Observed Reality versus Actual Reality.

The whole of relativistic physics is predicated on the notion that what the
observer sees constitutes reality. It is realized that if an astronomer
sees a star explode, which is a thousand light years away from the earth,
that the explosion actually happened a thousand years ago.

Yet when we look at relativistic physics textbooks, somehow the
understanding that everything we observe happened some time ago rather than
right now, has been lost or ignored.

For example, when a clock moves away from a stationary observer it will
appear to run slow because it takes the image of the moving clock a
progressively longer time to reach the observer, the further it moves away
from the observer. When it has travelled one light-minute away from the
observer it will appear to run one minute slow. When it has travelled one
light-hour away from the observer the moving clock will appear to run one
hour slow and so on.

As a result an optical illusion is created which makes it appear as if the
moving clock ages at a slower rate than the clock of the observer. How
anyone could jump to the illogical conclusion that somehow, time has slowed
down for the moving clock as compared to the stationary clock, is beyond me.

In summary, instead of realizing what is happening, relativists accept the
observed clock's image as actual reality rather than an historic image it
is. Based on this misconception they next concluded that time slows down
for a clock which moves away from a stationary observer.

The same applies to a rod which moves away from a stationary observer. It
will appear shorter than it really is because the image of the front-end of
the rod, which is furthest away from the observer, takes a longer time to
reach the observer than the tail-end of the rod which is closer to the
observer.

In other words, the observed historic image of the front-end of the rod is
older than the observed historic image of the tail-end of the rod. This
means that in (actual) reality, the front end of the rod has travelled
further away from its observed position than its tail-end, by the time their
images reach the observer. This in spite of the fact that the front-end and
tail-end of the rod left home at the same time and travelled at the same
velocity. As a result the observed moving rod appears shorter than it
really is.

Again relativists make the same mistake by assuming that the length of the
observed rod represents reality, instead of the optical illusion it is.

The problem is that the above explanation is so logical and simple that it
is embarrassing for relativists to admit that they could have made such a
silly error. And so, rather than admit that they were wrong, they argue
that "the critics don't understand relativistic physics" and consequently
"don't know what they are talking about".

And so the argument rages on and on, making the sci.physics.relativity
newsgroup one of the busiest on the internet, with everyone putting in their
two cents worth.

"Stupidity does not consist in being without ideas. Such stupidity would be
the sweet, blissful stupidity of animals, molluscs and the gods. Human
Stupidity consists in having lots of ideas, but stupid ones."
Henry de Montherlant (1896-1972) French novelist.
Notebooks.

Enjoy, Len.

PS: For a more complete explanation see my "Selected Papers" which you will
find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
.................................................. ......

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

: Observed Reality versus Actual Reality.

: The whole of relativistic physics is predicated on the notion that what the
: observer sees constitutes reality. It is realized that if an astronomer
: sees a star explode, which is a thousand light years away from the earth,
: that the explosion actually happened a thousand years ago.

: Yet when we look at relativistic physics textbooks, somehow the
: understanding that everything we observe happened some time ago rather than
: right now, has been lost or ignored.

: For example, when a clock moves away from a stationary observer it will
: appear to run slow because it takes the image of the moving clock a
: progressively longer time to reach the observer, the further it moves away
: from the observer. When it has travelled one light-minute away from the
: observer it will appear to run one minute slow. When it has travelled one
: light-hour away from the observer the moving clock will appear to run one
: hour slow and so on.

Special Relativity predicts that a clock moving towards you will appear
to run slow, once you have accounted for Doppler affects. Doppler
is not the sole explanation.

Stephen

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...

Observed Reality versus Actual Reality.

The whole of relativistic physics is predicated on the notion that what
the
observer sees constitutes reality.
Correct.

It is realized that if an astronomer
sees a star explode, which is a thousand light years away from the earth,
that the explosion actually happened a thousand years ago.
Correct.

Yet when we look at relativistic physics textbooks, somehow the
understanding that everything we observe happened some time ago rather
than
right now, has been lost or ignored.
Not correct.


