PD wrote:
CFran wrote:
TomGee wrote:
CFran wrote:
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.


It does? How so? It has nothing to do wrt the universe, which is what
I was referring to. What you think makes more sense does not
contradict what I've said because it is not the same situation. It is
only possible to discern the relative speed of an object wrt another
object. We cannot discern the speed of an object wrt the universe but
only wrt to another object. Even those objects that are stationary wrt
each other are moving wrt the universe, although they are moving at the
same speed and in the same direction. Both statements should make the
same amount of sense to you if you understood them equally well.

Maybe I didn't understand you're statement very well, it sounded like
you were saying that nothing can be stationary wrt the universe.

By now you are perhaps coming to confront the bewildering morass of
truth and fiction, well-intentioned supposition and knowledge, that
appears in a newsgroup. I will not attempt to sort out for you which is
food and which is waste. I only hope that this exercise will strengthen
your powers of discernment.

PD

Maybe, but I wouldn't be against a clue or two.

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

CFran wrote:
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.


It does? How so? It has nothing to do wrt the universe, which is what
I was referring to. What you think makes more sense does not
contradict what I've said because it is not the same situation. It is
only possible to discern the relative speed of an object wrt another
object. We cannot discern the speed of an object wrt the universe but
only wrt to another object.

Why is that? Saying so doesn't make it so. Do you believe that there is an
infinite amount of matter in the universe? If so, do you agree that at any
given instant, there is a center of mass of the amalgam of all of the matter in
the universe? If so, why is that not analogous to the location and speed of a
cloud?

Good point, makes sence to me.

Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
CFran wrote:
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.

No, this is incorrect, although you're hardly alone in believing it. Here's
an article I posted previously on this subject -- let me know if it helps.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...a649653249add9

-- Ben

Um yeah it kinda helps, at confusing me a bit more. You know, I'm
trying to make myself on opinion on that topic but it's kind of hard
because I heard quite opposite things for different people, it's like
hardly anyone can agree on anything, in this context, it's hard to have
a good understanding of the problem. Thanks for help anyways.

PD wrote:
CFran wrote:
If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.

You've seen several posts that indicate this isn't right. The error is
in imposing a "faster than" implicit comparator. There is no "faster
than" comparison between two reference frames. There is only a "faster
than" comparison between two objects as seen in a *single* reference
frame. However, the choice of reference frame is arbitrary. Thus if A
is "faster than" B in one reference frame, this will not be generally
true in another reference frame. Thus, "faster than" is not an absolute
statement.

Well, I think we could trun my "the faster you go" by "the more you
accelerate", or something similar.

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).

And again, one finds that this is not an absolute statement. That is,
given any collection of probes, there will *not* be concensus among
them which one's clock is running the fastest. One can find a reference
frame where *any* one of the probe clocks is discovered to be running
the fastest.

Wait, if any of the probes stop (wrt the point of launch), and that you
compare the clocks, and that you compensate the travel time of the
radio signal of each probe, you'll necessarly obtain a concensus on
which clock went the fastest, no?

It is very tempting at this point to say, "That can't be. There can
only be *one* clock that is *really* running the fastest." But this is
counter to experiment, and so one then has to go back and understand
what it means *exactly* to measure the duration between two events. And
after doing that, one discovers that the duration between two events is
not an intrinsic property between those two events.


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.

No. And once again, one discovers something non-intuitive. Velocities,
even in the same direction, do not add in a simple sum. They simply do
not. (This is an artifact of spacetime being hyperbolic rather than
Euclidean, but I'll bet that doesn't help much.) Thus, if you are
sitting next to probe C (which happens to appear stationary to you by
the choice of reference frame) and you see probe A going one way at
.75c and probe B going in exactly the opposite direction at .75c, it is
simply not true that probe A will see probe B receding at 1.5c.

your comment about spacetime being hyperbolic kinda helps actually. I
think this is the way to go to understand why speeds don't just add to
each other.

Androcles wrote:
"PD" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| CFran wrote:
| If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
|
| You've seen several posts that indicate this isn't right.

[snip 63 lines of babbling, spewing, frothing at the mouth crap]
Hey hopeless ineducable psychotic depubescent idiot Phuckwit Duck,
get an education!
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles.

as you said yourself so well : "Do you have any physics to discuss? If
not, **** off." It applies to you quite well here.

wrote:
You don't need relativity to answer your questions.
All you need are Maxwell, Galileo, and Lorentz.

Prior to relativity, Maxwell's equations gave us a very
simple (but not the simplest) absolute reference frame,
namely, light in space. Indeed, his equations even gave
us this frame's absolute speed through space, c.

(The very simplest absolute frame would be of course
some entity whose known speed through space is zero,
but we know of no such entity so far.)

Prior to relativity, Galileo's equation w = c - v showed
that we can find our own absolute through-space speed v
by simply measuring a departing light ray's speed w.

Surprisingly, despite relativity, no one has ever proved
Galileo's simple equation to be wrong, nor has anyone
ever proved the correctness of Einstein's w = c.

I like that claim alot, the problem is, didn't we mesure light to
always have the same speed in every direction? Because that's the
problem, if we mesure light's speed (w) to always be equal to c, then
Galileo's equation should be wrong, or can we mesure light to go at
different speed in vaccum according to the direction?

There is, to be sure, a catch, namely, Galileo's result
can be found only by using absolutely synchronous clocks.
(Einstein's clock are absolutely asynchronous because he
does not have absolute simultaneity - so he cannot synch
two separated clocks absolutely simultaneously.)

However, luckily, no one has ever proved that clocks
cannot be absolutely synchronized, so Galileo and his
simple-but-valuable equation are still in the running.

Interesting, but, why can't einstein's clocks be synchronized? and, if
we have synchronized clocks, i'm kinda confused, what are we supposed
to observe to make sure Galileo's equation is still correct?

That is, we have - on paper at least - our absolute
reference frame, so your "compared to what referential"
query has been answered.

Now we turn to Lorentz to answer your clock slowing
queries.

Even an ardent relativist such as John A. Wheeler (who
once worked with Einstein, and who coauthored the famous
book _Spacetime Physics_) had to admit that Lorentz's
theory is acceptable today. (See page 80 of the first
printing of his book.)

What is Lorentz's theory?

Basically, it's simply that rods physically contract and
clocks physically slow as they move through space.

Now, that's the physically contracting rod thing that I still don't
manage to accept. I (still) can't accept that if light is deviated by
gravity it's because of space-time deformation (to me it makes more
sence to say that light is deviated by gravity, the problem is that it
supposes that photons have a mass, although i think it's still not
considered totally impossible)

Notice that the experimentally-proved invariance and
isotropy of light's round-trip speed cannot be shown
on paper without using physical rod length contraction
and physical clock slowing.

To put it numerically, if a clock moves at 60% of light's
speed through space, then the clock is slowed by 20%.
(So it would read only 8 years while a clock that is at
rest in space would read 10 years.)

How does this show up experimentally without involving
relativity?

Here is how:

Use Triplets instead of Twins.

By using Triplets to replace the Twins in the infamous
Twin Paradox, we eliminate all accelerations, thereby
eliminating relativity's only "explanation" for the age
difference at the end.

oh yeah, I've read about it quickly, but I found it to be quite
obscure, i mean i hardly could understand it.

(Relativity tries-but-fails to explain the age difference
by invoking acceleration - that is, by saying that only one
Twin accelerates or changes frames.)

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

What's also weird is that you can spell weird, but not admit!
;-)

haha, yeah, that's wierd ;-)

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

aka Kurt Kingston (kk)
aka 2ndPostulateDude
aka SRdude
aka Brian D. Jones
aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas
aka Roy Royce
aka John Reid
aka Martin Miller
aka James S. White (?)
wrote in message oups.com...

You don't need relativity to answer your questions.
All you need are Maxwell, Galileo, and Lorentz.

[snip]

(Relativity tries-but-fails to explain the age difference
by invoking acceleration - that is, by saying that only one
Twin accelerates or changes frames.)

Cadwgan Gedrych aka Kurt Kingston aka 2ndPostulateDude aka
SRdude aka Brian D. Jones aka Edward Travis aka Ron Aikas aka
Roy Royce aka John Reid aka Martin Miller aka James S. White (?)
never even tried to understand the explanations that were ever given
during the last decade :-)

Dirk Vdm

haha, can't blame him, it's cool to be able to understand things
without always having to refer to relativity or post-1905 theories.

CFran wrote:

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Cadwgan Gedrych aka Kurt Kingston aka 2ndPostulateDude aka
SRdude aka Brian D. Jones aka Edward Travis aka Ron Aikas aka
Roy Royce aka John Reid aka Martin Miller aka James S. White (?)
never even tried to understand the explanations that were ever given
during the last decade :-)

Dirk Vdm

haha, can't blame him, it's cool to be able to understand things
without always having to refer to relativity or post-1905 theories.

Why would you want to live with a pre 1905 understanding
of the world? A lot has happened since then, and a lot
has been learned.

Stephen

"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "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.
| |
| | And you just show pictures of Einstein and you're laughing because he
| | ain't looking at the camera.
|
| I do that as well. Do you have any physics to discuss?
|
| At least as much as you, cuz all I hear you doing out here is putting
| down others claim about the very starting topic

Ok, **** off.

*plonk*
Androcles

|

Androcles wrote:
"CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "CFran" wrote in message oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "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.
| |
| | And you just show pictures of Einstein and you're laughing because he
| | ain't looking at the camera.
|
| I do that as well. Do you have any physics to discuss?
|
| At least as much as you, cuz all I hear you doing out here is putting
| down others claim about the very starting topic

Ok, **** off.

*plonk*
Androcles

|

that's weak