Lifegazer's special relativity "proof"

[lifegazer]

Well basis one is incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect. For every single reference frame ever encountered by man or clock or machine one second is and always will be for everyone exactly 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a Cesium 133 atom. End of story. It well never be different for anyone as far as all expirimental and mathematical models can possibly be certain. Your premise is false.

9,I92,etc. vibrations of a Cesium atom occur in one second. But this does not prevent the second from being in flux. The vibrations can slow or speed-up, in tandem.

 

[Andonyx]

You say that time is space in order to avoid the comparative differences of time experienced by the twins. I.e., they both experience '1 second', it's just that the spacetwin took a shorter route to get back to earth than the guy already on the earth. LOL. What a crock that sounds.
Anyway, lorentz-transformation mathematics also show that 'a meter' is experienced comparatively-different by each observer. You must be aware of the thought-experiment whereby two observers measure the same train at different lengths?
So, how do you overcome this? How do you get all observers to experience the same meter? Do you turn space into time? lol

You're arguing like a whole different thing.

Yes the train visually appears longer because the guy on the grassy bank is looking into a different frame of reference.

That thought experiment is based on an impossibility in real life, it's just a demonstration.

If the guy somehow took a meter stick from his frame of reference and tried to use it on his perception of the train in another frame of reference it would look like the train was longer. But since it is Physically impossible to use his meter in the other frame ofreference without putting it IN the other frame of reference, that's not an issue here. Because let's say he used impossibly long arms to take his meter stick into the other frame of reference and use his meter stick to to measure the train. Well, now the meter stick has also stretched by his perception and guess what?!?!?

The train actually measures the same number of meters now as well!

Isn't that amazing.

And finally no, I'm not arguing time is the same to avoid anything. I'm arguing it because mathematically time IS THE same, that's how the damn equations work, and those are the same equations that accurately predict the real life outcome of these experiements.

If you want to make different equations where time and distance are not mathematically equivalenced, go right ahead. But then you have to use them to try to predict the outcome of experiments.

Don't be too surprised when they don't.

 

[Andonyx]

9,I92,etc. vibrations of a Cesium atom occur in one second. But this does not prevent the second from being in flux. The vibrations can slow or speed-up, in tandem.

You know what even if they did, it is absolutely meaningless, because no one can ever perceieve that flux if they are within that time frame.

This is actually just as useless as trying to have an argument if I was on the phone in Califrnia and you wer in NY and I argued that you are too far East, and you argued that no, I was too far west.

There is nothing useful about this observation even if it was true because you cannot use it to accurately predict, measure or DO anything.

You might as well simply say well, actually our entire universe exists in a goldfish bowl in a giant trailer park. But we'll never see it because the speed of light won't allow us to observe anything ouside our own universe.

Great.

Useful prediction there.

 

[lifegazer]

Answer this please: you treat time as space. So, in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin flies all around the galaxy and comes back to earth, only to find his brother - who hasn't moved much at all - claiming to have experienced, say for convenience, twice as much time as his space-brother, comparatively.
My question is this - given that the earth-twin hasn't moved much, why is his time-path twice as long as the spacetwin who has been moving to Andromeda and back, so to speak? If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

 

[lifegazer]

You know what even if they did, it is absolutely meaningless, because no one can ever perceieve that flux if they are within that time frame.

That's the point. No flux is experienced, except relatively.

 

[Andonyx]

Look I'm out for the weekend, maybe Upchurch Or Russ wants to try this some more.

I can only offer this.

If you are so certain these effects are happening, then simply show how it would happen mathematically. You don't need a multi-billion dollar particle collider, you don't need the space shuttle, or a satellite. You just need a piece of paper, and some good sharp pencils, and a calculator. Which is actually more than Einstein had.

Then if you can show using that symbolic langugage what what you are saying is even possible. Then I guarantee you someone will listen to you.

