Re: I am Trying To Learn Relativity

"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:R8KdnfwkGLvHFMTXnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:bb3378e0-9923-453e-b30a-3ae9dd648c51@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 11, 3:06 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:6481ee3e-a780-431a-8b60-68936283bfcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 11, 1:22 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>news:c8c5de4b-5d5b-465a-ae39-8933c9d722fe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Jul 10, 6:56 pm, hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:

> > On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:09:22 +1000, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote:
> > >"PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >news:b3b46943-7f87-4a89-82f3-c874a46ff310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> On Jul 9, 7:59 pm, hw@..(Henry Wilson, DSc) wrote:
> > >>> >No. SR is a model of physical reality. It applies even if one
> > >>> >chooses
> > >>> >to
> > >>> >synchronize clocks differently. Of course one must include the
> > >>> >synchronization method used when analyzing experiments. The
> > >>> >coordinate
> > >>> >clocks of SR's inertial frames are indeed synchronized using > > >>> >light
> > >>> >(or
> > >>> >equivalent), but you are free to synchronize the real clocks of
> > >>> >your
> > >>> >experiment any way you like; you can still apply SR.

> > >>> Clocks can be presynched whilst together then moved into any
> > >>> required
> > >>> position.

> > >> Slowly, yes. Or you can do it via the procedure above without
> > >> worrying
> > >> about transport at all.

> > >Of course, there is no need for it to be slow transport at all if it > > >is
> > >all
> > >done relative to an inertial frame .. you can move the clocks as > > >fast
> > >as
> > >you
> > >like in SR, as long as you move them symmetrically (ie at the same
> > >speed
> > >but
> > >opposite directions) in an inertial frame. They will remain in sync
> > >with
> > >each other in that frame. Of course, the problem is finding such a
> > >frame.
> > >Slow transport would reduce the error due to the frames of reference > > >we
> > >have
> > >at our disposal on earth being not-quite-inertial.

> > Good clocks can be moved any way you like. They should not change > > much
> > at
> > all.

> Ah, but they do. Because good clocks still cannot defy the laws of
> physics.

> > Anyway separated clocks can be absolutely synched at any time as long > > as
> > they
> > are M.A.R. Einstein's method works perfectly well because it is pure
> > BaTh....and he probably knew it.
> > If the clocks are in different gravity potentials, a small error will
> > occur due
> > to the fact that the 'upward' signal will travel more slowly on > > average
> > than
> > the downward one. The maximum error due to this factor should be
> > considered in
> > any real experiment using such clocks. It will usually be extremely
> > small
> > in
> > lab experiments but will affect the timing of space events such as > > GPS
> > or
> > of
> > spaceship positioning.

> > Henry Wilson...www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

> > ........putting Physics back into Phairyland...

> ======================

> Henry: "Good clocks can be moved any way you like. They should not > change
> much at all."

> Paul: "Ah, but they do. Because good clocks still cannot defy the laws > of
> physics."

> Paul is one of those who will insist that because the Sun is observed > to
> be about 8.3 minutes behind the Earth, the Earth observer, and the > Earth
> observer's clock, in time (about 8.3 light minutes from Earth), the Sun
> *is
> in fact* that 8.3 minutes behind the Earth in time

I will insist no such thing. Please do not put words in my mouth.

However, the time between when an event on the sun occurs and when the
signal arrives at the Earth will depend on the frame of reference in
which those events are observed. And that amount will not always be
8.3 minutes.
This we know from related experiments.

=========

In no way does "about 8.3 minutes behind...." imply 8.3 minutes absolute.

---------

But you definitely do insist "such thing." You do it constantly (Paul:
"Ah, but they do...."). You make no spacetime-wise distinction at all
between *observed* -- therefore relative to the observer -- there and thens
(-) and *unobserved* there and nows (0) ((+)). If the always *unobserved*
'forward' in time (+) DOES NOT precisely cancel the always *observed*
'behind' in time (-), for an equally always [there-now / here-now] constant
of 0 = 0, then as I said below, "the speed of light being the 'constant' of
c [is] the pile of horse dung so many claim."

GL

=========

> (he will insist that
> there is no such thing in the Universe as an unobserved Sun (an > unobserved
> clock) +8.3 minutes to the observed Sun's (the observed clock's) -8.3
> minutes). He will insist that any traveler's clock, at 8.3 light > minutes
> from Earth, displaying a time -8.3 minutes off the Earth observer's > clock
> *is in fact* that -8.3 minutes behind the Earth observer's clock
> time...the
> traveler twin being 8.3 minutes younger than the Earth observer twin > (the
> traveler twin being NOW 8.3 minutes younger than when he was standing > next
> to his brother: being NOW 8.3 minutes younger than his brother).

> He will insist that because the Andromeda galaxy is observed to be > about
> 2.2 million years behind the Earth, the Earth observer, and the Earth
> observer's clock, in time (about 2.2 million light years from Earth),
> Andromeda *is in fact* that 2.2 million years behind the Earth in time > (he
> will insist that there is no such thing in the Universe as an > UNOBSERVED
> Andromeda (an UNOBSERVED clock) +2.2 million years to the OBSERVED
> Andromeda's (the OBSERVED clock's) -2.2 million years). He will insist
> that
> any traveler's clock, at 2.2 million light years from Earth, displaying > a
> time -2.2 million years off the Earth observer's clock *is in fact*
> that -2.2 million years behind the Earth observer's clock time......

> (Paul would insist that there is no UNOBSERVED traveler existing, no
> UNOBSERVED traveling clock and clock-time existing, precisely -- or > close
> enough to be indistinguishable from "precisely" -- *plus* in time to > the
> OBSERVED *minus* in time. But if there is no UNOBSERVED traveling clock
> existing precisely *plus* in time to the OBSERVED traveling clock's
> *minus*
> in time, precisely cancelling that *minus*, then the speed of light > being
> the constant of c [is] the pile of horse dung so many claim.)

> GL

> ========================



I sure wish that made a lick of sense.
But it doesn't.
Sigh.

==================

It makes sense alright. What doesn't would be your answer if I asked you to explain what you told Henry in the line I quoted concerning [reality], then ask you to describe what would be observed by an observer. You would have to repeat yourself, if you answered the second request at all. You have no concept of a Universe existing in advance in spacetime of the universe observed by observers, therefore no concept of travelers and travelers' clocks existing in advance in spacetime of the travelers and travelers' clocks observed by observers.

You've shown all too clearly here you have not the beginning of a clue concerning a Moon existing about +1.3 seconds in spacetime to the Moon observed to be about 1.3 light seconds from Earth (observed to be about -1.3 seconds in spacetime relative to Earth's placement in spacetime by Earth bound observers). Two Moons, one [unobserved] real (0) and one [observed] history (-). It follows, two astronauts and two clocks, one [unobserved] real (0) and one [observed] history (-). You call the latter frame the 'real' and dismiss the very existence of the former frame.

Too expand the universe further:

You've shown.....you have not the beginning of a clue concerning a Sun existing about +8.3 minutes in spacetime to the Sun observed to be about 8.3 light minutes from Earth (observed to be about -8.3 minutes in spacetime relative to Earth's placement in spacetime by Earth bound observers). Two Suns, one [unobserved] real (0) and one [observed] history (-). It follows, two astronauts and two clocks at the same distance from Earth, one [unobserved] real (0) and one [observed] history (-). Again you call the latter frame the 'real' and dismiss the very existence of the former frame. The observed astronaut, and clock, are falling behind in time (from an observed 1.3 seconds behind (-) in time to the Earth bound observer (0) to 8.3 minutes now behind (-) in time to the same Earth bound observer (0). The real astronaut, and real clock, like the real Sun, are in fact an [unobserved] +8.3 minutes in advance in spacetime to the [observed] astronaut and clock placement in spacetime of -8.3 minutes relative to the Earth bound observer (0). (THE [OBSERVED] ASTRONAUT IS APPARENTLY NOT AGING AS FAST AS THE EARTH BOUND OBSERVER IS! HIS [OBSERVED] CLOCK IS APPARENTLY NOT RUNNING AS FAST AS THE EARTH BOUND CLOCK IS RUNNING!)

----------------------

Once more. If I asked you for the explanation of what you said in the one sentence to Henry that I quoted -- concerning the reality of the clock and clock-time on the spot, and then asked you for what an Earth bound observer would observe from his Earth bound point of view, if he could, of the clock and clock-time....your answers would be -impossibly- identically the same answer, IF YOU DIDN'T TRY TO ESCAPE AND EVADE! IF YOU BOTHERED TO ANSWER AT ALL!

(Your entire Universe in present time (0) is only Earth wide...strictly Earth wide. No Moon co-exists parallel to Earth in an unobserved spacetime universe (0). Only the Moon observed to exist *behind* Earth in time (-) exists as far as you are concerned. No Sun co-exists parallel to Earth in an unobserved spacetime universe (0). Only the Sun observed to exist *behind* Earth in time (-) exists as far as you are concerned. No Milky Way or Andromeda galaxy co-exists parallel to Earth in an unobserved spacetime universe (0). Only the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies behind Earth in time (-) exist as far as you are concerned. And on and on, and on....expanding out to the farthest horizon behind Earth in time (((-))).....nothing -- particularly no travelers or traveling clocks or clock times -- co-existing there-now (0) parallel to Earth here-now (0) (0 = 0 = 0 = 0.....) in unobserved, in unobservable, spacetime (0). To Paul, the distant traveler, and his distant clock and clock time, *on the spot* really have to fall back in time (-) in the direction of the farthest horizon of the universe (((-))) -- *on the spot* really have to slow down in time (-) toward the universe's distant light-time-histories ((-)).....EXACTLY AS ***OBSERVED*** BY THE EARTH BOUND OBSERVER! To Paul there is no other traveler, no other clock or clock time, than that which is observed by the Earth bound observer! Which is why Paul would give -impossibly- identically the same answer, exactly the same answer, for both reality on the spot NOW (0)! and observations of histories (-) from some distance away, including, relatively speaking, distance (+) between reality on the spot NOW (0) and history (-). A variable distance also present in differences in velocities -- the greater the difference in velocity between observer and traveler, the greater the distance (+) in spacetime -- as far as the observer is concerned -- between the *observed* -virtual- object-history (-) behind and an *unobserved* object-reality (0) forward. ("It's further away than it looks.") ("It's closer than it looks.") (thus, in both these different and opposing cases: "It's further along than it looks, thus older than it looks."))

My god, that was an enormous serving of word soup .. with a few pluses and minuses thrown in for flavor. I wonder if you were actually trying to say something coherent? Shame that you failed completely. Try taking a very deep breath (laying off whatever drugs you may have been on when you wrote the above) and explain in short, simple sentences, and maybe some mathematical formulas. Oh .. and read what you have written before hitting the big 'send' button.


.

Loading