Re: speed, size, time

From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\) (net_at_nospam.com)
Date: 09/14/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:04:53 -0700

Dear Floyd Baker:

"Floyd Baker" <febaker@olm1.com> wrote in message
news:npack013cgal2e95uvakcmkfmp2ra000b7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 22:03:26 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
> dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote:
...
>>> So which camp doesn't do enough? Going on my usual snap decisions,
>>> I'd say there was an actual size difference. But with no real info
>>> to go by, other than sf and some other minimal reading and thinking.
>>
>>Both camps do all that is required to predict measurement. So you have
>>to
>>decide, based on how much mechanism you require to be comfortable. Both
>>camp's answers are the same.
>
> But that's not what you said... You said one camp yes and the other
> no. This is where I'm having trouble zeroing in. I'm not doubting
> either of your posts, cause they no doubt were said in different
> contexts, but they do conflict to me...
>
>
> * Never mind. You don't need to answer this... I'm just now going
> over things after reaching the bottom and reading all you've said...
> I'm on another level now... I hope the right one. <g> One basic
> comment at the very bottom of all this would be welcome..., but that's
> all I'll ask for.

I'm trying to offer "equal opportunity opinions". Not very clever, but
then I don't want to pile all the wood one way either.

...
>>>So what is the difference between that, and measuring a size difference
>>> that's only 'perspective'? If that's the case. It sounds no
>>> different than foreshortening in an art class. It's an illusion
>>> that's drawable, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.
>>
>>So you are favoring the "mechanismless" camp of SR.
>
> Ok... And so 'perspective' is what works, most of the way.

Actually, it works all the way to the quantum level, where neither time nor
space have any meaning.

> Because
> that's what it is... Maybe I'm been putting the cart before the horse
> all this time?

One seeks mechanism, as a first pass. No fault in that. But *much* math
is required to pull it off. The "perspective" camp requires less math.

>>> I'm just wondering why things are looked at in this way, as they seem
>>> to be. There are answers that are not answers... ?? At least to
>>> me, a lot of different answers I'm reading do not appear relative.
>>
>>The purpose of SR is to predict what will be measured in experimental
>>setups with negligible gravity. In order to do this, you have to require
>>only that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers.
>>There is little difference between Gallilean and Einsteinian relativity,
>>until you get to Maxwell's "laws of physics" and the realm where things
>>approach c.
>
> No 'measurable' difference? At what point 'approaching' the c does
> the measurable change begin. Is it 80 percent or 99.999 percent.
> Why *that* that speed, whatever it is?

It depends on your tools. If your tools accurate resolve to 1 part in
10^15, you can detect changes in clock rate at two altitudes that are only
a few hundred feet apart, or velocities of a few hundred kilmeters per
hour. If you only have a stopwatch, and a meter stick, you need to be 1/2c
or better.

>>> Btw I do appreciate your time and answers. As I do the others too.
>>> They give me new ideas to fit into place and slowly it makes a little
>>> more sense. Perhaps even to lurkers and others here? In any case
>>> it's enjoyable.
>>>
>>> I'm slow at this change my mind stuff though. It may seem like it's
>>> closed, but I try not to be.
>>
>>Don't be hard on yourself either way. No one living has all the answers.
>>So that means you'll have to do some "decorating" to suit your taste.
>>But
>>unless you are will and able to do the math, it will sink away from you.
>>Hard learned lessons are the best learned lessons.
>
> This is a real dumb question I know, but is 'math' wrong in this
> respect? Is there some other method, media, means to make sense of
> it? Even if it is only a missing equations or some new kind of math?

Define "wrong". What we have agrees with experiment, to within
instrument/analysis error. It allows us to "go where mankind has not gone
before", and make valid predictions even there. It is "wrong" for
describing the quantum Universe, but seems to be "right" from molecules on
up to larger than the solar system. Beyond that, some "magic" exists in
the terms of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, but I attribute this to the
theory being to provincial, too simple or not general enough.

> It's probably because I'm getting older but I'm having a problem with
> this... <g> It's been easy for me to see things in the past. But
> then again things were easier back then, I think.

This is an illusion. All the problems we have now, we had then too. there
are just more of us experiencing it.

> Like the physics
> book with the elevator, the bouncing photon and the scissors stuff
> that I've been bringing up. That's an old book so maybe it was the
> best there was at one time. I just need to catch up but it's getting
> harder, eh?
>
> * Never mind... <g>

Keep the tools sharp. If you have the "hunger" feed it. You may not do
the entire human race a favor, but you will be giving yourself something
greater than yourself to work towards.