 

[Andonyx]

Answer this please: you treat time as space. So, in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin flies all around the galaxy and comes back to earth, only to find his brother - who hasn't moved much at all - claiming to have experienced, say for convenience, twice as much time as his space-brother, comparatively.
My question is this - given that the earth-twin hasn't moved much, why is his time-path twice as long as the spacetwin who has been moving to Andromeda and back, so to speak? If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

It's not twice as long on all axis, only on one.

There are three dimensions in space, but for the sake of argument, let's simplify and imagine a 2-D grid.

You and I both start at 0,0.

You move 6 to the right. Putting you at 6,0.

I move 36 up, 4 to the right, 24 down, 2 to the right, and then 12 down. Now I am still at 6,0 just like you. Only It took me 78 steps to get there, and it only took you six.

In the meantime, assuming the grid is uniform, each of my movements was exactly the same as each of yours. We started and ended at the same place, I just took a different path to get there.

My experience of one grid space is exactly the same as your experience of one grid space. (Or one second, or one foot)

What Einstein demonstrated was that by changing how oyu move through one dimension you can make the relative quantities appear to different for a journey that starts and ends at the same place. Because essentially there are actually shorter distances between two points than a straight line as a straight line appears to be from one set of dimensions.

Because I traveled through one dimension (Y) on a different route than you did.

But the quantities available, 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimensions can be interchangeable.

We can demonstrate a body that changes speed, and then if distance stays the same time must change.

If Time changes and speed stays the same distance must change.

If distance changes time stays the same, speed must change.

These things are all equivalent mathematically. And when I use the word "chgange" up there I don't mean the individual unist up there. A second is still a second, a foot is still a foot. I mean the total amount within a given equation in order to make 'c' = 'c'.

And it's not like Einstein started out to make an equation in which Light speed always equalled C. He found out that in fact, in reality no matter what the frame of reference, light always does equal c all the time under all circumstance. Once he found that out, he tried to find an expression that matched that mathematcially.

It was a case of finding a hypothesis that matched the results, not finding results that matched his hypothesis like you're attempting to do.

 

[Upchurch]

If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

D@mn it. I wasn't going to answer, but this is a good question with an easy answer that is too good to pass up.

Both twins travel the same amount of "distance" between two points in spacetime (point A: the twin leaves Earth, point B: the twin returns to Earth). The Earth twin travels the entire distance by traveling exclusively along the time axis. The Space twin, by accelerating, travels a portion of that distance along the time axis and a portion along the space axis.

 

[lifegazer]

Look I'm out for the weekend, maybe Upchurch Or Russ wants to try this some more.

I can only offer this.

If you are so certain these effects are happening, then simply show how it would happen mathematically. You don't need a multi-billion dollar particle collider, you don't need the space shuttle, or a satellite. You just need a piece of paper, and some good sharp pencils, and a calculator. Which is actually more than Einstein had.

Then if you can show using that symbolic langugage what what you are saying is even possible. Then I guarantee you someone will listen to you.

Instead of treating time as space, we can acknowledge that the comparative differences of time are real. The mathematics do not alter. Just the conclusions. Different time-paths become different perceptions of what time is.

Anyway, I want to thankyou for your intelligent and relevant efforts. You are a credit to this forum. Perhaps the only one.
Have a good weekend.

 

[Andonyx]

Okay last thing. I just edited my previous post, right before Upchurch's with somethin I think is important. Check the bit, about what Einstein's equations actually demonstrated. It was all just a mthematical equivalence, just like E=MC^2 turned out to be.

In fact for the purposes of math distance and time ARE the same.

And this equation actually has been borne out in experiments time and again.

 

[Dancing David]

Answer this please: you treat time as space. So, in the twin-paradox, the spacetwin flies all around the galaxy and comes back to earth, only to find his brother - who hasn't moved much at all - claiming to have experienced, say for convenience, twice as much time as his space-brother, comparatively.
My question is this - given that the earth-twin hasn't moved much, why is his time-path twice as long as the spacetwin who has been moving to Andromeda and back, so to speak? If time is space, how can the body moving the least travel the furthest?

Well not to confuse things but a large gravitational field will do the same thing,

Time is a dimension comparable to the passage of light through the other three dimensions, as i said before imagine that the earth twins path is a sphere and that the space twin cuts through the inside of the sphere, imagine that this is caused by approaching the speed of light.

This may sound silly but pretend that time is a dog chasing the space twin, as he accelerates to the speed of light it takes him longer to catch the space twin.

So just to point out the wierdness factor, if you sit right on the evnt horison of a black hole , time sloes to a stop.

As too why that happens you will have to ask UpC or Stimpy, but just pretend that time is a dog chasing both twins and that because of the space twins motion the dog has to run farther to catch hi.

 

[lifegazer]

I'll be giving a detailed response to the recent discussion after the weekend.

 

[c4ts]

Better start cramming now.

 

[Upchurch]

And it's not like Einstein started out to make an equation in which Light speed always equalled C. He found out that in fact, in reality no matter what the frame of reference, light always does equal c all the time under all circumstance.

Aside for a little history lesson: Einstein wasn't the one who discovered the constancy of the speed of light.

The consistancy of the speed of light, c, was discovered around 1887 by James Clark Maxwell. His study of electromagnetism let to the his formulation of a set of four mathematical rules that described the behavior of electric and magnetic fields and the relation between them, imaginativly dubbed "Maxwell's Equations".

A funny consequence of Maxwell's Equations is that it showed that an electrical wave generated a magnetic wave and a magnetic wave generated an electric wave. These electromagnetic (a new concept) waves were mathematically predicted to travel at a constant speed, but constant to what? The only previous experience physicsists had with wave motion required a propogating medium. For example, sound waves traveled through the air and oceanic waves traveled through water.

The physicists at the time knew that these electromagnetic waves traveled at a constant speed, but constant relative to what medium? They hypothesized a substance that filled the universe called "ether" which was at a state of absolute rest and it was this that electromagnetic waves moved at it's fixed velocity relative to.

Fortunately, there were attempts made to measure how fast the Earth was moving through the ether, which was at absolute rest. Every attempt failed, the most famous attempt was called the Michelson-Morley experiment. There were some attempts to after that to save the ether theory with concepts like "ether wind" and "ether drag", but Michelson-Morley pretty much killed the ether concept.

What Einstein really did was introduce the concept that the speed of light was constant for all viewers in inertial reference frames. Heck, he introduced the very idea of inertial reference frames. From that a whole mess of consequences fell out, including time dialation, length contraction and the famous E=Mc^2, and that was just Special Relativity. His more generalized version, which included non-inertial (that is, accelerated) reference frames, really revolutionized the way we thought about the universe.

 

[RussDill]

What Einstein really did was introduce the concept that the speed of light was constant for all viewers in inertial reference frames. Heck, he introduced the very idea of inertial reference frames. From that a whole mess of consequences fell out, including time dialation, length contraction and the famous E=Mc^2, and that was just Special Relativity. His more generalized version, which included non-inertial (that is, accelerated) reference frames, really revolutionized the way we thought about the universe.

[Back from vegas]

Actually, it was galileo who came up with inertial reference frames from what I can tell:

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/galilean.html

"The mechanical laws of physics are the same for every inertial observer."

 

[Upchurch]

[Back from vegas]

Actually, it was galileo who came up with inertial reference frames from what I can tell:

D'oh!!

Well, the rest is correct according to Richard A. Mould's Basic Relativity. Can't win 'em all, I guess.

 

[Andonyx]

Aside for a little history lesson: Einstein wasn't the one who discovered the constancy of the speed of light.

The consistancy of the speed of light, c, was discovered around 1887 by James Clark Maxwell. His study of electromagnetism let to the his formulation of a set of four mathematical rules that described the behavior of electric and magnetic fields and the relation between them, imaginativly dubbed "Maxwell's Equations".

