|
| 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. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: good, tell, theory |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#361
October 31st 04
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
How to tell if a theory is a good one
Greg Neill wrote: If you haven't written the equations, you haven't got a theory. No one has to do your work for you. But once you've got a (predictive mathematically described) theory, everyone will be happy to have at it to find problems. That's how it works. Correct. Without the math there is no theory. Only hot air. Bob Kolker 
|
| Ads |
|
#362
October 31st 04
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to tell if a theory is a good one
sno wrote: Hypothesis = educated...??....guess..... have fun....thinking....sno Correct. A hypothesis is an eductated guess which gets some clout when the guess are borne out by experimentation. Bob Kolker
|
|
#363
October 31st 04
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to tell if a theory is a good one
"V ertner Vergon" wrote in message om... : "Androcles" wrote in message k... : "V ertner Vergon" wrote in message : om... : : (TomGee) wrote in message : . com... : : (V ertner Vergon) wrote in : message . com... : : (Paul Draper) wrote in message : . com... : : : : : : : : VERGON : : : : Hi, Tom. Congratulations. You are the only one that read the : monograph : : before commenting on it. I appreciate that. : : : : I'm going to answer each of your comments but I must admit it is : going : : to be difficult because your understanding of SR is deficient. Also, : : you are trying to defend some concept you have re a train. These two : : mix together to result in some weird comments. But I will do my : best. : : : : SNIP : : : : Below is a definitive work on which I would appreciate your : comments. : : : : ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME : : : : Vertner Vergon : : : : Abstract : : : : We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving : : contradiction. We also find it is contrary to empirical : experience. In : : examining Doppler time we find it has none of these : deficiencies. We : : therefore conclude that the erroneous concept of time dilation : be : : replaced with the concept of Doppler time variation. : : : : We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going : to its : : source -- Einstein's paper,On the Electrodynamics of Moving : Bodies. We : : refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. : : : : SNIP : : : : On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open : to : : alternative explanations, eg., the moving clock could have : traveled a : : shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than observed. : In : : either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper) rate : but for : : a shorter duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. : : : : : : SR is not ambiguous about that. : : : : Vergon: : : : : Sorry, but it is -- and that was explained clearly. Saying one clock : : is "behind" the other is not the same as saying one clock ran : "slower" : : than the other. Read it again. : : : : : : It clearly shows that for the : : astronaut twin to leave the planet, it must move faster than the : : Earth, and the same for it to catch up with the Earth in order to : : return to it. : : : : Vergon: : : : : SR never mentions the twins or the earth -- but it does say one : clock : : moves away and then returns. : : Androcles: : I define "SR" here as Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of : Moving Bodies". : I'm going to answer your comments but I must admit it is going : to be difficult because your understanding of SR is deficient. : Those comments that are correct I'll make no modification to. : : SR never says the clock returns. : : VERGON: : : Well you're wrong right off the mark. So how can you be an authority : on SR? A. Because I know it better than you, and that makes me an authority. V. : And *who's* understanding of SR is deficient? A. Yours. You are wrong right off the mark. V. : QUOTING AL'S PAPER: : : From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the : points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the : stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved : with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B : the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B : LAGS BEHIND the other which has remained at B by (up to magnitudes of : fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey : from A to B. : : It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock : moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A : and B coincide. : : If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid : for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of : two synchronous clocks at A is MOVED IN A CLOSED CURVE with constant : velocity until it RETURNS to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by : the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its : arrival at A will be 1/2t v^2/c^2 second SLOW Thence we conclude that : a balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small : amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles : under otherwise identical conditions. : : Note, the caps are mine for emphasis: the moving clock "lags behind" : and it : "returns", it also "will be 1/2t v^2/c^2 "slow". A. Note that when you RETURN home each day you do not go all the way around the Earth to do so. You are playing with words. : : SR cannot handle a returning clock at all. : SR says : "IF we place x' = x-vt..." : (lot of calculation).... : xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) : tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) : A returning clock requires : "IF we place x' = x+vt". : : VERGON: : : No comment necessary since you are already way off. A. Bury your head in the sand then. The Twin Paradox is NOT a circle, and SR cannot handle the return journey. Pretending it is an absurdity. Not only do you not fully understand SR, you have no common sense either. I fail to understand why you wish to be antagonistic toward an ally, but if that's what you want, so be it. : : At any : : rate the accepted version is that the clock ran slower and thus : was : : born the concept of time dilation. : : : : : : Time dilation is an effect, not a concept. The explanation of an : : effect can be called a concept, but the two are obviously not the : same : : thing. : : : : Vergon: : : : : I call time dilation a concept because it does not exist, it is a : : concept only. Doppler time *does* exist. I use and define the term : : "time dilation effect" later. : : : : : : : This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says if : one : : were to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they would : observe : : it to run slowly. : : : : : : Your statement is incomplete as regards SR's thought experiment. : If : : an observer on Earth could observe a clock on a spaceship moving : : faster than the Earth, that observer would see it running slower : than : : his own clock. However, that is not the most astonishing feature : of : : the effect, I think. Amazingly, the astronaut would see our : clocks on : : Earth running slower too. It's a good thing that it is not : possible : : for those observations to occur, or we would really be up a creek : : about that! : : : : Vergon: : : : : *Your* statement is incomplete. According to SR Earth would observe : : the ship's clock to run slow regardless of whether it was receding : or : : approaching. : : Androcles: : Not so, it is *Einstein's* statement that is incomplete. : "IF we place x' = x+vt..." was never included in SR. : You can't blame TomGee for religiously following his faith. : Actually it is not the only statement Einstein made that was : incomplete, but that's another story. : : VERGON: : : It doesn't take your invention to realize that Einstein meant the : slowness to include the return trip. A. I've "invented" nothing. V. : He speaks of a polygon course and : a complete curved course -- and then says the clock runs slow. A. He speaks bull****. All his calculation is based on motion along the X-axis. "If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line.... just another of his stupid assumptions. Nor did he give a proof for a polygon. We can reduce his polygon from 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 sides, and then the motion is going the opposite way on the X-axis. That has the "peculiar conseqence" of xi = (x PLUS vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) V. : He : obviously meant it ran slow on the return or he would have said : otherwise. It is not that his statement was incomplete, his concept : was wrong. So is yours. So Einstein was an idiot. That he omitted to say otherwise is the very point I'm making. I'm not disagreeing with you that Einstein was wrong, but you have not identified where his mathematical flaws are, and I have. It doesn't take your observation to see that Einstein was wrong, many have done so before you. But you have failed to identify where, and that makes ME the authority, and you are the one that is wrong. : : : : Not true -- contrary to empiricism. An approaching clock is observed : : to run fast (Doppler time). And this is real. Observing stars and : : galaxies is observing atomic clocks. : : Quite correct. We cannot deny empirical data. : : : : : : : It must be emphasized that this running slowly : : occurs regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That : is to : : say it matters not whether the spaceship is receding or : approaching, : : time runs slower. : : : : Vergon: : : : : I'm speaking here of SR's presentation. : : Androcles: : Not a strong enough statement. : It must be emphasized that this running slowly occurs only when the : clock is moving directly away, as evidence of Einstein's equation : f' = f (1- cos(phi).v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) demonstrates. : Einstein neglects the cos(phi) term in the denominator, which should : be : sqrt(1 - [v.cos(phi)]^2 / c^2) but we cannot blame TomGee for : faithfully : believing everything his tin god says. : It WOULD produce blue shift if we add pi to phi, but we must be : careful : not to discuss that. What we are allowed to say is: : "It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a : source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear : of infinite intensity. " : and make no mention of a source approaching the observer. However, : when a source of light DOES approach an observer with quite a moderate : velocity, an increase in intensity is observable. : http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm : : VERGON: : : First off the statement is absolutely strong enough. All that need be : said is that according to SR a clock in the approach mode runs slowly. : : You're so anxious to refute me that you switch (unannounced)to section : seven : which is on Doppler. Apples and Oranges. Your quote is the last : paragraph in that section. A. I fail to see how reinforcing and supporting what you've said is refuting you. Explain. : : . That is to : : say it matters not whether the spaceship is receding or : approaching, : : time runs slower. : : : : : : : Yes, which supports my model that time is a property of matter and : : passes inversely proportional to an object's state of motion. : : : : Vergon: : : : : I am not aware that states of motion (whatever that means) are : : inversely proportional (whatever *that* means). : : Androcles: : I think he means f = 1/t. : : VERGON: : : Who knows what he means. : : : : : And as for time -- time is the comparison of motions, and nothing : : more. All motions are compared to an arbitary standard. : : Androcles: : Well... that is rather loosely put. All motion is relative. : velocity = distance/time. : Time itself is completely independent of motion. Clocks tick : whether anything moves or not. : : VERGON: : : Wrong. In a photograph nothing moves -- and time stands still. : And you are right -- Velocity = distance/time. Take away time -- and : you have no velocity. There are those that define time as what a clock : measures. : Well, if the clock isn't ticking (moving) there is no time. : : : : : : Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time : : is not just a matter of observation but actually takes place -- : for : : when the clock returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary : (or : : Earth) clock. : : : : Vergon: : : : : Still according to SR. : : : : The Twin Paradox is not the sole example of time dilation. : : : : Vergon: : : : : I didn't say it was. : : Androcles: : But it is a good example of the ridiculousness of SR. : : VERGON: : : SR is not ridiculous. It was a brilliant piece of work. Sure Al made : some errors but they were minor and did not harm the