Re: Time Dilation reduces the Speed of moving Objects

On Sep 19, 5:14 am, Peter Riedt <rie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 19, 3:31 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



    Isn't this an internal contradiction? You assumed that the object
was going at 200000 km/s. That was the number you plugged into the
time dilation formula. If the speed changes to 14907 km/s, then you
have to place that new speed into the time dilation formula. Then you
get a new speed, and you have to plug the speed in again. This results
in an infinite series.
   The result is the spaceship goes at 0 km/s. It can never go at any
other velocity. Every time it starts to move, you have to shrink the
speed repeatedly until it is zero.
   Funny! The way physicists use the Lorentz transformation is they
plug the speed of the object into the time dilation formula only once.
One justification is that recalculating the rate of ticks in a clock
doesn't change the original speed of the space ship. that the
measuring instrument in the spaceship are in one and only one
reference frame.
     If that is too abstract for you, go back to the approach used by
H.A. Lorentz.
     Assume that the spaceship contains a clock made entirely of
electrically charged particles, that is somehow held together only by
electromagnetic forces. Say the clock is made of protons and
electrons, with no neutrons. The spaceship is moving at 200000 km/s.
All the particles in the clock are moving at 200000 km/s, with a
slight variation due to the mechanism of the clock. Moving electric
charges generate an extra magnetic field as well as an altered
electric field. The magnetic field and altered electric field slow
down the mechanism of the clock.
    A similar clock is moving at 0 km/s. It has no extra magnetic
field or electric field due to motion. So the clock isn't slowed down
by extra electric or extra magnetic fields. So the clock on earth
ticks faster.
     During the turn around of the space ship, there are extra
electric and magnetic fields generated by the acceleration of the
clock. These acceleration generated electric and magnetic fields
result in a speed up of the space ship clock that more than makes up
for the slow down caused by uniform motion. Sp when the spaceship
clock gets back to earth, it is behind the earth clock.
    Okay, the clocks have neutrons as well as protons and electrons..
If I wanted generality, I would have stuck with Einstein. Never the
less, you see the point.
    The electromagnetic forces would cause a slow up in the spaceship
clock even if Einstein's relativity were not exactly true. Time
dilation would exist, because all clocks have electrically charged
particles. However, the time dilation wouldn't exactly be described by
the Lorentz transformation. There is no way a rapidly moving clock
containing electrically charged particles could avoid slowing down.
Similarly, there is no way a ruler containing electrically charged
particles could avoid being shorten.  Every object in the universe
contains electrically charged particles. Therefore, even without the
invariance of the speeed of light there would be a problem building a
self consistent standard for measuring time and space.
    Einstein provided an exact formula, the Lorentz transformation,
that would apply at all relative velocities. Lorentz provided the
equations, as it turned out. However, he never showed that these
formulas were always true.
   The way Lorentz formulated it, the equation for energy of a charged
particle- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

read more »

