Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > The Proving Grounds > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 05:44 AM
Normandy6644's Avatar
Normandy6644 Normandy6644 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ithaca, New York
Posts: 3,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo
Quote:
What am I supposed to do, just sit back and let you guys have all the fun??!
How can you call 50 odd pages of you not understanding what people have typed to you fun?
Oh, come on! Didn't you have fun too?
Yeah, it was kind of fun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo
Quote:
Then why did Mr. E have to add acceleration and gravity effects during his own attempted “resolution” in 1918, since there are no acceleration or gravity effects in the SR theory?
Because SR doesn't include those effects...
Ha! Exactly!

He couldn’t solve the SR clock paradox with SR theory alone, so he had to go outside the theory, and when he did that, he didn’t solve the SR clock paradox, he presented a GR case in which there is no paradox. He, himself, could not solve the SR clock paradox.
Actually, you're closer to being right than you ever were before. He saw that SR was incomplete, and so by extending it to cover non-inertial reference frame he did in fact resolve what appeared to be a paradox in SR. Can we leave it at that, or do we need 50 or so more pages? :wink:
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 05:45 AM
freddo freddo is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,228
Send a message via MSN to freddo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
Oh, come on! Didn't you have fun too?
That's not the right word to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
He couldn’t solve the SR clock paradox with SR theory alone, so he had to go outside the theory, and when he did that, he didn’t solve the SR clock paradox, he presented a GR case in which there is no paradox. He, himself, could not solve the SR clock paradox.
WRONG! Very wrong.

SR doesn't include acceleration or gravitational effects. Neither did the Clock Paradox!

There were other, real influences to cause Einstein to revise and improve his theories of relativity.
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 06:03 AM
milli360's Avatar
milli360 milli360 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanF
dvb, at least in regards to Relativity, there are no real paradoxes. There are some things that appear to be paradoxes at first glance, but once you understand the entire theory, you can see that they are not.
Excuse me, but in this modern world, full of inquiring and skeptical youth, that is not good enough. You need to explain the paradox away, not just say, “There is no real paradox.” That is just your opinion. Other opinions may differ. If there is no paradox, then explain why there is no paradox, because all you have said so far is, “Trust me, there is no paradox.”
We've had this discussion before though, and I disagree with your assessment of the answers that have been given. The "paradoxes" have been explained.

PS: the relevant paradoxes
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 03:51 PM
Ricimer Ricimer is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: California
Posts: 588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanF
dvb, at least in regards to Relativity, there are no real paradoxes. There are some things that appear to be paradoxes at first glance, but once you understand the entire theory, you can see that they are not.
Excuse me, but in this modern world, full of inquiring and skeptical youth, that is not good enough. You need to explain the paradox away, not just say, “There is no real paradox.” That is just your opinion. Other opinions may differ. If there is no paradox, then explain why there is no paradox, because all you have said so far is, “Trust me, there is no paradox.”

Sam, that's exactly what SeanF said. That the traditional "paradoxes" appear to be just that. Until you explain them correctly with the appropriate theory. So the Twin Paradox appears to be a paradox, until you examine it and SR theory closely, in which case you can resolve it, and make sense of it. I.e. the twin paradox isn't a paradox, but a solution to a system using SR.

you know, they explained it. And since it appears, at a quick glance, to be a paradox, but isn't, once you get to the nitty gritty, it is only an apparent paradox. Sorta like Zeno's Paradox with the arrow never reaching the target. It's true, except 2 things: Caculus and it's limits, or just hte fact the arrow has a length.

Now, whether they explained it to your personal satisfaction or not, is an entirely different can of worms.
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 06:25 PM
TravisM's Avatar
TravisM TravisM is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,221
Send a message via MSN to TravisM Send a message via Yahoo to TravisM
Default