essence of his : work. : Don't forget, when he wrote his theory he was 25, living in a crummy : apartment, had a crummy job and a bad marriage. When you can produce : something approaching the importance of SR then you can call his work : ridiculous. A. LOL! There is nothing remotely important about SR, it is a crock of ****. And you pretend to understand it? Phooey. I'm talking mathematics, not Einstein's personal problems, or yours. : : : : I posted : : the example of a moving train in the thread, " what is the : relation : : between force and energy?", on 10/20/04. While many argue the : hell : : out of the Twin Paradox, the train example is incontrovertible : proof : : that the effect of time dilation occurs. : : : : Vergon: : : : : If it claims to establish time dilation then it is wrong. : : Androcles: : The train example is incontrovertible proof of TomGee's belief in : c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) without understanding where it comes from, : and yes, it is wrong. : The train example is most definitely controvertible. Whether : TomGee is prepared to listen to any controversy is questionable, : and understanding it is something else entirely. : : VERGON: : : Agreed. : : : : : : : Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one : : conclusion, the moving clock has to be running slowly in its own : : coordinate system. : : : : : : No, that is incorrect because that conclusion must also include, : "wrt : : the Earth's proper time", otherwise the premise is false. : : : : Vergon: : : : : This not a premise but a conclusion. : : : Androcles: : I'd call it a self-evident axiom. : It is hard to imagine a clock measuring one hour by itself and finding : it measured more or less than one hour. That would require a deranged : observer. TomGee can only refer to some other clock, and the rest : of the Universe is "in synch" with the proper time of the Earth. : If it were not, we'd be unable to predict when we'd see the moons : of Jupiter occulting, and we can. : : : : : : That is the : : basic premise of my model, that discrete objects run within their : own : : proper time, and thus time is a property of matter. : : : : VERGON: : : : : That's shakey. The *motion* of matter creates time. : : Androcles: : Well, I suppose if the universe stopped we could say time has : stopped... : Seems to me that is a "What if" statement that we can never answer. : We'd stop too, and when the universe restarted we'd not notice the : interval of : time we were stopped for, as measured by the master clock of the : universe. : I don't think some imaginary superpower could run around moving a few : planets about and then restart time, do you? : Such ideas belong to sci-fi, not physics. : : : : : : : : : Here we are faced with an unforgiving contradiction : : for basic relativity states that all clocks keep proper time in : their : : respective coordinate systems. : : : : : : It is not an unforgiving contradiction at all; it is an phenomenon : : called the time dilation effect, and I don't see where anything is : in : : conflict when one says that "all clocks keep proper time in their : : respective ...systems." : : : : Vergon: : : : : Reread the monograph. A clock cannot keep proper time and run slow : at : : the same time. : : : : : : It is inconsistent that a clock can : : actually run slowly in its own coordinate system and also, the : : while, keep proper time. : : : : : : It is inconsistent only in the way you state it, but that is not : what : : SR claims. SR claims that a clock can run slower in its own : proper : : time than clocks in other discrete systems when their motion is : slower : : compared to the clock in question. : : : : Vergon: : : : : SR never mentions proper time in respect to a clock running slow. : You : : made that up -- but it's a good point. What you are saying is that : : proper time becomes slower. Let's take a closer look. : : : : A meter rod in a moving system (you don't need the word : "discrete")is : : measured : : by an inertial observer as being shorter. However, the rod remains : one : : meter in length in its system. Thus we say the proper length is one : : meter and does not change. : : : : The same is true for mass. : : : : So why should time be different? A clock *appears* to run slow : because : : it takes time for light to carry the message of its ticking. A clock : : in an inertial system keeps proper time -- and an identical clock at : : rest in its moving system will keep the same proper time. Why : wouldn't : : it? : : : : This contradiction requires that the time : : dilation concept, i.e., t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) be : discarded. : : : : : : No, not so, because your interpretation of the paradox is not at : all : : what SR claims is happening in the Twin Paradox nor in other : examples : : of time dilation. : : : : VERGON: : : : : That's the point. My intepretation is different than that of SR : : because SR is wrong. There is no time dilation. When I say time : : dilation I mean : : t = t'sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). In Doppler time there is a dilation -- only : in : : recession and of a different rate. : : : : Androcles: : I'd like to reinforce that. : : SR's doppler is (setting cos(phi) as 1 and -1) : f' = f (1-v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for the receding clock and : f' = f (1+ v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for the approaching clock. : : Since by definition t' = 1/f' and : t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) : t' = 1/f' = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/f(1+ v/c) : t.sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/f(1+ v/c) : t = 1/f(1+ v/c) : But t = 1/f, hence v = 0. : : SR is quite correct for all values of v that are equal to 0. : : : : The question arises, is there something to take its place? The : answer : : is yes. : : : : To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any : known : : constant frequency is a clock. The scientific community has : chosen the : : excited cesium atom as the standard. This is an arbitrary : choice. : : Next, we note that the cesium clock (or any other constant : frequency : : atom) will never vary in its rate. So they will always keep : proper : : time. However, observations of these clocks will show a : variation due : : to the Doppler effect. We declare this variation in frequency is : a : : variation in observed