I am very ill.Things that make you go, hmmm
I find it hard to communicate.
All the more difficult for me to understand your sentence, which do not have any sense.
I think you're just really stupid.
Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
I find it hard to communicate.
All the more difficult for me to understand your sentence, which do not have any sense.
I think you're just really stupid.
I agree, Masterov- I'm really stupid.
Hi OnlyMe; apologies for the late reply. Also for the repetition of things said earlier, but it seems necessary in order to reply to your post.
Lakon, if what you are looking for is an understanding of, or better understanding of physics, you would be best served by looking to, the posts and answers of those on any discussion group who actually understand, what we currently know about physics.
I am comfortable with my understanding of the world and it's physics. If I put my mind to it, I can come to terms with any novel subject - to a level sufficient for me to say to myself "Yeah, I get that". The vast majority of people who seek to understand the world around them, even the most complex aspects of it, don't go and get degrees in each subject.
You can gain insights from "alternative" and "fringe" ideas and discussion, but you will not find those insights unless you first understand the subject area.
And it seems the only way I can understand time dilation, i.e., how my twin would come back to me physically 10 years younger, is if I learn the mathematics. But as has been stated by many great scientists, mathematics is a language.
So it's like saying I have to learn Ancient Greek (as example) before I can understand the voluminous works of Plato or the epics of Homer. But that is not the case at all. Various translators (primarily Jowett, circa 1870) have done a remarkable job at translating them for the world. So much so, that those authors vast intellect, high ideas, their physics and metaphysics .. all the subtleties thereof, come shining through in Modern English.
I contend therefore, that science should be able to do the same - that is, translate it's ideas to me in Modern English, and without me having to learn another language.
And in most cases science DOES this - and very well too. When it comes to time dilation however, I am told "nope, sorry, you MUST go and learn this other language first"
I reply "nope, sorry, I cannot - I am unable or unwilling"
Science replies "well, you cannot know it then"
I resile from that, thinking to myself .. "wait a minute, this sounds like mysticism .. I know very well that I have a good ability to grasp complex ideas .. why aren't they able to translate this one to me .. they must be doing business with themselves" .. that sort of thing.
Masterov, has generated a great deal of good commentary and explanation. However, it has all come from knowledgeable persons responding to him, not from him.
Well, at my level, Masterovs post #1072 is poignant, and encapsulates his arguments these last thousand or more posts. Have I seen responses to these arguments ? No - not in my language - Modern English - a language which I am entitled to rely upon, to understand science as much as I rely upon it to understand the vast and complex intellect and ideas of Plato, Homer, etc.
This is why I asked rpenner to respond to it (Masterov's post #1072) and in like terms. Because I was UNDERSTANDING something, and wanted to continue to do so.
There is nothing wrong with science fiction, as long as you understand that it is fiction.
I'm no great fan of science fiction thought I might remark here, that sometimes today's science fiction is tomorrows science fact.
What Masterov, promotes is not only fiction, it is bad fiction. This may be in part the result of past oppressions experienced in the Soviet Union.
As a young lad, I too had some powerful experiences of oppression in my home country - I speak of the Greek Military Junta during the late 60's / early 70's. My family and I lived in the epicentre of it in Athens. You cannot imagine .. I could write reams ..
Then again, untold numbers of people experience oppression. It does not follow that they end up with a distorted view of the world. Perhaps something approximating the opposite could be the case. Think about that !
That does not excuse the fact that in the world today and the open free information exchange he now has access to, he continues to deny, even the fundamental and experimentally proven basis of everything we know of theoretical physics...
It all starts with SR.., and Masterov begins by denying SR.
Theoretical physics, yes - glad you said that. I am not jumping onto Masterovs bandwagon. ALL I am saying, is, perhaps, distilled into a few short words (a la Masterov) ..
What is the physical mechanism that causes time dilation ?
If my twin came back to me physically and actually 10 years younger, WHAT is the physical mechanism that caused that, for surely, there must be one. Or are we pitching to the metaphysical, mystical, magical ?
