when Newtonian preconceptions were crumbling left and right.
Very typical question in a situation in Confessors SRT code is not provided arguments.
This question is significant.
I have no idea what this could mean. Neither "кода" nor "исповедников" makes sense to me in this context.
In Russia, the accusation of anti-Semitism after of this question (as a rule).
(But what to do if there are no more arguments?)
A major source of anti-Einstein rants on the Internet is in fact anti-Semitic websites. Perhaps this is true in Russian web pages as well.
An accusations of anti-Semitism are another (often used in Russia) vile method of protecting SRT.
No, anti-Semitism is vile and some empty-headed attacks on Special Relativity do originate from anti-Semitic sources. The defense of Special Relativity, like all scientific theories, is based entirely on how well it agrees with facts. (Like the observations made by Fan.)
rpenner, your exercises with Lorentz transformations have no big physical meaning, because you are operating unreal coordinates.
While all coordinates are unreal, I am careful to use inertial coordinates which have the property that all inertial motions are described as linear relations. So Lorentz transforms do have physical meaning if they map linear motion to linear motion (they do), if physics ignoring gravity respects inertial motion (so Newton and all since have told us), and if experiment agrees better with Lorentz transforms ($$K = c^{\tiny -2}$$) than Galilean transforms ($$K=0$$), which every precision measurement since 1859 agrees they do.
Lorentz transformations do convert visual coordinates and visual time. Visual coordinates do not have much physical meaning, as well as the acoustic coordinates.
By "visual coordinates", I suspect you mean the geometric effect of the finite speed of the propagation of light. The concept is not unknown to physics, being a major part of the theory of electrodynamics and taught as an advanced subject to all physics majors who would better known them as "retarded coordinates." However application of retarded coordinates do not map slower-than-light movement to slower-than-light movement or linear movement to linear movement.
If a body in inertial coordinates is described as $$\vec{R}(t) = \vec{R}_0 + \vec{u} t$$ then its position in retarded coordinates is
$$\vec{r}(t) = \vec{R}_0 + \vec{u} \; \left( t + \frac{ ( \vec{R}_0 + \vec{u} t ) \cdot \vec{u} }{c^2 - \vec{u}^2} - \frac{\sqrt{\left[ ( \vec{R}_0 + \vec{u} t ) \cdot \vec{u} \right]^2 + ( \vec{R}_0 + \vec{u} t )^2 (c^2 -\vec{u}^2)}}{c^2 -\vec{u}^2} \right)$$
Only for special applications it makes sense to consider the visual coordinates.
But it makes sense to learn what visual coordinates mean and what Lorentz transformations mean before equating them.
One twin sleeps in a bed, and the other twin is sleeping in a spaceship.
You state that time of spaceship are slower.
What (what is name of it? what and in what physical quantities measure it? what does it depend?) physical parameter responsible for the rate of flow of time in a space ship?
The question is improper. Both the bed-sleeper and the spaceship-sleeper are in inertial states of motion. Thus both are motionless in a coordinate system where their inertial state of motion is defined to be at rest.
So if we are using the spaceship-centric coordinates then the bed is moving at velocity $$-\vec{v}$$. And if we are using the bed-centric coordinates then the spaceship is moving at velocity $$+\vec{v}$$.
So each second of bed time is $$\gamma$$ seconds of spaceship time AND $$- \gamma \vec{v} \times 1 \; \textrm{second}$$ meters of spatial position change.
And each second of spaceship time is $$\gamma$$ seconds of bed time AND $$\gamma \vec{v} \times 1 \; \textrm{second}$$ meters of spatial position change.
Bed-time and spaceship-time are apples and oranges but bed-space-time and spaceship-space-time are apples and apples and can be equated without contradiction.
Hi rpenner.
Yes, we all know by now your own personal/scientific ethics/standards. Nuff said about that.
If you love me so much, why don't you learn physics?
As for answering Masterov's question, I refer you to my above post to przyk. Neither his allusion to electromagnetism or anything else has answered the question as put by Masterov.
Masterov must shed his preconceptions before can ask meaningful questions. Here his questions appear to be misunderstandings of what AlphaNumeric said. Misunderstandings that date back to at least
post #730, and not any position taken by Przyk.
And neither does your mathematical calculations in hyperbolic geometry answer it.
Sure they do. $$K=c^{\tiny -2}$$ means the generalized Galilean transform preserves $$\tau = \frac{1}{c} \sqrt{ (c \Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x})^2 }$$ for any two events along any inertial worldline. This generalizes to accelerated motion without requiring any physical changes to matter which is why an electron's mass is defined in its rest frame.
