Re: The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures
- From: "EL" <hemetis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 May 2005 06:46:07 -0700
[Bilge wrote]
> EL:
>
> >Let me ask you this question and I hope it could give you a good
clue.
> >Do you think that representing a unit of time by the equivalent
> >distance travelled by light during that interval of time should also
> >mean that time is a vector quantity and not a scalar?
>
> Time is the time component of a four-vector. That concept is
intrinsic
> to relativity. The vector (1,0,0,0) is a vector in the time
direction.
> The clock time is the proper time, d\tau^2, not dt^2.
[EL]
As per Albert Einstein, having time intrinsically inseparable from the
other spatial coordinates we would be wrong to call it a time vector.
The correct way to adopt to the new way of spacetime conception is to
accept spacetime as a vector while denying that time could be singled
out as a vector.
This means that your answer did not make time become a vector neither
classically nor from a relativistic POV.
A vector by definition must have a direction in angles when we use
polar coordinates, can this happen with time such that we could say
that time increased at 15 degrees of arc (for example) or is this
property exclusive to spatial length quantities?
>
> >A distance (length [L]) can be in any direction, which means that
space
> >is a vector-field.
> >By combining or unifying the concept of spacetime, is it legitimate
to
> >treat time representations as if they were pure vectors?
>
> Sure. A time 1 hour from now is a time translation.
[EL]
A scalar translation, not a vector translation, hence sure NOT.
>
> >If so, can we reflect the results back on time as if time could have
> >any direction other than forward?
>
> That's equivalent to asking if x can have any direction but +x.
[EL]
The question is equivalent but the answer is not,
The answer to your equivalent question is yes.
The answer to mine is NO.
When I ask if eggs were orange it is equivalent to asking if oranges
were orange.
Eggs are white while oranges are orange.
Length and time are both dimensions, while eggs and oranges are both
food.
Similarity in aspects does not imply absolute equivalence.
> Sure, just like x can point in the -x direction, t can point
> in the -t direction.
[EL]
There is great difference between time representation by an axis to
reflect a line of histories and an event as a reference, and space
representation by an axis to reflect magnitudes of height and depth.
I can increase the negative magnitude of a hole by digging deeper, but
how can you increase time negatively as you live each moment forward
forcedly?
> However, since the metric is lorentzian,
> rather than euclidean,
> you can't turn around in time.
> Time reversal is a discrete operation.
[EL]
In other words, we may examine recorded history but we may not turn
time around to decrement its accumulated count.
>
> >Let us assume that SR postulated a wrong postulate concerning the
> >velocity of light being independent of its source for the merit of
> >rigorous analytic examination.
>
> The velocity of light is irrelevant.
[EL]
What! LOL.
If the first postulate of SR is irrelevant to SR then what is?
Hahahaha.
> The lorentz transforms follow from
> the first postulate alone and the observations (1) that you can't
turn
> around in time, ruling out a 4-d euclidean universe and (2) the fact
> that mass isn't locally conserved, ruling out a galilean universe.
The
> only alternative remaining is special relativity. Whether or not
light
> propagates along null rays is an experimental issue which properly
> belongs in a theory of E&M, like maxwell's equations. It's very
simple
> to create a relativistic theory of E&M in which light doesn't
propagate
> at `c'.
[EL]
Of course we are in agreement here, but didn't you have enough
semantics' wars already?
>
> >By empirically measuring different
> >velocities, the implication should be a variation in time (clock)
> >quantities as we reset our length (rod) to its constant value.
> >
> >Now if we assume to have found SR to be in error as per its
postulate,
> >is it not true that all "time" bizarre effects could be attributed
to
> >variations in the speed of light?
>
> No, since the speed of light is irrelevant to the theory.
[EL]
I repeat:
If the first postulate of SR is irrelevant to SR then what is?
You know that I mean by the speed of light the first postulate, so give
me a break.
>
> >
> >Maxwell's classical constant c was a consequence of Aether as a
medium
> >and he unified the electromagnetic field concept to create a model
for
> >a wave that propagates that medium.
>
> Which is untenable.
[EL]
Not if it was a purely chaotic medium.
Vision is a single sense, and blind people can read by touch.
If you cannot see Aether by instruments because of its chaotic nature,
you can still deduce it logically.
>
> >SR, adopted the particle-photon model, which contrary to waves do
not
> >require a medium and do not require any constancy of the velocity of
> >displacing energy quanta, then why does a particle have to abide by
the
> >wave model!
>
> If photons are massless, they must propagate at `c',
[EL]
Why?
Why "must"?
> just like
> any massless particle. If photons have a mass, the propagte like
> any other particle at < c. Since classical waves (which includes
> maxwell's ether) are made of particles, it's rather obvious that
> a classical wave model is nothing but the collective motion of
> particles, so in effect, those wave models are particle models.
> In the case of maxwell's ether, it just isn't a tenable model.
[EL]
Ah, I see what you mean now.
I agree somehow to this, but if every dust particle is a collection of
waves and every wave is a collective motion of particles, then we
arrive at a worse than duality conclusion.
It is quite tenable to me to have pure force waves acting for an
interval of time to get existence going.
No particle model needed unless you wish to call the zero-point
boundary a well defined particle, and then I have to agree with you in
concept even if I disagree on the semantics.
>
> >The distortion of spacetime is an artefact of duality but if you
stick
> >to one model all paradoxes disappear.
> >Einstein, apparently, could not make up his mind on this issue.
> >
> >Let me add fun to the fun we are already having and bring under the
> >light the story of Joule Vern "Round the world in 80 days." The most
> >amusing idea in that story is that travelling in the direction of
> >earth's rotation would practically mean that the traveller shall
make
> >one extra rotation "on the surface" to be added to the rotations
made
> >by earth. While the traveller experiences 81 sunrises, those who
stayed
> >in London experienced only 80 sunrises. But Joule Vern never
expressed
> >the fact that the traveller's days were shorter days (as measured by
> >earth's angular position on its orbit around the sun) such that the
> >annual age would have no real difference.
> >
> >The idea that clung to people's minds in the years of J. V.
celebration
> >is that travelling makes you live a longer number of days. Had
Fillies
> >Fog travelled in the opposite direction and lost the bet, we would
have
> >ended up believing in a relativistic model in which a traveller
would
> >return older than his stationary twin.
>
> Physicists don't confuse jules verne with physics, so that hypothesis
> is ruled out.
[EL]
Does that statement imply that ALL physicists alive and dead never
confused a subconscious idea with what they should take as a fact?
Wow, I wish I could read the minds of all physicists like you Bilge,
you must be a superman or even a god.
Or did you mean "Bilge" when you said "Physicists "?
>
> >A day is a unit of time too, and a day is a legitimate quantity for
a
> >natural clock.
> >Time (day) contraction or expansion is then dependant on the
relative
> >direction in which F. Fog would have travelled. However, we know
that
> >the angular velocity of earth around the sun is independent from any
> >earth surface traveller.
> >
> >My question to you now is whether you think we should consider the
age
> >of F. Fog in days should be quantified by the number of sunrises or
by
> >the ratio of the angular displacement of earth in its orbit to a
> >complete cycle around the sun multiplied by the number of days in a
> >year?
>
> The natural clock to use for humans is the electromagnetic coupling
> constant, since human biological processes are electromagnetic.
[EL]
In other words, whatever accelerates the biological processes
accelerates aging and vice versa, right?
>
> >If we calculated both, which age is a paradoxical apparent age and
> >which is the true age?
> >
> >Here is another amusement for you.
> >A pregnant woman gave birth to a child in a space shuttle that was
> >designated to fly equatorially against the direction of earth
rotation
> >such that the shuttle orbits while keeping its position on the line
> >connecting the centre of earth to the centre of the sun). Now, shall
> >the child be relativistically unborn or shall the child grow to walk
> >after one year and talk after two years (assuming that the crew have
> >enough food and diapers.)? :-)
>
> You'll have to ask jules verne, since the question doesn't contain
> anything related to relativity.
[EL]
Occasionally, mockery could trigger defensive thoughts to emphasize a
principle.
There is no such thing as proper time variance, or is there?
Then no round trip could exist that can make a human or a clock age
faster or slower.
They simply age universally regardless of the way we arbitrate it.
>
> >Here is yet another killer.
> >A fighter pilot was commanding a futuristic plane that was provided
> >with significantly absolute precision of time measurement. His
orders
> >were to take his machine to a speed of 3 Mach. At first the machine
> >electronically attempts to execute the settings and the speed is
raised
> >to 3 Mach, but the time slows down and consequently what was [3L/1T]
is
> >not anymore exactly [3L/1T], now the speed has to be increased a
> >little bit but time slows a tiny bit as a consequence. The question
is,
> >since this process seem to have a convergence limit, then from a
ground
> >station's observational POV what would be the speed of that aircraft
> >after its computer makes all speed adjustments to converge on that
> >limit to satisfy the relativistic distortion of time?
>
> Integrate.
[EL]
Exactly, Bilge.
You are much better when the problem is big and complex, so leave the
philosophical simple issues and semantics to others for amusement.
Now, while I do appreciate your correct answer, perhaps some verbosity
could have been much more interesting.
I would as well appreciate if you know of a reference in which this
problem is handled.
It seems to be similar to those paradoxes of Zeno and if I did not know
that convergence was a way out I might have expected an infinite number
of velocity modifications yielding a higher order of time functions.
Indeed integration is the answer, but please expand this point if you
have more to share with others.
Kind regards.
EL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Length "contraction" and time "dialation" bad language.
- Next by Date: Re: Comparisons between SR and LET.
- Previous by thread: Re: The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures
- Next by thread: Re: The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
