Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: "EL" <hemetis@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Jun 2005 10:05:21 -0700
[Curious wrote]
> 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!]
[EL]
I was not asking a question to seek an answer from you to me.
I was asking that question to make you realise that you can compare two
remote rates and hence abide by the rules of remote observation
mediated by light (the case of "Slower than what"); light takes time to
travel between the remotely observed clock and the observer, that is
why each _event_ must be reported after an interval; to remotely
observe an interval would involve two dilations, one for the beginning
and one for the end; if they were symmetric then no time deformation
would be observed, while asymmetry would cause the remote interval to
either contract or expand depending on the relative direction of
motion. On the other hand, you might wish to compare the observer's
local observation now to the observer's local observation before now
(the case of "Slower than when"); however, the local state of motion is
stationary to self, and motion is untenable unless remote observation
was involved. Inertial states of motion cannot induce changes during
such a constant state. Only the transition between two different states
of motion would demand acceleration by applying a force to the system.
It is THAT force that must propagate through the observer and his clock
to change their velocity and stress must be induced into the molecular
bonds to propagate that force, and it is THEN that a deviation from
proper functioning is induced.
>
> > 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
[EL]
No.
Read above.
>
> > 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.
[EL]
Your presumption is correct.
I did mean the standard orthodox version of semantics in comparison to
your efforts of expression to describe what consensus has already
defined but using different linguistic expressions and semantics.
>
> > 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,
[EL]
SR is contextually correct, because it is special.
Out of that context and under acceleration it is very wrong.
> 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?
[EL]
Any physical wave whatsoever, is a disturbance or a fluctuation in a
medium.
This is different from the summer waves of locust migration. :-)
Waves that are fluctuations in a medium must propagate abiding by the
forces connecting the elements of that medium. Therefore, given a
homogenous and isotropic medium such as vacuum light waves must
propagate at a constant scalar speed _c_. That speed will change in
different media with different refractive indexes.
This means that light, being a wave, must propagate in vacuum at _c_
regardless of the speed of the source and the speed of the observer,
however, the relative speed will affect the frequency of the wave and
not its speed.
I assume that you meant to say that an observer was travelling at 0.5c
relative to earth while attempting to measure the speed of light, which
he calls _c_.
How fast did you say he was going relative to earth? ;-)
Well, he must be going as fast as half the speed he is trying to
measure then. ;-)
Why would he try to measure twice his speed relative to earth! :-)
I was under the impression that he already knows that speed if he was
going as fast as half of it. :-)
If we place another observer on earth, he must see that space cadet to
be moving at 0.5c too.
Then _c_ must be twice that speed also, don't you think? ;-)
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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?
[EL]
Yes.
> How does the circular clock array help?
[EL]
It is not "circular", it is spherical.
Any sphere can touch a maximum of twelve identical spheres.
The symmetry here is that of a pentagonal dodecahedron.
Such a spatial distribution would allow the spaceship's composite clock
to sample all directions concurrently.
I verbosely explained it before, so go back and read what I wrote to
avoid redundancy.
All what I can repeat here is that we do not try to force the effect to
stop from happening, but rather we let nature do what nature wishes to
do and we harness the effect symmetrically to cancel the effect out and
obtain a perfect time keeping machine immune to acceleration induced
variance.
remote observation will still be dilated relativistically of course,
but no twin-paradoxes would ever be verified when such a clock is used.
>
> > 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.
[EL]
I disagree with you.
You must speak the same language to communicate.
You have two choices.
1- To teach the rest of the world your language.
2- To learn the language of the rest of the world.
>
> > 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.
[EL]
For one who says he is a biochemist, you may not sneeze into the blood
sample of a patient before its analysis.
You must wash your glassware. You must lock up poisons before you
leave. You cannot add 3 moles Conc. Nitric acid to one mole toluene,
shake, then add hygroscopic Conc. sulphuric acid and shake vigorously
and expect to live. This means that chemists have laboratory rules and
discipline that must be obeyed not a religion as you say.
It is called discipline.
>
> 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.
>
[EL]
But it is exhausting.
I am tolerating for now and I am trying to answer you curiosity.
However, if you were really, really curios, then you should go to a
library.
Best regards.
EL
.
- 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
- Re: Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- From: Curious
- Time is the paper on which the pen of the aether writes.
- Prev by Date: Re: A Look at Quantum "Spookiness"
- Next by Date: Michelson - Morley experiment
- 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
|