Try as I might, I cannot move the pen on my desk with anything other than a physical force - a real, tangible one. I tried metaphysics, mysticism, magic, the power of positive thinking .. even French, Italian, Greek ...
None worked.
Similarly, I'll bet that if my head was full of the most accomplished mathematical knowledge, I still couldn't do it without applying an actual force, the mathematical knowledge and interpretation of which, would be moot.
So, if what you are interested in is the real world, listen to those who have been repeatedly correcting Masterov's biased denial
And I WAS listening - which is why I asked rpenner if he could respond to Masterovs said post in terms put by Masterov, which I had some hope of understanding.
Lakon, if what you are looking for is an understanding of, or better understanding of physics, you would be best served by looking to, the posts and answers of those on any discussion group who actually understand, what we currently know about physics.
I am comfortable with my understanding of the world and it's physics. If I put my mind to it, I can come to terms with any novel subject - to a level sufficient for me to say to myself "Yeah, I get that". The vast majority of people who seek to understand the world around them, even the most complex aspects of it, don't go and get degrees in each subject.
You can gain insights from "alternative" and "fringe" ideas and discussion, but you will not find those insights unless you first understand the subject area.
And it seems the only way I can understand time dilation, i.e., how my twin would come back to me physically 10 years younger, is if I learn the mathematics. But as has been stated by many great scientists, mathematics is a language.
So it's like saying I have to learn Ancient Greek (as example) before I can understand the voluminous works of Plato or the epics of Homer. But that is not the case at all. Various translators (primarily Jowett, circa 1870) have done a remarkable job at translating them for the world. So much so, that those authors vast intellect, high ideas, their physics and metaphysics .. all the subtleties thereof, come shining through in Modern English.
I contend therefore, that science should be able to do the same - that is, translate it's ideas to me in Modern English, and without me having to learn another language.
And in most cases science DOES this - and very well too. When it comes to time dilation however, I am told "nope, sorry, you MUST go and learn this other language first"
I reply "nope, sorry, I cannot - I am unable or unwilling"
Science replies "well, you cannot know it then"
I resile from that, thinking to myself .. "wait a minute, this sounds like mysticism .. I know very well that I have a good ability to grasp complex ideas .. why aren't they able to translate this one to me .. they must be doing business with themselves" .. that sort of thing.
Masterov, has generated a great deal of good commentary and explanation. However, it has all come from knowledgeable persons responding to him, not from him.
Well, at my level, Masterovs post #1072 is poignant, and encapsulates his arguments these last thousand or more posts. Have I seen responses to these arguments ? No - not in my language - Modern English - a language which I am entitled to rely upon, to understand science as much as I rely upon it to understand the vast and complex intellect and ideas of Plato, Homer, etc.
This is why I asked rpenner to respond to it (Masterov's post #1072) and in like terms. Because I was UNDERSTANDING something, and wanted to continue to do so.
There is nothing wrong with science fiction, as long as you understand that it is fiction.
I'm no great fan of science fiction thought I might remark here, that sometimes today's science fiction is tomorrows science fact.
What Masterov, promotes is not only fiction, it is bad fiction. This may be in part the result of past oppressions experienced in the Soviet Union.
As a young lad, I too had some powerful experiences of oppression in my home country - I speak of the Greek Military Junta during the late 60's / early 70's. My family and I lived in the epicentre of it in Athens. You cannot imagine .. I could write reams ..
Then again, untold numbers of people experience oppression. It does not follow that they end up with a distorted view of the world. Perhaps something approximating the opposite could be the case. Think about that !
That does not excuse the fact that in the world today and the open free information exchange he now has access to, he continues to deny, even the fundamental and experimentally proven basis of everything we know of theoretical physics...
It all starts with SR.., and Masterov begins by denying SR.
Theoretical physics, yes - glad you said that. I am not jumping onto Masterovs bandwagon. ALL I am saying, is, perhaps, distilled into a few short words (a la Masterov) ..
What is the physical mechanism that causes time dilation ?