I enjoy Sam5's lack of understanding you guys (refusal, more like it). I don't understand most of the math but...
The first time I saw you on here Sam5 you were disputing a very simple image of how light gets distored around the sun. The effect had been observed and the cause had been attributed the the graivty well of the sun altering the path that light took around it, slightly changing it's apparent position relative to the sun as viewed from earth.
Now, I'm the first to admit I'm lost when it comes to math, but a picture carries several y's over to an ^ factor of 10... vs. any math you can throw at me 8) I understand that gravity distorts spacetime...
But I've enjoyed watching this: ](*,) from both sides, Sam5 and the 'in-crowd'... That statement won't help... oh, well, Submit!
__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 06:50 PM
Ut Ut is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, NS
Posts: 2,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milli360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanF
dvb, at least in regards to Relativity, there are no real paradoxes. There are some things that appear to be paradoxes at first glance, but once you understand the entire theory, you can see that they are not.
Excuse me, but in this modern world, full of inquiring and skeptical youth, that is not good enough. You need to explain the paradox away, not just say, “There is no real paradox.” That is just your opinion. Other opinions may differ. If there is no paradox, then explain why there is no paradox, because all you have said so far is, “Trust me, there is no paradox.”
We've had this discussion before though, and I disagree with your assessment of the answers that have been given. The "paradoxes" have been explained.

PS: the relevant paradoxes
And more directly, there were no paradoxes to explain. The whole conversation was somewhat alike to "How do you deal with all the paradoxes in Relativity Theory?" "What paradoxes?" "You know, THE paradoxes." "Can you give examples?" "My book said something about clocks and paradoxes." "Oh. The clocks are pretty crazy. In as few words as I can muster, it works like this." "Ahh, I get it. Crazy!" "Stop trying to rot peoples minds."

One may attach whichever names one wishes to the "quoted" sentences above.
__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 06:58 PM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Normandy6644
Actually, you're closer to being right than you ever were before. He saw that SR was incomplete, and so by extending it to cover non-inertial reference frame he did in fact resolve what appeared to be a paradox in SR. Can we leave it at that, or do we need 50 or so more pages? :wink:
Geepers, 6 responses to my last post. Let’s see, that a ratio of 6 to 1. Hmm, that means if the ratio holds good throughout all our debates, out of 70 pages of posts, only 10 are mine and 60 are yours. (Somebody check my math.) :wink:

[post recount info added]
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 07:04 PM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ut
And more directly, there were no paradoxes to explain.
If there were no SR “paradoxes” to explain, there would not be hundreds and hundreds of “SR clock paradox resolution” pages in books and on the internet.

For example, there is no clock paradox in GR theory, and thus there are no GR “clock paradox resolution” pages in books or on the internet.
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 07:04 PM
milli360's Avatar
milli360 milli360 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
Geepers, 6 responses to my last post. Let’s see, that a ratio of 6 to 1. Hmm, that means if the ratio holds good throughout all our debates, out of 70 pages of posts, only 10 are mine and 60 are yours. (Somebody check my math.)
Lucky guy. I think my ratio is like 20 to 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
For example, there is no clock paradox in GR theory, and thus there are no GR “clock paradox resolution” pages in books or on the internet.
I would've said you maybe missed one, but I know you didn't.
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 16-June-2004, 11:59 PM
Yannox Yannox is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 222
Default

"The true foundation of Einstein's theory of General Relativity is the so-called Principle of Equivalence. This principle is incompatible with the idea proposed by Mach and accepted by Einstein as an incitement to his attempt to describe the main situation in the universe as an analogy in 3 dimensions to the closed surface of a sphere" (Oscar Klein).

ie without the Principle of Equivalence the Principle of Relativity is invalid. The Principle of Equivalence as Einstein invisioned it is that there is no difference between the force of gravity and any other inertial force ie acceleration due to gravity should be indistinguishable from acceleration due to a rocket.
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 12:48 AM
Normandy6644's Avatar
Normandy6644 Normandy6644 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ithaca, New York
Posts: 3,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannox
"The true foundation of Einstein's theory of General Relativity is the so-called Principle of Equivalence. This principle is incompatible with the idea proposed by Mach and accepted by Einstein as an incitement to his attempt to describe the main situation in the universe as an analogy in 3 dimensions to the closed surface of a sphere" (Oscar Klein).

ie without the Principle of Equivalence the Principle of Relativity is invalid. The Principle of Equivalence as Einstein invisioned it is that there is no difference between the force of gravity and any other inertial force ie acceleration due to gravity should be indistinguishable from acceleration due to a rocket.
And?
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 01:12 AM
Yannox Yannox is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 222
Default

As noted by Sherwin, acceleration does not affect the clock rate, whereas gravity does; at least it seems to do so in stars. Though there is still room for doubt whether gravity affects clocks.
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 01:25 AM
Gullible Jones's Avatar
Gullible Jones Gullible Jones is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,032
Default

Have you done any research on it, Yannox? Maybe you could show us your sources?
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 01:35 AM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo

SeanF, and others (many others), have explained to you why there is no paradox. They've done so with words, they've done so with math. You disputed the words because you thought different things were being said, and the math you couldn't understand. That doesn't mean the paradox is unexplained, or real in any way. It just means you don't understand the explanation.
Ok, I think I’m beginning to understand what the problem is.

