Re: Annotated Einstein Clock


"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123084343.921792.239110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Harry wrote:
> > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1123078282.938315.257160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Harry wrote:
> > > > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:42f09dec$0$18641$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > snip, ugly wraps
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Their is no basis for "time dilation" except as demonstrated
by
> > this
> > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > clock. Leaps of faith are not a part of logical analysis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You confuse faith with theory. Due to your bias against the
theory,
> > > > >
> > > > > AFAIK the mathematical proofs absent in the discussion would not
> > > > > be subject to any bias against the theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > When your account records don't agree with the banks, do you
attribute
> > > > > it to bias ?
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, after I checked all claimed discrepancies and found that as
far
> > as I
> > > > can tell they were all based on misunderstanding, I DO attribute
such
> > claims
> > > > to bias!
> > > > BTW; I saw no such mathematical problem in this thread.
> > > >
> > > > > > likely
> > > > > > it will be impossible for you to understand it. Thus I won't try
> > > > anymore,
> > > > > > except if you open your mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > AFAIK this is the first mention of a clock affected by motion
in
> > the
> > > > > > paper.
> > > > > > > The reader is owed more of a foundation than sleight of pen.
The
> > > > light
> > > > > > > path is offered as the mechanism. and we can certainly accept
the
> > > > > > > but it is described for one direction only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The foundation is the experiments that led Lorentz and Poincare
to
> > that
> > > > > > theory. The fact that Einstein tried to dispose of the ether by
not
> > > > > > explicitly using it in his derivation of the same theory doesn't
> > > > discredit
> > > > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tried to dispose? Do you call a theory the sometimes behaves like
an
> > > > > ether and at other times doesn't *credible* ?
> > > >
> > > > See below. BTW, it *always* behaves compatible with an ether. See
John
> > > > Kennaughs extensive explanations in this message board.
> > >
> > > Not true in the paper exerpted.
> >
> > Sure Einstein's calculations are fully compatible with the Lorentz
> > transformations which first of all emerged from Lorentz' theory; he even
> > *derived* them there!
> > Thus my mind boggles how you can think the contrary. Perhaps a dirty
> > textbook confused you?
>
> >
> > > > > >BTW, the same applies to classical mechanics: to me Newton's
> > mechanics
> > > > > > makes sense, not "Galilean" mechanics. But the equations are the
> > same
> > > > and
> > > > > > they are considered to be the same "theory".
> > > > >
> > > > > Einstein's SR equations do *not* make sense so it can't even
> > > > > be considered a theory. If you believe otherwise then simply
> > > > > write the missig half of the clock description and offer a
> > > > > mathematical proof.
> > > >
> > > > Neither do "Gallilean" equations in themselves make any sense. Think
> > about
> > > > it:
> > > > When you go from A to B in a straight line, you feel no force, but
in a
> > > > curved line a mystic force acts on you, and there no other
explanation
> > is
> > > > given (in that theory) than that the math correctly describes it.
It's
> > pure,
> > > > unbelievable magic.
> > >
> > > No magic involved. There two popular competing theories
> > > and one of them is quite plausible.
> >
> > What makes you think that one is plausible (although it has no model to
> > explain it) and the other not (although it equally lacks a physical
model)?
> > For me, any theory without physical model is doubtful, be it "Galiliean"
or
> > "Einsteinian", and I don't care that such theories have become popular
(out
> > of despair?). Newton admitted that he failed to propose a model for the
> > action of gravitation, in contrast to inertia - showing that he also
found a
> > theory without a functional model less satisfying, just as Keppler was
> > unhappy with his unexplained theory of the motion of planets.
> >
> > > > Apart of that, the maths that you ask for are basically provided in
> > > > introductory text books on relativistic mechanics, and a detailed
> > derivation
> > > > for the returning clock is given in the paper that I can't send you,
but
> > > > it's all pretty straightforward, I think that Dirk gave it several
times
> > to
> > > > this NG. What's your problem with it?!
> > > >
> > > > > > > BTW I am quite familiar with light clocks and their various
> > > > > > characterizations
> > > > > > > but my purpose is to adhere as close as possible to the
original
> > > > > > formulation.
> > > > > > > It is not approprate use the device unless it is explained
> > previously.
> > > > > > > Light clocks have their own metaphysical problems that will
only
> > > > muddy
> > > > > > > the water.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - I didn't mention any light clock.
> > > > > That shows you are applying some degree of rigor.
> > > > > > - The metaphysics happens to be the problem in Einstein's
discussion
> > > > (and
> > > > > > the cause of your resistance!), not the physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > It *happens* to be his foundation for clocks that are predictably
> > > > > affected by motion. That is an outlandish claim.
> > > > > Folks are still doing silly time experiments on that account.
> > > >
> > > > I don't care about Einstein's metaphysics, instead I use that of
Lorentz
> > and
> > > > most people here use Minskowski's metaphysics instead! One does
*not*
> > need
> > > > metaphysics to do physics experiments you know...
> > >
> > > Neither person's work is the subject of this thread.
> > > Only the mathematical validity of the described clock.
> >
> > Then it could be useful if you tried to show what you think to be the
> > mathematical problem in this case, and why you deem the calculation
examples
> > that were given in this group for accelerating frames to be erroneous -
a
> > straightforward extension of what Einstein considered to be SRT.
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > > I imagine Androcles has already done the proof to
> > > > > show where it can't be symetrical or linear. I won't
> > > > > offer to explain because that discussion is active in another
> > > > > thread.
> > > >
> > > > Androcles? ;-)
> > > > Oh fine.
> > >
> > > Whether you agree with his POV or not you have to
> > > admit he selom makes errors that can be traced
> > > to misapplication of mathmatics
> >
> > You must be joking!
> >
> > > and he is quite
> > > incite... ahhh insightful in creative thinking
> > > out of the box. ;-)
> >
> > Yeah, that's for sure!
> >
> > Harald
>
> Thank you for your comments.
> We *would* welcome your version of a more complete
> mathematical characterization
> of the clock described by Einstein in this thread.

Not needed. Google groups search :
twin paradox accelerated frame dirk group:sci.physics.relativity
author:dirk
For example

Message-ID: h6gRb.6900$uH5.256061@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: 3f277e22$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

See also the metaphysical comment in

news:6gVw9.107270$RO.2763198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
= ( 6ea3ba4.0211010818.974d37a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx )

Harald


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Annotated Einstein Clock
    ... SNIP ... >>> That is OK Harald. ... David Copperfield talks about magic. ... The predictions of SRT are based on Lorentz' theory but Einstein didn't ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ned Wrights Page on Tired Light
    ... {snip sections uncommented by George} ... > of your humming electrons as very small rocks (neglecting ... It's called Lorentz contraction. ... And aether theory. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Annotated Einstein Clock
    ... > SNIP ... > The predictions of SRT are based on Lorentz' theory but Einstein didn't ... We can make meaningful calculations in imaginary ... made to create the imaginary space may not translate ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Magnetic field and relative motion
    ... > Don't snip the important portion. ... >> have the opinion that relativity has anything to do with it. ... Anyway the experiment disproves relative motion. ... Harald ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Magnetic field and relative motion
    ... > Don't snip the important portion. ... >> have the opinion that relativity has anything to do with it. ... Anyway the experiment disproves relative motion. ... Harald ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast