"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
| [EL]
| It should not be a surprise to notice that the role of Einstein in SR
| was very limited.
| Some posters like to call him a plagiarizer, but science does not work
| otherwise with inventions.
| AN inventor of a new electronic device would certainly rely on existing
| components and formulas that he already learnt.
| The same applies with Einstein's role in SR, because the 4D Minkowski
| coordinate system is still identified by the name of Einstein's tutor,
| Professor Minkowski. Also the Lorentzean transformations are still
| identified by the name of its _apparent_ creator. The first postulate
| was a consequence of Maxwell's work not of Einstein's and the second
| postulate is a classical fact.
| So what was the contribution of Einstein other than putting those
| pieces together, like any designer of a new invention!
| A typical psychological consequence of success is that some successful
| people get carried away under the pressure of society. Einstein, being
| pointed at as a genius, could have hit the threshold of conceit.
|
| I wondered if Lorentz was so blind to the fact that his transformation
| of length was a reciprocal of a transformation of time! Why did Lorentz
| and so did Fitzgerald publish about length contraction separately from
| time dilation if they did believe that it was true?
|
| I am convinced that Lorentz too believed in the existence of a
| universal time scale, which we are free to arbitrate a metric scalar
| for, to be consistent with our systems of units.
|
| The arbitration of static length interval metrics involve a reference,
| an arbitrary distant point and a being compared distant point. This
| means that at least three points must exist to arbitrate a concept of
| static length intervals.
| In any coordinate system, we will find the point of origin to satisfy
| the reference, and at least one point on a scale to define the
| arbitrated unit of measure (or a division of arcs in other systems),
| and finally the point of the being measured coordinate.
| When time is introduced through the concept of motion or displacement,
| we subconsciously fell to the normal psychological qualia of velocity
| being variance in length intervals per UNIT of UNIVERSAL time.
| On adding ratios, one must unify the denominators as if they were
| identities and not quantities.
| To express velocity linguistically, one could say that it is the
| "displacement per second" in the sense of the "share per person". This
| means that for an object to move 9 units of length within 3 units of
| time we cannot conceive of a velocity until we simplify the fraction to
| 3 units of length within 1 unit of time. The first ratio is simply a
| ratio of length intervals to time intervals but it is not a _degree_ or
| a magnitude of velocity until we calculate the magnitude of length
| intervals per unit of time intervals.
| It is a common error to believe that relativity, as we know it today,
| was single-handedly created by Einstein, and praise him the verified
| and blame him for contradictions.
|
| I say this, because I do not point a finger at any specific historical
| figure when I expose a conceptual contradiction found within the theory
| of relativity.
| Let us send a digital sequence of electromagnetic transitions carrying
| the information coded in ASCII and saying "Hello World" from a
| spaceship that is moving at 0.5c relative to the receiving station,
| which is stationed in outer space. The spaceship is approaching and the
| message was extremely slow and took 10 seconds on board of the ship to
| ensure noise immunity and to avoid slew-rate compression effects. The
| station receives the coded message through a broadband filter with
| automatic frequency adjustment following edge-triggered transitions of
| the digital code. The message was received completely within 5 seconds
| and not 10 seconds. Notice that we are measuring time intervals in
| _seconds_, where a second must be a standard arbitration, otherwise our
| comparison of time interval magnitudes is mere nonsense. The
| relativistic time interval compression was an artefact of the relative
| velocity, but we measure the on-board interval by an on-board clock in
| UNIVERSAL seconds, and we measure the on-station interval by an
| on-station clock in UNIVERSAL seconds also. That is why we could
| compare and realize that a time interval deformation took place.

I think that UNIVERSAL second needs thinking about as gravity and velocity
appear to effect it so the term reference second is a more relevant and
applicable description because UNIVERSAL implies that there is some absolute
standard and as far as I'm aware, if there is one we have not yet located
it. Although hydrogen line analysis from multipule sources might give you a
common standard.

|
| It is not quite clear, when or who was behind the misconception of and
| the confusion between time scales and relative time intervals. It is so
| amazing that Einstein himself fell to the confusion when he believed in
| the twin's paradox. The mathematical model then did not match the
| physical implications. While investigating the reasons behind this
| confusion I found that Minkowski's tau charts are at the heart of this
| obfuscation.
|
| In 4D representations of referential-frames, an axis is constructed to
| represent time but its dimension is that of length (a fourth length
| dimension). Using _c_ and _t_ means that we are using two scales
| combined to express a displacement as a hyper-concept of a point. Time
| by definition is metaphysical,

Perhaps but seen as a process rate it can be used as a vector
future\past\rate. It can then be added to a co-ordinate system as a length
with the future\past being the vector and the length\time\rate being the
scalar component of the vector ?

|and such procedure was a method to
| materialise time visually. When we apply the relativistic equations to
| calculate the apparent time intervals as they appear to a remote
| observer, there should have never been a misconception of the fact that
| all units of measurements being in seconds should mean that seconds are
| UNIVERSAL UNITS of measure and may never be a variant. What varies is
| the remotely observed variant- time-intervals measured in
| universal-invariant-units.

If for "universal-invariant-units" we can read "invariant reference-units"
then I can agree.

| My verdict is that Tau Charts are a horrible representation of time,
| because as it is represented by a length displacement it allows time to
| be treated as a vector that can be easily misunderstood as being a tool
| for proper-time-variance. This means that on-board clocks may never
| slow down or hurry up under any inertial condition, but that they are
| physically affected under acceleration conditions.
|

They are effected by both conditions IMHO and if you are letting your
reference second be adjusted by your system of measurement then you need
further training in the use of measurement .

| Then Einstein was not the solitary creator of relativity and he did not
| even have an exclusive role of a teacher only but a student also, and
| was confused with Minkowski's 4D modelling system.
|
| In Minkowski's 4D coordinate systems, event transformation takes into
| consideration the time taken by light to relay the observation.
| World-lines then are reported by two events that may be symmetrical or
| asymmetrical, where the later could cause deformation contractively or
| expansively. We measure expansion and contraction of time intervals in
| universal seconds. No local clock, being unobserved remotely, may slow
| down or hurry up under any inertial conditions.
|
| Under this rigorous analysis, we tell those who betray the ethics of
| empirical science, that no experiment whatsoever, have verified a
| misconception, but that data interpretations was a most clownish
| interpretation ever made.

Here, here.
|
| EL
|

[Paul wrote]
"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
| [EL]
| It should not be a surprise to notice that the role of Einstein in SR
| was very limited.
| Some posters like to call him a plagiarizer, but science does not work
| otherwise with inventions.
| AN inventor of a new electronic device would certainly rely on existing
| components and formulas that he already learnt.
| The same applies with Einstein's role in SR, because the 4D Minkowski
| coordinate system is still identified by the name of Einstein's tutor,
| Professor Minkowski. Also the Lorentzean transformations are still
| identified by the name of its _apparent_ creator. The first postulate
| was a consequence of Maxwell's work not of Einstein's and the second
| postulate is a classical fact.
| So what was the contribution of Einstein other than putting those
| pieces together, like any designer of a new invention!
| A typical psychological consequence of success is that some successful
| people get carried away under the pressure of society. Einstein, being
| pointed at as a genius, could have hit the threshold of conceit.
|
| I wondered if Lorentz was so blind to the fact that his transformation
| of length was a reciprocal of a transformation of time! Why did Lorentz
| and so did Fitzgerald publish about length contraction separately from
| time dilation if they did believe that it was true?
|
| I am convinced that Lorentz too believed in the existence of a
| universal time scale, which we are free to arbitrate a metric scalar
| for, to be consistent with our systems of units.
|
| The arbitration of static length interval metrics involve a reference,
| an arbitrary distant point and a being compared distant point. This
| means that at least three points must exist to arbitrate a concept of
| static length intervals.
| In any coordinate system, we will find the point of origin to satisfy
| the reference, and at least one point on a scale to define the
| arbitrated unit of measure (or a division of arcs in other systems),
| and finally the point of the being measured coordinate.
| When time is introduced through the concept of motion or displacement,
| we subconsciously fell to the normal psychological qualia of velocity
| being variance in length intervals per UNIT of UNIVERSAL time.
| On adding ratios, one must unify the denominators as if they were
| identities and not quantities.
| To express velocity linguistically, one could say that it is the
| "displacement per second" in the sense of the "share per person". This
| means that for an object to move 9 units of length within 3 units of
| time we cannot conceive of a velocity until we simplify the fraction to
| 3 units of length within 1 unit of time. The first ratio is simply a
| ratio of length intervals to time intervals but it is not a _degree_ or
| a magnitude of velocity until we calculate the magnitude of length
| intervals per unit of time intervals.
| It is a common error to believe that relativity, as we know it today,
| was single-handedly created by Einstein, and praise him the verified
| and blame him for contradictions.
|
| I say this, because I do not point a finger at any specific historical
| figure when I expose a conceptual contradiction found within the theory
| of relativity.
| Let us send a digital sequence of electromagnetic transitions carrying
| the information coded in ASCII and saying "Hello World" from a
| spaceship that is moving at 0.5c relative to the receiving station,
| which is stationed in outer space. The spaceship is approaching and the
| message was extremely slow and took 10 seconds on board of the ship to
| ensure noise immunity and to avoid slew-rate compression effects. The
| station receives the coded message through a broadband filter with
| automatic frequency adjustment following edge-triggered transitions of
| the digital code. The message was received completely within 5 seconds
| and not 10 seconds. Notice that we are measuring time intervals in
| _seconds_, where a second must be a standard arbitration, otherwise our
| comparison of time interval magnitudes is mere nonsense. The
| relativistic time interval compression was an artefact of the relative
| velocity, but we measure the on-board interval by an on-board clock in
| UNIVERSAL seconds, and we measure the on-station interval by an
| on-station clock in UNIVERSAL seconds also. That is why we could
| compare and realize that a time interval deformation took place.

I think that UNIVERSAL second needs thinking about as gravity and velocity
appear to effect it so the term reference second is a more relevant and
applicable description because UNIVERSAL implies that there is some absolute
standard and as far as I'm aware, if there is one we have not yet located
it. Although hydrogen line analysis from multipule sources might give you a
common standard.
[EL]
It is not a lost child to try to locate it.
Light from the edge of the universe is observed on earth.
The speed of that light that crosses the Universe is constant.
It is one light-seconds per second.
Do you know of a better second of time that remains a unit of time
across the Universe?


|
| It is not quite clear, when or who was behind the misconception of and
| the confusion between time scales and relative time intervals. It is so
| amazing that Einstein himself fell to the confusion when he believed in
| the twin's paradox. The mathematical model then did not match the
| physical implications. While investigating the reasons behind this
| confusion I found that Minkowski's tau charts are at the heart of this
| obfuscation.
|
| In 4D representations of referential-frames, an axis is constructed to
| represent time but its dimension is that of length (a fourth length
| dimension). Using _c_ and _t_ means that we are using two scales
| combined to express a displacement as a hyper-concept of a point. Time
| by definition is metaphysical,

Perhaps but seen as a process rate it can be used as a vector
future\past\rate. It can then be added to a co-ordinate system as a length
with the future\past being the vector and the length\time\rate being the
scalar component of the vector ?
[EL]
If it takes three years to build a house it is a rate of process, which
has nothing to do with distance and velocity in any direct sense. This
too does not justify a vector representation. Your wedding album is a
record of the past, and I do not see vector there pointing at me from
your album.
To understand the physical implications of the 4D coordinate space you
must think in terms of hyperspace and not in terms of temporal
progression.
Let there be a piston that sweeps a cylinder.
The inner space being swept, is a static Euclidean space relative to
the cylinder, but it is a dynamic hyperspace relative to the piston,
such that the volume of the piston multiplied by the stroke is a 4D
hyperspace, but the stroke is a length that can be calculated by the
speed of the piston multiplied by the time interval of the stroke
displacement. I cannot see how the "equivalence" between an Euclidean
space and a hyperspace can include any physical concept of time.


|and such procedure was a method to
| materialise time visually. When we apply the relativistic equations to
| calculate the apparent time intervals as they appear to a remote
| observer, there should have never been a misconception of the fact that
| all units of measurements being in seconds should mean that seconds are
| UNIVERSAL UNITS of measure and may never be a variant. What varies is
| the remotely observed variant- time-intervals measured in
| universal-invariant-units.

If for "universal-invariant-units" we can read "invariant reference-units"
then I can agree.
[EL]
It is just semantics in this case, but we mean the same thing.
The universal time units cannot have any other meaning else than a
standard arbitration of a common universal rate of change adopted by
consensus as a reference scale for the metric.


| My verdict is that Tau Charts are a horrible representation of time,
| because as it is represented by a length displacement it allows time to
| be treated as a vector that can be easily misunderstood as being a tool
| for proper-time-variance. This means that on-board clocks may never
| slow down or hurry up under any inertial condition, but that they are
| physically affected under acceleration conditions.
|

They are effected by both conditions IMHO and if you are letting your
reference second be adjusted by your system of measurement then you need
further training in the use of measurement .
[EL]
Saying "Both" is an unsubstantiated assumption.
I can give very good non-relativistic reasons for the effects of
acceleration on clocks' performance.
You need to show your account demonstrating how can an inertial state
cause a clock to change its rate.
For starters, you may not change the inertial state without
acceleration.
Whatever was your velocity relative to anything else, you are
stationary with your co-moving clock and there is nothing that can
change that clock's performance as you observe it locally as long as no
external Newtonian force was applied to change your inertial state.

The remote observation of your clock by a remote observer is a
completely different issue and it is there that light mediating
observation interferes by its finite velocity across length intervals
to dilate time readings.



| Then Einstein was not the solitary creator of relativity and he did not
| even have an exclusive role of a teacher only but a student also, and
| was confused with Minkowski's 4D modelling system.
|
| In Minkowski's 4D coordinate systems, event transformation takes into
| consideration the time taken by light to relay the observation.
| World-lines then are reported by two events that may be symmetrical or
| asymmetrical, where the later could cause deformation contractively or
| expansively. We measure expansion and contraction of time intervals in
| universal seconds. No local clock, being unobserved remotely, may slow
| down or hurry up under any inertial conditions.
|
| Under this rigorous analysis, we tell those who betray the ethics of
| empirical science, that no experiment whatsoever, have verified a
| misconception, but that data interpretations was a most clownish
| interpretation ever made.

Here, here.
[EL]
I may apologise for my blunt harshness, but I need not apologise for my
blunt honesty.
I think it is about time to stop fantasizing about time. ;-)

EL

|
| EL
|

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
| [Paul wrote]
| "EL" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | [EL]
| | It should not be a surprise to notice that the role of Einstein in SR
| | was very limited.
| | Some posters like to call him a plagiarizer, but science does not work
| | otherwise with inventions.
| | AN inventor of a new electronic device would certainly rely on
existing
| | components and formulas that he already learnt.
| | The same applies with Einstein's role in SR, because the 4D Minkowski
| | coordinate system is still identified by the name of Einstein's tutor,
| | Professor Minkowski. Also the Lorentzean transformations are still
| | identified by the name of its _apparent_ creator. The first postulate
| | was a consequence of Maxwell's work not of Einstein's and the second
| | postulate is a classical fact.
| | So what was the contribution of Einstein other than putting those
| | pieces together, like any designer of a new invention!
| | A typical psychological consequence of success is that some successful
| | people get carried away under the pressure of society. Einstein, being
| | pointed at as a genius, could have hit the threshold of conceit.
| |
| | I wondered if Lorentz was so blind to the fact that his transformation
| | of length was a reciprocal of a transformation of time! Why did
Lorentz
| | and so did Fitzgerald publish about length contraction separately from
| | time dilation if they did believe that it was true?
| |
| | I am convinced that Lorentz too believed in the existence of a
| | universal time scale, which we are free to arbitrate a metric scalar
| | for, to be consistent with our systems of units.
| |
| | The arbitration of static length interval metrics involve a reference,
| | an arbitrary distant point and a being compared distant point. This
| | means that at least three points must exist to arbitrate a concept of
| | static length intervals.
| | In any coordinate system, we will find the point of origin to satisfy
| | the reference, and at least one point on a scale to define the
| | arbitrated unit of measure (or a division of arcs in other systems),
| | and finally the point of the being measured coordinate.
| | When time is introduced through the concept of motion or displacement,
| | we subconsciously fell to the normal psychological qualia of velocity
| | being variance in length intervals per UNIT of UNIVERSAL time.
| | On adding ratios, one must unify the denominators as if they were
| | identities and not quantities.
| | To express velocity linguistically, one could say that it is the
| | "displacement per second" in the sense of the "share per person". This
| | means that for an object to move 9 units of length within 3 units of
| | time we cannot conceive of a velocity until we simplify the fraction
to
| | 3 units of length within 1 unit of time. The first ratio is simply a
| | ratio of length intervals to time intervals but it is not a _degree_
or
| | a magnitude of velocity until we calculate the magnitude of length
| | intervals per unit of time intervals.
| | It is a common error to believe that relativity, as we know it today,
| | was single-handedly created by Einstein, and praise him the verified
| | and blame him for contradictions.
| |
| | I say this, because I do not point a finger at any specific historical
| | figure when I expose a conceptual contradiction found within the
theory
| | of relativity.
| | Let us send a digital sequence of electromagnetic transitions carrying
| | the information coded in ASCII and saying "Hello World" from a
| | spaceship that is moving at 0.5c relative to the receiving station,
| | which is stationed in outer space. The spaceship is approaching and
the
| | message was extremely slow and took 10 seconds on board of the ship to
| | ensure noise immunity and to avoid slew-rate compression effects. The
| | station receives the coded message through a broadband filter with
| | automatic frequency adjustment following edge-triggered transitions of
| | the digital code. The message was received completely within 5 seconds
| | and not 10 seconds. Notice that we are measuring time intervals in
| | _seconds_, where a second must be a standard arbitration, otherwise
our
| | comparison of time interval magnitudes is mere nonsense. The
| | relativistic time interval compression was an artefact of the relative
| | velocity, but we measure the on-board interval by an on-board clock in
| | UNIVERSAL seconds, and we measure the on-station interval by an
| | on-station clock in UNIVERSAL seconds also. That is why we could
| | compare and realize that a time interval deformation took place.
|
| I think that UNIVERSAL second needs thinking about as gravity and
velocity
| appear to effect it so the term reference second is a more relevant and
| applicable description because UNIVERSAL implies that there is some
absolute
| standard and as far as I'm aware, if there is one we have not yet
located
| it. Although hydrogen line analysis from multipule sources might give
you a
| common standard.
| [EL]
| It is not a lost child to try to locate it.
| Light from the edge of the universe is observed on earth.
| The speed of that light that crosses the Universe is constant.
| It is one light-seconds per second.
| Do you know of a better second of time that remains a unit of time
| across the Universe?

But on its way across the universe it may have passed through regions of
contracted length\dilated time space\time relative to your observer state so
you are only observing time at your place of observation and you know
nothing about the state of time\distance in other regions of its path. For
example say 1 ly from the earth space addopted a 0.5 meter 2 second
space\time relative ratio you would not be able to detect it from 1 ly away
so the light that you have just measured as one light second per second was
going relativly at 0.5 light second per two second 1ly before.

|
|
| |
| | It is not quite clear, when or who was behind the misconception of and
| | the confusion between time scales and relative time intervals. It is
so
| | amazing that Einstein himself fell to the confusion when he believed
in
| | the twin's paradox. The mathematical model then did not match the
| | physical implications. While investigating the reasons behind this
| | confusion I found that Minkowski's tau charts are at the heart of this
| | obfuscation.
| |
| | In 4D representations of referential-frames, an axis is constructed to
| | represent time but its dimension is that of length (a fourth length
| | dimension). Using _c_ and _t_ means that we are using two scales
| | combined to express a displacement as a hyper-concept of a point. Time
| | by definition is metaphysical,
|
| Perhaps but seen as a process rate it can be used as a vector
| future\past\rate. It can then be added to a co-ordinate system as a
length
| with the future\past being the vector and the length\time\rate being the
| scalar component of the vector ?
| [EL]
| If it takes three years to build a house it is a rate of process, which
| has nothing to do with distance and velocity in any direct sense. This
| too does not justify a vector representation. Your wedding album is a
| record of the past, and I do not see vector there pointing at me from
| your album.
| To understand the physical implications of the 4D coordinate space you
| must think in terms of hyperspace

I thought I was.

and not in terms of temporal
| progression.

I thought if you included temporal progression into a three spatial
co-ordinate system then you had hyperspace. ?

| Let there be a piston that sweeps a cylinder.
| The inner space being swept, is a static Euclidean space relative to
| the cylinder, but it is a dynamic hyperspace relative to the piston,
| such that the volume

Do you not mean face area of the piston ?

| of the piston multiplied by the stroke is a 4D
| hyperspace, but the stroke is a length that can be calculated by the
| speed of the piston multiplied by the time interval of the stroke
| displacement.

Can it I'm not sure I can see that.

I cannot see how the "equivalence" between an Euclidean
| space and a hyperspace can include any physical concept of time.

I don't rely see were your coming from and going to on this. Sorry I might
be to thick.

|
|
| |and such procedure was a method to
| | materialise time visually. When we apply the relativistic equations to
| | calculate the apparent time intervals as they appear to a remote
| | observer, there should have never been a misconception of the fact
that
| | all units of measurements being in seconds should mean that seconds
are
| | UNIVERSAL UNITS of measure and may never be a variant. What varies is
| | the remotely observed variant- time-intervals measured in
| | universal-invariant-units.
|
| If for "universal-invariant-units" we can read "invariant
reference-units"
| then I can agree.
| [EL]
| It is just semantics in this case, but we mean the same thing.
| The universal time units cannot have any other meaning else than a
| standard arbitration of a common universal rate of change adopted by
| consensus as a reference scale for the metric.

Ye sound good when put like that but I would have to say common local rate
of change.

|
| | My verdict is that Tau Charts are a horrible representation of time,
| | because as it is represented by a length displacement it allows time
to
| | be treated as a vector that can be easily misunderstood as being a
tool
| | for proper-time-variance. This means that on-board clocks may never
| | slow down or hurry up under any inertial condition, but that they are
| | physically affected under acceleration conditions.
| |
|
| They are effected by both conditions IMHO and if you are letting your
| reference second be adjusted by your system of measurement then you need
| further training in the use of measurement .
| [EL]
| Saying "Both" is an unsubstantiated assumption.

Is it as I thought the inertial state of orbital clocks was effected ?

| I can give very good non-relativistic reasons for the effects of
| acceleration on clocks' performance.
| You need to show your account demonstrating how can an inertial state
| cause a clock to change its rate.
| For starters, you may not change the inertial state without
| acceleration.
| Whatever was your velocity relative to anything else, you are
| stationary with your co-moving clock and there is nothing that can
| change that clock's performance as you observe it locally as long as no
| external Newtonian force was applied to change your inertial state.

You may be correct but I had provisional concluded that velocity in relation
to the vacuum state would effect clocks although the velocity of the vacuum
state could not be measured except by observation of dilation/contraction
states due to velocity relative to it.

|
| The remote observation of your clock by a remote observer is a
| completely different issue and it is there that light mediating
| observation interferes by its finite velocity across length intervals
| to dilate time readings.


Yes I think I understand this as one of the factors of observation
introduced contraction\dilation effects.

|
|
| | Then Einstein was not the solitary creator of relativity and he did
not
| | even have an exclusive role of a teacher only but a student also, and
| | was confused with Minkowski's 4D modelling system.
| |
| | In Minkowski's 4D coordinate systems, event transformation takes into
| | consideration the time taken by light to relay the observation.
| | World-lines then are reported by two events that may be symmetrical or
| | asymmetrical, where the later could cause deformation contractively or
| | expansively. We measure expansion and contraction of time intervals in
| | universal seconds. No local clock, being unobserved remotely, may slow
| | down or hurry up under any inertial conditions.
| |
| | Under this rigorous analysis, we tell those who betray the ethics of
| | empirical science, that no experiment whatsoever, have verified a
| | misconception, but that data interpretations was a most clownish
| | interpretation ever made.
|
| Here, here.
| [EL]
| I may apologise for my blunt harshness, but I need not apologise for my
| blunt honesty.
| I think it is about time to stop fantasizing about time. ;-)
|

Be straight I say if you don't agree say so how will we ever correct our
misconceptions if we all agree without firm debate.
You appear not to agree that dilation is a real effect of motion but to date
muon decay seems good evidence for this assumption. If you feel you have
evidence that will disprove this view please present it.


| EL
|
| |
| | EL
| |
|

[Paul wrote]
"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
| [Paul wrote]
| "EL" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | [EL]
| | It should not be a surprise to notice that the role of Einstein in SR
| | was very limited.
| | Some posters like to call him a plagiarizer, but science does not work
| | otherwise with inventions.
| | AN inventor of a new electronic device would certainly rely on
existing
| | components and formulas that he already learnt.
| | The same applies with Einstein's role in SR, because the 4D Minkowski
| | coordinate system is still identified by the name of Einstein's tutor,
| | Professor Minkowski. Also the Lorentzean transformations are still
| | identified by the name of its _apparent_ creator. The first postulate
| | was a consequence of Maxwell's work not of Einstein's and the second
| | postulate is a classical fact.
| | So what was the contribution of Einstein other than putting those
| | pieces together, like any designer of a new invention!
| | A typical psychological consequence of success is that some successful
| | people get carried away under the pressure of society. Einstein, being
| | pointed at as a genius, could have hit the threshold of conceit.
| |
| | I wondered if Lorentz was so blind to the fact that his transformation
| | of length was a reciprocal of a transformation of time! Why did
Lorentz
| | and so did Fitzgerald publish about length contraction separately from
| | time dilation if they did believe that it was true?
| |
| | I am convinced that Lorentz too believed in the existence of a
| | universal time scale, which we are free to arbitrate a metric scalar
| | for, to be consistent with our systems of units.
| |
| | The arbitration of static length interval metrics involve a reference,
| | an arbitrary distant point and a being compared distant point. This
| | means that at least three points must exist to arbitrate a concept of
| | static length intervals.
| | In any coordinate system, we will find the point of origin to satisfy
| | the reference, and at least one point on a scale to define the
| | arbitrated unit of measure (or a division of arcs in other systems),
| | and finally the point of the being measured coordinate.
| | When time is introduced through the concept of motion or displacement,
| | we subconsciously fell to the normal psychological qualia of velocity
| | being variance in length intervals per UNIT of UNIVERSAL time.
| | On adding ratios, one must unify the denominators as if they were
| | identities and not quantities.
| | To express velocity linguistically, one could say that it is the
| | "displacement per second" in the sense of the "share per person". This
| | means that for an object to move 9 units of length within 3 units of
| | time we cannot conceive of a velocity until we simplify the fraction
to
| | 3 units of length within 1 unit of time. The first ratio is simply a
| | ratio of length intervals to time intervals but it is not a _degree_
or
| | a magnitude of velocity until we calculate the magnitude of length
| | intervals per unit of time intervals.
| | It is a common error to believe that relativity, as we know it today,
| | was single-handedly created by Einstein, and praise him the verified
| | and blame him for contradictions.
| |
| | I say this, because I do not point a finger at any specific historical
| | figure when I expose a conceptual contradiction found within the
theory
| | of relativity.
| | Let us send a digital sequence of electromagnetic transitions carrying
| | the information coded in ASCII and saying "Hello World" from a
| | spaceship that is moving at 0.5c relative to the receiving station,
| | which is stationed in outer space. The spaceship is approaching and
the
| | message was extremely slow and took 10 seconds on board of the ship to
| | ensure noise immunity and to avoid slew-rate compression effects. The
| | station receives the coded message through a broadband filter with
| | automatic frequency adjustment following edge-triggered transitions of
| | the digital code. The message was received completely within 5 seconds
| | and not 10 seconds. Notice that we are measuring time intervals in
| | _seconds_, where a second must be a standard arbitration, otherwise
our
| | comparison of time interval magnitudes is mere nonsense. The
| | relativistic time interval compression was an artefact of the relative
| | velocity, but we measure the on-board interval by an on-board clock in
| | UNIVERSAL seconds, and we measure the on-station interval by an
| | on-station clock in UNIVERSAL seconds also. That is why we could
| | compare and realize that a time interval deformation took place.
|
| I think that UNIVERSAL second needs thinking about as gravity and
velocity
| appear to effect it so the term reference second is a more relevant and
| applicable description because UNIVERSAL implies that there is some
absolute
| standard and as far as I'm aware, if there is one we have not yet
located
| it. Although hydrogen line analysis from multipule sources might give
you a
| common standard.
| [EL]
| It is not a lost child to try to locate it.
| Light from the edge of the universe is observed on earth.
| The speed of that light that crosses the Universe is constant.
| It is one light-seconds per second.
| Do you know of a better second of time that remains a unit of time
| across the Universe?

But on its way across the universe it may have passed through regions of
contracted length\dilated time space\time relative to your observer state so
you are only observing time at your place of observation and you know
nothing about the state of time\distance in other regions of its path. For
example say 1 ly from the earth space addopted a 0.5 meter 2 second
space\time relative ratio you would not be able to detect it from 1 ly away
so the light that you have just measured as one light second per second was
going relativly at 0.5 light second per two second 1ly before.
[EL]
smiling
Read what _yuo_ wrote.
I need not add anything.
every time you wrote the word _second_, what was the time interval that
you meant by that word?
You are measuring the apparent or relativistic _variance_ of time by a
hidden invariant time scale every time you write the word _second_.
The human mind can only judge that a measured magnitude increased or
decreased if it was compared to a standard unit of measure that does
not co-vary with the variant quantity.


|
|
| |
| | It is not quite clear, when or who was behind the misconception of and
| | the confusion between time scales and relative time intervals. It is
so
| | amazing that Einstein himself fell to the confusion when he believed
in
| | the twin's paradox. The mathematical model then did not match the
| | physical implications. While investigating the reasons behind this
| | confusion I found that Minkowski's tau charts are at the heart of this
| | obfuscation.
| |
| | In 4D representations of referential-frames, an axis is constructed to
| | represent time but its dimension is that of length (a fourth length
| | dimension). Using _c_ and _t_ means that we are using two scales
| | combined to express a displacement as a hyper-concept of a point. Time
| | by definition is metaphysical,
|
| Perhaps but seen as a process rate it can be used as a vector
| future\past\rate. It can then be added to a co-ordinate system as a
length
| with the future\past being the vector and the length\time\rate being the
| scalar component of the vector ?
| [EL]
| If it takes three years to build a house it is a rate of process, which
| has nothing to do with distance and velocity in any direct sense. This
| too does not justify a vector representation. Your wedding album is a
| record of the past, and I do not see vector there pointing at me from
| your album.
| To understand the physical implications of the 4D coordinate space you
| must think in terms of hyperspace

I thought I was.
[EL]
Then Good.


and not in terms of temporal
| progression.

I thought if you included temporal progression into a three spatial
co-ordinate system then you had hyperspace. ?
[EL]
This issue is very tricky indeed, thus I shall elaborate.
It is a common error to think of hyper space as an ongoing dynamic
topology.
The fact is that hyperspace is something completely different.
I shall unfold some analogies to explain this.
Let us expose a photographic paper through a camera to the image of a
moving point of light.
Let the exposure _time_ take enough time for that point to be displaced
4 cm on the paper.
The result is a luminous line that you can see as a static graphic
representation with absolutely nothing being dynamic about it in this
context.
A moving point that moves at a constant velocity for an interval of
time is exactly what it is, but a long exposure representation of the
whole time interval at once is the hyper-point.
Looking at the resulting line, there should be nothing moving within
this context.
To generalise, we can say that a space is a dynamic hyperspace
representation of an infinitesimal time interval below which all time
quantities are insignificant. From the other side of this view a
hyperspace is a static spatial representation of a dynamic space during
a complete time interval describing an extra spatial interval under
displacement conditions.
A world-line limited by two events represents many events in between,
yet all at once, hence time may not be progressive any more (_was_
progressive during the creation of the process) and the representation
is like a long exposure static picture.
The issue is tricky because we need to differentiate between the
process of creating the representation and the representation itself
and what it stands for. You create a picture by taking a picture during
the creation of the process. You may recall the whole process at once
by gazing on the picture at any time you wish.
Therefore the hyperspatial model must be a static representation that
can be inspected all at once, while the model represents an
extra-spatial system in which the product of velocity and a time
interval is that extra-spatial dimension.


| Let there be a piston that sweeps a cylinder.
| The inner space being swept, is a static Euclidean space relative to
| the cylinder, but it is a dynamic hyperspace relative to the piston,
| such that the volume

Do you not mean face area of the piston ?
[EL]
No, because the product of area (2D) and a displacement (1D) is only
3D, hence (Euclidean cylinder).
The volume of the piston (A short cylinder, 3D) multiplied by the
stroke (1D) is 4D (Minkowskiean hyper-piston).
The two topologies are equivalent through spatial redundancy along the
common axis of the stroke.
There is an infinite number of planes on each of which we have a
surface area along the dimension of the piston that coincides with that
of the stroke, all of which sweeps the same volume. Therefore the
hyperspatial quantity is the integral sum of all the volumes being
swept.
Of course a more tenable example would be equating a static volume to a
hyper-area such that the mapping is one-on-one. However, we would be
equating (3D) to (2+1D), where the first is a geometry by definition
while the second is the product of a geometry and a topology yielding a
topology of the same number of dimensions as the first. The (1D) is
that case would not be of a static nature but concluded from the a
speed and a time interval describing the piston's motion.
The 4D coordinate system textbook examples are usually focussed on a
single pint process we call the event leading to a hyper-event we call
the world-line. If you used all of the 4 dimensions of the coordinate
system you shall come to my example of the piston in a cylinder.


| of the piston multiplied by the stroke is a 4D
| hyperspace, but the stroke is a length that can be calculated by the
| speed of the piston multiplied by the time interval of the stroke
| displacement.

Can it I'm not sure I can see that.
[EL]
Why not!
Tau charts have explicitly [ict] being a dimension that represents a
length interval calculated by the equivalence of the displacement of
light moving at _c_ for a time interval _t_.
Similarly, delta_L = Velocity * delta_t

I cannot see how the "equivalence" between an Euclidean
| space and a hyperspace can include any physical concept of time.

I don't rely see were your coming from and going to on this. Sorry I might
be to thick.
[EL]
When I said "A physical concept of time" I meant the dynamic qualia of
time during the change of state.
Hyperspace is what it is a hyper-space, which is a space with an extra
spatial dimension, and no physical time dimensions are included.
The product of velocity and time is a length dimension that evolved
from a dimensionless point that moved at a constant velocity for a time
interval. Therefore, a hyperspatial dimension is an extra spatial
dimension and not a temporal dimension.


|
|
| |and such procedure was a method to
| | materialise time visually. When we apply the relativistic equations to
| | calculate the apparent time intervals as they appear to a remote
| | observer, there should have never been a misconception of the fact
that
| | all units of measurements being in seconds should mean that seconds
are
| | UNIVERSAL UNITS of measure and may never be a variant. What varies is
| | the remotely observed variant- time-intervals measured in
| | universal-invariant-units.
|
| If for "universal-invariant-units" we can read "invariant
reference-units"
| then I can agree.
| [EL]
| It is just semantics in this case, but we mean the same thing.
| The universal time units cannot have any other meaning else than a
| standard arbitration of a common universal rate of change adopted by
| consensus as a reference scale for the metric.

Ye sound good when put like that but I would have to say common local rate
of change.
[EL]
No, because such semantics enforce the concept of multiple localities
implying physically variant rates, which is not true and contradicts
the second Postulate of SR, where all inertial frames must enforce one
and the same law of physics.
This is precisely where the confusion comes from, because _relatively
variant_ is not the same as _locally variant_.
If all local rates are invariably equal, then we must be talking about
a universal second of time and not a multitude of units of time where
one second here is not identical to one second there.
Remote perception or observation is acceptably a cause of variance of
such measures, which does not imply any local physical change to have
taken place.
The convenience of discriminating between Proper time and Universal
time is that Universal Time is the standard of the final temporal
magnitude of a time unit arbitration, while Proper time is a local
"copy" of that standard, which if subjected to severe conditions might
deform the Proper-ness of that metric, which would only be tenable if
such a change was measured in Universal Units.
Dismissing the Universal Scale of time altogether will deprive us from
exacting any local changes to be perceived locally. On the other hand,
relative remote observations still need the Universal Unit of time to
measure the deformation of time intervals under different states of
motion.


|
| | My verdict is that Tau Charts are a horrible representation of time,
| | because as it is represented by a length displacement it allows time
to
| | be treated as a vector that can be easily misunderstood as being a
tool
| | for proper-time-variance. This means that on-board clocks may never
| | slow down or hurry up under any inertial condition, but that they are
| | physically affected under acceleration conditions.
| |
|
| They are effected by both conditions IMHO and if you are letting your
| reference second be adjusted by your system of measurement then you need
| further training in the use of measurement .
| [EL]
| Saying "Both" is an unsubstantiated assumption.

Is it as I thought the inertial state of orbital clocks was effected ?
[EL]
Orbital clocks, are not inertial at all.
There is a constant force that forces those clocks in orbit.
Newton's laws are still being taught in schools, and never pretend that
relativity rendered them obsolete.
The angular velocity of the clocks are constant because the tangential
component of the force does not exist, however, keeping clocks in orbit
demands a gravitational pull to be constantly applied radially or else
the clocks will continue along a tangential path, which is tangent to
the orbit at the event of cancelling the force that holds the clock in
the radial direction. This means that orbital clocks are constantly
being accelerated towards the centre of the earth. Acceleration induces
intermolecular stress while the force propagates across the bonds.
Therefore any deviation from proper functionality is not caused by
relativistic effects but by Newtonian laws effects.


| I can give very good non-relativistic reasons for the effects of
| acceleration on clocks' performance.
| You need to show your account demonstrating how can an inertial state
| cause a clock to change its rate.
| For starters, you may not change the inertial state without
| acceleration.
| Whatever was your velocity relative to anything else, you are
| stationary with your co-moving clock and there is nothing that can
| change that clock's performance as you observe it locally as long as no
| external Newtonian force was applied to change your inertial state.

You may be correct but I had provisional concluded that velocity in relation
to the vacuum state would effect clocks although the velocity of the vacuum
state could not be measured except by observation of dilation/contraction
states due to velocity relative to it.
[EL]
What is that voice!
It is not a relativistic voice because it is indirectly assuming a
static elastic Aether that was thoroughly disproved.
Vacuum was never a reference to anything and may not be a reference to
anything. There is no such thing as a vacuum frame of reference because
a continuum may not have any preferred point of origin, which is a
pre-requirement for a coordinate system. If you wish to postulate that
vacuum is a chaotic medium that holds characteristics that cause
fluctuations to propagate at _c_, then I would agree, but that _c_ is
not relative to anything in vacuum until a source or an observer takes
the role of a referential frame.
So please correct your verbal salad, which adds confusion to the
already established confusion that I am trying very hard to clear.
After establishing a stationary source or observer, a moving observer
or source, respectively, is remotely relative depending on its state of
motion, and expansion or contraction of intervals will be purely remote
relative ratios.
Therefore, any physical change in the rate of inertial clocks is
untenable locally and only apparent under remote observation. There is
absolutely no tenable relation between vacuum alone and a state of
clock-motion.
In other words, a clock is inertially stationary locally until remotely
related to the state of motion of another object, taken as a reference,
by virtue of the variance in the distance of separation when compared
to the distance travelled by light in ONE UNIVERSAL SECOND.


|
| The remote observation of your clock by a remote observer is a
| completely different issue and it is there that light mediating
| observation interferes by its finite velocity across length intervals
| to dilate time readings.


Yes I think I understand this as one of the factors of observation
introduced contraction\dilation effects.

|
|
| | Then Einstein was not the solitary creator of relativity and he did
not
| | even have an exclusive role of a teacher only but a student also, and
| | was confused with Minkowski's 4D modelling system.
| |
| | In Minkowski's 4D coordinate systems, event transformation takes into
| | consideration the time taken by light to relay the observation.
| | World-lines then are reported by two events that may be symmetrical or
| | asymmetrical, where the later could cause deformation contractively or
| | expansively. We measure expansion and contraction of time intervals in
| | universal seconds. No local clock, being unobserved remotely, may slow
| | down or hurry up under any inertial conditions.
| |
| | Under this rigorous analysis, we tell those who betray the ethics of
| | empirical science, that no experiment whatsoever, have verified a
| | misconception, but that data interpretations was a most clownish
| | interpretation ever made.
|
| Here, here.
| [EL]
| I may apologise for my blunt harshness, but I need not apologise for my
| blunt honesty.
| I think it is about time to stop fantasizing about time. ;-)
|

Be straight I say if you don't agree say so how will we ever correct our
misconceptions if we all agree without firm debate.
You appear not to agree that dilation is a real effect of motion but to date
muon decay seems good evidence for this assumption. If you feel you have
evidence that will disprove this view please present it.
[EL]
The devil is in the details.
Uncertainty.
How did we observe muons without any interaction with them!
Any interaction means one of two, determining the evolution of the
coordinates of a muon, or determining the momentum of the muon. We may
not have them both concurrently. Then the issue is the half-life time
interval during which we may trace the coordinates of a muon. This
means that anything tampering with the momentum of the muon
concurrently will never be noticed. Then one should ask first if the
muon was subjected to a gravitational gradient or not and what effect
would that have on the muon. Are there any forces interacting with the
muon during observation such that we are able to record its life time?
What is the effect of such forces on the lifetime of the muon. Then
there are more questions related to statistical mechanics and whether
the average of a population is not emergent of new properties that does
not belong to single muons.
To cut the chase short, muons' life-time variance is a debatable
subject that may not be used as evidence until the issue is resolved. I
also assure you that logistics estimate a zero probability for muons to
be of any statistical significance as evidence to relativistic effects
on time dilation local to the muons rather than remote observation of a
statistical phenomenon. It all depends on how you design the experiment
with which you observe the phenomenon.

EL




| EL
|
| |
| | EL
| |
|

"EL" wrote in message
oups.com...
| [Paul wrote]
| "EL" wrote in message
| oups.com...
| | [Paul wrote]
| | "EL" wrote in message
| | oups.com...
| | | [EL]

polite snip

| | | Let us send a digital sequence of electromagnetic transitions
carrying
| | | the information coded in ASCII and saying "Hello World" from a
| | | spaceship that is moving at 0.5c relative to the receiving
station,
| | | which is stationed in outer space. The spaceship is approaching
and
| the
| | | message was extremely slow and took 10 seconds on board of the
ship to
| | | ensure noise immunity and to avoid slew-rate compression effects.
The
| | | station receives the coded message through a broadband filter with
| | | automatic frequency adjustment following edge-triggered
transitions of
| | | the digital code. The message was received completely within 5
seconds
| | | and not 10 seconds. Notice that we are measuring time intervals in
| | | _seconds_, where a second must be a standard arbitration,
otherwise
| our
| | | comparison of time interval magnitudes is mere nonsense. The
| | | relativistic time interval compression was an artefact of the
relative
| | | velocity, but we measure the on-board interval by an on-board
clock in
| | | UNIVERSAL seconds, and we measure the on-station interval by an
| | | on-station clock in UNIVERSAL seconds also. That is why we could
| | | compare and realize that a time interval deformation took place.
| |
| | I think that UNIVERSAL second needs thinking about as gravity and
| velocity
| | appear to effect it so the term reference second is a more relevant
and
| | applicable description because UNIVERSAL implies that there is some
| absolute
| | standard and as far as I'm aware, if there is one we have not yet
| located
| | it. Although hydrogen line analysis from multipule sources might
give
| you a
| | common standard.
| | [EL]
| | It is not a lost child to try to locate it.
| | Light from the edge of the universe is observed on earth.
| | The speed of that light that crosses the Universe is constant.
| | It is one light-seconds per second.
| | Do you know of a better second of time that remains a unit of time
| | across the Universe?
|
| But on its way across the universe it may have passed through regions of
| contracted length\dilated time space\time relative to your observer
state so
| you are only observing time at your place of observation and you know
| nothing about the state of time\distance in other regions of its path.
For
| example say 1 ly from the earth space addopted a 0.5 meter 2 second
| space\time relative ratio you would not be able to detect it from 1 ly
away
| so the light that you have just measured as one light second per second
was
| going relativly at 0.5 light second per two second 1ly before.
| [EL]
| smiling
| Read what _yuo_ wrote.
| I need not add anything.
| every time you wrote the word _second_, what was the time interval that
| you meant by that word?

"0.5 meter 2 second space\time relative ratio" meant an area where
1 reference meter as *measured in* the reference frame measured 0.5 meters
*when in* the non reference frame *from* the reference frame but measured 1
meter in the non reference frame *from within* the non reference frame
and
1 reference second as *measured in* the reference frame measured 2 seconds
*when in* the non reference frame *from* the reference frame but measured 1
second in the non reference frame *from within* the non reference frame.
{:-)

| You are measuring the apparent or relativistic _variance_ of time by a
| hidden invariant time scale every time you write the word _second_.
| The human mind can only judge that a measured magnitude increased or
| decreased if it was compared to a standard unit of measure that does
| not co-vary with the variant quantity.

Yes againts a reference meter and second and that must be invarient from the
pov of the reference observer in the referece environment but that is
arbitary unless common opinion is applied..

|
|
| |
| |
| | |
| | | It is not quite clear, when or who was behind the misconception of
and
| | | the confusion between time scales and relative time intervals. It
is
| so
| | | amazing that Einstein himself fell to the confusion when he
believed
| in
| | | the twin's paradox.

My model were length and time change in inverse proportions keeps c as c
localy and has no difficulty with the actual relative aging of the twins,
produces no paradoxes and no confusion when understood and adopted.