If my twin came back to me physically and actually 10 years younger, WHAT is the physical mechanism that caused that, for surely, there must be one. Or are we pitching to the metaphysical, mystical, magical ?
Try as I might, I cannot move the pen on my desk with anything other than a physical force - a real, tangible one. I tried metaphysics, mysticism, magic, the power of positive thinking .. even French, Italian, Greek ...
None worked.
Similarly, I'll bet that if my head was full of the most accomplished mathematical knowledge, I still couldn't do it without applying an actual force, the mathematical knowledge and interpretation of which, would be moot.
So, if what you are interested in is the real world, listen to those who have been repeatedly correcting Masterov's biased denial
And I WAS listening - which is why I asked rpenner if he could respond to Masterovs said post in terms put by Masterov, which I had some hope of understanding.
While the theories discussed here do not even begin to address the mechanism, they only describe the experience and observations that lead to that conclusion, I'll give you the short answer as I see it — inertia. But then the detail of how that is, lies again not in the theories discussed here, rather they will be found within the context of QM.
As mentioned above the physical mechanism is inertia. But understanding that time dilation does occur does not require an understanding of how inertia emerges.., to be the mechanism. It is a fact that clocks in motion run at a slower rate than clocks at rest. Tested and proven true. Clocks are the rulers we use to measure time, so if the ruler you are using is running slower when you are moving than it was when you were at rest, you are experiencing time dilation and will age slower, than you would have, had you remained at rest. (all mentions of at rest are naturally intended to be assumed as at relative rest)
However, you must keep in mind that no one has proven what the mechanism is or how it works, beyond a variety of theoretical explorations. Both SR and GR do no better than to describe and predict, what we do and will observe and experience. Neither one, says how or why, things are the way they are.
One further note, you do not need to have a masters in mathematics to understand SR. It is a great help where GR is concerned. Understanding the math just makes grasping the conceptual model(s) and discussing and describing them easier.
As always, thanks for your intelligent yet comprehensible reply. Much I could ask, but rather, I'll think for a while - perhaps a long one.
Please answer this simple question:
Why is the distance between the mirrors (L) is absolute?
If $$L'=L\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$ then $$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation
Please answer this simple question:
Why is the distance between the mirrors (L) is absolute?
If $$L'=L\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$ then $$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation
....because the Lorentz transforms result into length contraction ONLY in the direction colinear with the direction of the velocity between frames. There is NO length contraction in the transverse direction, this falls out straight from the Lorentz transforms. Of course, if you got to live another hundred years (thankfully, you won't) you'd still ask this question.
rpenner didn't answer THIS specific question, he answered a lot of others. To no avail.
You know... I didn't bother to scroll up and actually read it at this point.... 55 pages in... To no avail is the key word. No, he's right. I'm just stupid. We're all stupid. Except Masturov, the genius that trumps everyone.
I just answered his question in post 1088. BTW, his name is Masterov.
Basically, while science ignores coordinate-based views as man-made and has moved on to deal with the geometry of space-time, Masterov rejects experiment and enshrines coordinates to the exclusion of physics.
In that he is nearly mathless, he has been unable to distinguish questions about coordinates from questions about physics and his proposed Masterov transformation (at least the one articulated as tranform of coordinates) does not meet the minimum requirements of a coordinate transform that preserves physics, in that its determinant ( for non-zero parameter v ) is always < 1 and therefore his transform of coordinates has no inverse transform in the same family. In that he rejects input from physical experiments best explained by General Relativity demonstrates he is not ready to talk about real things, only the baseless ideas in his head. And in that he enshrines length to the point of barely talking about how a space-time transform mixes up space and time coordinates in a way analogous to a rotation shows that his understanding of special relativity is very weak.
