Re: time dilation

On Apr 15, 9:11�am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"rbwinn" <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:c8238d26-0663-4734-8423-ff193a918fc9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 15, 2:27?am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:





"rbwinn" <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Darwin 123 is a scientist who responded to my post. ?He had the idea
of dropping two clocks. ?I really like this idea because it shows the
basic difference between the ideas of scientists and my own ideas.
The scientific interpretation is that the picture taken from S will
show the S clock hitting the floor and the S' clock still in the air
showing less time than the S clock. ?The picture taken from S' will
show the S' clock hitting the floor and the S clock still in the air
showing less time than the S' clock.

No. Due to the limited speed of light and the conventionality of one-way
lightspeed, a picture taken of two objects with one object far behind the
other such as in your example cannot really show what happened when - as
people became aware of by the end of the 19th century - this became known
as
"local time" and "relativity of simultaneity". Such pictures can only
"show"
it by convention; that is, by assuming that the speed of light is
isotropic
in their frame of choice. In other words, such pictures themselves only
show
that the sequence depends on one's assumptions/choice of reference frame..
See also Wikipedia: "Relativity of simultaneity".

You did not read it? Why not?

[...]

? ? ?My result for this experiment is that a picture taken from
either frame of reference will show both clocks hitting the floor
simultaneously, and both pictures will show less time on the S' clock.
Robert B. Winn

You are free to reinvent 19th century theory. Just be aware that pictures
cannot provide the information that you claim they do, and that 19th
century
theory has been disproved one century ago.

: It is not really difficult to overcome your objections. �All that
: needs to be done is to give the clock released at the top of the train
: car momentum that cancels the motion of the train so that it falls
: straight to the floor as seen by an observer in S. �Even scientists of
: today would recognize that in frame of reference S', it takes a clock
: falling in a curved path the same amount of time to hit the floor as a
: clock falling straight to the floor relative to S'. �What is
: significant is what S sees. �He sees the clock in the train car fall
: straight down relative to S and strike the floor at the same time as a
: clock in frame of reference S. �The clock will also read the same time
: as the clock in S.
: � � �I can see why you scientists were so worried about these clocks
: and did not want them dropped. �Galileo was a lot smarter than modern
: scientists were giving him credit for.
: Robert B. Winn

:-)))
- With two objects falling side by side from rest relative to the earth, we
are back to the tower-of-Pisa experiment. We all agree on the outcome as
seen in S, and in fact BOTH clocks can be said (in a sloppy way) to be "in"
S. There is only an additional GRT question about what a falling clock would
indicate when it hits the floor. But that is not really important for your
issues, and for all practical purposes the clocks will not measurably
deviate when dropped from that height. No worries. ;-)

- As I explained already (and apparently I wasn't the only one), it DOES
matter for the acceleration if an object is moving at high speed relative to
a field - that is even the case in classical electrodynamics, and thus it
was already contemplated by scientists of the 19th century (such as
Heaviside). It's not clear to me why that causes a problem for you, or even
why you raise that topic here - most people including myself don't know GRT
well and such issues are likely to distract you from your issues with SRT.

- Going back to your issue with SRT: if you had read the article on
simultaneity you might have noticed that according to measurements in S,
calibrated clocks that are at rest in the train car (S') are erroneously
synchronized as it takes longer for light to reach the front of the car than
to reach the back of the car. Thus, by comparing two distant out-of-sync
clocks, or by "measuring" time-at-a-distance with a picture, the clocks seem
to fall down in less time for people in the train car than according to
measurements in S. But according to measurements in S', all clocks are well
synchronized at the start and the falling clocks are slow by the Lorentz
factor due to their high speed.
Thus everyone agrees about what is observed by everyone; the only difference
is in the perception of causes. I don't expect you to understand that
immediately, but I hope that if you study the Wikipedia article it will
become clearer! :-)
Success.
Harald,
The position of scientists is that, taking the train car as a
laboratory, experiments run in this laboratory S' must have the same
results as experiments run outside the laboratory in S. So by their
interpretation of the Lorentz equations, they get that result by
saying that events that are simultaneous in S' are not simultaneous in
S.
According to scientists who have responded in this topic, when the
clock hits the floor in S, a clock at x'=0 in S' is still in the air
and reads less time than the clock in S. This is all in keeping with
S' being a laboratory where experiments are the same as in S. In
order to accomplish this, a distance contraction is necessary.
The Galilean transformation equations are showing something
different. They show S as being a preferred frame of reference, and
it is not the velocity of S' as a moving laboratory that determines
the times on clocks, it is the velocity of individual clocks relative
to S. For instance, if we drop two cesium clocks, the clocks are
moving relative to S and S' and will show less time when they hit the
floor than identical clocks on the floor in S and S'. With regard to
clocks in S', a clock at x'=0 in S' has a velocity of v relative to S
and will read t(1-v/c) when a clock in S hits the floor.
A clock sent backwards in S' such that it falls straight down in S has
a velocity of v=0 as far as the x-axis of S is concerned and will read
exactly the same as a clock dropped vertically in S when it hits the
floor. This means that if all clocks in S read the same, and S is a
preferred frame of reference with regard to time, clocks in S' will
read according to their velocity relative to S, and not all the same
in S' as they would do if S' were a laboratory such as scientists
imagine it to be.
Even this description is not exactly correct because not all
differences in time are being taken into account, since most would be
so small as to be almost non-existent. In fact, for this example, the
differences in results from the Lorentz equations and the Galilean
transformation equations would be so small as to be almost non-
existent. The major difference is the existence of a preferred
reference frame for time, which the Galilean transformation equations
show, and the Lorentz equations do not. For instance, in the case of
a satellite in orbit around earth, the clock on earth represents the
preferred frame of reference, and the clock on the satellite
represents the clock in motion.
Now it may be centuries before this concept will ever be
considered by scientists. My impression of scientists is that they
are people who sit around in laboratories and drink coffee, which is
why they like the Lorentz equations so much. The Lorentz equations
show all frames of reference as laboratories where scientists can sit
around and drink coffee.
Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... runs slower than a clock around which the moving clock is ... in both frames of reference, does the altitude of the rotating ... same from either frame of reference according to Einstein's ... For that reason scientists used to think that there was a ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: velocity
    ... reference clock on Earth. ... where a single reference clock on Earth will not ... attaching "....difficult for scientists to understand" to every ... But the astronauts say they have a clock on board the space shuttle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... however useful they may have been to scientists in causing explosions, ... in the subject.but even what special relativity says you dont ... of velocity on the clock. ... I say it did not prove the Lorentz equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... slower than an identical clock on earth. ... between Special Relativity and a curved orbit. ... scientists, a moving clock is slower than a stationary clock whether ... So there must be a distance contraction, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... about the NIST standard for the SI second. ... you say that a clock in a satellite is ... when a most straightforward measurement shows that nature ... Scientists in Newton's time told him that he had left nothing to be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading