Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?

On Jul 28, 8:26 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 28, 12:17 pm, mluttg...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Jul 26, 1:58 am, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

mluttg...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 24, 3:10 am, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
mluttg...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jul 21, 7:12 pm, carlip-nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I of course accept that clocks in flight are *observed*
to tick differently from ground clocks.
But I can't find a physical cause, that could *permanently*
alter the readings of 'flying' clocks.
Eppur si muove...
A nice, but a little sad answer!

The point is that the experiments disagree with your intuition
of what ought to happen.  There is, in fact, an *observed*
permanent shift between the readings of the two clocks.  You
can wish what you like, but in the end, Nature doesn't care
about your guesses.  

It still moves...

Steve Carlip

'Sad', because the physical causes are ignored.
Anyhow, you have convinced me that the observed
relativist effects on clocks are real and permanent.

Well, that's progress, and it's a good start on becoming more reliant
on experimental information about what *really does happen* in nature,
rather than on just a set of suppositions and logical argument.

As for what the physical cause is, we've just spent some time figuring
out that length contraction's "cause" is very real, just not of the
character that you expected.

From what you wrote earlier:

"Length contraction" results from "the procedure that
*defines* what the length of an object is.
The best procedure for *defining* physical length is to
mark the locations of two events against a standard ruler
*simultaneously*. There is no better definition of
physical length between two events that has ever
been found."

This has nothing to do with a "physical cause".

Marcel Luttgens


You were perhaps expecting that there
must be some physical process that is compressing an object if length
contraction is real. It turns out to be nothing of the sort, though
relativity of simultaneity and length contraction are both very real
effects that also show up in experiment as the way nature *really
works*.

Now, Spaceman is of the opinion that if the physical cause of time
dilation is not attributed to a malfunction of the clock, then the
real physical cause has not been found. He's simply not willing to
entertain a cause that is not of the form he wants. Fortunately, you
seem to be a little less bound up, though I see it continues to be a
struggle.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... I of course accept that clocks in flight are *observed* ... permanent shift between the readings of the two clocks. ... 'Sad', because the physical causes are ignored. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... I of course accept that clocks in flight are *observed* ... permanent shift between the readings of the two clocks. ... on experimental information about what *really does happen* in nature, ... relativity of simultaneity and length contraction are both very real ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Three alternatives to explain the MMX null result
    ... >> The Natural clocks that nature made...all agree ... >> Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory ... It is all very simple and has no need of contraction to explain ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GR ?
    ... |> yourself the experimental variation in muon decay and contraction in the ... Yes as a physical fact. ... that then you must not agree that clocks generally run slower on earth than ... but is ESSENTIAL to understanding the concepts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whence camest nullness?
    ... Given that man must synchronize clocks (since Nature cannot ... Only if Nature can set clocks can there be _any_ natural law ... Nature simply has no control over clock synchronization). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)