For example, when a clock moves away from a stationary observer it will
appear to run slow because it takes the image of the moving clock a
progressively longer time to reach the observer, the further it moves away
from the observer. When it has travelled one light-minute away from the
observer it will appear to run one minute slow. When it has travelled one
light-hour away from the observer the moving clock will appear to run one
hour slow and so on.
Correct.

As a result an optical illusion is created which makes it appear as if the
moving clock ages at a slower rate than the clock of the observer.
Correct, it is called doppler shift as the clock is moving.

How
anyone could jump to the illogical conclusion that somehow, time has
slowed
down for the moving clock as compared to the stationary clock, is beyond
me.
Beyond me too, but not relevant to your previous argument. Relativists DO
understand what you've said. Doppler shift is not the same as time dilation.

In summary, instead of realizing what is happening, relativists accept the
observed clock's image as actual reality rather than an historic image it
is.
Incorrect. The reading of the clock at a distance still lags. It is the rate
at which the clock's reading changes that is the issue. The approaching
clock, which you would expect to agree with yours on arrival, will still
appear to increas its rate, but not enough to agree with yours on arrival.
As a crude example, if it was one hour away, it would read one hour slow, as
you say, and as it returns it SHOULD agree with yours, but it will be one
second slow. Almost caught up, but not quite. In other words, the red shift
is to great and the blue shift to small.
[snipped remainder]
You began well, but flopped, Len.
The illusions are out there, and indeed are misinterpreted because of the
intuitive belief that what we see us really happening. What do you see here?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
Fact or illusion?
Androcles

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
The whole of relativistic physics is predicated on the notion that what the
observer sees constitutes reality.

Not at all! Relativity is based on geometrical concepts in which
intrinsic properties of objects are invariant, and the MEASUREMENTS
("what the observer sees") are projections of intrinsic properties onto
the observer's measuring apparatus. WHile the measurements made are
indeed accurate FOR THE TYPE OF MEASUREMENT, they are not "reality" in
the way you seem to think.


Yet when we look at relativistic physics textbooks, somehow the
understanding that everything we observe happened some time ago rather than
right now, has been lost or ignored.

You distort the facts, and clearly don't understand them.


For example, when a clock moves away from a stationary observer it will
appear to run slow because [...]

Before attempting to describe what "relativity says", you should really
STUDY relativity and UNDERSTAND it. You descriptions are completely and
utterly WRONG.

For instance, apply your "logic" to a clock that is moving TOWARD the
stationary observer -- SR predicts an IDENTICAL slowing in the
observations of that clock as for the one you discuss (moving away).

Note my care in wording -- it is not the CLOCK that "slows",
it is the OBSERVATIONS of the clock.

[... further nonsense based on Gaasenbeek's utter lack of
understanding of SR]


Tom Roberts

To Androcles,

As usual you try and confuse the issue rather than admit that you were
wrong.
As a result you not only are incapable of learning or making a contribution
to physics but worse, you have become counter-productive and a hindrance to
science in that you criticize and belittle anyone and everyone who has made
an insightful contribution to physics.

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our
minds."
Bob Marley (Robert Nesta Marley; 1945-1980) Jamaican reggae singer.
Uprising, 'Redemption Song'.

Len.

Also see below.
.................................................. ....

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Len Gaasenbeek" wrote in message
...

Observed Reality versus Actual Reality.

The whole of relativistic physics is predicated on the notion that what
the
observer sees constitutes reality.
Correct.

It is realized that if an astronomer
sees a star explode, which is a thousand light years away from the
earth,
that the explosion actually happened a thousand years ago.
Correct.

Yet when we look at relativistic physics textbooks, somehow the
understanding that everything we observe happened some time ago rather
than
right now, has been lost or ignored.
Not correct.


For example, when a clock moves away from a stationary observer it will
appear to run slow because it takes the image of the moving clock a
progressively longer time to reach the observer, the further it moves
away
from the observer. When it has travelled one light-minute away from the
observer it will appear to run one minute slow. When it has travelled
one
light-hour away from the observer the moving clock will appear to run
one
hour slow and so on.
Correct.

