Re: The SRians Said: Time is What the Clock Measures
- From: dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bilge)
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:23:03 GMT
EL:
>[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.
Stop playing with semantics.
>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
>
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: relative motion and aging
- Next by Date: Re: relative motion and aging
- 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