This sub-forum "Alternative Theories", like "Pseudoscience" is a dumping ground for posters that will not or can not work with precise communicable systems for predicting the outcome of a wide field of phenomena and confront those with experimental results. It in no way suggests that the posters whose threads are found here have viable alternatives to science. Indeed, Masterov is entirely typical in that he criticizes Special Relativity without communicable reason. He neither has experimental results that contradict the predictions of special relativity in an applicable problem domain nor has he bothered to understand how length contraction is part-and-parcel of a self-consistent theory describing events in space-time and so can't speak to the question of whether special relativity is internally consistent or not. Indeed, the experimentalist whose paper kicked off this thread is so bad that he didn't measure the values needed to prove his point, and where he did measure values they were more consistent with $$K=c^{-2}$$ (Einstein) than $$K=0$$ (Galileo, Newton) or $$K=-c^{-2}$$ (Fan -- the author of the paper).
As for why the component of spatial separation between objects in special relativity is invariant when perpendicular to the direction of the Lorentz transformation parameter, that is because the space-time transform mixes up the spatial coordinates parallel to the parameter and the time coordinates, $$\Delta t' = \frac{c \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} - \frac{\vec{v} \cdot \Delta \vec{x}}{c \sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} \, \quad \quad \Delta \vec{x}' = \Delta \vec{x} + \frac{c - sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}}{\vec{v}^2 sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}} (\vec{v} \cdot \Delta \vec{x}) \vec{v} - \frac{c \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} \vec{v} $$, while preserving the physically important invariant $$c^2 (\Delta t')^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}')^2 = c^2 (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x})^2$$ and having an inverse of the same form and because the standard changes the standard of rest.
Assume $$\Delta \vec{x}_{\parallel} = k \vec{v} \Delta t$$ then $$\Delta \vec{x} = \Delta \vec{x}_{\parallel}+ \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp}= k v \Delta t + \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp}$$. Then $$\vec{v} \cdot \Delta \vec{x} = k \vec{v}^2 \Delta t$$
And we have
$$c \Delta t' = \frac{c^2 \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} - \frac{\left( 1 + (k - 1) \right) \vec{v}^2 \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} = \sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2} \Delta t + \frac{\left( 1 - k \right) \vec{v}^2 }{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} \Delta t
\\ \Delta \vec{x}' = k \vec{v} \Delta t + \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} + \frac{c }{ sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}} ( k \Delta t) \vec{v} - \frac{sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}}{ sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}} ( k \Delta t) \vec{v} - \frac{c \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} k \vec{v} - \frac{c \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} ( 1 - k ) \vec{v} = \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} + \frac{( k - 1 ) }{\sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}} c \vec{v} \Delta t
\\ (c \Delta t')^2 = \left( c^2 -\vec{v}^2 + 2 ( 1 - k ) \vec{v}^2 + \frac{( 1 - k )^2 \vec{v}^4 }{c^2-\vec{v}^2} \right) ( \Delta t )^2 = \left( c^2 + \vec{v}^2 - 2 k \vec{v}^2 + \frac{\vec{v}^2 ( 1 - k )^2 \vec{v}^2 }{c^2-\vec{v}^2} \right) ( \Delta t )^2
\\ ( \Delta \vec{x}' )^2 = \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2 + \frac{c^2 ( k - 1 )^2 \vec{v}^2}{c^2 - \vec{v}^2} ( \Delta t)^2
\\ (c \Delta t')^2 - ( \Delta \vec{x}' )^2 = \left( c^2 + \vec{v}^2 - 2 k \vec{v}^2 + \frac{\vec{v}^2 ( 1 - k )^2 \vec{v}^2 }{c^2-\vec{v}^2} - \frac{c^2 ( k - 1 )^2 \vec{v}^2}{c^2 - \vec{v}^2} \right) ( \Delta t )^2 - \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2
\\ \quad \quad \quad = \left( c^2 + \vec{v}^2 - 2 k \vec{v}^2 - \vec{v}^2 + 2 k \vec{v}^2 - k^2 \vec{v}^2 \right) ( \Delta t )^2 - \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2 = c^2 ( \Delta t )^2 - k^2 \vec{v}^2 ( \Delta t )^2 - \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2 = c^2 ( \Delta t )^2 - ( \Delta \vec{x}_{\parallel} )^2 - \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2 $$
So $$c^2 (\Delta t')^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}')^2 = c^2 (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x})^2$$ means $$c^2 (\Delta t')^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}'_{\parallel})^2 = c^2 (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}_{\parallel})^2$$ and $$ - (\Delta \vec{x}'_{\perp})^2 = - (\Delta \vec{x}_{\perp})^2$$
So just like rotation about the z-axis mixes up old-x and old-y coordinates to make new-x and new-y coordinates without changing z coordinates, so a Lorentz boost ( or a Galilean boost) mixes time and spatial displacement parallel to the velocity parameter while leaving the spatial displacement perpendicular to the velocity parameter untouched.
