Re: time dilation

On Apr 17, 7:54 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 17, 3:35 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That isn't determined by looking at equations. That's determined by
comparing whether, when you plug in *measured* values for those
quantities in the variables, whether the left side of the equation and
the right-side of the equation are the same. This is where experiment
becomes important, Bobby.

Now, you can say, "But the problem is you're trying to stick in
*measured* quantities in for t and t'. The equation is right but t'
isn't what you measure. What you measure is some other number." That's
fine if you want to invent comic-book heroes and other mythological
things, but it's not physics.

Well, yes, it is physics, PD.  I even got one scientist to show with
the Lorentz equations that t'=t for this particular problem.  He had
to flip frames of reference to do it, but that is standard procedure
with the Lorentz equations.
    At any rate, there is no doubt in physics that Galileo was right
about the principle of equivalence.

About the principle of relativity, yes. The principle of equivalence
means something else.

I thought you scientists said Galileo was wrong about relativity.

No, he was right about relativity. It's just that the Galilean
transformation that was thought to follow from the principle of
relativity was wrong. The principle is right, but they didn't have all
the laws of physics in place. This is where Einstein stepped in. He
said two things to start: The principle of relativity -- as Galileo
had it -- works and it applies to all laws of physics; second, since
this applies also to the laws of electrodynamics, the speed of light
in vacuum is a constant regardless of motion of source relative to
observer.

 The
principle of equivalence means that When Galileo dropped two different
sized lead weights from the  top of the leaning tower of Pisa, they
both hit the ground at the same time.

Uh, no, that's not the principle of equivalence, either. Nor is it the
principle of relativity. Where are you reading this tripe?

 As it was used by Isaac Newton,
two satellites of different masses in orbit around the earth at the
same altitude have the same speed.

Same problem.


 My equations agree with the
principle of equivalence.

No, they don't. They make the laws of physics violate the principle of
relativity, which is what the principle of relativity is all about.
Under your equations that describe a possible transformation between
coordinates between reference frames, the laws of physics and in
particular the laws of electrodynamics are no longer of the same form
in both reference frames.

 I do not care about the laws of electrodynamics.  I was talking about
light.

Exactly. Light IS electrodynamics.

But as a matter of fact you have not shown me that even the laws of
electrodynamics are changed in the equations I use.

That's true. It's easy to look up in Google the pages where someone
has carefully crafted that demonstration using HTML formatting to show
the algebra. A text-only venue is not a good place to do that.
http://everything2.com/e2node/Galilean%2520transformation
http://everything2.com/title/maxwell%2527s%2520equations
http://www.wiziq.com/educational-tutorials/presentation/1541-Galilean-Transformation
If I can find this in 8 seconds, I'm sure you can do better in 60.


 That is explicitly a violation of the

principle of relativity.

I would strongly doubt that the equations I use violate anything.

It doesn't seem to matter much what you doubt if you haven't educated
yourself on a subject. People can doubt evolution all they want, too.

 As
I understand what the laws of electrodynamics say, a cesium clock in
S' will show the speed of light to be c, which is what n'=t(1-v/c)
says.

More to it than that.


Of course, you'd never know that by looking at just the set of
equations you're considering. That's part of the problem.

Well, I do not see a problem.  You scientists claim to be all confused
by t'=t because it does not represent scientific time in S'.  A cesium
clock in S' is shown by n'=t(v/c).  Scientists are horrified.  How
does that violate any principles of science?  Scientists were
horrified when Galileo said the earth was rotating on its axis.



 Now since you claim to have found a mistake
in my mathematics, just go ahead and show everyone the mistake.

No, I didn't say there was a mistake in the mathematics. That's the
point. There can be a perfectly well-formed and mathematically
consistent set of equations that nevertheless does not match reality.
The determination of reality is NOT based on inspection of equations
to find out if there is a math error somewhere. The determination of
reality is based on whether, when you put actual *measured* values in
for the variables in the equation, the left-hand side of the equation
agrees with the right-hand side of the equation.