...
>>> As I understood it to be.
>>>
>>> Nothing would retain its compression once acceleration was done. So
>>> neither would time continue at the slower rate.
>>
>>But near c, someone on floor 1006 (or whatever) would see your watch
>>running slowly, your voice strangely deepened, and you to be somewhat
>>shorter. All by the same factor. A factor we call gamma. And what
>>placed
>>you in that "strangely shaped space" was your acceleration history wrt
>>the
>>"stationary guys".
>
> Yes. I understand the compression is gone from acceleration but that
> doppler or whatever effect is still causing a 'difference'...
>
> I understand that the physical compression dissipated. But something
> else took it's place. Velocity. So between the cause and effect,
> something needs to explain the fact that time changes too... I see
> the rest, I think, except that why the guy in the elevator younger
> than the guy on the top floor when he gets there, when they were both
> the same age when he started out at ground level...? Something
> 'physical' is going on there. What can it be? That's what I'm
> trying to see and I'm sorry if you've already told me, cause I didn't
> catch it. I am down to the atom or molecular level in believing they
> have slowed too.., but why. Math is obviously the way the answer is
> derived but when it's known, it should be able to be put into english
> words.... No?

If you take a trip to the store on different routes, will your "trip
odometer" necessarily read the same on each trip? Why? You end up in the
same place, which is (naively) the same distance from the starting point...
To be at rest is to have maximal aging. To travel fast is to travel a
shorter path... in time. The "perspective" comes in when comparing frames
of reference with different speeds. Space is linked to time. So velocity,
to aging.

...
>>> It seems to me that instrumentation is especially unable to measure
>>> one time frame from a different time frame... So 'predictions' are
>>> made to cover?
>>
>>We cannot get a clock to accelerate to > 0.001c (not enough money), so we
>>use radioactive particles which have a halflife. We predict and test.
>>And
>>when we have agreement, we can predict into newer spaces.
>
> Ok but as with the estimations on my water bill, every two years I
> always seem to have to make up a lot of money... They never get it
> right... <g> Once you get past a certain number of predictions,
> does it all break down? :-) Or are there bench marks that you feel
> your way to, and once you get there things are solid again?

*Each* prediction is tested, or ways to test it are sought. We even test
(or limit) predictions of string theory, and string theory isn't "finished"
yet.

>>> As for the steel rod, I say it should be shorter when aligned
>>> in the direction of travel, but longer again when it's perpendicular
>>> to the line of travel.
>>
>>For the non moving frame, correct.
>
>>> You say it doesn't matter what direction it's
>>> pointing and that the measurement will always be that it's shorter.
>>
>>I did not say that.
>
> I took what you said above to be in *both* alignments.

Only the dimensions of the moving rod aligned with the axis of travel
appears altered... to the rest frame.

>>The steel bar would be measured by a non-moving person
>>to have shortened, yes.
> Mostly because the non moving person's ruler would *not* be changing
> in length between the measurements.
>
> You did say that with a 'non-moving frame' it would be seen to be
> longer and shorter accordingly so I guess that's where I'm getting
> thrown off.

Length deteminations are *always* the same or less. Never longer.

>>> But if you are using a ruler that is shorter when aligned with the
>>> direction of travel, and then gets longer to measure the rod when they
>>> are both perpendicular, and both longer, the measurement reads the
>>> same and you think you're right...?
>>
>>In the moving frame, the length of the rod appears to be unaffected,
>>regardless of orientation.
>
> So what exactly is a moving frame? Is that the frame containing the
> moving objects, and the people doing those measurements? Or is it a
> 'real time' frame being looked at and measured by non-moving people...
> I need a better handle on what I'm trying to deal with here... <g>
> This is where the terminology has been doing me in, I'm sure.

It is whatever you set it up. But relativity only applies when trying to
compare obseravtions between two points/frames. Thats what the "relative"
in relativity stands for.

...
>>> Not wanting to appear a troll is why I keep saying I'm just trying to
>>> learn. I don't really know much nitty gritty... I like to make sense
>>> of things in my own head and then try and find out how well I've done.
>>> I do try to angle questions at things that contradict in my mind.
>>
>>Setting up the math and doing it will really help you learn. Otherwise
>>it
>>is words and misunderstanding all around. I strongly recommend you check
>>out the relativity links.
>
> Is there a 101 link..., without math? <g>

URL:http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/
... is a place to start.

> I still believe there is an analogy out there somewhere. No?
>
> I look more at the links provided...

Good.