In that he is nearly mathless, he has been unable to distinguish questions about coordinates from questions about physics and his proposed Masterov transformation (at least the one articulated as tranform of coordinates) does not meet the minimum requirements of a coordinate transform that preserves physics, in that its determinant ( for non-zero parameter v ) is always < 1 and therefore his transform of coordinates has no inverse transform in the same family. In that he rejects input from physical experiments best explained by General Relativity demonstrates he is not ready to talk about real things, only the baseless ideas in his head. And in that he enshrines length to the point of barely talking about how a space-time transform mixes up space and time coordinates in a way analogous to a rotation shows that his understanding of special relativity is very weak.
This sub-forum "Alternative Theories", like "Pseudoscience" is a dumping ground for posters that will not or can not work with precise communicable systems for predicting the outcome of a wide field of phenomena and confront those with experimental results. It in no way suggests that the posters whose threads are found here have viable alternatives to science. Indeed, Masterov is entirely typical in that he criticizes Special Relativity without communicable reason. He neither has experimental results that contradict the predictions of special relativity in an applicable problem domain nor has he bothered to understand how length contraction is part-and-parcel of a self-consistent theory describing events in space-time and so can't speak to the question of whether special relativity is internally consistent or not. Indeed, the experimentalist whose paper kicked off this thread is so bad that he didn't measure the values needed to prove his point, and where he did measure values they were more consistent with $$K=c^{-2}$$ (Einstein) than $$K=0$$ (Galileo, Newton) or $$K=-c^{-2}$$ (Fan -- the author of the paper).
As for why the component of spatial separation between objects in special relativity is invariant when perpendicular to the direction of the Lorentz transformation parameter, that is because the space-time transform mixes up the spatial coordinates parallel to the parameter and the time coordinates, $$\Delta t' = \frac{c \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} - \frac{\vec{v} \cdot \Delta \vec{x}}{c \sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} \, \quad \quad \Delta \vec{x}' = \Delta \vec{x} + \frac{c - sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}}{\vec{v}^2 sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}} (\vec{v} \cdot \Delta \vec{x}) \vec{v} - \frac{c \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} \vec{v} $$, while preserving the physically important invariant $$c^2 (\Delta t')^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}')^2 = c^2 (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x})^2$$ and having an inverse of the same form and because the standard changes the standard of rest.
