Re: Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
- From: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:38:11 +0100
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:b8btt11u0a0d47929ijeqrkhdp9889tsbg@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:10:07 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message news:l6hqt1171glprslh5om30s1ndefdv34vs2@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:29:44 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> >> <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
>
> >> I don't think so.
> >> Rod lengths and clock rates do not physically change as a result of a velocity
> >> change.
> >
> >No problem, but since there were no velocity changes in
> >anything you or I wrote above, this remark is irrelevant.
> >Since you haven't mentioned any other frame in anything
> >you said, you have no right to talk about 'absoluteness'.
> >
> >> However, even if your theory was NOT complete nonsense and the clocks DID
> >> somehow change, they would both change by the same amount in any second frame.
> >
> >According to the theory you still don't seem to understand
> >nothing changes about the clock. If you would understand
> >it, you wouldn't repeat this at least 10 times each day.
>
> I have to because your colleagues are too dumb to understand that fact.
>
> >When you are far away from me, your 'aperture angle' is
> >smaller than when you are close by. Depending on where
> >you are, nothing changes to you, but some measurements
> >I make of you, change.
>
> That's not related to different frames. Why mention it?
Because it is an analogous situation:
- observers at different distances <==> observers with relative velocity
- measured aperture angle <==> measured times and lengths
- distance correction factor <==> gamma correction factor
- real height of distant tree <==> proper lengths and times
You (and I) outlined a synchronization procedure in one single
frame. That does not imply any absoluteness - but perhaps you
have something different in mind - see below.
>
> >The results of measurements on clocks and rods, as made
> >in second frames differ from frame to frame.
>
> Only because the measuring techniques are flawed.
The techniques being what they are, we have built a nice
consistent theory around it that seems to be compatible with
them.
>
> >That is the entire idea of the theory.
> >It is amazing that you still pretend not to know this after
> >all these years.
>
> If you know something doesn't change and you observe it to change, what
> conclusion would any intelligent person reach?
Yes, we observe a time or a length, and we all get different
results depending on the relative velocity. Okay, but intelligent
persons as we are, we noticed that when we make one specific
calculation with what we just measured, we all *do* get the
same results... so we gave them names: proper time and proper
length. And as it happens, these results have exactly the same
values that someone who is at rest in the frame of the measured
object would measure with exactly the same procedure that we
used. That is at least interesting and useful.
>
> Try it on GPS clocks.
>
> >> So the above clocks remain in 'absolute synch' in all frames.
> >
> >Since you have only considered the rest frame of the
> >A-B-system, you have no right to say that. First you have
> >to specify some arbitrary frame in relative movement to
> >your A-B system, and specify exactly how you make the
> >measurements of the lengths and time durations of processes
> >in this A-B system, and how you would synchronize the
> >A and B clocks.
>
> In an instantaneous universe all frame are equal.
In the usual sense an "instantaneous universe" could be
the collection of all events that are simultaneous according
to some observer in his own particular reference frame.
With this in mind the phrase "all frames are equal" is
a bit meaningless.
> 'Absolute' in one frame is 'absolute' in another.
Depends what you mean - see below.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Note: the method makes no attempt to absolutely synch clocks in different
> >> frames. That may be the source of your confusion.
> >
> >That is the point we are trying to make to you.
> >Since about 6 years now. It's not going to happen
> >I guess :-)
>
> You didn't read what I said...
> If two clocks are synched (absolutely) in any one frame, they will be in
> absolute synch in all frames. However the method cannot be used to su\ynch a
> clock in one frame with a clock in another frame. They obviously have to be
> brought together to do that.
But when brought together, they are in the same frame,
right.
Okay, you say that "If two clocks are synched (absolutely)
in any one frame, they will be in absolute synch in all frames"
So first let's omit "(absolute)" and concentrate on "synched":
(1) If synched means that two simultaneous ticks in their
own rest frame are also simultaneous in any other frame,
then they are not synched. So surely that's not what you
meant? Exercise: according to standard theory, what time
difference would another frame with relativity velocity v
measure between two simultaneous rest-frame ticks,
supposing A and B are separated by a proper distance
L in their common rest frame?
(2) If synched means that they must show the same time
value for any arbitrary event, then they are obviously
trivially synched "in any other frame". You could just as
well have said that if they are made of wood in one frame,
they are made of wood "in any other frame". Surely that's
not what you meant either?
(3) So if you meant something else, what do you mean?
and
(4) what is the difference between synched and what you
call "(absolutely) synched"?
Dirk Vdm
.
- References:
- Re: Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
- Prev by Date: Re: "The Arrow of Time"
- Next by Date: Re: Massless particles and photons.
- Previous by thread: Re: Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
- Next by thread: Re: Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