time. Since the frequency is a clock, an : : observed variation in the frequency is an observed variation in : time. : : : : : : Here is the first contradiction so far, and it is your claim that, : : contrary to SR's claim that if it were possible to see the proper : time : : of a spaceship moving faster than the Earth, we could only see it : as : : moving slower and the astronaut could only see us as moving slower : : also. Since we can actually see light, it is not proper time we : see, : : but the phenomenon of light which exists external to our time : : dimension. At c, time does not exist, and so it is patently : incorrect : : to assign Doppler shifts to the time dilation effect. : : : : : : Vergon: : : : : Where did you get all that? First of all you failed to mention that : : according to SR the clock on the space ship appears to run slower : : whether it is receding or approaching. But according to Doppler time : : an approaching clock runs faster. : : And that is an empirical fact. : : : : And as for "light which exists external to our time dimension" -- I : : haven't the faintest idea what that means or its application to the : : subject. : : : : And as for time not existing at c -- that's wrong also. If a : cordinate : : system were to attain c, time would stand still in it. That doesn't : : mean time does not exist. And besides that has nothing to do with : : observing Doppler time -- which astronomers do every night. : : Androcles: : Yes, it is now apparent that TomGee is talking through his sci-fi hat, : struggling to defend his faith with vague handwaving of time stopping. : This concept is a direct result of Einstein's claim : "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become : meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the : velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an : infinitely great velocity." : : In the real world, the velocity of light physically "plays the part" : of a very finite velocity, or we would not be able to assign a : numerical value to it. : : Einstein's statement is meaningless claptrap. What does he think the : velocity of light is, an actor on a theatre stage? : This draws the distinction and departure point bwtween real physics : and theoretical (i.e. sci-fi) physics. : : VERGON: : : You misinterpret Al's meaning. He was saying that some of the : attributes of light are such that it is as though it had -- or dealt : with -- infinte velocities. You can tell fom my monograph that I have : developed a theory known as the Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity. : : In it there is the proper (Newtonian) velocity that is read as a : slower relativistic velocity due to the time it takes light to : register it. : : The momentum and energy of a relativistic velocity is to be found in : its corresponding proper velocity. In other words the proper velocity : transposes but the parameters don't. A. Oh, you are one of those... a member of the "I have a theory" brigade. Now I see why you don't want an ally. You have an axe to grind, some invention of your own. That explains everything. Now we are down to the nitty gritty. [remainder snipped, we are at the heart of the issue] Come on then, SR is garbage and you are going to fix it. Do tell. Androcles.
|
|
#364
October 31st 04
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to tell if a theory is a good one
V ertner Vergon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... V ertner Vergon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... V ertner Vergon wrote: (Paul Draper) wrote in message . com... Vergon: All the bull **** below sniped. So you choose to ignore the fact that sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is not the Lorentz transformation? Big surprise. Vergon: Small minds get hung up on small matters -- and your mind is of the smallest. Oh, that explains why I managed to get a PhD, right? Vergon: I had a professor once who used to say, "What do you get if you send a bonehead to college?" (Answer)"An educated bonehead." Evasion of the argument noted. Did you ever notice that there is a slight difference between a college education and obtaining a PhD? I'm kicking myself in the ass for wasting time with you. I have just laid before you a tower of logic -- and you are too stupid to appreciate it. Man, you are really full of yourself. And really totally clueless. Vergon: Look who's talking. Well, the last sentence was written by you... Bye, Bjoern
|
|
#365
October 31st 04
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to tell if a theory is a good one
V ertner Vergon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ... V ertner Vergon wrote: (Paul Draper) wrote in message . com... [snip] This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says if one were to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they would observe it to run slowly. It must be emphasized that this running slowly occurs regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That is to say it matters not whether the spaceship is receding or approaching, time runs slower. Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time is not just a matter of observation but actually takes place -- for when the clock returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or Earth) clock. Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one conclusion, the moving clock has to be running slowly in its own coordinate system. No, we are *not* drawn to that conclusion. Why on earth do you think so? (1) During its journey, does the clock not stay in its own coordinate system? It is in *all* coordinate systems at once. It makes no sense to say that something is only in one coordinate system. See what I meant? You are absolutely clueless about the most basic facts. (2) And since supposcdly it was running slowly,then it was running slowly in its own system. n'cest pas? 2+2=4. False premise... [snip] Vergon: My question to you is, are you being contrary just to be contrary -- or are you really that incapable of logic? Neither nor. I am contrary because you don't understand what you are talking about, but nevertheless make sweeping claims. If someone is faced with 2+2 -- and denies it's 4, they should see a shrink. Well, do you see it? Bye, Bjoern
|
|
#366
October 31st 04
posted to sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.relativity
|
|||
|
|||
|
How to tell if a theory is a good one
"Androcles" wrote in message k...
"V ertner Vergon" wrote in message om... : "Androcles" wrote in message k... : "V ertner Vergon" wrote in message : om... : : (TomGee) wrote in message . com... : : (V ertner Vergon) wrote in message . com... : : (Paul Draper) wrote in message . com... : : : : : : : : VERGON : : : : Hi, Tom. Congratulations. You are the only one that read the monograph : : before commenting on it. I appreciate that. : : : : I'm going to answer each of your comments but I must admit it is going : : to be difficult because your understanding of SR is deficient. Also, : : you are trying to defend some concept you have re a train. These two : : mix together to result in some weird comments. But I will do my best. : : : : SNIP : : : : Below is a definitive work on which I would appreciate your comments. : : : : ON TIME DILATION AND DOPPLER TIME : : : : Vertner Vergon : : : : Abstract : : : : We examine time dilation and find it leads to an unforgiving : : contradiction. We also find it is contrary to empirical experience. In : : examining Doppler time we find it has none of these deficiencies. We : : therefore conclude that the erroneous concept of time dilation be : : replaced with the concept of Doppler time variation. : : : : We start our examination of the time dilation concept by going to its : : source -- Einstein's paper,On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. We : : refer to his gedanken experiment of moving clocks. : : : : SNIP : : : : On the other hand to say one clock is behind the other is open to : : alternative explanations, eg., the moving clock could have traveled a : : shorter world line -- or may have traveled faster than observed. In : : either case the clock would maintain its normal (proper) rate but for : : a shorter duration than the inertial clock and thus be behind. : : : : : : SR is not ambiguous about that. : : : : Vergon: : : : : Sorry, but it is -- and that was explained clearly. Saying one clock : : is "behind" the other is not the same as saying one clock ran "slower" : : than the other. Read it again. : : : : : : It clearly shows that for the : : astronaut twin to leave the planet, it must move faster than the : : Earth, and the same for it to catch up with the Earth in order to : : return to it. : : : : Vergon: : : : : SR never mentions the twins or the earth -- but it does say one clock : : moves away and then returns. : : Androcles: : I define "SR" here as Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of : Moving Bodies". : I'm going to answer your comments but I must admit it is going : to be difficult because your understanding of SR is deficient. : Those comments that are correct I'll make no modification to. : : SR never says the clock returns. : : VERGON: : : Well you're wrong right off the mark. So how can you be an authority : on SR? A. Because I know it better than you, and that makes me an authority. VV Odd you would say that when I show you don't even know what Einstein said and claimed he didn't say what he clearly said. In short, you didn't know what you were talking about. And you still have the guts to say you know it better than I? My friend, you have a problem. V. : And *who's* understanding of SR is deficient? A. Yours. You are wrong right off the mark. VV That's what I said to you. You've changed this all around. Below is the quote from SR which shows you don't know the first thing about SR -- but that doesn't stop you from tooting your horn. V. : QUOTING AL'S PAPER: : : From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the : points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the : stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved : with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B : the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B : LAGS BEHIND the other which has remained at B by (up to magnitudes of : fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey : from A to B. : : It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock : moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A : and B coincide. : : If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid : for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of : two synchronous clocks at A is MOVED IN A CLOSED CURVE with constant : velocity until it RETURNS to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by : the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its : arrival at A will be 1/2t v^2/c^2 second SLOW Thence we conclude that : a balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small : amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles : under otherwise identical conditions. : : Note, the caps are mine for emphasis: the moving clock "lags behind" : and it : "returns", it also "will be 1/2t v^2/c^2 "slow". A. Note that when you RETURN home each day you do not go all the way around the Earth to do so. You are playing with words. VV You're not even man enough to admit -- in the face of incontravertible evidence -- that you're dead wrong. As for playing with words, that's what you're doing. What does your lame excuse have to with the fact you don't know the subject? And what does going around the earth have to do with anything? Einstein mentions the polygon and closed curve to illustrate that out and back -- return to you -- didn't have to be direct. : : SR cannot handle a returning clock at all. : SR says : "IF we place x' = x-vt..." : (lot of calculation).... : xi = x' / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) : tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) : A returning clock requires : "IF we place x' = x+vt". : : VERGON: : : No comment necessary since you are already way off. A. Bury your head in the sand then. The Twin Paradox is NOT a circle, and