Assume $$\Delta \vec{x}_{\parallel} = k \vec{v} \Delta t$$ then $$\Delta \vec{x} = \Delta \vec{x}_{\parallel}+ \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp}= k v \Delta t + \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp}$$. Then $$\vec{v} \cdot \Delta \vec{x} = k \vec{v}^2 \Delta t$$
And we have
$$c \Delta t' = \frac{c^2 \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} - \frac{\left( 1 + (k - 1) \right) \vec{v}^2 \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} = \sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2} \Delta t + \frac{\left( 1 - k \right) \vec{v}^2 }{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} \Delta t
\\ \Delta \vec{x}' = k \vec{v} \Delta t + \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} + \frac{c }{ sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}} ( k \Delta t) \vec{v} - \frac{sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}}{ sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}} ( k \Delta t) \vec{v} - \frac{c \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} k \vec{v} - \frac{c \Delta t}{\sqrt{c^2-\vec{v}^2}} ( 1 - k ) \vec{v} = \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} + \frac{( k - 1 ) }{\sqrt{c^2 - \vec{v}^2}} c \vec{v} \Delta t
\\ (c \Delta t')^2 = \left( c^2 -\vec{v}^2 + 2 ( 1 - k ) \vec{v}^2 + \frac{( 1 - k )^2 \vec{v}^4 }{c^2-\vec{v}^2} \right) ( \Delta t )^2 = \left( c^2 + \vec{v}^2 - 2 k \vec{v}^2 + \frac{\vec{v}^2 ( 1 - k )^2 \vec{v}^2 }{c^2-\vec{v}^2} \right) ( \Delta t )^2
\\ ( \Delta \vec{x}' )^2 = \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2 + \frac{c^2 ( k - 1 )^2 \vec{v}^2}{c^2 - \vec{v}^2} ( \Delta t)^2
\\ (c \Delta t')^2 - ( \Delta \vec{x}' )^2 = \left( c^2 + \vec{v}^2 - 2 k \vec{v}^2 + \frac{\vec{v}^2 ( 1 - k )^2 \vec{v}^2 }{c^2-\vec{v}^2} - \frac{c^2 ( k - 1 )^2 \vec{v}^2}{c^2 - \vec{v}^2} \right) ( \Delta t )^2 - \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2
\\ \quad \quad \quad = \left( c^2 + \vec{v}^2 - 2 k \vec{v}^2 - \vec{v}^2 + 2 k \vec{v}^2 - k^2 \vec{v}^2 \right) ( \Delta t )^2 - \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2 = c^2 ( \Delta t )^2 - k^2 \vec{v}^2 ( \Delta t )^2 - \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2 = c^2 ( \Delta t )^2 - ( \Delta \vec{x}_{\parallel} )^2 - \left( \Delta \vec{x}_{\perp} \right)^2 $$
So $$c^2 (\Delta t')^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}')^2 = c^2 (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x})^2$$ means $$c^2 (\Delta t')^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}'_{\parallel})^2 = c^2 (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}_{\parallel})^2$$ and $$ - (\Delta \vec{x}'_{\perp})^2 = - (\Delta \vec{x}_{\perp})^2$$
So just like rotation about the z-axis mixes up old-x and old-y coordinates to make new-x and new-y coordinates without changing z coordinates, so a Lorentz boost ( or a Galilean boost) mixes time and spatial displacement parallel to the velocity parameter while leaving the spatial displacement perpendicular to the velocity parameter untouched.
Last edited:
Why do you pretend to be stupid?....because the Lorentz transforms result into length contraction ONLY in the direction colinear with the direction of the velocity between frames. There is NO length contraction in the transverse direction, this falls out straight from the Lorentz transforms. Of course, if you got to live another hundred years (thankfully, you won't) you'd still ask this question.Please answer this simple question:
Why is the distance between the mirrors (L) is absolute?
If $$L'=L\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$ then $$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation
You pretend that you do not understand that in the Lorentz transformation absolute transverse scales emerged from nowhere.
This picture illustrates a derivations of relativistic formulas, and (in particular) is an illustration for the Lorentz transformations.
Answer the question: the absolute of the cross-scale in relativism (in the LT in particular) which implies?
=========================
Почему вы прикидываетесь глупым?
Вы делаете вид, что вы не понимаете, что в Преобразованиях Лоренца абсолютность поперечных масштабов возникла из ниоткуда.
Эта картинка иллюстрирует вывод релятивистских формул, и (в частности) является иллюстрацией для вывода Преобразований Лоренца.
Ответьте на вопрос: абсолютность поперечных масштабов в релятивизме (в ПЛ в частности) откуда следует.?
Look in the mirror.
False. But I will not waste my time explaining , dozens of people wasted their breath on you. Look at this post, for example.
Nope, you got it backwards. As usual.
(Underlined) Tach, length contraction has to me, seemed to be another thing that is quite weird and difficult to get my mind around.
What is the physical mechanism that causes a physical object to actually contract ? I simply don't know and can't imagine.
Imagine a cylindrical spaceship moving away from an observer, A, in a collinear path, at a speed such that it's length is contracted by half - say from 100 metres to 50 metres, according to observer A.
