Hayek wrote:
CFran wrote:

Hayek wrote:

CFran wrote:


If I got it right, the faster you go, the
slower time goes for you.

But there's something that seems weird to me,
if this is true (I don't doubt it is), then
there must be a referential, I mean, there
must be a certain speed and direction in the
universe which makes time go the fastest, in
other words, "if you go faster time goes
slower for you", faster compared to what?

You have an excellent intuition !


faster compared to what?

The average mass distribution of the
surrounding masses. That is a lot of mass : the
whole visible universe.


so there's a referential!! that's funny that I
never heard of it before tho.

It is the same one from Mach's Principle and the
same one from General Relativity. If a mass affects
a clock, then lots of mass will also affect a clock,
a mass nearby is the same as a universe of mass
spread around.


But there is a BIG catch : suppose you move
contantly wrt this average mass distribution
and a rocket moves away from you, and is slower
with respect to (wrt) this average mass
distribution (amd). This rockets clock will run
faster. Then when the rocket has to rejoin you,
it has to catch up with you and move faster wrt
the amd. Since the time dilation factor is not
linear the clock of this rocket will slow down
so much more than yours that in the end, the
total elapsed time of the rocket will always
be LESS than your time.

If an object accelerates away from you and
comes back his total elapsed time will ALWAYS
be less than your time.



Is there something like a speed zero, where
time goes the fastest?

No motion wrt tne average mass distribution,
and as far away from a cluster of masses. A lot
of mass nearby will slow down your clock also.


makes sence. I think the second thing you said is
a property of the general relativity.

General Relativity is all you need : it includes
special relativity.

And your clock will run infinitely fast in an
empty universe.

Actually, a clock is an inertiameter. It simply
reacts to changing inertia, when the clockrate
varies, it meanse inertia has varied.

Mass creates an inertial field. Moving through
this field makes inertia greater, and your
inertiameter or clock simply reacts to that.
More inertia also makes the molecules in your
body move slower, so your "time" moves slower
too. Your body reacts to the increased inertia
by slowing down as much as your clock. And you
cannot compare it locally you must always
relate to an external clock. That is the real
reason why it is called relativity.




Because, as I understand it, it seems that if
you throw a whole lots of probes in various
directions and at various speeds, there will
be one that will have it's clock running
faster than the others, and it will be the
one going the slowest (compared to a
referential, well I guess).

Your absolutely right.

But there is again a big catch : you have NO
way of measuring ! In order to stay in contact
with the probes you need radio contact, and
that goes, by current technology, and maybe
even all future technology, at the speed of
light.


Well, yes you can, you can still compensate by
calculating the time the radio waves took for
doing the travel. For example, you send a radio
signal to a probe which makes the target probe
send back to you as soon a signal containing it's
time, you calculate the time it took between when
you emited the signal and when you received the
response, and with the measurement of the doppler
shift of the received response you can calculate
how long it took for the first signal and for
the response signal to travel, and thus
compensate the delay due to the speed of light
(maybe it would be usefull too to include the
shift due to the doppler effect in the first
signal as received by the probe in the response
signal, but that's a detail.)

I just thought of something simpler : You could send
pobes of in 6 directions Up, Down, Left, Right,
Forward, Backward. Just before they turn around, you
stop their clocks. And they "come home" with just
the accumulated time of the outward trip. Then you
can calculate your own speed wrt average mass
distribution.

Wait, how are you supposed to stop their clocks? By sending a sluggish
radio message? Or with an onboard timer ;-)


It is very difficult to undertake an experiment
like you described above, with different
probes, first because it is poorly understood.
Some adamantly deny the existence of a
preferential frame. Because they say, there is
no need for it : any object that accelerates
away from you and comes back, will always have
a slower clock than yours, no matter if you
move wrt the amd, the preferential frame.


Same for the speed limit in the universe,
nothing can go faster than c, ok, but,
compared to what referential?

Again the amd of the visible universe around
the you.

But since moving wrt the amd affects your
clock, you will always measure c in ANY moving
frame.


I mean, if you throw a whole lot of probes at
the same time from one unique moving point in
any direction at speed c (or close), where
will be the middle between all these probes.
If you are going at half of c (once again,
compared to what, yeah i'm very confused with
that) and throw a rocket that can get near c
in the direction you're going, and another
one like this in the opposite direction, the
middle between those two rockets wont be you,
or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.

If you move at .5 c and you throw a rocket it
will move at c wrt to you : but because your
clock has slowed down your measurement of the
speed of the rocket will be different than that
of a stationary observer. The measurement would
differ but the outcome will be : c for both !


And please explain things simply, you all
know how hard it can be to understand/admitt
all those weird relativity things, thanks.

Because inertia affects ALL of physics we
currently know of, it is impossible to measure
it locally. Comparing it to remote sources is
hampered by the transmission speed of c, and
dopller effects. This all conspires in such
way, that for the current state of science,
relativity can be explained in different ways.

There are two camps : those that adhere to a
preferential frame : they are called
Aetherists, Lorentzians, absolutists, and those
who reject any absolute frame and believe it
takes only two to tango : motion and
relativistic effects are due to the relative
motion of the two objects in question, they are
the pure relativists.


Oh, I think I know which camp you chose. As for
me, I like the idea of a preferential frame, but
as of right now I really have no idea of which
makes more sence, provided that things need to be
really senseful when it comes to relativity.


Modern scientist shy away from making sense. The
maths are the theory, no need to explain anything
else, they say.

Yeah, I agree with that. Actually, sometimes it even seems that their
equations allows things that can't happen because they predict what can
be observed but also predict what can't (as for example the insides of
a black hole or that whole time-travel worm hole stuff that lets you go
back in time)

I adhere to the words of lord Kelvin :

"It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not
understand a particular point in physics" is, "Can
we make a mechanical model of it:" " - lord Kelvin

Uwe Hayek.

"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...

Sue... wrote:
CFran wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
|
| You got it wrong.

[snip rest]

You've still got it wrong. You've been talking to idiots Sue the medium and her ectoplasm,
she holds a seance daily with her charges but she's good for a laugh, Dinky Van der mumble the peeing puppy and Hayek. I don't know much about Hayek except he thinks clocks run infinitely fast in an empty universe, as if anyone cared, and wants to "send pobes of in 6 directions."
Pobes of what?
They can't help you understand anything, they don't know anything.
I can't help you either, you don't listen. You WANT to believe in time dilation, so go ahead and do so.
Androcles.

CFran wrote:
Sue... wrote:
forgery charges defered snip

I did not realise we have Einstein to thank for phenomena
described by Newton, Sagnac and Doppler.

Wait, what does Newton have to do with time dilatation?

Newton has absolutely nothing to do with *time dilation*.

The amount of correction to the Bohr energy levels due
to hyperfine splitting of the hydrogen atom is on the order of:

(equation)
http://en.wikipedia.org/math/bacbb80...f8d3ac2663.png

where
m is the mass of an electron
mp is the mass of a proton
a is the fine structure constant (1/137.036)
c is the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfine_level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

The GPS altitude effect is predictable with
Newtonian mechanics just as gravimeters and
accelerometers.

This very accurate space clock will be compared
continuously to the SUMO oscillator, and these two
clocks (being fundamentally different) will provide
a test of "local position invariance".
http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm

Sue...

snip

Relativity is a subject where graphics and animation can do a lot to clarify
concepts.
If you like a graphical and geometrical approach, and if you have
Mathematica, you may wish to try out the SpacetimeGeometry notebook at my
web site.

http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/Mathematica.html

This has no new theory. It may not be the most elegant presentation. But it
is based on two tutorial papers, one by a Nobelist in physics and the other
by two top researchers in the field. (Links to their papers are also there.)
It does have many animations that show both the spacetime diagram for
various constructions and the actual motion of particles, plus geometric
derivations of the Lorentz transformation, the invariant interval, time
dilation and other relations.

David Park

http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/


"CFran" wrote in message
ups.com...
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.

But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
doubt it is), then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
faster compared to what?

Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole lots of
probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be one
that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it will
be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I guess).

Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster than c,
ok, but, compared to what referential? I mean, if you throw a whole lot
of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between all
these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared to
what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that can get
near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in the
opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be you,
or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.

And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.

Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...

Sue... wrote:
CFran wrote:
Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
|
| You got it wrong.

[snip rest]

You've still got it wrong. You've been talking to idiots Sue the medium and her ectoplasm,
she holds a seance daily with her charges but she's good for a laugh, Dinky Van der mumble the peeing puppy and Hayek. I don't know much about Hayek except he thinks clocks run infinitely fast in an empty universe, as if anyone cared, and wants to "send pobes of in 6 directions."
Pobes of what?
They can't help you understand anything, they don't know anything.
I can't help you either, you don't listen. You WANT to believe in time dilation, so go ahead and do so.
Androcles.

You ain't gotta insult them

David Park wrote:
Relativity is a subject where graphics and animation can do a lot to clarify
concepts.
If you like a graphical and geometrical approach, and if you have
Mathematica, you may wish to try out the SpacetimeGeometry notebook at my
web site.

Unfortunatly I don't have mathematica..

http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/Mathematica.html

This has no new theory. It may not be the most elegant presentation. But it
is based on two tutorial papers, one by a Nobelist in physics and the other
by two top researchers in the field. (Links to their papers are also there.)
It does have many animations that show both the spacetime diagram for
various constructions and the actual motion of particles, plus geometric
derivations of the Lorentz transformation, the invariant interval, time
dilation and other relations.

David Park

http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/


"CFran" wrote in message
ups.com...
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.

But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
doubt it is), then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
faster compared to what?

Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole lots of
probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be one
that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it will
be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I guess).

Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster than c,
ok, but, compared to what referential? I mean, if you throw a whole lot
of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between all
these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared to
what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that can get
near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in the
opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be you,
or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.

And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.

"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Faster to what? Faster compared to the speed of other objects in the
universe. All objects in the universe are in motion and so there is no
one object we can say is stationary wrt the universe.

All particles of water are in motion in a cloud, but to the extent that the
boundaries of the cloud are definable in some way, it's possible to discern the
relative speed of any object to the cloud itself.

Hayek wrote:
....

I adhere to the words of lord Kelvin :

"It seems to me that the test of "Do we or do we not
understand a particular point in physics" is, "Can
we make a mechanical model of it:" " - lord Kelvin

Uwe Hayek.

What if the world is not intrinsically mechanical afterall?

AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" wrote in message
oups.com...

Faster to what? Faster compared to the speed of other objects in the
universe. All objects in the universe are in motion and so there is no
one object we can say is stationary wrt the universe.

All particles of water are in motion in a cloud, but to the extent that the
boundaries of the cloud are definable in some way, it's possible to discern the
relative speed of any object to the cloud itself.

Yeah, that makes more sence I think.

"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Sue... wrote:
| CFran wrote:
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "CFran" wrote in message ups.com...
| | | If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
| |
| | You got it wrong.
|
| [snip rest]
|
| You've still got it wrong. You've been talking to idiots Sue the medium and her ectoplasm,
| she holds a seance daily with her charges but she's good for a laugh, Dinky Van der mumble the peeing puppy and Hayek. I don't know much about Hayek except he thinks clocks run infinitely fast in an empty universe, as if anyone cared, and wants to "send pobes of in 6 directions."
| Pobes of what?
| They can't help you understand anything, they don't know anything.
| I can't help you either, you don't listen. You WANT to believe in time dilation, so go ahead and do so.
| Androcles.
|
| You ain't gotta insult them

I discuss (and teach) physics and mathematics here. They do not. Sue never has anything to say herself, she merely quotes web pages, usually irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
Dinky Van der mumble has no intention of discussing anything and repeats text books which anyone can read, his main objective is to be disruptive, Hayek wants to discuss an empty Universe. Join them and defend them if that suits you. Believe whatever you like.
Androcles

|