Darwin,
very well put but it is not a contradiction; it is an impossibility. I
should change the subject to "Time dilation reduces the speed of
objects to zero". In respect of Lorentz's idea that contraction is
caused by compression of electrical particles within the body due to
motion or whatever, this has been discarded by SR experts.
These are not mutually exclusive possibilities. You are making a
classical error in logic. You are excluding the middle.
They now
believe that contraction and time dilation are perceptions of an
observer due to his speed relative to the observed object.
You are misrepresenting their point of view by twisting the word
"perception." Look at the "twin paradox."
When the twin comes back, he is younger. Therefore, the time
dilation is "real" in one sense. It is not a "perception" in your
meaning of the word. Something actually did happen to the twin in the
turn around.
The time dilation is not real in the sense that the situation is
symmetric until the spaceship rockets turn on and the twin goes home.
Each twin sees the other twin age slower. Therefore, the time dilation
is a "perception" because one can not resolve the question of which
twin has actually "slowed up" in aging.
Lorentz himself couldn't decide from the experimental evidence
which twin actually is experience a time dilation due to
electromagnetic forces, or a length compression due to electromagnetic
forces. Lorentz's equations are totally symmetric with regard to
uniform motion. The results are exactly the same if the earth twin is
in uniform motion, or the rocket is in uniform motion. The "reality"
of the forces in each frame doesn't help resolve the ambiguity.
This situation is actually quite common in physics and
engineering. Physicists call this a symmetry. In mathematics, it is
called a uniqueness problem. Sometimes the math describing a physical
situation has two different numerical solutions. However, very often
there is no way to physically separate the two solutions. The results
describe the exact same physical solution, although there is more than
one numerical solution.
Before the turn around there is no actual way to resolve which
twin is being "compressed" and which twin is being "slowed." In this
way it is more like a "perception."
The semantics of the word "perception" is perhaps a little
confusing. The way I a physicist would interpret the word "perception"
as delivered by another physicist is the following. A "perception"
looks like a unique solution but isn't. However, a "perception" can be
very real. There are some real phenomenon in the world that have very
important effects but are associated with an unavoidable ambiguity.
The idea that there was no ambiguity, or that the ambiguity is somehow
avoidable, is the real "perception."
The rotation of two observers is a perfectly good analogy. If two
flounders look at each other edge on, they would each see a flat line.
If one of them rotated, they would each see a fuller shape. The
question of which is being stretched out is sort of stupid. The
outline of the other flounder is a perception. Or is it real? You are
mistaking the word "perception" as meaning "not real." However, the
word "perception" is being used here to mean "ambiguous." Despite
ranting and raving to the contrary, some ambiguity is physically real
and unavoidable.
If two gunfighters (A and B)in a duel draw their guns at the same
time and kill each other, then the "reality" of their actions is
undeniable. If a witness says that A killed B, then that is the
witnesses "perception." You could as easily said that B killed A,
which would be another "perception." In fact, when they drew their
guns it took a millisecond for the bullets to reach their targets. If
a detective tries to order the events in time, he would conclude that
neither A or B killed each other. It was the bullets that killed A and
B, since the drawing and firing of the guns wasn't really what killed
A and B. This is another perception, and in a strict engineering sense
this is also physically real. However, there is another witness who
would say "those jerks had a stupid duel and killed each other."
I myself hate using the word "perception." It has a different
meaning to laymen than physicists.
I know a fellow at work being bullied by some managers. When the
manager was sued, the manager said that the bullying was only a
perception. I was actually asked whether it was my "perception" that
the fellow was bullied. Of course, the "truthful" answer any physicist
should give is that it was a "perception." A perception in the
dictionary is anything that is perceived. Since I perceive of this
fellow being bullied, I said it was my "perception." However, it was
real bullying. The use of the word perception as being "unreal" is
lawyer-speak. That is not the way a physicist uses the word
"perception."
The perception is that only one twin is being slowed down. The
reality is that the phrase "slowed down" is meaningless until those
rockets go off.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time Dilation reduces the Speed of moving Objects
    ... have to place that new speed into the time dilation formula. ...    The result is the spaceship goes at 0 km/s. ... One justification is that recalculating the rate of ticks in a clock ... electrons, with no neutrons. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation reduces the Speed of moving Objects
    ... have to place that new speed into the time dilation formula. ...    The result is the spaceship goes at 0 km/s. ... One justification is that recalculating the rate of ticks in a clock ... electrons, with no neutrons. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation reduces the Speed of moving Objects
    ... have to place that new speed into the time dilation formula. ...    The result is the spaceship goes at 0 km/s. ... One justification is that recalculating the rate of ticks in a clock ... electrons, with no neutrons. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Time Dilation reduces the Speed of moving Objects
    ... have to place that new speed into the time dilation formula. ...    The result is the spaceship goes at 0 km/s. ... One justification is that recalculating the rate of ticks in a clock ... electrons, with no neutrons. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
    ... >> Vertner Vergon ... >> therefore conclude that the erroneous concept of time dilation be ... >> On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to ... >> were to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, ...
    (sci.physics.particle)