The mathematical model then did not match the
| | | physical implications. While investigating the reasons behind this
| | | confusion I found that Minkowski's tau charts are at the heart of
this
| | | obfuscation.
| | |
| | | In 4D representations of referential-frames, an axis is
constructed to
| | | represent time but its dimension is that of length (a fourth
length
| | | dimension). Using _c_ and _t_ means that we are using two scales
| | | combined to express a displacement as a hyper-concept of a point.
Time
| | | by definition is metaphysical,
| |
| | Perhaps but seen as a process rate it can be used as a vector
| | future\past\rate. It can then be added to a co-ordinate system as a
| length
| | with the future\past being the vector and the length\time\rate being
the
| | scalar component of the vector ?
| | [EL]
| | If it takes three years to build a house it is a rate of process,
which
| | has nothing to do with distance and velocity in any direct sense. This
| | too does not justify a vector representation. Your wedding album is a
| | record of the past, and I do not see vector there pointing at me from
| | your album.
| | To understand the physical implications of the 4D coordinate space you
| | must think in terms of hyperspace
|
| I thought I was.
| [EL]
| Then Good.
|
|
| and not in terms of temporal
| | progression.
|
| I thought if you included temporal progression into a three spatial
| co-ordinate system then you had hyperspace. ?
| [EL]
| This issue is very tricky indeed, thus I shall elaborate.
| It is a common error to think of hyper space as an ongoing dynamic
| topology.
| The fact is that hyperspace is something completely different.
| I shall unfold some analogies to explain this.
| Let us expose a photographic paper through a camera to the image of a
| moving point of light.
| Let the exposure _time_ take enough time for that point to be displaced
| 4 cm on the paper.
| The result is a luminous line that you can see as a static graphic
| representation with absolutely nothing being dynamic about it in this
| context.
| A moving point that moves at a constant velocity for an interval of
| time is exactly what it is, but a long exposure representation of the
| whole time interval at once is the hyper-point.

Yes so if I describe this algebraically (which I'm very poor at) and
simplify to 1t,1d
Then I have x1=t1 : x2= t2 : x1x2,t1t2 a hyper-point ?
Sorry if my notation is a bit non standard which is one reason I try to
avoid posting math.

| Looking at the resulting line, there should be nothing moving within
| this context.
| To generalise, we can say that a space is a dynamic hyperspace
| representation of an infinitesimal time interval below which all time
| quantities are insignificant. From the other side of this view a
| hyperspace is a static spatial representation of a dynamic space during
| a complete time interval describing an extra spatial interval under
| displacement conditions.
| A world-line limited by two events represents many events in between,
| yet all at once, hence time may not be progressive any more (_was_
| progressive during the creation of the process) and the representation
| is like a long exposure static picture.
| The issue is tricky because we need to differentiate between the
| process of creating the representation and the representation itself
| and what it stands for. You create a picture by taking a picture during
| the creation of the process. You may recall the whole process at once
| by gazing on the picture at any time you wish.
| Therefore the hyperspatial model must be a static representation that
| can be inspected all at once, while the model represents an
| extra-spatial system in which the product of velocity and a time
| interval is that extra-spatial dimension.
|
|
| | Let there be a piston that sweeps a cylinder.
| | The inner space being swept, is a static Euclidean space relative to
| | the cylinder, but it is a dynamic hyperspace relative to the piston,
| | such that the volume
|
| Do you not mean face area of the piston ?
| [EL]
| No, because the product of area (2D) and a displacement (1D) is only
| 3D, hence (Euclidean cylinder).
| The volume of the piston (A short cylinder, 3D) multiplied by the
| stroke (1D) is 4D (Minkowskiean hyper-piston).

Ah! I think I see what you meant now.

| The two topologies are equivalent through spatial redundancy along the
| common axis of the stroke.
| There is an infinite number of planes on each of which we have a
| surface area along the dimension of the piston that coincides with that
| of the stroke, all of which sweeps the same volume. Therefore the
| hyperspatial quantity is the integral sum of all the volumes being
| swept.
| Of course a more tenable example would be equating a static volume to a
| hyper-area such that the mapping is one-on-one. However, we would be
| equating (3D) to (2+1D), where the first is a geometry by definition
| while the second is the product of a geometry and a topology yielding a
| topology of the same number of dimensions as the first. The (1D) is
| that case would not be of a static nature but concluded from the a
| speed and a time interval describing the piston's motion.
| The 4D coordinate system textbook examples are usually focussed on a
| single pint process we call the event leading to a hyper-event we call
| the world-line. If you used all of the 4 dimensions of the coordinate
| system you shall come to my example of the piston in a cylinder.
|
|
| | of the piston multiplied by the stroke is a 4D
| | hyperspace, but the stroke is a length that can be calculated by the
| | speed of the piston multiplied by the time interval of the stroke
| | displacement.
|
| Can it I'm not sure I can see that.
| [EL]
| Why not!

To slow perhaps I will muse on it {:-) and the bit below

| Tau charts have explicitly [ict] being a dimension that represents a
| length interval calculated by the equivalence of the displacement of
| light moving at _c_ for a time interval _t_.
| Similarly, delta_L = Velocity * delta_t
|
| I cannot see how the "equivalence" between an Euclidean
| | space and a hyperspace can include any physical concept of time.
|
| I don't rely see were your coming from and going to on this. Sorry I
might
| be to thick.
| [EL]
| When I said "A physical concept of time" I meant the dynamic qualia of
| time during the change of state.
| Hyperspace is what it is a hyper-space, which is a space with an extra
| spatial dimension, and no physical time dimensions are included.
| The product of velocity and time is a length dimension that evolved
| from a dimensionless point that moved at a constant velocity for a time
| interval. Therefore, a hyperspatial dimension is an extra spatial
| dimension and not a temporal dimension.

Sure if you are saying that time and distance are interchangable then I
agree.

|
|
| |
| |
| | |and such procedure was a method to
| | | materialise time visually. When we apply the relativistic
equations to
| | | calculate the apparent time intervals as they appear to a remote
| | | observer, there should have never been a misconception of the fact
| that
| | | all units of measurements being in seconds should mean that
seconds
| are
| | | UNIVERSAL UNITS of measure and may never be a variant. What varies
is
| | | the remotely observed variant- time-intervals measured in
| | | universal-invariant-units.
| |
| | If for "universal-invariant-units" we can read "invariant
| reference-units"
| | then I can agree.
| | [EL]
| | It is just semantics in this case, but we mean the same thing.
| | The universal time units cannot have any other meaning else than a
| | standard arbitration of a common universal rate of change adopted by
| | consensus as a reference scale for the metric.
|
| Ye sound good when put like that but I would have to say common local
rate
| of change.
| [EL]
| No, because such semantics enforce the concept of multiple localities
| implying physically variant rates, which is not true and contradicts
| the second Postulate of SR, where all inertial frames must enforce one
| and the same law of physics.

See my model description above that allowes multiple localities with
physically variant rates that do not contradict any laws as the physically
variant rates produce a value of c which is equivelent across frames.

| This is precisely where the confusion comes from, because _relatively
| variant_ is not the same as _locally variant_.
| If all local rates are invariably equal, then we must be talking about
| a universal second of time and not a multitude of units of time where
| one second here is not identical to one second there.
| Remote perception or observation is acceptably a cause of variance of
| such measures, which does not imply any local physical change to have
| taken place.

Yes I see your view but at present I hold a different view that as long as
the time\distance proportions are inversely proportional and produce the
same value of c locally then energy is not changed and this picture fits the
dynamics and facts as well if not better than your absolutist view. ?

| The convenience of discriminating between Proper time and Universal
| time is that Universal Time is the standard of the final temporal
| magnitude of a time unit arbitration, while Proper time is a local
| "copy" of that standard, which if subjected to severe conditions might
| deform the Proper-ness of that metric, which would only be tenable if
| such a change was measured in Universal Units.
| Dismissing the Universal Scale of time altogether will deprive us from
| exacting any local changes to be perceived locally.