Good catch!

 

[RussDill]

For the third and last time, the twin-paradox was labelled thus by somebody else. I merely call it that because they did. And I use it because I can link it to my philosophy. Furthermore, I do not believe in any paradox whatsoever - just ignorance or stupidity.

Right, you think it is not a paradox because of the Mind. Anyone who does not know the mind is stupid and ignorant. I am telling you that there is no reason to explain it with a Mind. It is stupid and ignorant to attempt such a feat. Special relativity stands on its own as a fully consistent theory without need for an explaination of a Mind.

You're under the illusion that I am challenging Einstein or his equations. Your incessant ramblings to that effect have drove me to the point of madness. My one and only point for this discussion is to link what science knows to the reality of mind, thus showing that these occurences are not happening externally to the mind.

You can talk all you want about the Mind, however, I will not allow you to use your misunderstanding of relativity as a proof of your "Mind". Many people do not understand relativity, so challenging your illinformed philosophy is the right thing to do.

Now, why don't you show me that you have a modicum of intelligence and shut up waffling about irrelevant stuff?

Please, tell me one occasion where I have waffled. And by the way, the true nature of relativity is not irrelevent, if you believe it to be, you are far far more ignorant than I give you credit for.

I answered the same dumb questions about atomic clocks, long ago. Keep up.

(Question was, "since particles in an accelerator experience relativistic effects, do they to have their own universe?") Not really a question about atomic clocks, but I'll take it


So, EVERY particle has its own universe? Even the particles that make up you? So when a particle decays into smaller particles, more universes are created? What about virtual particles, are those in virtual universes? What about when a photon's energy is absorbed, is a universe destroyed? If every particle is its own universe, why would it interact with other particles or fields?

Your theory is completely non-sensical

 

[RussDill]

A car accelerates because it is forced to do so by the actions of my foot. Stop waffling, evasively, and tell these people why the whole universe - as they perceive it - will be distorted by their acceleration. Are you implying that the body exerts a force upon the whole external universe, whereby that body's acceleration forces the universe to distort?

He is pointing out your fallacy in the use of the word "distort". He is pointing out that your day to day changes that you see in the universe are no more special than what you would experience traveling near the speed of light relative to another inertial reference frame. Please show that the effects of relativity are any more special than the effects of motion. (they are actually a part of motion btw)

Are you people so dumb that you believe anything upchurch says?
Are you taking stock of his responses to me?!

no one on this board believes everything upchurch says (just because he says it), we're all skeptics. Hell, we don't even believe everything *we* say (just because we say it). We constanly analyze and look for fault. I must say however, he is making you look quite the fool.

Sitting comfortably and smugly amongst your skeptical ivory-tower, feeling superior and right merely because the brainless masses are on your side. How feeble.

sweet, we get an ivory tower?!?!?!!?!!! Dude, that is SO cool. Do the bathrooms have mints and that guy that hands you the towel?? This skeptic thing sure has a lot more perks than your whole mind thing.

 

[RussDill]

Actually, I just get frustrated with the inability of people to see what I consider to be simple reasoning. I have come to the conclusion that other factors are at work, and that it's not just a simple matter of showing that 1 + 1 = 2, so to speak.
Perhaps armageddon must occur after all.

This is actually pretty close to where your confusion lies. You understand that 5 * 6 is 30, because you add 5 6 times and get 30. Hower, someone has just shown you that 42 / 3 = 14 (special relativity). You go wow, 3 * 14 is 42, how did they do multiplication in reverse? This is a truly magic power, how can one little slash do that? You then go on to determine that a Mind is responsible for such things. You go tell everyone, everyone then attempts to explain division and long division, the processes that are responsible for the behavior of this magic slash. However, you refuse to listen, because "all knowledge comes from within awareness"

How truly sad would such an argument be?

You understand the equations for special relativity, yet refuse to go any deeper to understand where they come from. You are using this sad, sad argument.