It would make a nice change if someone who professes to be the 'expert' would actually answer the question as put rather than beating all around it and pretending they have done so.
It would be a nice change if people taking issue with relativity would exhibit skill at physics. I invite comments from the moderators about what would be nice changes of all and any poster's behaviors.
Thanks in anticipation of an expert opinion to the point without all the personal sideplay/evasion tactics.
For someone who professes a distaste for personal sideplay, you sure seem to make many veiled personal comments.
Hi przyk.
Masterov has asked you this more than once now...
przyk, уou argue that the physical properties of matter are change by acceleration, and it leads to slower time?
1. What are these physical properties of matter. Name it.
2. Assume that the acceleration can result to time dilation.
One would assume that the braking do time acceleration.
But braking is no different from the acceleration.
The difference has in the direction and in the terminology.
If the acceleration do time dilation, then what do time-acceleration, to return time to its original state?
Can you answer it directly without invoking explanations which do not address the point of his question as put? Just saying electromagnetism etc etc does not answer what causes the original acceleration to dilate time
and the subsequent DE-celeration to UN-dilate it back to the starting rate. What is that parameter unique to each whatever frame they are in?[/b]
I am most curious to see the answer to THAT point/question rather than going all around the houses to avoid doing so as you and others seem happy to do again and again.
I haven't bothered with that question because it is the wrong question to ask in the first place: relativistic effects are directly associated with relative velocity, not acceleration. In fact, if we do the exercise of working out e.g. what happens to the orbital period of an electron orbiting a nucleus as we accelerate the whole system, normally to get the time dilation factor predicted by relativity we have to assume that the whole system is being accelerated gently enough so that any additional effects due to acceleration are negligible.
If I quickly accelerate you at a rate of 10000
g up to a speed near the speed of light, I don't expect the result just to be you continuing to age as you would otherwise have done, except more slowly. I would instead expect the rapid acceleration to kill you outright, and for whatever was left moving near the speed of light not to resemble you much as you are now at all.
Acceleration is a change of velocity. Not matter how rapid or gradual it is the total change of velocity that matters because this defines the Lorentz transform required to convert the initial inertial coordinate system where the object is at rest to a new inertial coordinate system where the object is at rest. Special Relativity, of itself, does not put a bound on the acceleration of generic objects. It is self-consistent to model Compton scattering as a instantaneous change of velocity of point-like electrons, for example.
Now we are getting to the nub of why that question needed to be asked. For if as in SR all motion of a body is merely 'relative' to some other body, then there is no basis for saying that acceleration/deceleration affecting clocks per se so that they read differently when accelerated to some constant velocity 'relative' to the other body and then DE-accelerated to a velocity to coincide with that other body at the end of the 'round trip'.
Acceleration implies change of velocity; change of velocity implies change of direction of the proper time vector of the object, which is a geometrical effect in space-time independent of coordinate systems.
See? There must be another factor at play 'with respect to space' and not just 'with respect to other body'.
Your point here is unclear. Are you claiming there is a universal state of motionlessness which is respected by the laws of physics? That is not necessary for the success of special relativity, general relativity, electromagnetism or quantum field theory.
And anyway, when one invokes just such acceleration frames etc to 'explain' the 'paradox' of SR, then it is not I or Masterov who has introduced those other factors; it is the 'SR explainers' who introduced it.
This is not needed to explain anything -- it was intended as a teaching tool and then serially misunderstood until it reached Masterov's garbled questions.
You can't have it both ways: one way you claim no other factors are relevant in SR; the other way you depend on such other factors to 'explain' SR illusions of both clocks being affected solely due to SR...BUT now you tacitly admit that acceleration/deceleration/velocities/motion per se 'with respect to "something else"' really IS THE factor which makes the reality effects/explanation trump the purely SR abstract relative treatment/explanation (although you still haven't answered Masterov's question/point about the unique parameters affecting either body's time (acceleration caused 'dilation/slowing'; deceleration caused 'recovery/re-quickening' of time rate in the traveling frame as you have just confirmed happens when acceleration/deceleration leads to new/recovered constant velocity in 'round trip').
The treatment of the instantaneous at-rest inertial frame of an accelerated object is pure SR. You just need calculus to figure out the answer just like your need calculus in Euclidean geometry to find properties of generic curves.
Thanks. You have been most helpful.
Fake civility. Thank you would be appropriate if you learned something.
Though a mere nonscientific but nonetheless very interested observer, I'm following this thread with great interest and am really enjoying it.
I think Reality Check's two most recent posts are very civil, cogent, and really, get to the heart of the problem as expressed by Masterov.