There are certain situations where atomic clocks slow down when they move, such as when they experience acceleration. So, it is possible that when these situations are explained to you, and when someone says “this resolves the clock paradox”, then you think it really does “resolve the clock paradox” of the SR theory.

But it doesn’t. That “acceleration” stuff doesn’t solve anything in SR theory, because there are no “acceleration” effects considered in SR theory.

Of course atomic clocks slow down when they experience acceleration. Nobody disputes that. That concept comes from Lorentz’s electrodynamics theory, and Einstein wrote a paper about it in 1911, it became a big part of GR theory, and it’s been proved many times, but this information is NOT in SR theory.

So, the GR theory does NOT “resolve” the “clock paradox” of the SR theory, since SR theory does not contain any acceleration effects or gravity effects on any of the clocks in the theory.

In the SR theory, there is NO real physical reason for any of the clocks to slow down their tick rates. Not only that, but Einstein says in the theory that just “relative motion” causes clocks to “slow down”, but that turned out to be wrong. Also, he said that both of two “relatively moving” observers would see each other’s clock slow down at exactly the same rate. But, in his first clock thought experiment, in Section 4 of the theory, he says that only one of two relatively moving clocks “lags behind” the other when they both unite after the relative motion. He even called that a “peculiar consequence”, so he noticed something odd about that claim right from the beginning. The two observers in SR theory can’t see each other’s clocks “slow down” the exact same amount, but with only one of the clocks “lagging behind” the other when they unite.

So this is the SR clock paradox: We’ve got two observers and two clocks. The clocks are synchronized and made synchronous while both are stationary. Then the relative motion begins and no acceleration or gravity effects are considered. Both observers see each other’s clock slow down its tick rate exactly the same amount, but when the clocks unite, only one of them “lags behind” the other. So, which one? Nobody knows.

That’s the paradox. They both can’t “really” slow down during the “relative motion”, with only ONE of them “lagging behind” the other when they unite. If they both did really “run slow”, in the same amount, during the relative motion, then they would both have the same reading when they unite, and neither would “lag behind” the other.

But in GR theory, there is no “paradox”. Atomic clocks do slow down when they experience strong gravity or acceleration and they speed up when they experience a little or no gravity or acceleration. So, if strong gravity or acceleration slows down an atomic clock, that clock will “see” other atomic clocks existing under less gravity or acceleration as ticking “fast”, and the fast clocks will “see” the atomic clocks that are in the gravity field or that are accelerating ticking “slow”. Thus, there is no paradox. The slow clocks see the fast clocks ticking fast and the fast clocks see the slow clocks ticking slow. This leads to no paradox in the first place. But the errors of the SR theory do lead to the famous clock paradox.

Some people, trying to protect Einstein’s reputation of infallibility, try to claim that the GR theory “resolves” the SR “clock paradox”, but it does not, because there are real physical forces in the GR theory that can really slow atomic clocks down, while there are NO real physical forces in SR theory and just “relative motion” alone can not slow down any clock. The so-called “kinematic” effects of the SR theory are just invented illusions that can’t slow any clocks down. Real kinematics can produce an illusion like a Doppler effect, but it’s just a visual illusion. The clocks really don’t slow down.

So, apparently what you think is a “resolution” to the clock paradox of the SR theory, is just the presentation to you of a different theory that has no paradox in it in the first place.
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 02:20 AM
freddo freddo is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,228
Send a message via MSN to freddo
Default

That is so backwards I don't know what to say.

The 'peculiar consequence' in the 1905 paper you are so fond of decrying isn't a paradox either. It has been shown to you that consistent results can be achieved to this paradox using only SR.

