Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: "Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Jun 2005 08:11:50 -0700
EL wrote:
> [Curious wrote]
> > My question isn't answered yet, by the way. What I see as happening
> > during motion, and please correct me if this is not possible, is that
> > all atoms involved in that motion oscillate, 'function' or 'exist'
> > slower.
> [EL]
> Slower than what or slower than when?
I wonder if it is perhaps only certain physicists who could fail to
(rather than be unable to) understand that sentence:
"during motion... all atoms... oscillate... slower" [than without that
motion, of course!]
> The word slower is a comparative expression that makes no sense when it
> stands alone.
> Motion could be relatively inertial or relatively accelerating, so
> which one did you mean?
Quite cleary it can only be absolute speed that could give rise to such
an effect
> It is not that easy to be meticulous and rigorous on the path towards
> better knowledge.
>
> > To an observer in the system looking at a more slowly moving
> > frame of reference it would appear that that other frame was speeded up
> > in time. But within their own frame of reference, *everything* would
> > appear normal and function as normal. There would, in other words, be
> > no discernible absolute reference of time or motion to measure against,
> > without looking at an external frame.
> [EL]
> Yes, indeed, although your wording is objectionable, I can understand
> what you try to say.
I would say it is the mark of a great mind that he be able to discuss
his area of expertise in layman's terms. There are a few here that are
gracious and a pleasure to talk to. By objectionable I presume you mean
not as per the standard authorised version, rather than rude or not
understandable.
> That is precisely what I said when I asked, "slower that what or slower
> than when?"
> In fact, it takes three things not two to build up a relativistic
> world.
> 1- The first thing required is an arbitrated system of dimensions and
> scalar metrics of units with which we can measure physical quantities.
> 2- The second thing required is the mind to which observed states and
> changes of states endures time. States and changes of states then must
> be related to the quantitative units of the arbitrated systems of
> scales and metrics.
> 3- The third thing required is the object under observation and its
> relation to the observer as measured by the arbitrated units.
>
> In special relativity, the speed of light is postulated to be constant
> to all inertial frames and its value is per medium where vacuum is the
> referential medium of such speed scale. It is by means of the yard and
> the clock inherent in the speed of light that we measure relative
> speeds distances and time intervals.
If SR is correct in length contraction and time dilation, and one
measures the speed of light while travelling 0.5c relative to Earth,
using a yard-stick and a clock, and finds it to be c, is that 'c' the
same as the Earth 'c' absolutely? Or to put it in way you might
understand, is the distance the light travels down that yard-stick
moving at 0.5c the same as the distance it travels down the same
yard-stick on Earth?
>
> >
> > So my question is, in this state, how can we cater for this?
> >
> [EL]
> Relativistically, of course.
By reference to the speed of light, I presume? How does the circular
clock array help?
> Please read what Bilge has to say with great tolerance to learn from
> the man.
> He kindly gave you a good exercise.
> And by the way, look for the definition of event and world-line and use
> them, they will help you clear a lot of ambiguity. Relativity is not
While they certainly would do so, especially in complex scenarios where
they are really helpful, they would not help to clear the wooden
obfuscation, even in such simple cases as used above.
> difficult to understand if you study the definitions first and then
> focus on the relational formalism.
Ho-hum, another one... this looks like a religion to me. You know where
the priests go around intoning from a book of rites and people
dutifully and fearfully follow and woe betide the soul who sneezes out
of turn.
While I'm not against clarity of expression and the use of common
definitions by any means, one should be able to engage in a lucid and
ratonal conversation which is expressed clearly without insisting on
formalism for its own sake.
>
> kindest regards.
>
> EL
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: EL
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: EL
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: EL
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: EL
- Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Fitzgerald contraction real?
- Next by Date: Re: Question PD or anybody
- Previous by thread: Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Next by thread: Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