Yes I believe this to be the case, we are deprived {:-) or nearly so because
the observation of clocks that have been elsewhere may be the only means by
which we can examine our own state.

|On the other hand,
| relative remote observations still need the Universal Unit of time to
| measure the deformation of time intervals under different states of
| motion.


Relative\reference\universal unit of time from our local pov.

|
|
| |
| | | My verdict is that Tau Charts are a horrible representation of
time,
| | | because as it is represented by a length displacement it allows
time
| to
| | | be treated as a vector that can be easily misunderstood as being a
| tool
| | | for proper-time-variance. This means that on-board clocks may
never
| | | slow down or hurry up under any inertial condition, but that they
are
| | | physically affected under acceleration conditions.
| | |
| |
| | They are effected by both conditions IMHO and if you are letting
your
| | reference second be adjusted by your system of measurement then you
need
| | further training in the use of measurement .
| | [EL]
| | Saying "Both" is an unsubstantiated assumption.
|
| Is it as I thought the inertial state of orbital clocks was effected ?
| [EL]
| Orbital clocks, are not inertial at all.
| There is a constant force that forces those clocks in orbit.

Then there is no sure way to establish inertial localy ?

| Newton's laws are still being taught in schools, and never pretend that
| relativity rendered them obsolete.
| The angular velocity of the clocks are constant because the tangential
| component of the force does not exist, however, keeping clocks in orbit
| demands a gravitational pull to be constantly applied radially or else
| the clocks will continue along a tangential path, which is tangent to
| the orbit at the event of cancelling the force that holds the clock in
| the radial direction. This means that orbital clocks are constantly
| being accelerated towards the centre of the earth.

Not disputed but as we know the time differential over distance at ground
level can we not calculate out the gravitational effects ?

|Acceleration induces
| intermolecular stress while the force propagates across the bonds.
| Therefore any deviation from proper functionality is not caused by
| relativistic effects but by Newtonian laws effects.

Maybe.

|
|
| | I can give very good non-relativistic reasons for the effects of
| | acceleration on clocks' performance.
| | You need to show your account demonstrating how can an inertial state
| | cause a clock to change its rate.
| | For starters, you may not change the inertial state without
| | acceleration.
| | Whatever was your velocity relative to anything else, you are
| | stationary with your co-moving clock and there is nothing that can
| | change that clock's performance as you observe it locally as long as
no
| | external Newtonian force was applied to change your inertial state.
|
| You may be correct but I had provisional concluded that velocity in
relation
| to the vacuum state would effect clocks although the velocity of the
vacuum
| state could not be measured except by observation of
dilation/contraction
| states due to velocity relative to it.
| [EL]
| What is that voice!
| It is not a relativistic voice because it is indirectly assuming a
| static elastic Aether that was thoroughly disproved.

No it does not, it points out that space itself is the reference for all
events and it is more relativistic than the relativists who as soon as they
can hang onto an absolute {:-).

| Vacuum was never a reference to anything and may not be a reference to
| anything.

The vacuum is referenced to c and has the velocity zero.

|There is no such thing as a vacuum frame of reference because
| a continuum may not have any preferred point of origin, which is a
| pre-requirement for a coordinate system.

I see no problem in using c and zero as my references for my coordinate
system, do you ?

|If you wish to postulate that
| vacuum is a chaotic medium that holds characteristics that cause
| fluctuations to propagate at _c_, then I would agree, but that _c_ is
| not relative to anything in vacuum until a source or an observer takes
| the role of a referential frame.
| So please correct your verbal salad, which adds confusion to the
| already established confusion that I am trying very hard to clear.

Sorry but I remain unconvinced.

| After establishing a stationary source or observer, a moving observer
| or source, respectively, is remotely relative depending on its state of
| motion, and expansion or contraction of intervals will be purely remote
| relative ratios.
| Therefore, any physical change in the rate of inertial clocks is
| untenable locally and only apparent under remote observation. There is
| absolutely no tenable relation between vacuum alone and a state of
| clock-motion.
| In other words, a clock is inertially stationary locally until remotely
| related to the state of motion of another object, taken as a reference,
| by virtue of the variance in the distance of separation when compared
| to the distance travelled by light in ONE UNIVERSAL SECOND.
|

No need to shout as I am still unconvinced by your word salad.

|
| |
| | The remote observation of your clock by a remote observer is a
| | completely different issue and it is there that light mediating
| | observation interferes by its finite velocity across length intervals
| | to dilate time readings.
|
|
| Yes I think I understand this as one of the factors of observation
| introduced contraction\dilation effects.
|
| |
| |
| | | Then Einstein was not the solitary creator of relativity and he
did
| not
| | | even have an exclusive role of a teacher only but a student also,
and
| | | was confused with Minkowski's 4D modelling system.
| | |
| | | In Minkowski's 4D coordinate systems, event transformation takes
into
| | | consideration the time taken by light to relay the observation.
| | | World-lines then are reported by two events that may be
symmetrical or
| | | asymmetrical, where the later could cause deformation
contractively or
| | | expansively. We measure expansion and contraction of time
intervals in
| | | universal seconds. No local clock, being unobserved remotely, may
slow
| | | down or hurry up under any inertial conditions.
| | |
| | | Under this rigorous analysis, we tell those who betray the ethics
of
| | | empirical science, that no experiment whatsoever, have verified a
| | | misconception, but that data interpretations was a most clownish
| | | interpretation ever made.
| |
| | Here, here.
| | [EL]
| | I may apologise for my blunt harshness, but I need not apologise for
my
| | blunt honesty.
| | I think it is about time to stop fantasizing about time. ;-)
| |
|
| Be straight I say if you don't agree say so how will we ever correct our
| misconceptions if we all agree without firm debate.
| You appear not to agree that dilation is a real effect of motion but to
date
| muon decay seems good evidence for this assumption. If you feel you have
| evidence that will disprove this view please present it.
| [EL]
| The devil is in the details.
| Uncertainty.
| How did we observe muons without any interaction with them!
| Any interaction means one of two, determining the evolution of the
| coordinates of a muon, or determining the momentum of the muon. We may
| not have them both concurrently. Then the issue is the half-life time
| interval during which we may trace the coordinates of a muon. This
| means that anything tampering with the momentum of the muon
| concurrently will never be noticed. Then one should ask first if the
| muon was subjected to a gravitational gradient or not and what effect
| would that have on the muon. Are there any forces interacting with the
| muon during observation such that we are able to record its life time?
| What is the effect of such forces on the lifetime of the muon. Then
| there are more questions related to statistical mechanics and whether
| the average of a population is not emergent of new properties that does
| not belong to single muons.
| To cut the chase short, muons' life-time variance is a debatable
| subject that may not be used as evidence until the issue is resolved. I
| also assure you that logistics estimate a zero probability for muons to
| be of any statistical significance as evidence to relativistic effects
| on time dilation local to the muons rather than remote observation of a
| statistical phenomenon. It all depends on how you design the experiment
| with which you observe the phenomenon.
|

I had assumed that the location was locally common to the parked and moving
muons. That it was a statistical evaluation using many muons. That the
statistical comparison was done over a fairly short period. If you know that
any of these assumptions are incorrect in all experiments then I would be
very glad to hear about it. If the statistics show that given these
assumption the death rate of moving muons at any point in time is
significantly lower than the parked muons then we have a good base for the
belief that motion delays ageing ? In my case it would strengthen my belief
that motion in relation to the dielectric state dilated time, the dielectric
state having a zero velocity wrt the parked muons.
--
D & R *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two unbound
field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)

| EL
|
|
|
|
| | EL
| |
| | |
| | | EL
| | |
| |
|