"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...
Ken Seto wrote:

This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take
"longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in
all
frames of reference.


I neglected to comment on this adequately in my previous post. All I
really
wanted to say, though, is this:

Unless I am totally mistaken:

- It simply *has* to take longer. If it doesn't, where is the time
dilation?
Without the second taking longer to happen, there is no time dilation,
right?

Right!!! The traveling clock second has a longer duration (higher
absolute
time content) :-)

No, silly. LESS time.

No you are the silly one. The traveling cliock second will have a longer
duration than the stay at home clock second.

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message ...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...
Ken Seto wrote:

This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take
"longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in
all
frames of reference.


I neglected to comment on this adequately in my previous post. All I
really
wanted to say, though, is this:

Unless I am totally mistaken:

- It simply *has* to take longer. If it doesn't, where is the time
dilation?
Without the second taking longer to happen, there is no time dilation,
right?

Right!!! The traveling clock second has a longer duration (higher
absolute
time content) :-)

No, silly. LESS time.

No you are the silly one. The traveling cliock second will have a longer
duration than the stay at home clock second.

You see Bonnie, DRT includes SR as a subset:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=au...includes+SR%22
:-))

Dirk Vdm

Subject: The Fundamental Problem of SR
From: "Bonnie Granat"
Date: 8/31/2003 12:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Fundamental Problem of SR:
SR rejects the notion of absolute time (universal time). This leads to
incionsistencies in its description of the processes of nature. For
example:
SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant. That
implies
that
a clock second is an interval of absolute (universal) time. That also
implies that the passage of a clock second in one frame is the same as
the
passage of a clock second in another frame.

No. If I understand it correctly, It takes "longer" for the the clock
second
to HAPPEN in the frame traveling very fast, because the light has not
only
to go UP to the mirror, but also has to travel FORWARD. Greater
distance,
greater "TIME." But the person traveling WITH the clock doesn't perceive
that.

That would be the correct description but this is conflicting with the SR
assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant

To say it's a universal constant is technically incorrect, as I understand
it. Nothing can go faster, but light itself can go slower, although that is
beside the point here. Light, in other words, doesn't always go at its top
speed.

which implies
that a clock second is an interval of universal time.

No, it doesn't. It just says that we have decided to use the distance that
light travels as a measure in OUR "clock." We could use the interval
between a dog barking if it were reliably regular. It doesn't really matter
WHAT is used as the measure. It just so happens that we use light, for
reasons that others can explain (I can't).


This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take "longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in all
frames of reference.


In the frame that is traveling, the second seems like a normal second.
From the point of view of nontraveling frames, the second seems to take
longer.

Frankly, it seems to me that the illusion is not in the fact that the second
is longer in the traveling person's clock, but rather in the fact that the
traveling person thinks the second is the same as it was when he was NOT
traveling. He cannot perceive that the second is longer than it was when he
was stationary.

In other words, we think of the lengthened second as being an illusion
perceived by the nontraveling person, when the illusion is really with the
traveling person, who cannot perceive that his second is longer than usual.
It seems normal to him, but apparently, it is longer to observers.

If I understand it correctly, THAT is where any illusion takes place. But I
may be mistaken, so let's see if anyone else comments on what I have said.


You have stated the fact correctly, but it is NOT an illusion. All physical
events, from the decay of elementary particles to the beating of your heart,
take longer from the observors viewpoint. The only realistic view is that
BOTH observor and observed are correct, in spite of the fact that they give
different numbers. There is not contridiction. A more correct title to this
thread would be "The Fundamental Cause of Lay Confusion over SR"

Subject: The Fundamental Problem of SR
From: "Robert J. Kolker"
Date: 9/1/2003 10:29 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:



kenseto wrote:


It is not an illusion. This is demonstrated by the twin paradox. The
traveling clock second is longer than the stay at home clock seocnd.

As it should be. The closer to a light world line the closer the
interval should be to zero. If you sit on your arse, your propertime is
maximal. If you travel near light speed your proper time is near zero.
If a photon could wear a wris****ch it would discover that it could get
from here to there in no time flat.

Bob Kolker

The proper time is the time measured in your -rest frame- and never appears
unusual. The yardstick stretched between the stars, just outside your window,
appears grossly mis-made, being much too short. The distance between the stars
has also become very short, so it doesn't take long to make the trip. If you
can keep the rockets running it may take much less than four years to travel
the four light years to Alpha Proximi. If you radio back to Earth immediately
when you arrive, your signal will nevertheless arrive more than eight years
after you left.

"Danny McCarty" wrote in message
...
Subject: The Fundamental Problem of SR
From: "Bonnie Granat"
Date: 8/31/2003 12:18 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Bonnie Granat" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
...
The Fundamental Problem of SR:
SR rejects the notion of absolute time (universal time). This leads
to
incionsistencies in its description of the processes of nature. For
example:
SR posits that the speed of light is a universal constant. That
implies
that
a clock second is an interval of absolute (universal) time. That
also
implies that the passage of a clock second in one frame is the same
as
the
passage of a clock second in another frame.

No. If I understand it correctly, It takes "longer" for the the clock
second
to HAPPEN in the frame traveling very fast, because the light has not
only
to go UP to the mirror, but also has to travel FORWARD. Greater
distance,
greater "TIME." But the person traveling WITH the clock doesn't
perceive
that.

That would be the correct description but this is conflicting with the
SR
assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant

To say it's a universal constant is technically incorrect, as I
understand
it. Nothing can go faster, but light itself can go slower, although that
is
beside the point here. Light, in other words, doesn't always go at its
top
speed.

which implies
that a clock second is an interval of universal time.

No, it doesn't. It just says that we have decided to use the distance
that
light travels as a measure in OUR "clock." We could use the interval
between a dog barking if it were reliably regular. It doesn't really
matter
WHAT is used as the measure. It just so happens that we use light, for
reasons that others can explain (I can't).


This SR assumption
means that a clock second has the same duration (it does not take
"longer"
for the clock second to happen in the frame traveling very fast) in all
frames of reference.


In the frame that is traveling, the second seems like a normal second.
From the point of view of nontraveling frames, the second seems to take
longer.

Frankly, it seems to me that the illusion is not in the fact that the
second
is longer in the traveling person's clock, but rather in the fact that
the
traveling person thinks the second is the same as it was when he was NOT
traveling. He cannot perceive that the second is longer than it was when
he
was stationary.

In other words, we think of the lengthened second as being an illusion
perceived by the nontraveling person, when the illusion is really with
the
traveling person, who cannot perceive that his second is longer than
usual.
It seems normal to him, but apparently, it is longer to observers.

If I understand it correctly, THAT is where any illusion takes place. But
I
may be mistaken, so let's see if anyone else comments on what I have
said.


You have stated the fact correctly, but it is NOT an illusion. All
physical
events, from the decay of elementary particles to the beating of your
heart,
take longer from the observors viewpoint. The only realistic view is
that
BOTH observor and observed are correct, in spite of the fact that they
give
different numbers. There is not contridiction. A more correct title to
this
thread would be "The Fundamental Cause of Lay Confusion over SR"


Right. I realize that it's not an illusion. I was using the word only
figuratively to do exactly what you suggest--reflect the lay confusion.


--
___________________________
Bonnie Granat
GRANAT EDITORIAL SERVICES
http://www.editors-writers.info
Overnight service available

Double A It is not an illusion. Fact is Einstein's equivalent
principle tells us acceleration and gravity are the same. Once a
spaceship reaches light speed it would be the same as going through the
event horizon of a blackhole. DoubleA People aboard a space ship
at 94% of "C" are dead. One could say their body parts got to heavy to
function. Best to keep in mind matter particles can't ever accelerate to
"C" Not even an electron. Bert