Re: Time contraction


harry wrote:
<xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1160695312.931981.233400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

harry wrote:
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_qLWg.107746$aP3.50443@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotThis@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1160474819_61@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "topaiva" <topaiva@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:1160393884.019840.259260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >I have not study Relativity but I have read some books about it.
| >
| > I have read that an astronaut who woud leave the earth at a speed
near
| > to the speed of the light would return to the earth younger than
the
| > earth residents.
| >
| > But, I say: As the speed is not absolute, the earth would also
travel
| > at a speed near to the speed of the light in relation to the
astronaut.
| > Then from the astronaut point of vew the earth residents would be
| > younger than the astronaut when he arrived.
| >
| > These two sentences are inconsistent. Where is the truth?
| >
| > Thanks
| > topaiva
|
| There are many different angles to that question. See
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
|
| Haradl
|
Another moron that can't spell his own name.
Can you, Haradl?

Apparently not:
Hraadl

xxein: I remember being sort of chastised by you for spelling your
name wrong (in perhaps an email). Now I must chastise you for
responding to 'what's his name'.

On the side, do you have any new ideas or thoughts that you might think
are interesting to me?

Hmm... I don't recall that, must have been a misunderstanding.
As for your question: not yet! I am now trying to understand what the
question is in QM (sounds funny doesn't it?). If you have an idea what
"really" may be going on in "action-at-a-distance" experiments, I like to
hear it. I think that Ilja is following a promising route. At the same time
an interesting quantum-optical set-up is being put in place at my
university, so that good ideas can go very far.

Regards,
Harald (oops I spelled it right this time!)

xxein: QM thinks it is so local that lightspeed may as well be
practically infinite. SR-GR thinks that c is constant to inertially
moving observers. Neither is correct. If one should depend on the
other for 'anything', it will compound the conceptual 'problem'

If I were a rock on the river bed, I would certainly get different
answers for measuring the round trip of a constant fish depending on
the river flow. But the rock gets its timerate from the river flow
also. The flow of the river and our (rock) relation to it determines a
clockrate. It is the Lorentz in all its nakedness. It is this that
makes the addition of velocities subjectively true. But only
subjective to the observation under a theory that would proclaim such a
subjective measurement to be objective (such as SR or GR). If it were
to be recognised as a subjective observation in the first place, we
would be operating under the strict Lorentz theory.

BUT, Lorentz couldn't incorporate gravity and left a void in his
theory. Einstein replaced it with fruit-filled pastry and ignored all
the rest of the Lorentzian concept except for the subjective viewing
part of it. Einstein ignored any objectivity put forth by Lorentz
because Einstein wanted to mathematicize gravity. The trouble is, in
doing so, Einstein removed almost all of the objectivity of
measurementals of an objectivity.

Einstein could not, of course, change the physical world. He did
manage to coerce everyone (almost) to think in terms of what is
measured, regardless of most any other objective consideration. And so
we have Einstein's 1st and 2nd postulates that are used most
effectively as our physic because he convinced us that what we see and
measure should be the physic --- and that any underlying objectiveness
is conceptually and mathematically burdensome for our mortal needs.

He continued this thought process to include a gravity that fit into
this subjective mode of thought. It all works well to determine what
we can and cannot do as subjective players in this universe, BUT it
does not describe the physic the universe uses to determine its
actionability.

So is this a conundrum? Which physic is the one we seek? I'll go with
both, but my curiosity wants me to understand the universe on an
objective level. So, that is not a problem with anybody, eh? So, what
happens to physical conceptualizations then? Is it the one a fish
uses, or is it what the universe uses? What do we really want to know
and what do we just sweep under the rug because we don't want to think
we should need it?

I mean, sex is good. Beer is good. Maybe we should make our physic
bear on only those considerations. Just kidding --- sort of.

Let's map how the Einsteinian works (as a subjective, mathematical
measurement theory) onto the universal physic. Lorentz started it.
Let's finish it!

Let's use the Lorentz thinking to find out what gravity is (where he
apparently failed). Many have attempted to do this before, but without
complete success. I think most of the problem arises because attempts
to do are met with the derision from the more popular theory, rather
than any critical thinking. But then how do we transform our
subjective measurements to the universal physic???

If we falsely think of an amount of time for event to event connection
and it manages to to happen quicker than that, then, I think, we would
call that "action at a distance" according to Einstein. But now you
are already getting an explanation of how it might work.

Does this help, Herrod? I just want to know your adaptability to
different physical thinking. Are you captured or enraptured by a
certain physic that may or may not be true?

I just want to know.

thx, yyein

.

Relevant Pages