I disagree. RealityCheck, Fan and Masterov all have separate pet theories. They are in no sense allies of the truth for they are not true allies of each other. They cherry pick pieces of disagreement with post-1859 physics so as to present the illusion of an allied front against the oppressive brunt of reality.
Hopefully the respondants can answer it in an equally cogent and civil manner.
I aspire to better in cogent and not at all with respect to civil. How am I doing?
The geometry for our universe could not exist without a support structure for light/electromagnetic fields. That's why time dilation and length contraction are tied to the speed of light. That's why matter and anti-matter annihilate in a flash of light (gamma rays).
Actually, only electrically charged fundamental particles annihilate in gamma rays. Einstein died in 1955 before the chromodynamic force was discovered or the electro-weak forces was well understood, so his attempts at a Unified Field Theory would be wrong-headed no matter how smart he was. And if (as I suspect) you are advocating a single luminiferous aether, Fizeau's 1859 measurements of the refractive index of moving water combined with the frequency-dependent nature of the refractive index of water implies a vast number of different luminiferous aethers. With evidence from other lines of investigation, this nineteenth century idea is fundamentally unworkable.
For if as in SR all motion of a body is merely 'relative' to some other body, then there is no basis for saying that acceleration/deceleration affecting clocks per se so that they read differently when accelerated to some constant velocity 'relative' to the other body and then DE-accelerated to a velocity to coincide with that other body at the end of the 'round trip'.
I don't see your point. In SR, all relativistic effects depend on relative velocity, but the effects, such as time dilation and length contraction, are also themselves relative.
For example: The difference between space and time is coordinate-frame-dependent. The geometry of space-time is coordinate-independent.
And anyway, when one invokes just such acceleration frames etc to 'explain' the 'paradox' of SR, then it is not I or Masterov who has introduced those other factors; it is the 'SR explainers' who introduced it.
We introduce it because the normal, simple descriptions of relativistic effects are all given relative to inertial (non-accelerating) coordinate systems. So when someone tries to use e.g. the time dilation formula in the travelling twin's frame in the twin paradox, and "deduces" that the earth bound twin should be younger when the travelling twin returns, the simple resolution to that is to point out that the conclusion simply doesn't follow because they used equations specific to inertial frames in an accelerating frame.
Of course, it's still possible to look in more detail at what happens from the perspective of an accelerating observer, though we usually avoid that because it's not all that interesting or illuminating. If you insist on doing it anyway, then you find that the "resolution" to the paradox is that the accelerating observer's concept of simultaneity changes as their relative velocity changes. This is important because when the travelling twin asks "how old is my twin on Earth right now", they're invoking a notion of simultaneity or synchronicity to compare their own age with the age of their twin on Earth who is a long distance away. As they accelerate, their idea of "now" when comparing the age of their twin on Earth with their own age changes. If you account for that literally, then you find that the Earth twin ages very rapidly from the travelling twin's perspective as the travelling twin accelerates back toward Earth.
The reason I say this isn't very interesting or illuminating is because it doesn't describe literally what the travelling twin would see if they looked at their twin on Earth through a telescope (they both see each other Doppler shifted), and they wouldn't be able to measure it directly in any practical way. Think of how you'd do that if you were the travelling twin: you would need a whole series of clocks suspended throughout space but moving along with you (so you could always measure your twin's age compared with one of your own clocks that was passing very near him at the time), and always carefully kept in their correct positions relative to each other and with the correct synchronisation enforced, at least during the periods of your trip when you weren't accelerating. That's obviously not a very practical arrangement, and the fact you'd measure your Earth twin to be ageing very rapidly just because you carefully kept your clocks synchronised a certain way isn't all that illuminating.
1. Thank you for your post. I'm tired demand the answer to this question. Maybe we (two) will be able to get them to respond or admit defeat.
A third alternative: Learn special relativity so that you may talk about it instead of straw-men.
2. At the moment my opponents put pressure on the brain moderator, requiring ban for me. SRT-lobbyists do not stop at nothing to protect the religious doctrine of Einstein.
Is the "brain-moderator" some sort of super ego? Are you talking about your "opponents" (I would say educators) here, or are you talking about a shadowy cabal of ex-Soviet mind police? When you say "ban" are you suggesting your behavior in this thread is worthy of being banned (or suspended) from this forum, or are you proposing a self-imposed rest from non-contributions to science?
Speeds of the brothers are identical.
If the deceleration time depends on the speed, then why this slowdown has only one brother?
the reason "why" the twin paradox always has one and only one answer of which twin is younger and by how much is one of space-time (hyperbolic) geometry.
Imagine a triangle of slower-than-light paths through space time. You can get from A to B via an inertial path, or you can get from A to C and then from C to B.