...
>>> Sorry but I'm getting lost again. Above it was said that everything
>>> was distorted, horizontally, vertically, etc., in the axis of travel.
>>> Now you say that perpendicular to the line of travel is not affected.
>>> I'm misunderstanding, or missing something entirely, for sure... :-/
>>
>>No, you've got it. A six foot guy, standing vertical, is launched
>>horizontally at 0.9c. He can pass through a 6.000001 foot tall opening
>>no
>>problem. Launch the same guy, laying down, same speed. His head and his
>>feet can be shown to be contained "simultaneously" in a three foot long
>>shed. (like the barn pole paradox.)
>
>>URL:http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
>
> I have looked at the link and it seem pretty reasonable.
>
> You say a *standing* man moving forward horizontally can fit through a
> 6 foot opening. I would certainly agree... But when he's head on,
> he only needs a 3 foot space to fit into at any one time. If
> identical people both do this simultaneously, one head on, and the
> other standing, they will not see any difference between themselves.
> Ok But the guy on the roof will. He would see a horizontal short
> guy and a vertical flat guy.

Right. Perspective.

> But in fact, the 3 foot space is not a
> three foot space...,

It is to the guy on the roof. But the moving guys see it as *less* than
three feet, and they *never* perceive themselves to be entirely within it.
*Perspective*.

Hold your fingers close to your eyes. You can enclose the enitre height of
a tree between your thumb and index finger. This perspective only
incorporates space.

> as was explained with the barn doors. It's an
> illusion with light because it's all happening so fast. This speed of
> light vision can still be worked out in slow speed, can it not? It
> just seems to be a matter of playing around with 'frames', eh? And
> maybe that's my downfall? In any case, I read about rotation too.
> Started to make sense but I didn't read it over the second time... I
> just started to think about stuff like what about when light from the
> farthest point of a three dimensional view gets to the camera at a
> later time than the light from the nearest point, which is above or
> below but directly in line with the furthest? And the shutter
> doesn't wait for it. You get half the picture. Or if the shutter
> opens and closes really fast enough you get an 'outline' of the 3 D
> figure taken from somewhere between its front to back cross
> section..., like a ct scan. Isn't it all the same? Creating strange
> visions?

It is about muons arriving at the surface of the Earth, that shouldn't live
that long. It is about walking those places that logic can take us.

> Am I chasing the wrong thing? I've been looking for something other
> than illusion when I see shortening, etc., but I guess it's really
> nothing more than that, eh? Measurements simply made of illusions
> to understand the real measurements we can't get to? Such as the
> size of the galaxy, etc? Knowing that speed and time screw up direct
> measurements we accept the illusion and simply convert it? See
> something that looks short but now you know it isn't?

It can be. Or it can be aether, and "mechanism".

> <snip>
>>> I love analogies. It always seemed such an easy way to make the
>>> unknown known... But they're not working here? I still can't
>>> understand why... I need an analogy on why. <g> How about that
>>> weather bit? Just too much for the math to do? Not enough or fast
>>> enough information input? Or that it's all coming with the
>>> time/space *differences* messing things up?
>>
>>A completely different solution space. Relativity is about predicting
>>what
>>another frame will measure (or what we will measure, knowing something
>>about the "instruments" in the moving frame. Weather prediction is about
>>random chance (OK, so chaos, but so far like random chance), saving
>>lives,
>>and spending wads of government money. Predictions in weather are
>>probabilities. Predictions in relativity are in meters or seconds.
>
> Ok so is that what I asked above? You're trying to measure things in
> a moving environment from this stationary one? We understand why
> things look shortened, even though they're not in that world, nor in
> this one, with the doors being opened and closed in the right
> sequence.
>
> What about time changing?

Time and space are interlocked. To move fast in one way is to move slower
in another.

> <snip>
>
>>I'll not draw it out, but consider in the moving frame, the light simply
>>travels 2l. In the lab frame, the light travels 2 * sqrt(l^2 + (v*t)^2).
>>Two right triangles, that bring light down-and-over "\" and back
>>up-and-over "/". A longer distance.
>
> I understand that... and now I see too why the mirror separation
> distance can't change, cause they in fact do not change..., in
> *either* motion or stationary state.

Good. I hate ASCII diagrams, since Mr. Gates will not let me set a fixed
font...

>>> As I read it, the forward motion of a spaceship may well cause light
>>> to go a much longer distance in the first direction and then hardly
>>> none at all when reflected back. But the paths are not measurable
>>> separately, and the total always comes out to c... Doesn't that
>>> allow for supposition then? Just because measurements can't be made,
>>> it's still logical, is it not? There has to be some ability to move
>>> forward to where measurements are able to pick up again.
>>
>>You are getting into One Way Light Speed measurements, and you don't need
>>to go there yet.
>
> It just seems to natural... <g>

It is not physically possible to measure OWLS. And explaining why is a
little more than you need right now.

...
>>> From what I'm understanding, you are measuring something from one time
>>> frame, in another time frame. What you're seeing is the differences
>>> that are *able* to be seen. As I asked above, what is being done with
>>> those measurements that *can't* be made from 'here'..
>>
>>We cannot always have instruments "over there". Sometimes we don't have
>>the power. Sometimes we don't have space drives. So we have to have
>>tools, that will let us measure here, and "relatively" measure
>>there/then.
>
> So you are just measuring illusions caused by light-speed objects
> emitting photons from different points that appear to have been
> emitted at the same time and get to us at the same time, but in fact
> they were emitted at different times.

Yep.

> That is, the photon from the
> front of the space ship coming toward us is seen, but by the time we
> look back towards the tail of the ship, the photon we see then was
> emitted later, the difference in time between us looking at the front
> photon and the tail photon. That difference allowed the tail to move
> towards us by quite an amount... So we end up looking at a certain
> length path, head end photon, and a shorter-length path far end
> photon. :-) That's probably a little far out but isn't it
> basically the doppler effect at work, right?

There is still the time dilation thing, but yes.

> But now we need to know the actual length of the spaceship to know how
> much shortening distortion there actually is. Or do we just measure
> the difference in time between seeing each photon, or some other
> means, and extrapolate?
>
> I have a feeling I'm out in left field somewhere... <g> Maybe not.?

For the most part, we *assume* that lengths are like we know. Or, we know
how to get lengths in moving frames, so we measure length in ours, and
calculate what the moving frame would measure.

...
>>> Hmmm... Not even on average? That's pretty strange. More
>>> questions on this below.
>>
>>Not even on average. It is consistent with being turned into "electron
>>butter" and smeared everywhere on the bread that is its orbital. And it
>>isn't spread evenly even then.
>
> That is not how the atomic energy commission draws it... <g>
>
> So my understanding of electrons jumping from atom to atom as in
> current has been updated?

Electron "current" requires that electron *not* be in orbitals, but be in
"conduction bands"... a special place in bulk material.

...
>>> I can see that the path of an electron, affected by almost everything
>>> as it is, cannot be accurately predicted. Is *that* where the
>>> 'pasted' term comes from?
>>
>>No.
>
> Where do the different *number* of electrons, and matching protons,
> come from then, in the various elements.

I don't understand your question. We know how many electrons in a
particular atom, because we can remove them, and let each one fall back in,
releasing a characterisitc spectrum.

>>> Is it a probability(?) that the electron
>>> can be anywhere at any particular time.
>>
>>Yes.
>
> Well I was still considering it was a single 'bit' of matter with that
> question. But you've been telling me it's a paste so I'll take your
> answer in that light.

Or lots of overlapping "clouds" for lead.

>>> Like fuzzy logic or the
>>> weather being so multifaceted as to be vague?
>>
>>Pretty close.
>
> Hmmm... So paste is a usable analogy...

Analogies are like ropes...

...
>>> With a rest mass, from my dictionary, of 9.1066 × 10-28 grams?
>>
>>OK, sure. But its contibution to the atom is decreased a tiny bit, by
>>the
>>photon that is released as it enters an orbital.
>
> Don't understand. I just see an atom as a whole. A balanced set of
> bits. I don't know one can have weight and still not be
> *somewhere*...

When accelerating an electron, one has to account for its mass.

> Or where photons come to be released by electrons.
> Unless, and I'll show my ignorance here, you're talking about the
> transference of energy as with a light bulb in this 'example'? But
> now I'm mixing 'current' into it and, even thought I don't know what
> you're talking about, I don't think that's what you're talking about.
> <g>

Electrons in orbitals, are different than electrons in conduction bands.

...
>>> There it is again.
>>> I just can't grasp the concept of:
>>> 'all directions are distorted'
>>
>>Only one is.
>
> Ok I'm seeing that now... But also that they're really not. They
> just look that way to some people.

"Some inertial frames" would be better.

...
>>> <snip>
>>>>>>Electrons *don't* orbit. Electrons are in orbitals, but their
>>>>>>position
>>>>>>is "diffuse", defined by a probability function (Schroedinger
>>>>>>equation).
>>>>>>The Bohr orbital model has problems, not the least of which is
>>>>>>"spiraling"
>>>>>>electrons produce a magnetic field, which the atoms around it would
>>>>>>draw
>>>>>>energy from, causing the electron to spiral into the nucleus.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand electrons and 'holes', etc., fairly well. I have a 1st
>>>>> class fcc license. Electrons move from atom to atom and such but
>>>>> this is going beyond the basics, eh? I understand they are random
>>>>> but
>>>>> within limits. So you say they do decay and spiral in?
>>>>
>>>>No. I say that if they moved in a Bohr orbital, the electrons would
>>>>create a magnetic field. This magnetic field would allow/require that
>>>>energy be removed from the electron's motion, which would decrease
>>>>its energy further, until it was embedded in the nucleus.
>>>
>>> I'm not thinking these tangents through as well as I should, so again
>>> bear with me.
>>>
>>>I think I understand electrons causing a field.
>>
>>Think "out of focus", if it'll help.
>
> Their mass becomes spread out so that the electrons *are* the field?
> That's a new thought for me, if so.

All that they are is spread out, in that they neutralize the centralized
nuclear charge, without "whirling about". So imagine this how you need to.
Just realize that new models/analogies may be required for you in the
future.

>>>I think I understand energy transference... I'm a little vague on
>>>how more charge than was available could be removed to the
>>>point where it stopped the electrons and neutralized the atom.
>>>Isn't that the destruction of matter?
>>
>>No. It is distribution. I'm not talking about destroying the electron,
>>and adding or destroying charge. The electron is not a billiard ball.
>>
>>> I'm still just asking to be set straight, I do know it's not
>>> possible...
>>
>>I think you might be able to be set straight...
>
> Ha! It *seems* to be coming little by little.

I'm worried with this "* Never mind" stuff...

...
>>> Electrons don't slow down, change their mass, polarity, or amount of
>>> charge, do they? I'm still at a loss how they can be affected so
>>> drastically as to deteriorate into a death spiral.
>>
>>If they move, the create a magnetic field. And magnetic field can be
>>quenched, such that power needs to be added to keep the charge moving.
>>Since there is no power source, loss of magnetic energy would drop the
>>electron into the nucleus.
>
> I'll work on that.

Gotta have mechanism, eh? The quantum Universe has neither distance nor
time. So what would "spread out" really mean?

...
>>> Yes but isn't that what I was saying? They only think they are
>>> traveling at near c?
>>
>>They think they are travelling more slowly than the stationary observer
>>does. But they also think they are travelling less far, so it works out.
>
> Ok I have another view of things now. It is of the 'perception' type,
> apparently since I don't do a lot of math, but I mean it's real
> perception. Only what you *see*. Not what is real... There's that
> word again. But I think I've used it as a double negative or
> something like that so it should hold true, eh?

"Real" and "True" are part of philosophy. Science is about measurement,
prediction, and test.

> I'm seeing the size, length, etc. thing more clearly now, I think, but
> not at all with the provable time difference once two different speed
> objects come back together again. Now that my shrinking atoms are
> gone, I'm at a loss again. The time change thing is the biggest
> question for me...

Space and time are of a single cloth. To warp one is to warp both.

>>> Their light is the same as that of earth but
>>> they aren't? Their clocks are slowed to the stationary observer and
>>> so the ship in fact will be seen as traveling much slower than c to
>>> those stationary observers...?? Isn't that why everyone on earth is
>>> dead by the time they finally get back?
>>
>>You're going to have to do your own study. There are lots of web pages
>>on
>>this, and I'm wasting my breath, and likely doing a poor job. If you
>>want
>>to know, go to the links I provided:
>
> Ok I can understand. This is taking a lot of time for me too... I
> really appreciate all that you've put forth here. You haven't been
> wasting your breath. I've been listening, and I *think* I'm more in
> tune with things now. You can read above what has evolved from your
> help. I hope you agree with me now... <g>

It is not important what I think. It is important that you *do* think.
And not "my" way, your own way is sufficient. I'm just trying to answer
with what I think you can handle, to the questions you ask.

>>Here are some places to go for more information. Come back with more
>>questions...
>>URL:http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/
>>... you'll be most interested in the section on Special Relativity
>>URL:http://www.motionmountain.net/
>>
>>And just for fun...
>>URL:http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html
>>and you may want to see if you can get a copy of "The Forever War".
>
> I was away for the weekend so again it took some time to get back to
> your post. Many thanks for responding as you have.

I don't see where "* Never mind." was defined. But OK.

David A. Smith