SR cannot handle the return journey. Pretending it is an absurdity. Not only do you not fully understand SR, you have no common sense either. I fail to understand why you wish to be antagonistic toward an ally, but if that's what you want, so be it. VV First of all you come on the scene all puffed up with yourself telling me my understanding of SR is deficient (and you did this by parroting my remark to Tom). Then you prove you don't even have a rudimentary grasp of Al's paper. Then you refuse to own up to that fact. Then you make absurd statements about going around the earth to return -- which means you are burrowing further into your ignorance. If this exchange doesn't get any better down the line, I will terminate it. : : At any : : rate the accepted version is that the clock ran slower and thus was : : born the concept of time dilation. : : : : : : Time dilation is an effect, not a concept. The explanation of an : : effect can be called a concept, but the two are obviously not the same : : thing. : : : : Vergon: : : : : I call time dilation a concept because it does not exist, it is a : : concept only. Doppler time *does* exist. I use and define the term : : "time dilation effect" later. : : : : : : This concept is usually stated by an illustration that says if one : : were to observe a clock on a fast moving spaceship, they would observe : : it to run slowly. : : : : : : Your statement is incomplete as regards SR's thought experiment. If : : an observer on Earth could observe a clock on a spaceship moving : : faster than the Earth, that observer would see it running slower than : : his own clock. However, that is not the most astonishing feature of : : the effect, I think. Amazingly, the astronaut would see our clocks on : : Earth running slower too. It's a good thing that it is not possible : : for those observations to occur, or we would really be up a creek : : about that! : : : : Vergon: : : : : *Your* statement is incomplete. According to SR Earth would observe : : the ship's clock to run slow regardless of whether it was receding or : : approaching. : : Androcles: : Not so, it is *Einstein's* statement that is incomplete. : "IF we place x' = x+vt..." was never included in SR. : You can't blame TomGee for religiously following his faith. : Actually it is not the only statement Einstein made that was : incomplete, but that's another story. : : VERGON: : : It doesn't take your invention to realize that Einstein meant the : slowness to include the return trip. A. I've "invented" nothing. V. : He speaks of a polygon course and : a complete curved course -- and then says the clock runs slow. A. He speaks bull****. All his calculation is based on motion along the X-axis. "If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line.... just another of his stupid assumptions. Nor did he give a proof for a polygon. We can reduce his polygon from 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 sides, and then the motion is going the opposite way on the X-axis. That has the "peculiar conseqence" of xi = (x PLUS vt) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) VV I refuse to waste my time. THIS EXCHANGE IS TERMINATED THIS EXCHANGE IS TERMINATED THIS EXCHANGE IS TERMINATED THIS EXCHANGE IS TERMINATED THIS EXCHANGE IS TERMINATED V. : He : obviously meant it ran slow on the return or he would have said : otherwise. It is not that his statement was incomplete, his concept : was wrong. So is yours. A. So Einstein was an idiot. That he omitted to say otherwise is the very point I'm making. I'm not disagreeing with you that Einstein was wrong, but you have not identified where his mathematical flaws are, and I have. It doesn't take your observation to see that Einstein was wrong, many have done so before you. But you have failed to identify where, and that makes ME the authority, and you are the one that is wrong. : : : : Not true -- contrary to empiricism. An approaching clock is observed : : to run fast (Doppler time). And this is real. Observing stars and : : galaxies is observing atomic clocks. : : Quite correct. We cannot deny empirical data. : : : : : : : It must be emphasized that this running slowly : : occurs regardless of the direction or vector of the ship. That is to : : say it matters not whether the spaceship is receding or approaching, : : time runs slower. : : : : Vergon: : : : : I'm speaking here of SR's presentation. : : Androcles: : Not a strong enough statement. : It must be emphasized that this running slowly occurs only when the : clock is moving directly away, as evidence of Einstein's equation : f' = f (1- cos(phi).v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) demonstrates. : Einstein neglects the cos(phi) term in the denominator, which should : be : sqrt(1 - [v.cos(phi)]^2 / c^2) but we cannot blame TomGee for : faithfully : believing everything his tin god says. : It WOULD produce blue shift if we add pi to phi, but we must be : careful : not to discuss that. What we are allowed to say is: : "It follows from these results that to an observer approaching a : source of light with the velocity c, this source of light must appear : of infinite intensity. " : and make no mention of a source approaching the observer. However, : when a source of light DOES approach an observer with quite a moderate : velocity, an increase in intensity is observable. : http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder....ctual_data.htm : : VERGON: : : First off the statement is absolutely strong enough. All that need be : said is that according to SR a clock in the approach mode runs slowly. : : You're so anxious to refute me that you switch (unannounced)to section : seven : which is on Doppler. Apples and Oranges. Your quote is the last : paragraph in that section. A. I fail to see how reinforcing and supporting what you've said is refuting you. Explain. : : . That is to : : say it matters not whether the spaceship is receding or approaching, : : time runs slower. : : : : : : Yes, which supports my model that time is a property of matter and : : passes inversely proportional to an object's state of motion. : : : : Vergon: : : : : I am not aware that states of motion (whatever that means) are : : inversely proportional (whatever *that* means). : : Androcles: : I think he means f = 1/t. : : VERGON: : : Who knows what he means. : : : : : And as for time -- time is the comparison of motions, and nothing : : more. All motions are compared to an arbitary standard. : : Androcles: : Well... that is rather loosely put. All motion is relative. : velocity = distance/time. : Time itself is completely independent of motion. Clocks tick : whether anything moves or not. : : VERGON: : : Wrong. In a photograph nothing moves -- and time stands still. : And you are right -- Velocity = distance/time. Take away time -- and : you have no velocity. There are those that define time as what a clock : measures. : Well, if the clock isn't ticking (moving) there is no time. : : : : : : Also to be emphasized is that this slowness of time : : is not just a matter of observation but actually takes place -- for : : when the clock returns it is actually 'behind" the stationary (or : : Earth) clock. : : : : Vergon: : : : : Still according to SR. : : : : The Twin Paradox is not the sole example of time dilation. : : : : Vergon: : : : : I didn't say it was. : : Androcles: : But it is a good example of the ridiculousness of SR. : : VERGON: : : SR is not ridiculous. It was a brilliant piece of work. Sure Al made : some errors but they were minor and did not harm the essence of his : work. : Don't forget, when he wrote his theory he was 25, living in a crummy : apartment, had a crummy job and a bad marriage. When you can produce : something approaching the importance of SR then you can call his work : ridiculous. A. LOL! There is nothing remotely important about SR, it is a crock of ****. And you pretend to understand it? Phooey. I'm talking mathematics, not Einstein's personal problems, or yours. : : : : I posted : : the example of a moving train in the thread, " what is the relation : : between force and energy?", on 10/20/04. While many argue the hell : : out of the Twin Paradox, the train example is incontrovertible proof : : that the effect of time dilation occurs. : : : : Vergon: : : : : If it claims to establish time dilation then it is wrong. : : Androcles: : The train example is incontrovertible proof of TomGee's belief in : c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) without understanding where it comes from, : and yes, it is wrong. : The train example is most definitely controvertible. Whether : TomGee is prepared to listen to any controversy is questionable, : and understanding it is something else entirely. : : VERGON: : : Agreed. : : : : : : : Since this is the case, we are inevitably drawn to only one : : conclusion, the moving clock has to be running slowly in its own : : coordinate system. : : : : : : No, that is incorrect because that conclusion must also include, "wrt : : the Earth's proper time", otherwise the premise is false. : : : : Vergon: : : : : This not a premise but a conclusion. : : : Androcles: : I'd call it a self-evident axiom. : It is hard to imagine a clock measuring one hour by itself and finding : it measured more or less than one hour. That would require a deranged : observer. TomGee can only refer to some other clock, and the rest : of the Universe is "in synch" with the proper time of the Earth. : If it were not, we'd be unable to predict when we'd see the moons : of Jupiter occulting, and we can. : : : : : : That is the : : basic premise of my model, that discrete objects run within their own : : proper time, and thus time is a property of matter. : : : : VERGON: : : : : That's shakey. The *motion* of matter creates time. : : Androcles: : Well, I suppose if the universe stopped we could say time has : stopped... : Seems to me that is a "What if" statement that we can never answer. : We'd stop too, and when the universe restarted we'd not notice the : interval of : time we were stopped for, as measured by the master clock of the : universe. : I don't think some imaginary superpower could run around moving a few : planets about and then restart time, do you? : Such ideas belong to sci-fi, not physics. : : : : : : : : : Here we are faced with an unforgiving contradiction : : for basic relativity states that all clocks keep proper time in their : : respective coordinate systems. : : : : : : It is not an unforgiving contradiction at all; it is an phenomenon : : called the time dilation effect, and I don't see where anything is in : : conflict when one says that "all clocks keep proper time in their : : respective ...systems." : : : : Vergon: : : : : Reread the monograph. A clock cannot keep proper time and run slow at : : the same time. : : : : : : It is inconsistent that a clock can : : actually run slowly in its own coordinate system and also, the : : while, keep proper time. : : : : : : It is inconsistent only in the way you state it, but that is not what : : SR claims. SR claims that a clock can run slower in its own proper : : time than clocks in other discrete systems when their motion is slower : : compared to the clock in question. : : : : Vergon: : : : : SR never mentions proper time in respect to a clock running slow. You : : made that up -- but it's a good point. What you are saying is that : : proper time becomes slower. Let's take a closer look. : : : : A meter rod in a moving