GR doesn't even come into it at this stage, and there is still no paradox.
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 02:38 AM
SeanF's Avatar
SeanF SeanF is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 6,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
That “acceleration” stuff doesn’t solve anything in SR theory, because there are no “acceleration” effects considered in SR theory.
There is no "acceleration" in the 1905 paper, but there is "difference in relative motion."

And that's why there's no paradox.

But then, we've been over this before, haven't we?
__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 02:53 AM
freddo freddo is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,228
Send a message via MSN to freddo
Default

Quote:
Geepers, 6 responses to my last post. Let’s see, that a ratio of 6 to 1. Hmm, that means if the ratio holds good throughout all our debates, out of 70 pages of posts, only 10 are mine and 60 are yours. (Somebody check my math.)
Your math is fine, but you've made a very bad conclusion from it.

In the first 50 pages of the Twin Paradox: Definitive Proof that it's SR? thread - you posted no less than 517 times. Considering that only 25 posts are displayed per page, you posted enough times to fill 20 pages all on your own. Your ratio is a little worse than 6 to one.

Quote:
ie without the Principle of Equivalence the Principle of Relativity is invalid.
Thank god it's around then!
__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 03:10 AM
Normandy6644's Avatar
Normandy6644 Normandy6644 is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ithaca, New York
Posts: 3,091
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
...trying to protect Einstein’s reputation of infallibility...
My only response to this is to ask anyone with whom you've discussed relativity to talk about Einstein's contribution to quantum mechanics after the 1920's or so. He was so completely wrong about most everything at that time, though he did provide some good criticisms which forced the QM boys to work a bit harder. No one is saying that he was infallible, only that he was right about relativity.
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 03:19 AM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo

In the first 50 pages of the Twin Paradox: Definitive Proof that it's SR? thread - you posted no less than 517 times. Considering that only 25 posts are displayed per page, you posted enough times to fill 20 pages all on your own. Your ratio is a little worse than 6 to one.

Quote:
ie without the Principle of Equivalence the Principle of Relativity is invalid.
Thank god it's around then!
That’s because I was responding to 6 to 8 other guys, who were demanding that I answer their questions and respond to their posts.
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 03:26 AM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanF
There is no "acceleration" in the 1905 paper, but there is "difference in relative motion."
Oh! Well, then that explains it all!
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 03:38 AM
freddo freddo is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,228
Send a message via MSN to freddo
Default

Quote:
Oh! Well, then that explains it all!
We've already danced this dance. It's been explained to you how the math demonstrates that relative motion alone can introduce differences - examples of proof have even been cited. Your only refutation each time is "relative motion alone cannot alter the tick-rate of a clock." Seriously Sam5, simply naysaying doesn't cut it.
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 03:41 AM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanF
There is no "acceleration" in the 1905 paper,
In an attempt to resolve the paradox himself, after receiving criticism about it for the previous 13 years, he changed his story in 1918:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Einstein, in 1918,
“Your last assertion is, of course, incontestable. But the entire line of reasoning is not legitimate because, according to the special theory of relativity, the coordinate systems K and K’ are not at all equivalent systems. As a matter of fact, this theory claims only the equivalence of all Galilean (nonaccelerated) systems, i.e.. coordinate systems relative to which sufficiently isolated material points move uniformly in straight lines. The coordinate system K is indeed such a system, but not the intermittently accelerated system K’. Consequently, no contradictions in the foundations of the theory can be construed from the fact that the U2 clock is late against U1 after the to and fro movement.”
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 03:44 AM
freddo freddo is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,228
Send a message via MSN to freddo
Default

Quote:
In an attempt to resolve the paradox himself, after receiving criticism about it for the previous 13 years, he changed his story in 1918:
What are you on about? That's not a change of story. Are you demonstrating that you can't even understand the words? It's bad enough to argue relativity without math, but this!
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 03:48 AM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo
Quote:
Oh! Well, then that explains it all!
We've already danced this dance. It's been explained to you how the math demonstrates that relative motion alone can introduce differences -

Oh! Well, that really explains it all now!

“There is ‘difference in relative motion’," and “the math demonstrates that relative motion alone can introduce differences.”

