Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[RussDill]

The numerical-value of the speed-of-light is the same for everyone, but if you've followed the conversation, I have showed that velocity is a numerical-value qualified with parameters of distance and time. And since each observer experiences a unique perspective of distance and time, all velocities 'x' m/s actually mean something unique for each individual. They are not identical. The spacetwin, for example, experiences 1 second relatively more slowly than his brother on earth. I.e., 1 second is not an absolute value even though we all experience it. Same with 1 meter. Hence, the same with 1 m/s or x m/s or 'c'.

So the meter changes eh? it contacts right? bzzt, wrong, because clearly, perpendicular to the direction of travel, there is no such change. Length contraction is a consequence of time dialation, not a "qualitative change" in the meter. Since you say the speed of light changes because the meter changes, what about the speed of light perpendicular to the direction of travel, does that change too?

I'm aware of this and it's irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant, its a very important part of special relativity, and thus part of the discussion. (re: relativistic addition of speeds, and the constant speed of light)

My reasoning is derivative of experimentally-verified relativistic laws that Einstein unveiled a hundred years ago.

I'm not sure where your reasoning comes from, it certainly doesn't come from einstein. Do you honestly think that einstein himself would not of spoken of the problems you claim exist that require some metaphysical explaination. You claim to be smarter than einstein, yet don't yet have a solution for the space ship flying through the doors?

Velocity = distance/time. Nobody shares the exact-same experience for distance or time, since there are relative differences between everyone. The twin-paradox just highlights the possible diversity of these differences.

Again, everyone shares the exact same experience for distance and time, that is the point of special relativity. Let me try to state it this way. If you observe a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light, and it has two clocks, one at the front, one at the rear, what is interesting about these two clocks?

Here are the points that einstein *based* his special relativity on:

* Whatever steady speed a closed laboratory moves, any experiment you do inside the laboratory will give the same result. So you will never be able to determine at what steady speed that laboratory moves just by doing experiments inside the laboratory.

* Whatever place you put a closed laboratory, any experiment you do inside the laboratory will give the same result. So you will never be able to determine where the laboratory is just by doing experiments inside the laboratory.

* Whatever direction you turn a closed laboratory, any experiment you do inside the laboratory will give the same result. So you will never be able to determine what direction the laboratory door is directed just by doing experiments inside the laboratory.

These points are from galileo, amazing eh? einstein simple applied the maxwell equations to galilean relativity. There is *nothing* metaphysical about that.

You might read up on this page:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node47.html

where galileo used scientific experimentation to lay out the ground work for what would become special relativity.

 

[Upchurch]

Yet surely you see that for this to happen, the qualitative value of the spacetwin's 1-second must be ~stretched~ to facilitate the proceeding quantitative differences we observe?

This is exactly what I was talking about a few posts ago. The spacetime metric unit (i.e. second & meter) remains unchanged through out the entire scenerio. The age difference is due to, in the simplist terms I can muster, a difference in world line paths taken by each object.

Let's reorganize the scenerio so that it is a little easier to understand. Imagine that there are two point of reference in spacetime. The first (point A) is where Earth and the traveler are together and the traveler has yet to leave. The second (point B) is where Earth and the traveler are together and the traveler has just returned. In the 4 dimensional spacetime manifold, there are two lines (called "world lines") that represents the path of each object (earth and the traveler) through the manifold.

If it is easier for you to picture, condense it down to a 2 dimensional plane where time is on one axis and the other is the space axis along the path of travel. The world line of the earth would be a straight line along the time axis. The world line of traveler would be, because he is accelerating, a curved line reaching out along the space axis and then curving back to meet the earth line back on the time axis.

In a flat manifold (or 2-D plane), the shortest distance would be straight line, that is, earth's world line. However, for reasons beyond my current understanding, it has been found that the manifold is not flat but curved. And on a curved manifold the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line but a curved one.

There is a classic 2-D demonstration of this involving a string and a basketball. You can demonstrativly show that a straight line connecting two points on the surface of a basketball is longer than a curved line connecting those same points.

Thus, the traveling twin is younger than the earth twin because the traveling twin took a shorter path through spacetime from point A to point B than the earth twin. None of this requires any change of the metric unit size to be consistent.

If the spacetwin experiences half as much time as his brother, then you must surely realise that there is a **difference in the way both twins have experienced 1-second**? I.e., the value of 1 second actually has a different meaning for either twin until they meet-up again.

This change in metric unit size that you describe could only be true if the time axis was different from the space axes (plurl form of axis?). Then the would you need to rely on a mutable metric unit size in order to explain the phenomenon. Einstein, and many who followed him, showed that space and time are really the same thing, just as electricity and magnetism are really the same field. Your interpretation of the paradox is simply inconsistent with General Relativity.

 

[Pahansiri]

In this case, I believe Lifegazer is posting from England and is using their spelling conventions. I suspect he uses COLOUR and HONOUR as well.

(Just to show that I'm not completely one-sided, here)

You may be right and if so I am sorry to him for being rude. As I have said doing what I did is rude but can illustrate as I desired it to hypocrisy. I have been called “stuiped” before having the person calling me it not know how to spell stupid.

I do fear I have been going to far of late and perhaps need take some time from the board.

 

[RussDill]

Does the value of space and time distort? Yes or no? Of course it does. Therefore, the value of 1 second and 1 meter changes in relation to other observers. The twin-paradox is evidence of this.

First of all, only the presence of matter and energy creating a gravitational field distorts spacetime. Second of all, *you* don't actually think spacetime is truly distorted in a universal way under special relativity. You seem to think such a distortion of reality impossible, so this distortion must in fact be due to seperate realities.

If you examine realitivity, you'll find that spacetime does not distort, it is simply a consequence of traveling very fast.

Why do you think the atomic-clocks you mentioned actually slowed-down? This was because the value of 1 second (time) was changed/slowed in relation to a stationary position on earth.

Perhaps I should have started a whole thread to attack you, just as you have done for me.

Its definately an onslaught, but not directed at you, directed at your therioes, which you take *very* personally. However, I'm sure if you presented some verifiable problem with special relativity (maybe, say, that it breaks apart near the plank length, or someother domain) I'm sure upchurch would not see it as a personal attack, and would respond quite positively to such exciting evidence.

Spare me the poxy violins.

ya, ya, a pox on your chello too. Must be some british insult I'm not familiar with.

Your contribution to this thread has ammounted to nothing and you certainly have not refuted anything I have said. In fact, your evasiveness is amusing. You remind me of a scurrying rat.

ok, lemme define this for you:

The act of eluding or avoiding, particularly the pressure of an argument, accusation, charge, or interrogation; artful means of eluding.

Lets simmer that down, what is avoiding?

To quit or evacuate; to withdraw from. Obs. To keep away from; to keep clear of; to endeavor no to meet; to shun; to abstain from; as, to avoid the company of gamesters.

Hmm...You keep using that work, I am thinking that you do not know what it means. He has gone point for point in a very intelligent manner. Maybe you mispoke and meant this word:

To fail to accord; not to agree; to lack harmony; to differ; to be unlike; to be at variance. To differ in opinion; to hold discordant views; to be at controversy; to quarrel.

ya, I'd say that fits upchurch's inane behaviour much better, wouldn't you? oh, wait, thats the definition for "disagree".

A scurrying rat? lifegazer, neither upchurch or I are allowing our personal feelings to enter this forum. Its very professional and helps the debate to move forward quickly. Personal insults only serve to discredit you, and in the end, get you banned from forums. I truly wish to understand your point of view, and it looks like UpChurch is too, by calling someone a "scurrying rat", they'll start understanding your personal point of view really quick.

 

[RussDill]

In this case, I believe Lifegazer is posting from England and is using their spelling conventions. I suspect he uses COLOUR and HONOUR as well.

(Just to show that I'm not completely one-sided, here)

BTW, shoutouts to both you and upchurch. Upchurch is very good at boiling down complicated concepts to simple wording, and everytime I read Kullervo's posts, I always hear the voice of the dad from the brak show in my head.

 

[RussDill]

I wondered about some of the odd usage here, too. I don't know much about English slang, probably just enough to get me beaten up in a bar.

Ian or Geoff could probably explain. On the other hand, it might just be a cleaned up way of saying ◊◊◊◊.

It doesn't appear to provide much additional intellectual ballast.

edited: Well, Koko learned a new word today. Banana chip!

I think shtick is yiddish

 

[RussDill]

This change in metric unit size that you describe could only be true if the time axis was different from the space axes (plurl form of axis?). Then the would you need to rely on a mutable metric unit size in order to explain the phenomenon. Einstein, and many who followed him, showed that space and time are really the same thing, just as electricity and magnetism are really the same field. Your interpretation of the paradox is simply inconsistent with General Relativity.

This is why you are a great poster. Its a very simplistic explanation, and its near impossible to argue with. (and thus, will be summarily ignored by lifegazer, but oh well)

 

[Upchurch]

I read Kullervo's posts, I always hear the voice of the dad from the brak show in my head.

Funny, I still hear the voice of Cthullu when I read Kullervo's posts.

Oh, and thanks, Russ. We aims ta please.

 

[RussDill]

You say that the quantitative values of space and time change in relation to other bodies. Yet you cannot see that this involves the qualitative change in the value of 1 meter or 1 second?
Let's do a simple analysis of the twin-paradox: The spacetwin shoots-off into space and when he gets back we find that he has experienced 10 years of time whilst his brother, on earth, has experienced, say, 20 years of time. This is the quantitative difference you're talking about.
Yet surely you see that for this to happen, the qualitative value of the spacetwin's 1-second must be ~stretched~ to facilitate the proceeding quantitative differences we observe?

If the spacetwin experiences half as much time as his brother, then you must surely realise that there is a **difference in the way both twins have experienced 1-second**? I.e., the value of 1 second actually has a different meaning for either twin until they meet-up again.

Again, you cling on to the concept of simultaneality.

You have misread me, for I do not imply this at all. I openly admit that the "strange effects" of relativity are only noticeable in comparison to other observers.

you can't have it both ways though. You claim that their space is different, but then their experience the same. You are only half applying relativity, for your proof, you want the effects, but no the mechanics.

 

[Dancing David]

Hmm, I think I understand what you are getting at Lifegazer, But it isn't implied in the theory of relativity.

You are saying that the measurement of time and space is altered for those who approach the speed of light, and in the classic intuitive sense that is true.

From the perspective of the people on the earth the space twin has had thier time slowed .

But from the perspective of the people on the spaceship, it appears that the rest of the space time frame has speeded up.

That is what is wiggy( but not Whiggy) about relativity, the conratctions don't actualy occur, they only happen by reference bewteen two frames of reference. But neither rame of reference is absolute, they are all relativly equal.

When you measure the meter on the space ship it is still a meter, space time is not distorted, the passage of time is still the same.

The reason that these things appear to happen is because of the absolute value of the speed of light. The light will still travel a meter in a set time even on the space ship, and the wierd thing is that if an observer in another frame could mesure the speed of light on the space ship, they will get the same value.

So while there is the apparent space time distortion, it is apparent it doesn't really happen, it is just an effect of comparing frames of reference and having an absolute spped of light.

Cool but totaly counter intuitive.

So what about that barn, will it hold the space ship for a brief fleeting momnet, or will it be torn asunder by a space ship over twice it's size?

 

[whitefork]

I do fear I have been going to far of late and perhaps need take some time from the board.

Please not on account of this little episode. I like reading your posts. I have this image of a buddhist bodybuilder/bouncer up in the tundra and it always makes me smile.

RussDill - Shtick is indeed Yiddish, but what is "the brak show"? I have worked very hard to escape my own father's influence (he loves argument for its own sake), so I hope yours is a bit, how do you say, more moderate in his approach. I can change. I still have plenty of bad habits to eliminate.

Upchurch: Cthulhu Forever!

 

[Upchurch]

RussDill - Shtick is indeed Yiddish, but what is "the brak"?

The Brak Show. Note the little guy sitting on the chair.

 

[whitefork]

The things I learn here. I'll have to check this out some time.

Those who hear me speak say that my voice is very close to that of Lorenzo Music who played Carlton the Doorman on Rhoda, as well as the voice of Garfield. It has a sort of adenoidal quality.

First day of Cthuladvent, too.

 

[Upchurch]

Again, you cling on to the concept of simultaneality.

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure that is the correct term. I think what you are talking about is the concept of an absolute reference frame and even then, I don't think that's what lifegazer is expressing, although maybe it is.

In the part you quoted, lifegazer's biggest hangup is that he thinks that to get from one point along the time axis to another point in the time axis takes a fixed amount of seconds. If someone gets there in a fewer number of seconds, he argues, then the duration of that person's seconds must have changed. In otherwords, he's arguing (I think) that the total amount of duration needed to get from one point along the time axis to another point along the time axis is absolute.

So, he's really not arguing so much for an absolute reference frame as much as he's arguing that time is an absolute axis. Absolute, that is, from the space axes and not interchangable with them.

 

[RussDill]

So, he's really not arguing so much for an absolute reference frame as much as he's arguing that time is an absolute axis. Absolute, that is, from the space axes and not interchangable with them.

Its not the only issue, but I don't think lifegazer will accept a universe as consistent if two things cannot be said to happen simultaneously. This is really where length contraction starts from anyway. In the ships frame of reference, the front part and rear part pass two points in space 10 feet apart simultaneously, where as in another observers frame of reference, the rear passes point 1 in that 10 foot interval first, then the front later passes the other end of that 10 foot interval.

And in the twin paradox, I think lifegazer imagines watching the two twins age *simultaneously*, which may be simultaneous for one reference frame, but not for another. The two pages I linked to earlier show the relationship between simultaneality and the twin paradox.

You miss his technique though. He's trying to get you to agree with his morphed view of relativity simply *because* its non-sensical. If his non-sensical view of relativity *was* correct, then relativity would be a metaphysical phenomenon, and thus his mind.

This is the same technique he attempted to use in his nothing arguments.

 

[RussDill]

In the part you quoted, lifegazer's biggest hangup is that he thinks that to get from one point along the time axis to another point in the time axis takes a fixed amount of seconds. If someone gets there in a fewer number of seconds, he argues, then the duration of that person's seconds must have changed. In otherwords, he's arguing (I think) that the total amount of duration needed to get from one point along the time axis to another point along the time axis is absolute.

Well worded, he argues against the mechanics of special relativity, but in favor of the effects of special realitivity. He talks about the effects of special relativity while discounting the mechanics, and when you point of his misunderstanding of the mechanics, he calls you a stupidhead for thinking that relativity is false.

 

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David
From the perspective of the people on the earth the space twin has had thier time slowed .

But from the perspective of the people on the spaceship, it appears that the rest of the space time frame has speeded up.

Before I start here, lemme say, nothing personal Dancing David.

Now, lifegazer, this message is for you. I've read alot of david's posts and from what I can tell, he is very intelligent. However, his intrepretation of special relativity is wrong. Yes, its true, just like everyone of us has done or is currently doing, he has misintrepreted a complex physics/mathmatical concept.

But, its ok, I'm sure david is an intelligent, open minded guy, so I'll explain it to him, he'll examine my explaination, and probably a few other sources, think rationally, and either agree, or disagree. If he disagrees, he'll reply as to why, he won't just restate his views. So lets begin the session...


Dancing David, you've state before that someone traveling near the speed of light will see someone length elongated and now you've stated that someone traveling near the speed of light will see someone's elses time as speed up. This is incorrect.

From the frame of reference of the one traveling at "near the speed of light" it is the *other* observer that is actually traveling at near the speed of light. They will likewise see the "stationary" observer length contracted and their time slowed.


Now, lifegazer, dancing david will stare, and scratch his head. He'll think about it, he might go to google to learn more about special relativity. Lets see what he does, eh?

--- Again David, I don't mean to undercut you in any way, I just want to show lifegazer what your reaction might be ---

So what about that barn, will it hold the space ship for a brief fleeting momnet, or will it be torn asunder by a space ship over twice it's size?

good question, especially because to the ship, the barn will be length contracted. Anywho, private message me the answer, and I'll let lifegazer know that you got it.

 

[lifegazer]

I have a question for upchurch:
It's the twin-paradox again. The spacetwin blasts-off and when he gets back he has aged 10 years whilst his brother on earth has aged 20 years.
Now, presuming that the spacetwin has spent this time flying around the vicinity of our solar system, I want to know how many times does he see the earth orbit the sun? 20 or 10 times?

 

[Upchurch]

I have a question for upchurch:
It's the twin-paradox again. The spacetwin blasts-off and when he gets back he has aged 10 years whilst his brother on earth has aged 20 years.
Now, presuming that the spacetwin has spent this time flying around the vicinity of our solar system, I want to know how many times does he see the earth orbit the sun? 20 or 10 times?

As the sun is (more or less) in the same inertial frame as the earth, the space twin will see the earth orbit the sun 20 times.

edited to add:

it's no different than how the space twin would observer the earth twin's clock ticking.

 

[RussDill]

I have a question for upchurch:
It's the twin-paradox again. The spacetwin blasts-off and when he gets back he has aged 10 years whilst his brother on earth has aged 20 years.
Now, presuming that the spacetwin has spent this time flying around the vicinity of our solar system, I want to know how many times does he see the earth orbit the sun? 20 or 10 times?

now the twin is under constant acceleration (a very large acceleration too). Now you are talking general relativity. Its clear that for the other twin to be 20, the earth must orbit the sun 20 times. This is no longer the twin paradox. However, in the twin paradox, I might ask you this, right before the twin turns around, how many times will he see the earth orbit the sun? If he corrects for the time it took the light to reach him, how many times? Is it 5? is it 10? Is it another number alltogether?

I've noticed that you seem to ignore my posts lifegazer, are you even reading them?