Questions;
- Say the spaceship was 10 metres in diameter. Would it's diameter also contract by half ?
- Is it's length contraction a real, physical contraction or just a visual thing, i.e., in the eyes of the observer A?
- If it is a real physical thing what length would the spaceship appear to a second observer, B, if B saw it rush past him and his line of sight was perpendicular to it's line of travel ?
I would appreciate any informative comments. Please keep it uncomplicated if possible.
I continue to try to get a better understanding about time dilation. I have read a good deal both for and against - such as might be available in my language, Modern English, which is a rich and powerful language and hasn't failed me yet in any other field of endeavour.
And yes, I've come across Dingle. I recall reference to him in posts long ago in this thread, but never took much notice, particularly because such posts were heavy with mathematics (a language I don't speak), so I skipped them altogether.
If I can summarise my present conceptions, I can say that the pro time dilation camp rests on, mainly, assuming that one twin is somewhat fixed or at rest, while the other twin is the one doing the travelling.
The anti time dilation camp, however .. well .. I don't think I could ever express it better than Dingle has, in a book styled;
SCIENCE At the Crossroads
HERBERT DINGLE
Professor Emeritus of History
And Philosophy of Science,
University of London
MARTIN BRIAN
& O’KEEFFE
LONDON
1972
and freely available on the web, as a 161 page PDF document. In page 55, we read ..
Two exactly similar clocks, A and B, are in uniform relative motion.
Einstein's special relativity theory requires (1) that the motion is wholly relative,
i.e. it belongs no more to one dock than to the other; (2) that the clocks work at
different rates, i.e. one works faster than the other. My question is: what,
consistently with the theory, determines which clock works the faster?
There is no subtlety of terminology here. 'Rate' is Einstein's word (in
translation, of course), and has never, in any other connection, called for
explanation. No acceleration is involved, the whole process concerned occurring
while the relative motion is uniform. I take an example to avoid ambiguity.
Suppose the relative velocity is 161,000 miles a second. Then, according to the
theory, the time according to one clock (A, say) between the readings 1.0 and 2.0
o'clock of B is 2 hrs., so that A works twice as fast as B. This is a particular case
of a general result obtained by Einstein in 1905 and universally accepted. But,
similarly, the theory requires that the time according to B between the readings
1.0 and 2.0 o'clock of A is 2 hrs., so that B works twice as fast as A. (Einstein did
not consider this case). These results are clearly contradictory.
My conclusion is that the theory must be false, since it demands that each
of two clocks works faster than the other, which is impossible. Otherwise,
something must determine which clock really works the faster. What is that
something? I ask authorities on the subject either to identify it in terms intelligible
to anyone who can understand the question, or else to acknowledge that the theory
is false.
While I could have never put it as clearly, I would say this is EXACTLY the reservations I have had throughout the years whenever thinking about time dilation.
What IS the answer to Dingles question so succinctly put here ? Reading the book itself, is quite a revelation as he elucidates on the stonewalling and obfuscation he's received from the scientific community. Now note, I DID NOT say I agree with his sentiments about the scientific community, and my mind remains an open - besides, I'm only up to page 60 of Dingles book. (and incidentally, if anyone is aware of a response, criticism, and refutation to Dingle, for balance, I'd be happy to peruse that as well - providing is was in my language).
Can anyone proffer an answer to Dingle here ?
I will of course, continue to read this fascinating book, and see where it goes.
And yes, I've come across Dingle. I recall reference to him in posts long ago in this thread, but never took much notice, particularly because such posts were heavy with mathematics (a language I don't speak), so I skipped them altogether.
If I can summarise my present conceptions, I can say that the pro time dilation camp rests on, mainly, assuming that one twin is somewhat fixed or at rest, while the other twin is the one doing the travelling.
The anti time dilation camp, however .. well .. I don't think I could ever express it better than Dingle has, in a book styled;
SCIENCE At the Crossroads
HERBERT DINGLE
Professor Emeritus of History
And Philosophy of Science,
University of London
MARTIN BRIAN
& O’KEEFFE
LONDON
1972
and freely available on the web, as a 161 page PDF document. In page 55, we read ..