As a result an optical illusion is created which makes it appear as if
the
moving clock ages at a slower rate than the clock of the observer.
Correct, it is called doppler shift as the clock is moving.

How
anyone could jump to the illogical conclusion that somehow, time has
slowed
down for the moving clock as compared to the stationary clock, is beyond
me.
Beyond me too, but not relevant to your previous argument. Relativists DO
understand what you've said. Doppler shift is not the same as time
dilation.

In summary, instead of realizing what is happening, relativists accept
the
observed clock's image as actual reality rather than an historic image
it
is.
Incorrect. The reading of the clock at a distance still lags. It is the
rate
at which the clock's reading changes that is the issue. The approaching
clock, which you would expect to agree with yours on arrival, will still
appear to increas its rate, but not enough to agree with yours on arrival.

(Len) I don't agree. This has never been proven to my satisfaction.
Besides when
a clock runs slow this doesn't mean that time runs more slowly (which is
ridiculous).
It just means that the clock in question didn't keep proper time, that's
all.

As a crude example, if it was one hour away, it would read one hour slow,
as
you say, and as it returns it SHOULD agree with yours, but it will be one
second slow. Almost caught up, but not quite. In other words, the red
shift
is to great and the blue shift to small.
[snipped remainder]
You began well, but flopped, Len.
The illusions are out there, and indeed are misinterpreted because of the
intuitive belief that what we see us really happening. What do you see
here?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
Fact or illusion?
Androcles
.................................................. .................

To Tom,

My reply to Androcles applies equally to you.

Len.
.................................................. ..................
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
The whole of relativistic physics is predicated on the notion that what
the
observer sees constitutes reality.

Not at all! Relativity is based on geometrical concepts in which
intrinsic properties of objects are invariant, and the MEASUREMENTS
("what the observer sees") are projections of intrinsic properties onto
the observer's measuring apparatus. WHile the measurements made are
indeed accurate FOR THE TYPE OF MEASUREMENT, they are not "reality" in
the way you seem to think.


Yet when we look at relativistic physics textbooks, somehow the
understanding that everything we observe happened some time ago rather
than
right now, has been lost or ignored.

You distort the facts, and clearly don't understand them.


For example, when a clock moves away from a stationary observer it will
appear to run slow because [...]

Before attempting to describe what "relativity says", you should really
STUDY relativity and UNDERSTAND it. You descriptions are completely and
utterly WRONG.

For instance, apply your "logic" to a clock that is moving TOWARD the
stationary observer -- SR predicts an IDENTICAL slowing in the
observations of that clock as for the one you discuss (moving away).

Note my care in wording -- it is not the CLOCK that "slows",
it is the OBSERVATIONS of the clock.

[... further nonsense based on Gaasenbeek's utter lack of
understanding of SR]


Tom Roberts

Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

To Androcles,

As usual you try and confuse the issue rather than admit that you were
wrong.
As a result you not only are incapable of learning or making a contribution
to physics but worse, you have become counter-productive and a hindrance to
science in that you criticize and belittle anyone and everyone who has made
an insightful contribution to physics.
Actually, Androcles did correctly describe the predictions of SR, and
your error. Although he doesn't accept it, he does have a reasonable
grasp of the theory.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

What do you see here?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
Fact or illusion?
Androcles

To Androcles,

I see a photograph of a star the way it looked 400 years ago. This is
comparable to watching the earth in the year 1600. A lot has happened since
then, like the whole of modern science.

Len.
.................................................. .....
"Androcles" wrote in message
...
What do you see here?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
Fact or illusion?
Androcles

To Brian,

So?

Len.
.................................................. ..........
"Brian Kennelly" wrote in message
...
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:

To Androcles,

As usual you try and confuse the issue rather than admit that you were
wrong.
As a result you not only are incapable of learning or making a
contribution
to physics but worse, you have become counter-productive and a
hindrance to
science in that you criticize and belittle anyone and everyone who has
made
an insightful contribution to physics.
Actually, Androcles did correctly describe the predictions of SR, and
your error. Although he doesn't accept it, he does have a reasonable
grasp of the theory.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----