Re: What causes time dilation?
From: Alex Green (dralexgreen_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 09/09/04
- Next message: Mark Palenik: "Re: Twin Paradox paper available"
- Previous message: Arkadiusz Jadczyk: "Re: What before big bang?"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 9 Sep 2004 02:17:53 -0700
"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Y4k%c.2274$Nf5.24086599@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> "Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:42c8441.0409070212.2d350af1@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> | Modern relativity theory does not have this foundation. It is based
> | on invariance and symmetry. The geodesics are derived from the concept
> | of a (3+1)D universe.
> |
> | See:
> | http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz2b.htm
> |
> | For a simple intro. We have two competing theories here,
>
> No... we have three.
>
> in the first
> | the universe is full of some substance 'the aether' and in the second
> | the universe is a four dimensional manifold.
>
> And in the third the universe is 3 dimensional with time independent
> of space.
>
> In the first, light's speed is medium dependent.
> In the second, light's speed is observer dependent (subjective).
> In the third, light's speed is source dependent (objective).
>
> | The second theory has led to predictions from Quantum Theory
> | (via de Broglie Waves and the Dirac Equation) to Black Holes.
>
> A mishmash of poorly understood concepts.
>
> | The first theory was a complicated mass of
> | unrelated empirical equations by 1900 and desperately needed to be
> | replaced.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The third theory predicts that light from a moving source will have
> the velocity of light added to the velocity of the source. This will
> produce an apparent retrograde motion of a star in orbit, although
> we don't have suffiently powerful telescopes to observe this.
> However, this apparent retrograde motion has another effect, that
> of changing the intensity of the light as it reaches us.
> In the empirical data below, the retrograde motion appears between
> the two maxima.
> http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
>
>
>
> |
> | Many people are committed 'presentists' and just will not accept the
> | possibility that time has a geometric character.
>
> That is correct. Time has no inverse and therefore cannot be a vector.
>
> | I think it was the
> | gifted art historian Gombrich who pointed out that if the present were
> | just a durationless instant, a boundary between what has been and what
> | is to come, we could not even hear the merest phoneme of a word or see
> | a movement. Everything is frozen at any instant in Galilean
> | Relativity. Motion itself would be impossible.
>
> That argument is fallacious, 'now' is 'moving'. It has as much validity
> as a still photograph of a moving object 'proving' the object is stationary.
> Clearly Gombrich should stay with art and history and keep out of physics.
But nothing can 'see' a still photograph at an instant because no
processes occur at an instant. In Galilean time the past is gone, the
future does not exist, there is only the zero amount of time that is
the frozen present.
See: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-07/3-07.htm
>
> |
> | However, that said, I think a gifted mathematician could tack bits on
> | to Newtonian physics to account for all the disoveries of the
> | twentieth century.
> Well, thank you.
> I'd rather strip off some ridiculous assertions, though, and quit pretending
> we know that which we do not.
> The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
>
> For quotations following, reference:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
>
> 1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
> which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
> a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
Agreed, it is what might be called a temporary assumption. The speed
of light is a hybrid variable composed of space and time so its
constancy cannot, on its own, be a fundamental axiom. This is why the
modern theory uses invariance and is actually a theory that proposes
that the universe is a four dimensional manifold.
[snip of other excerpts from Einsteins early work]
>
> | All that is needed is an ever increasing library of
> | unrelated assumptions. Theories don't need to die, you can keep them
> | going well past their natural lifespan with enough mathematical TLC.
> Or enough paint stripper.
I am in favour of people deriving other bases for physics. Modern
mathematicians are pretty good at their job and can build fairly
foolproof structures out of sets of axioms. However, it is the axioms
themselves that contain the real physics.
As a proponent of a new basis for physics your task, should you decide
to accept it, is to predict a new effect or explain an unexplained
effect. Nuclear energy (e=mc^2) put Einstein on the map with a bang.
Best Wishes
Alex Green
- Next message: Mark Palenik: "Re: Twin Paradox paper available"
- Previous message: Arkadiusz Jadczyk: "Re: What before big bang?"
- In reply to: Androcles: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Next in thread: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Reply: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Reply: Androcles: "Re: What causes time dilation?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