Two exactly similar clocks, A and B, are in uniform relative motion.
Einstein's special relativity theory requires (1) that the motion is wholly relative,
i.e. it belongs no more to one dock than to the other; (2) that the clocks work at
different rates, i.e. one works faster than the other. My question is: what,
consistently with the theory, determines which clock works the faster?
There is no subtlety of terminology here. 'Rate' is Einstein's word (in
translation, of course), and has never, in any other connection, called for
explanation. No acceleration is involved, the whole process concerned occurring
while the relative motion is uniform. I take an example to avoid ambiguity.
Suppose the relative velocity is 161,000 miles a second. Then, according to the
theory, the time according to one clock (A, say) between the readings 1.0 and 2.0
o'clock of B is 2 hrs., so that A works twice as fast as B. This is a particular case
of a general result obtained by Einstein in 1905 and universally accepted. But,
similarly, the theory requires that the time according to B between the readings
1.0 and 2.0 o'clock of A is 2 hrs., so that B works twice as fast as A. (Einstein did
not consider this case). These results are clearly contradictory.
My conclusion is that the theory must be false, since it demands that each
of two clocks works faster than the other, which is impossible. Otherwise,
something must determine which clock really works the faster. What is that
something? I ask authorities on the subject either to identify it in terms intelligible
to anyone who can understand the question, or else to acknowledge that the theory
is false.
While I could have never put it as clearly, I would say this is EXACTLY the reservations I have had throughout the years whenever thinking about time dilation.
What IS the answer to Dingles question so succinctly put here ? Reading the book itself, is quite a revelation as he elucidates on the stonewalling and obfuscation he's received from the scientific community. Now note, I DID NOT say I agree with his sentiments about the scientific community, and my mind remains an open - besides, I'm only up to page 60 of Dingles book. (and incidentally, if anyone is aware of a response, criticism, and refutation to Dingle, for balance, I'd be happy to peruse that as well - providing is was in my language).
Can anyone proffer an answer to Dingle here ?
I will of course, continue to read this fascinating book, and see where it goes.
Perhaps you should not have because it may have clarified things for you.
Dingles problem was several things, actually. To start, he'd been taught Relativity by someone who didn't actually understand Relativity. You can plainly see how that would be a problem.
So Dingle, not the devil or a bad man in anyway, labored under a misconception about Relativity for over 20 years while teaching Relativity as well.
And below, you express that misconception:
The problem being: If the clock on Earth is running, and the clock on the craft is running at "rate;" The perception of the clock on the craft could be that it is the Earth that is moving away from the clock on the craft- creating a balance to the time dilation- as both clocks should perceive the same rate, relative to each other. The Earth is not at rest and neither is the craft, right?
I'm a little disappointed because you asked for a clear explanation without math and I even went beyond that and referred you to one without acceleration, as well.
If you had watched that and listened to the explanation (in spite of his poor presentation, he still explained it rather well) you would not have asked what you asked in this post. Or, if that explanation didn't suffice- you could have said so and demonstrated genuine interest in the problem.
It begs the question: If you aren't going to really examine the answer, why should anyone keep answering you over and over, again?
Relativity doesn't make any such demand. So Dingle didn't do his homework and if you think that's fascinating neither did you.
Concise and to the point. And Lakon, don't blame this on others - as you did when you copped an attitude with me before.
Fact is; you're acting as though an explanation is owed to you for your misunderstandings. You blame the science for having the audacity of not being understood when you say you understand other things quite well. It's as if to say, "I understand other things, and since I don't understand this, in spite of not knowing the math, it must be wrong."
This attitude is not on everyone else, it is on you. And only you can do something about it. I believe, from your posts, that you're rational and intelligent. I'd encourage you to examine yourself without getting defensive or blaming others for your mistakes.
Eventually, someone did explain to Dingle what his misconception was and once it was explained to a point he understood it, he realized and admitted his error.