Ah, ha! Completely solved with those 17 words! How silly of me not to have seen it before now!
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 04:11 AM
freddo freddo is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,228
Send a message via MSN to freddo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
How silly of me not to have seen it before now!


Damn Straight it's silly of you.

Very
Very
Very
Silly of you.

I mean, it took you this long?
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 04:16 AM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo
I mean, it took you this long?
I was joking, freddo. American humor.
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 04:38 AM
freddo freddo is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,228
Send a message via MSN to freddo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo
I mean, it took you this long?
I was joking, freddo. American humor.
I'm quite capable of detecting sarcasm and ridicule from you Sam5. I was merely taking advantage of the opening you left. You may not think yourself to be silly, but I do.
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 04:40 AM
Celestial Mechanic's Avatar
Celestial Mechanic Celestial Mechanic is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gullible Jones
Have you done any research on it, Yannox? Maybe you could show us your sources?
I'm afraid you'll be very disappointed, Mr. Jones. Dunash/Prince/Yul/Yannox does not research, he only mines quotes.
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 04:43 AM
Tensor Tensor is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sarasota Fl
Posts: 3,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5
“There is ‘difference in relative motion’," and “the math demonstrates that relative motion alone can introduce differences.”

Ah, ha! Completely solved with those 17 words! How silly of me not to have seen it before now!
What you seem to fail to understand in the above sentence is that the relative motion effect has been observed (muons and particle accelerators, among other observations) and it matches the prediction the SR math makes. Now, you can continue to deny it, but until you can provide an example of an observation that does not match the prediction of the SR math, you are just handwaving and blowing smoke when you claim the SR has an error in it. Oh and by the way again, the GR math also makes the same prediction for relative motion as SR does, where gravity can be ignored or the gravitational potential is the same.
__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 17-June-2004, 04:50 AM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddo

I'm quite capable of detecting


You see, freddo, the K’ system is not accelerated in the 1905 SR theory, but he decided he had to accelerate it in 1918 so he could try to pretend to resolve the paradox. He got tired of people bugging him about it. So he not only added the acceleration to the K’ system, he shook it too. He made it move “to and fro” in 1918. Some physicists knew by 1918 that shaking an atomic clock “to and fro” would slow down its tick rate, since that subjects it to acceleration. (Lorentz knew that in 1904.) As a matter of fact, shaking a pendulum clock will change its rate too. Come to think of it, the “to and fro” movement of rocking ships de-stabilized the rates of pendulum and balance-wheel clocks until Harrison invented the counter-balanced spring mechanism.

Go here and scroll down to the animation.

The astonishing thing about the SR theory of 1905 was that there were no acceleration effects considered. People already knew for hundreds of years that acceleration effects could slow down or speed up certain kinds of clocks. But just “relative motion” alone causing a clock to slow down, with no acceleration being involved, well, that was new. Unfortunately, it didn’t work. So in 1918 he had to change his SR theory and introduce acceleration and atomic clocks, then he shook the K’ system clock a little. Then he subjected it to gravity fields. He did everything to it but run over it with his car and throw it off a cliff, trying to get it to slow down. To make things look on the up and up, he also shook the K system clock “to and fro”, after saying just a few sentences earlier in that very same 1918 paper that it was “nonaccelerated” in the SR theory.

So he said in his 1905 paper, Section 3 title: “Theory of the Transformation of Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former”, but in order to try to get out of the paradox problem, in the 1918 paper he had to claim the K’ system of 1905 was not “nonaccelerated”. That means it was “accelerated”. And so he moved it “to and fro” to accelerate it. Then I guess he forgot and he moved the K system “to and fro” too, accelerating it, even though he said it was “nonaccelerated” in the SR theory. So, he went from neither system being accelerated in 1905, to both systems being accelerated in 1918. Then he added the gravitational field effects to both systems.

In the 1918 paper, he put the K system clock high up in gravitational potential so that speeded it up. (Are you following this ok?) That made the K clock speed up more than it slowed down. And he made sure the K’ clock slowed down more than it speeded up. And then, just to make sure everyone was thoroughly confused, he said in the 1918 paper, “First I have to point out that the distinction of real verses non-real is not very productive.” Ha! Mystery! What is “real” in “relativity” and what is not? No one knows. No one is supposed to know. One is supposed to “believe”, not “know”.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today