Well, OK, so what are the measured values that the equations do not
agree with?  I know about the measured values for the planet Mercury.

Which has nothing to do with the Lorentz transformation or the
Galilean transformation.

My equations seem to match those measured values perfectly.  My
equations seem to match the results of the Michelcson-Morley
experiment perfectly.  So what is your objection?

Umm, if those are the only two experiments you're matching to, then
this illustrates the problem.
Look, Bobby, you're only passing time and you really haven't invested
any effort into this beyond the minimal hobbyist level required to
just pass the time. It just doesn't seem right that you would sit
lazily in your recliner and have people feed you information like
grapes while you are fanned and entertained. I'm willing to point you
to places where you can get educated on this stuff. I'm just not all
that inclined to go fetch it for you and drop it into your open mouth
on a rubber-coated spoon. You know what I mean?

You have made vague statements about electrodynamics.  How exactly do
you claim the equations violate laws of electrodynamics?

I told you. It makes them lose their invariance with reference frame,
which is precisely what the principle of relativity says should never
happen.


In your case, you wrote t=t'. This equation doesn't describe reality
because when you put *measured* values of t and t' in, as taken from a
real experiment, you find that the left side and right side don't
agree.

Well, that is just ridiculous.  Just try this experiment.  Take a
clock and put it on the floor next to you.  If you are in frame of
reference S, then the time on that clock on the floor represents
t'=t.  There, that was not so difficult, was it?

Sorry, that's one reference frame, not two. You have t, but there is
no S' nor a t' measured in that other frame in your example, is there?
You DO know what a reference frame is, don't you?

    Now you have some equations in which t' is said to represent time
on a cesium clock in S', a moving frame of reference.  Try to grasp
this concept.  We already said that t' was the time on the clock on
the floor.  So t' cannot be used again to represent time on a cesium
clock in S'.  We use a different variable for that time, n'=t(1-v/c).
    But, you say, no scientist will ever agree to use any variable
except t' for time on a cesium clock in S'.  OK, but that does not
prove anything to me except that you do not understand elementary
algebra.  If you cannot understand that n' is being used to represent
time on a cesuim clock in S' and use it accordingly, then so be it,
but it does not show me any violation of any law of electrodynamics.
It shows me that science is a dogmatic discipline like radical Islamic
belief, so why worry about science?
    Let scientists decide for themselves what they want to believe.

 This does NOT mean that there is a mathematical mistake in the

derivation of the equations someplace. It just doesn't describe
reality.

Well, it is easy to say that a set of equations does not represent
reality.  What is lacking is any sort of proof of this statement.

But there IS proof. There is lots of experimental literature. It is
freely available, provided EXPLICITLY so that people who are
interested can look it up and discern for themselves that it's been
proven. Moreover, it's written in such a way that if you wanted to
reproduce the experiment, the instructions for doing so are there in
the same publications, and then you could see with your own eyes that,
in fact, nature works this way. The one thing this scheme does not
provide is a handmaiden to carry the information to you and hold it up
in front of your eyes.


The development of physics is littered with theories (since abandoned)
that are completely logical, completely mathematically consistent, and
completely plausible -- and dead wrong. And the fact that they are
wrong is determined when confronted with *measured* values in
experiment.

Right, so show the "measured values" that prove the equations I am
using are wrong.

Robert B. Winn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: time dilation
    ... The principle is right, ... the laws of physics in place. ... The principle of relativity -- as Galileo ... clock and put it on the floor next to you. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: time dilation
    ... The principle is right, ... the laws of physics in place. ... The principle of relativity -- as Galileo ... clock and put it on the floor next to you. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are these people insane? Seriously.
    ... inertial reference frame. ... principle of relativity must ... The principle of Relativity is more than a law of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • ABOUT THE GALILEI PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
    ... THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY AND ITS UNREASONABLE ... according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. The ... All Gaussian coordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The princile of the relativity.
    ... .THE METAMORPHOSES OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE RELATIVITY. ... K' according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K. ... All Gaussian coordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)