system (you don't need the word "discrete")is : : measured : : by an inertial observer as being shorter. However, the rod remains one : : meter in length in its system. Thus we say the proper length is one : : meter and does not change. : : : : The same is true for mass. : : : : So why should time be different? A clock *appears* to run slow because : : it takes time for light to carry the message of its ticking. A clock : : in an inertial system keeps proper time -- and an identical clock at : : rest in its moving system will keep the same proper time. Why wouldn't : : it? : : : : This contradiction requires that the time : : dilation concept, i.e., t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) be discarded. : : : : : : No, not so, because your interpretation of the paradox is not at all : : what SR claims is happening in the Twin Paradox nor in other examples : : of time dilation. : : : : VERGON: : : : : That's the point. My intepretation is different than that of SR : : because SR is wrong. There is no time dilation. When I say time : : dilation I mean : : t = t'sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). In Doppler time there is a dilation -- only in : : recession and of a different rate. : : : : Androcles: : I'd like to reinforce that. : : SR's doppler is (setting cos(phi) as 1 and -1) : f' = f (1-v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for the receding clock and : f' = f (1+ v/c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for the approaching clock. : : Since by definition t' = 1/f' and : t' = t sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) : t' = 1/f' = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/f(1+ v/c) : t.sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/f(1+ v/c) : t = 1/f(1+ v/c) : But t = 1/f, hence v = 0. : : SR is quite correct for all values of v that are equal to 0. : : : : The question arises, is there something to take its place? The answer : : is yes. : : : : To lay the foundation for this replacement we note that any known : : constant frequency is a clock. The scientific community has chosen the : : excited cesium atom as the standard. This is an arbitrary choice. : : Next, we note that the cesium clock (or any other constant frequency : : atom) will never vary in its rate. So they will always keep proper : : time. However, observations of these clocks will show a variation due : : to the Doppler effect. We declare this variation in frequency is a : : variation in observed time. Since the frequency is a clock, an : : observed variation in the frequency is an observed variation in time. : : : : : : Here is the first contradiction so far, and it is your claim that, : : contrary to SR's claim that if it were possible to see the proper time : : of a spaceship moving faster than the Earth, we could only see it as : : moving slower and the astronaut could only see us as moving slower : : also. Since we can actually see light, it is not proper time we see, : : but the phenomenon of light which exists external to our time : : dimension. At c, time does not exist, and so it is patently incorrect : : to assign Doppler shifts to the time dilation effect. : : : : : : Vergon: : : : : Where did you get all that? First of all you failed to mention that : : according to SR the clock on the space ship appears to run slower : : whether it is receding or approaching. But according to Doppler time : : an approaching clock runs faster. : : And that is an empirical fact. : : : : And as for "light which exists external to our time dimension" -- I : : haven't the faintest idea what that means or its application to the : : subject. : : : : And as for time not existing at c -- that's wrong also. If a cordinate : : system were to attain c, time would stand still in it. That doesn't : : mean time does not exist. And besides that has nothing to do with : : observing Doppler time -- which astronomers do every night. : : Androcles: : Yes, it is now apparent that TomGee is talking through his sci-fi hat, : struggling to defend his faith with vague handwaving of time stopping. : This concept is a direct result of Einstein's claim : "For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become : meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the : velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an : infinitely great velocity." : : In the real world, the velocity of light physically "plays the part" : of a very finite velocity, or we would not be able to assign a : numerical value to it. : : Einstein's statement is meaningless claptrap. What does he think the : velocity of light is, an actor on a theatre stage? : This draws the distinction and departure point bwtween real physics : and theoretical (i.e. sci-fi) physics. : : VERGON: : : You misinterpret Al's meaning. He was saying that some of the : attributes of light are such that it is as though it had -- or dealt : with -- infinte velocities. You can tell fom my monograph that I have : developed a theory known as the Dual Velocity Theory of Relativity. : : In it there is the proper (Newtonian) velocity that is read as a : slower relativistic velocity due to the time it takes light to : register it. : : The momentum and energy of a relativistic velocity is to be found in : its corresponding proper velocity. In other words the proper velocity : transposes but the parameters don't. A. Oh, you are one of those... a member of the "I have a theory" brigade. Now I see why you don't want an ally. You have an axe to grind, some invention of your own. That explains everything. Now we are down to the nitty gritty. [remainder snipped, we are at the heart of the issue] Come on then, SR is garbage and you are going to fix it. Do tell. Androcles.
|
Linear Mode