So the twin paradox is equivalent to saying that the inertial path has the largest proper time of any slower-than-light path from A to B.
Or "the straight line is the longest path between to points in space-time."
...
$$ \tau_{AB} \ge \tau_{AC} + \tau_{CB} $$.
And so the statement "An inertial path between two causality related events is the path with the longest elapsed proper time" does not depend on any of the three legs of the triangle being at rest in the chosen coordinate system. It is a matter of simple (hyperbolic) geometry and doesn't have anything to do with coordinates at all. Coordinates only help in specifying precisely which events we are talking about so we can calculate exactly how different the twin's ages are when they reunites at the same event in space-time (B).
So this has been asked and answered, Masterov, on the same page! Inertial motion is special to Newton. Inertial motion is also special in special relativity.
Mazulu, I have said many times and I repeat again: the necessity of time dilation does not follow from the invariance of the speed of light. Slowing down time is a consequence of absolute cross-scale (y '= y and z' = z).
If you to do relativity for all the coordinates (not just longitudinal), then the necessity of time dilation can disappear.
See
Master Theory (edition 3).
Self-advertising aside, you never established the physical difference between "real" and "visual" coordinates in "Master theory". In Galilean Relativity and Special Relativity and Newtonian physics all states of inertial motion are physically equivalent to each other. Both Galilean and Lorentz transforms are defined as transforming coordinates where one state of motion is motionless to a different set of coordinates for the same space-time where another state of motion is motionless. The only difference between them is K.
The Galilean and Lorentz transforms do not change the laws of physics because they don't change space time if the choice of K is correct. The Galilean transform preserves length in space. The Lorentz transform preserves proper time or equivalently an analogue of length in hyperbolic geometry. The "Master theory" transform preserves neither and so implies a vastly privileged frame of reference and physical laws never observed to be in evidence. But as long as you continue to misunderstand what special relativity says, you can't correctly compare the predictions of special relativity with experiment.
How can the necessity of time dilation disappear? Time dilation is a measurable. All velocities are gauged against the speed of light, c. The only possible reason why this could be is that the speed of light is built into the very fabric of space-time, itself.
Correct, except "fabric" is a metaphor -- an analogy with strengths and weaknesses ; and except that velocities are not so much gauged against c but rather c is a privileged velocity.
Given that wave-function mathematics is so prominent in quantum mechanics, then the two puzzle pieces fit together:
I think you mean quantum field theory. c does not appear in quantum mechanics which is classical in the sense that there is no upper limit on the speed information or particles propagate.
the fabric of space-time is made of aether waves (mathematically described as wave-functions); these waves obey $$c=\lambda f$$. If everything is made of aether waves (which has the speed of light built into them) then all velocities are gauged with respect to the aether, and are therefore gauged with respect to the speed of light. Einstein was right; he just didn't go far enough.
As I pointed out earlier, Einstein couldn't go far enough because he didn't have access to information about what causes radioactive decay or holds the nucleus together. You, on the other hand, are not following in Einstein's footsteps and are walking a separate path into error.
You are a victim of fraud.
Who told the lies? For the profit of whom? Where is the evidence?
No exist experiments that reliable proved the existence of a time dilation.
Except Hafele–Keating and repetitions, some of which were televised, Pound-Rebka, Ives–Stilwell, Hay-Schiffer-Cranshaw-Egelstaff, the GPS system and various repeats, and indirect evidence from other sources. See
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys778 and
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
The time dilation in experiment of measurements of relativistic effects occurs in the assumption that the matter can not travel faster than light. But this assumption is no proven.
Please demonstrate this assumption in the experimental procedure or analysis of any of these experiments.
I asked alls to show us a data of the measurements of relativistic effects, which were obtained by GPS satellites.
brucep promised long ago.
Where are a data of the measurements of relativistic effects?
No show.
Hello? I told you this back in
Post #765. I even quoted the most relevant paragraph with the data so you wouldn't have to read the whole article.
Listen to the tales of efir I will not, because no one is never explained why us need this "Fifth wheel in the cart".
efir = luminiferous aether. Masterov is not prepared to support Mazulu's idea.
Here, Masterov again demonstrates that he hasn't done very much research.
...
Masterov is either in denial or taking the piss.
All very good points, but I wanted to translate "taking the piss" into Basic English. Fortunately there is a Wikipedia page on it. In this context it means being unreasonable, and in contrast to being in denial, it probably means being deliberately unreasonable.
I think it is fair to translate arfa brane as saying Masterov is ignoring evidence based on personal emotion or making the intellectual choice to ignore evidence. So bad science either way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss
