Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

On May 29, 8:55 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1180496811.980563.21480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On May 29, 5:22 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .

<deletes by O'Barr>

Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So what you THINK is physically impossible
obviosuly isn't.

O'Barr comments:
So if you really believe that a clock can really
be going both faster and slower than another clock,

From different inertial frames of reference .. yes.
That is what observers
would see. Someone moving with the clock would not
see any difference.

O'Barr comments:
Yes, from different reference frames you might
see and or measure almost anything. But if you
saw in one frame where a digital clock was going
backwards, and the other frame saw that the
same clock was going forward, what would you
think?
You see, we are not questioning what is
measured! But intelligent beings must be
able to understand that if what is being
measured by both frames are not supportable
then something has to give. A real physical
object cannot be doing just any two things
at once. In any absolute sense, a physical
thing can only be doing one thing at any
one time, it cannot be going both forward
and backwards at the same time. It cannot
also be going both slower and faster than
the same clock.
If you do get a set of measurements
that are not possible, then something is wrong
with the measurements. We surely cannot
disagree on this.
In the twin paradox, yes, it is easy to
see that in terms of measurements, you can
have each clock being measured to be slower
than the other. This is easy. But as a
point of physical fact, such an act cannot
really be physically true. And SR math
confirms this. They really were not
both going the same rates in reality,
because only one ended up younger.



all at the same time, then we have no need to
communicate. If you really believe that the
same photon can go passed every moving frame
there is, all with the same relative velocity,
then again, we have no need to communicate.
There really are limits to what we can think,
and still be able to communicate.

Yes .. you are quite limited in what you are
able to imagine. That's sad.

O'Barr comments:
No, that is not sad. That is what reality forces
all thinking people to do. Not all things are
possible in physical reality.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
    ... >> physical length of a moving ruler is the same as that of the ... we observe that a clock records different elapsed time after a journey. ... >> different length in different frames. ... >> do physics will result different physical laws for different frames. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... So if you really believe that a clock can really ... From different inertial frames of reference .. ... ...it only goes slower, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Contradictory Claims in SR:
    ... > The metal bar in Paris was used to establish the speed of light. ... > we observe that a clock records different elapsed time after a ... frames. ... >> SR, any reference at all, say that the observer is at absolute ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... have a clock that is slower in the frame of reference that is moving. ... fundamental sense between different inertial frames. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: transformation equations
    ... have a clock that is slower in the frame of reference that is moving. ... fundamental sense between different inertial frames. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast