Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?

Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:44 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:87fa45e4-479d-47d6-a342-208523a1e47d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 15, 9:03 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:23 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


news:535fef37-ef6a-4d68-bb1e-2889d94026b0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 14, 7:12 am, papa_r...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:> On 14 oct,
02:23, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

This is so simple. An even simpler example: distance. Can we say
that Chicago is really "farther"? No, it depends on the reference
point. "Fartherness" is not absolute. Chicago is farther than
Buffalo w.r.t. Albany. It is not farther w.r.t. Evanston. Both
distances are real, not illusory, but they are relative to a
point of reference.

It seems not so clear when we turn to rates of clocks, because
for all of human history since clock have existed, we have
thought of time as absolute. Now Einstein tells us that time is
not absolute; it, too, is defined only w.r.t. a frame of
reference. This defies our common sense, but SR tells us that it
is just as real as distance being defined relative to a point of
reference.

Why do you say that it "defies our common sense"? When one is
clueless about
possible models it would be appropriate. Contrary to QM that
defies common
sense as no plausible model has been proposed (so far, AFAIK),
people did
come up with different models that can help to make sense of SRT,
even while SRT was developed.

Regards,
Harald

I can agree about length contraction, since we have experience with
magnetic forces that are velocity-dependent and can exert stresses,
but as for time being frame dependent, I have no clue as to how to
make that appeal to common sense.

Do you? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

There are several ways to make sense of it, with strong proponents
and opponents on either side:

- For starters, the Lorentz transformations were originally
(1904-1905) derived based on a stationary ether model (a
modification of Newton's Absolute Space) that was adjusted to
comply with the Principle of Relativity. Strong proponents for that
explanation were Lorentz (who laid the foundation for SRT),
Langevin (who described SRT as an extension to Newtonian mechancis
and who introduced what later became the Twin paradox) and Ives
(who performed the first successful "time dilation" experiment).
Although not perfect and out of fashion, such a model certainly
appeals to my common sense as it explains how absolute effects are
possible as the result of motion eventhough all observations are
"relative". According to that explanation, those who think that all
SRT effects are physically real and those who think that the
effects are only apparent are both mistaken. I
must admit that armed with that knowledge, sometimes I follow a
debate between such camps purely for entertainment.

- Minkowski had great success with his suggestion to interpret
space-time diagrams at face value, so that nowadays the idea of a
physical Spacetime in
which time is like a 4th dimension has become popular. In that
"geometric" view, Spacetime takes the role of an "absolute"
background but nothing physical happens to clocks in motion as they
follow a different path through
spacetime. Minkowski diagrams are certainly a handy tool that can
simplify calculations but physically it doesn't make sense to me;
thus I'm not the best to explain it. Of course, there are many
proponents of that interpretation around who will be happy to do so.

Note: Einstein appears to have flip-flopped between the two
explanations mentioned here above so that it's up to you to
conclude which one he really
favoured, if any.
For some time I thought that in 1920 he proposed a rather impossible
interpretation (and nobody here came up with an explanation), but
recently I
came to the conclusion that he simply used overly positivistic
language when
he summarized his position.

- There may be other interpretations (perhaps someone else here will
provide
one).

Regards,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harald, I am persuaded that time is relative, in the sense of this
discussion, but I didn't learn anything from your dissertation that
makes it appeal to common sense.

"Relative in the sense of this discussion" has been explained in the
two above opposing ways. I only introduced in a nutshell what those
explanations are; neither 2-sentence sketch should be called a
"dissertation". If you want to make sense of either of them, you
would have to study them first (that requires at least contemplating
several quality articles for each explanation). I wonder if you did.
Assuming that you did study both models without prejudice:

1. What about the ether model explanation did not make sence to you?
2. What about the absolute spacetime model explanation did not make
sence to you?

And when I say that a clock really runs slow w.r.t. a moving frame,
I don't mean that the clock is altered physically.

Good!

W.r.t. its proper
frame, nothing has changed. But the slowness w.r.t. the other frame
is real enough to *mimic* a physical change in the clock.

Sure.

The best example I have is the Bell spaceship paradox. The sense of
"real" I intend is the one that says the string really breaks. There
are those who say that the L contraction is an illusion, but
illusions don't break strings.

We cannot say to what extent the string breaks due to Lorentz
contraction and to what extent due to asynchronous departure. Of
course, I agree that something does happen physically.

Regards,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harald, I confess that I did not spend as much time pondering your
explanations as you expected. I will go back and give them more
respect.

With respect to what causes the string to break, I say that the
explanation depends on the frame of reference. In one frame, there is
asynchonous departure. In the other there is not. Physics can be done
from either frame; either explanation should be sufficient. So in the
latter, there is no asynchronous departue, and we have only one
explanation: L C against restraints. Each theory is correct and
sufficient where it applies.

Ben,
Relativity of simultaneity is a bunch of crap.
In the atomic bomb, explosions occured simultaneously or the atomic
bomb would never have worked at all.
Simultaneity is a fact.
An atomic bomb sized fact.
Do you actually think if an observer was moving fast enough
past the atomic bomb as it went off that it would have not
gone off, just because the observer measured (observed) asyncronous
explosions for the triggers?
If the trigger explosions physically went off non simultaneously
the bomb would not have created the explosion it did.
I hate to use the nasty fact of that bomb, but it is the best proof
RoS is crap. (observer perceived crap)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... it depends on the reference ... "Fartherness" is not absolute. ... explanation were Lorentz, ... Physics can be done ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... "Fartherness" is not absolute. ... stresses, but as for time being frame dependent, I have no clue ... that explanation were Lorentz, ... Physics can be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... it depends on the reference ... "Fartherness" is not absolute. ... Strong proponents for that explanation were Lorentz (who laid ... Physics can be done ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... "Fartherness" is not absolute. ... as to how to make that appeal to common sense. ... that explanation were Lorentz, ... so much is written about it in physics literature, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... it depends on the reference ... "Fartherness" is not absolute. ... but as for time being frame dependent, I have no clue as to how to ... explanation were Lorentz, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast