How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

Apr 16, 2014 by Carlos Sabin, The Conversation
Doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work. Credit: andertoons, CC BY

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin paradox".

Imagine two twins. They are identical, except for one thing, one of them has a very advanced and expensive spaceship. The first twin remains on Earth, while the other travels to a distant star and back at velocities close to the speed of light.

When they meet again, the Earth-dwelling twin has aged a lot more than the travelling twin. This is because of what Einstein called . He predicted that clocks experiencing different accelerations measure time differently. Puzzling as it may seem, these time-dilation effects have been tested in the laboratory many times, and are routinely taken into account by the Global Positioning System (GPS).

The GPS is able to provide you with your position by timing very precisely the signals emitted by satellites, and to this end it needs to take into account the time dilation due to the different accelerations of the satellites. While GPS is one of the most precise systems we have, it can locate your smartphone with an error margin of a few metres.

The precision could be improved by using the most precise clocks that we know on Earth, known as quantum clocks because they are ruled by the laws of . There are plans funded by space agencies to launch these clocks into orbit. It is natural to think that a GPS consisting of quantum clocks would also need to take into account . However, we do not fully understand how to combine quantum mechanics and relativity. The inability of unifying both theories remains as one of the biggest challenges of modern science.

Quantum entanglement

Predictions in the 1970s said that there is a physical phenomenon that is both quantum and relativistic called the Dynamical Casimir Effect. But it wasn't until 2011 that an experimental setup could be developed to test the prediction.

Here is what theory predicted: if light is trapped between mirrors that move at velocities close to the speed of light, then they will generate more light than there is in the system. Even if initially there is no light between the mirrors, just vacuum, light shows up because the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.

This is supposed to happen because vacuum at the quantum level is like a sea of pairs of particles that are constantly emitting and absorbing light. They do this at incredible speeds, but if the mirror moves that fast too some of these particles are reflected by the mirror before disappearing and can be observed. But setting up such a system has proved difficult.

In 2011, this difficulty was circumvented in the experiment conducted by Per Delsing at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden. In this case the mirrors were different. They were magnetic fields inside a Superconducting Quantum Interferometric Device (SQUID), but they behaved exactly like mirrors, making light bounce back and forth. Unlike physical mirrors, these magnetic fields could be moved at incredible speeds.

Einstein used to think of clocks as going back and forth between mirrors. Time can be inferred from the distance between the divided by the , which remains constant no matter what. But he never thought about particles being created by motion, a prediction that was made many years after his death.

Relativistic mirrors

In recent work, with colleagues at the University of Nottingham, Chalmers University and University of Warsaw, we have taken inspiration from the 2011 experiment. We propose using a similar setup to test different aspects of the using a physical system, which haven't been tested so far. Although it won't involve human twins, the possibility of achieving enormous speeds and acceleration allows the observation of time dilation in a very short distance.

Also, all previous experiments that have tested the theory have involved , which are "point-clocks" – that is, what measures time in these atomic clocks is confined to a tiny point in space. Our experiment would instead use something that has finite length. This is important because, along with time, Einstein's theory predicts that length of the object changes too. We believe our experiment would test that aspect of the theory for the first time.

We have found that particle creation by motion, which was observed in 2011, has an effect on the difference in time between the clock that is moving and the one that is static. Using this setup, while we can reconfirm that time dilation occurs, the more interesting application would be to help build better quantum clocks, by means of a better understanding of the interplay between quantum and relativistic effects.

Explore further: Scientists open a new window into quantum physics with superconductivity in LEDs

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Researchers create light from 'almost nothing'

Jun 06, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of physicists working out of Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, have succeeded in proving what was until now, just theory; and that is, that visible photons could ...

Researchers explore quantum entanglement

Feb 08, 2013

Albert Einstein called quantum entanglement—two particles in different locations, even on other sides of the universe, influencing each other—"spooky action at a distance."

Scientists create light from vacuum

Nov 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results will be published tomorrow ...

Recommended for you

Ultra-short X-ray pulses explore the nano world

4 hours ago

Ultra-short and extremely strong X-ray flashes, as produced by free-electron lasers, are opening the door to a hitherto unknown world. Scientists are using these flashes to take "snapshots" of the geometry ...

Measuring NIF's enormous shocks

9 hours ago

NIF experiments generate enormous pressures—many millions of atmospheres—in a short time: just a few billionths of a second. When a pressure source of this type is applied to any material, the pressure ...

User comments : 975

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

brodix
2.5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2014
A point I keep arguing about time is that it is not so much the present moving from past to future, but the effect of physical change causing future potential to become past circumstantial. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the world turns. This means the faster clock doesn't move into the future more rapidly, but as it processes/ages quicker, it falls into the past faster. The twin in the faster frame simply ages faster.
arom
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2014
When they meet again, the Earth-dwelling twin has aged a lot more than the travelling twin. This is because of what Einstein called time dilation. He predicted that clocks experiencing different accelerations measure time differently. Puzzling as it may seem, these time-dilation effects have been tested in the laboratory many times, and are routinely taken into account by the Global Positioning System (GPS).

According to Einstein special relativity (time dilation was arisen from the nature of time itself), anyway we could not visualize how it affect the GPS physical clock (or human bio-clock). Maybe this slowing mechanism of the clock could explain the time dilation …
http://www.vacuum...=6〈=en
arom
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2014
When they meet again, the Earth-dwelling twin has aged a lot more than the travelling twin. This is because of what Einstein called time dilation. He predicted that clocks experiencing different accelerations measure time differently. Puzzling as it may seem, these time-dilation effects have been tested in the laboratory many times, and are routinely taken into account by the Global Positioning System (GPS).

According to Einstein special relativity (time dilation was arisen from the nature of time itself), anyway we could not visualize how it affect the GPS physical clock (or human bio-clock). Maybe this slowing mechanism of the clock could explain the time dilation …
http://www.vacuum...23〈=en
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2014
Ignoring gravity, the laws of physics are exactly the same within the space-ship and on earth. If this is not the case, Einstein's first postulate, on which he based his Special Theory of Relativity, is wrong. Thus, two identical perfect clocks, with each twin, must keep the exact-same time-rate. It is thus impossible for one twin to age faster than the other just because they are moving with a constant speed v relative to one another.

The correction on GPS satellites is required owing to non-simultaneity, which is not time-dilation on the clock on the satellite. A wave-front emitted at the time t (on the clock on the satellite AND on the clock on earth) is only recorded to be emitted at a later time t(L) time on the clock on earth (AND on the clock on the satellite). The clocks keep synchronous time, also during the time-interval after the wave-front has been emitted at time t and the later time t(L) at which this is recorded within the reference frame of the earth.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2014
What I still don't understand about the twin paradox is, that it only works if you assume a static background to space so you could tell which one is accelerating and which one is not.

But that's counter to the whole idea of Einstein's relativity which says there isn't one.

Without a static background to provide you with such universal coordinates, you can only observe that the distance between the twins is changing at an accelerating pace. They are in fact both accelerating in each other's eyes and so the same time dilation should happen to both.

So from both twin's point of view, the other on should be older.
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2014
What I still don't understand about the twin paradox is, that it only works if you assume a static background to space so you could tell which one is accelerating and which one is not.

But that's counter to the whole idea of Einstein's relativity which says there isn't one.

... They are in fact both accelerating in each other's eyes and so the same time dilation should happen to both.

So from both twin's point of view, the other on should be older.


Almost. What you're saying here is actually valid...

Until one of the twins *turns around* and changes his reference frame with respect to the "static" twin. At that point all of the "static" twin's aging begins to become apparent to the accelerating twin. This only works *because* there's no prefered background. The wikipedia explaination is pretty detailed and should provide what you need: laihttp://en.wikiped...lativity
Returners
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2014
Puzzling as it may seem, these time-dilation effects have been tested in the laboratory many times, and are routinely taken into account by the Global Positioning System (GPS).


This actually isn't even true.

Velocity related time dilation apparently never actually happens. The reason I say this is the calculation for gravitational time dilation gives the same result whether or not a rocket ship is moving, for example orbiting a black hole, or just holding position.

If there is any time dilation occurring in orbiting satellites, it is caused by differences in gravity, not by relative velocity. Again, you get the same result whether or not the object is moving, which actually disproves part of Einstein's predictions. This has already been observed, but not properly understood...
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2014
At that point all of the "static" twin's aging begins to become apparent to the accelerating twin.


But it's still not an satisfactory answer. Why is one accelerating then and not the other?

From the point of view of the twin in the spaceship, it's just as well to say that the earth is making the U-turn and coming back to him.

In keeping with Mach's principle, the non-inertial forces that appear should be indistinguishabe between the two situations, whether the ship accelerates or the earth accelerates.

In other words, if the earth was suddenly kicked up in motion and started gaining on the spaceship, the spaceship must feel an acceleration in a universe where only the earth and the ship exist, because you have no other frame of reference to say anything except that the distance between the two changes at some rate.

Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2014
The only way I can reason the twin paradox to work asymmetrically like that is if the effect has something to do with the earth being much more massive than the spaceship, which causes it to experience less acceleration at the turnover point.

I don't agree with the way the wikipedia article draws the Minowski diagrams, because you must be able to switch the "stationary" and "travelling" twins and arrive at the same result, because they both must feel the same inertial and non-inertial forces when the distance between them changes.

Otherwise you would have to admit that one of the twins is truly objectively stationary - but relative to what?
charlimopps
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2014
Eikka, your problem is that you're thinking of it incorrectly. You do not need to think of the universe as static. The very premise of relativity is that the twins reference frames (the bit of time/space they occupy) are "relative" to each other by speed. So, if you're twin A on earth, Twin B is accelerating away from you. Their time dilation is caused by their relative speed to one another. A third twin on a different trajectory would have a 3rd reference frame and age at a 3rd rate. It's in fact, impossible for the 3 to be in the same reference frame. We are all, always, slightly out of sync with each other. But at every day speeds the effect is basically null. If twin B looked at twin C he could calculate twin C's relative velocity and predict C's age and all the math would line up and agree with what Twin A was seeing.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2014
But it's still not an satisfactory answer. Why is one accelerating then and not the other?


Well, it may not be satisfactiory to *you*, but mathematically it is. What you are neglecting here is that the moving twin changes reference frame twice and the second time is where all the really counterintuitive stuff happens. The static twin doesn't change his RF.

BTW, I'm in the camp that doesn't buy into Mach's principle.

In other words, if the earth was suddenly kicked up in motion and started gaining on the spaceship, the spaceship must feel an acceleration in a universe where only the earth and the ship exist.
This is a frequent error when falling back on Mach's: you CAN'T accelerate either one or the other but have only the two exist. In all cases this neglects the reaction mass needed for the acceleration, reaction mass that never disapears (or you would be violating conservation of momentum). That's why in your example here the spaceship doesn't feel an acceleration.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
What you are neglecting here is that the moving twin changes reference frame twice and the second time is where all the really counterintuitive stuff happens.


The laws of physics MUST be the same within all inertial reference frames. Consider two clockmakers born within two inertial reference frames moving with a speed v relative to one another, and who both build the same atomic clocks. Since the laws of physics must be the same within the two inertial reference frames, the two clocks MUST keep the same time rate: Thus when the two clockmakers pass one another and synchronise their clocks, then surely these two clocks must keep the exact same time ad infinitum.

One clockmaker has a twin who accelerates until he moves with the same speed as the second clockmaker; and then stops . This twin has now changed reference frame. Now you are claiming that just because the twin has changed reference frames the clock of the second clockmaker is now out of sync! Absurd!!
douglaskostyk
5 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2014
The laws of physics MUST be the same within all inertial reference frames.


things change when you ACCELERATE to a different inertial reference frame. Only the twin that changes reference frame will experience the acceleration.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2014

BTW, I'm in the camp that doesn't buy into Mach's principle.


Actually, we don't have to go that far:

During the turnaround, the traveling twin is in an accelerated reference frame. According to the equivalence principle, the traveling twin may analyze the turnaround phase as if the stay-at-home twin were freely falling in a gravitational field and as if the traveling twin were stationary.

(...)

The mechanism for the advancing of the stay-at-home twin's clock is gravitational time dilation.

http://en.wikiped...rinciple

So I was kinda right. The reason of the asymmetry is because one of the twins is near a larger mass.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2014

BTW, I'm in the camp that doesn't buy into Mach's principle.


Actually, we don't have to go that far:

During the turnaround, the traveling twin is in an accelerated reference frame. According to the equivalence principle, the traveling twin may analyze the turnaround phase as if the stay-at-home twin were freely falling in a gravitational field and as if the traveling twin were stationary.

(...)

The mechanism for the advancing of the stay-at-home twin's clock is gravitational time dilation.

http://en.wikiped...rinciple

So I was kinda right. The reason of the asymmetry is because one of the twins is near a larger mass.


Sorry, but no. Even if the "stay at home" twin stays at home in a small station in deep interstellar space the "paradox" will unfold in exactly the same way.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
The laws of physics MUST be the same within all inertial reference frames.


things change when you ACCELERATE to a different inertial reference frame. Only the twin that changes reference frame will experience the acceleration.


There is no experimental proof that acceleration will keep the twin younger than his brother who stays at home or that he will be younger when he arrives within another inertial reference frame in which the time is synchronously the same than in the reference frame from which he came.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
The laws of physics MUST be the same within all inertial reference frames.


things change when you ACCELERATE to a different inertial reference frame. Only the twin that changes reference frame will experience the acceleration.


There is no experimental proof that acceleration will keep the twin younger than his brother who stays at home or that he will be younger when he arrives within another inertial reference frame in which the time is synchronously the same than in the reference frame from which he came.


Wrong: http://math.ucr.e..._paradox
shavera
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2014
Okay folks, check your definitions: An inertial reference frame is one in which Newton's laws hold true. When one accelerates, *they are no longer in an inertial frame*. We don't throw the word in there arbitrarily. And it is *entirely* because of that fact we can distinguish between "older" and younger twins.

Supposing one twin takes off and never returns (or two ships pass each other with synchronized clocks at passing), then yes, it's entirely fine for both observers to disagree with each other's measure of time. No paradox exists in such a case. We simply note there are no universal rulers or clocks.

But when there's a non-inertial frame of some kind, either relative to some gravitational effect or due to an acceleration of one or both observers, then by necessity, the observers will find that one measure is different than the other when they return together.

Why does this matter? Because you can *always* tell locally when you're undergoing acceleration.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014

Wrong: http://math.ucr.e..._paradox


Please stop quoting Haefele and Keating: They did not test motion in gravity free space and acceleration and deceleration in gravity-free space. Their results are thus worthless when it comes to the interpretation of Special Relativity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
An inertial reference frame is one in which Newton's laws hold true.
Also Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

When one accelerates, *they are no longer in an inertial frame*.
Einstein extended inertial reference-frames to the case where you have acceleration. The laws of physics are still the same except that the acceleration is now interpreted as a force of gravity.

He then contradicted himself, just as he did when he interpreted the time-formula in Special Theory of Relativity as time-dilation, by arguing that time slows down in a gravitational field. It does not: Only the speed of light slows down as it must when it approaches a body with mass.

The latter has nothing to do with curved space-time (space-time cannot exist since it violates the mathematics of manifolds) whatsoever, but with the wave-nature of light and matter. The electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of an EM wave changes within a gravitational field.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
@johanfprins

First, I thought you were only going to post at ResearchGate in the future. That's what you said here.

http://phys.org/n...ong.html

Second, I would like to know what will happen if these experiments end up confirming relativity (as usual). Will you finally acknowledge that you were incorrect, or at least possibly incorrect?
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2014

Wrong: http://math.ucr.e..._paradox


Please stop quoting Haefele and Keating: They did not test motion in gravity free space and acceleration and deceleration in gravity-free space. Their results are thus worthless when it comes to the interpretation of Special Relativity.

There is no place in the universe that is free of gravity.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
@Eikka

Locality is the key here.

In order to decelerate the non-earthbound twin would have to experience force. The easiest thing to consider is that the twin fires some thrusters and experiences deceleration. However, this would also have the consequence of locally altering the other twin's experience of space and time. The earthbound twin experiences no such decelerating force, and so his local notion of space and time remains unchanged. This local alteration of space and time is what drives the lack of aging in the non-earthbound twin.

Now, you might contend that SR does not address acceleration (which I would disagree with), but it doesn't matter, because it is definitely true that SR addresses impulse, which is just the discrete version of force. Indeed, relativistic momentum, force and energy, can be derived by a thought experiment involving elastic collisions. The impulse is local, so the same argument applies.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
Please stop quoting Haefele and Keating


Please stop promoting pseudoscience.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
@johanfprins

First, I thought you were only going to post at ResearchGate in the future. That's what you said here.
That is what I should do since on ResearcGate the people do not hide like criminals behind false names as is done on this forum. But one can understand this since most of the people who post here are, like you, are jackasses: However, there are also people which are not as dishonest and stupid as you are, who read this forum: I have to sometimes jump in to point out that they should not take a jackass like you seriously.

Second, I would like to know what will happen if these experiments end up confirming relativity (as usual). Will you finally acknowledge that you were incorrect, or at least possibly incorrect?
I always accept experimental results provided the experiment is clean and intelligent. The Haefele and Keating experiment does not fall within this category, Neither do I know of any other experiments that do when it comes to "time-dilation"
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
@ Gawad,

You are the one who is promoting Voodoo science. Give me the experimental proof where a clock has been travelling in a straight-line within gravity free space and it was found that it kept slower time than a clock relative to which it is moving. You cannot, but you claim that it is so.

If you cannot get a region that is truly free of gravity, the experiment must be done within constant gravity environment using rectilinear motion. Once you have to make corrections for aeroplane acceleration, change in gravity, the Sagnac effect, etc. any conclusion drawn is suspect.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
Locality is the key here.

Now, you might contend that SR does not address acceleration (which I would disagree with), but it doesn't matter, because it is definitely true that SR addresses impulse, which is just the discrete version of force. Indeed, relativistic momentum, force and energy, can be derived by a thought experiment involving elastic collisions.
Why do this when one can derive the relativistic momentum, force and energy directly from Newton's second law without assuming an impulse?

The impulse is local, so the same argument applies.
So you are arguing that the impulse changes the time, NOT the rectilinear motion. Thus you are stating that a twin that accelerates by an impulse, decelerates by an impulse and return by an impulse will be younger than his twin. And that this age difference is not caused by the length of time that the one twin moved rectilinearly relative to the other before returning. Correct?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
That is what I should do since on ResearcGate the people do not hide like criminals behind false names as is done on this forum."

And yet, you don't do it...
However, there are also people which are not as dishonest and stupid as you are, who read this forum.

An enjoyable activity of mine is to read your comments and imagine that you are the Chamberlain Skesis from Dark Crystal while saying them. Sorry, what were you saying?
I always accept experimental results provided the experiment is clean and intelligent.

Like...the experiment proposed in this article?
The Haefele and Keating experiment does not fall within this category

...Which is not the experiment proposed in this article.
Neither do I know of any other experiments that do when it comes to "time-dilation"

...

You didn't answer my question. Let me be more explicit, if the experiment proposed in this article confirms SR (as usual), will you accept that you are incorrect (even possibly)?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
The Haefele Keating experiment does not confirm time dilation as interpreted by Einstein at all: Just as the observation of the motion of the planets from earth do not confirm epicycles at all.

The Haefele Keating experiment is a stupid experiment which only proves that the speed of light varies with gravity, and since the time measured by an atomic clock is determined by the speed of light. This changes the time on the clocks NOT SR at all. I can construct a clock that will keep faster time when gravity increases. This states nothing about space-time.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
Why do this when one can derive the relativistic momentum, force and energy directly from Newton's second law without assuming an impulse?


You can do that. Indeed, I personally think it is much more instructive (and probably physically relevant) to derive those quantities from continuously applied force. In fact, in the paragraph you omitted in the quote, I first argued that the asymmetry arises because one twin experiences a force while the other doesn't.
So you are arguing that the impulse changes the time, NOT the rectilinear motion.

I cannot answer this because I don't know what you mean.
And that this age difference is not caused by the length of time that the one twin moved rectilinearly relative to the other before returning. Correct?

Whose length of time?
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2014
the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.
Wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?
charlimopps
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.
Wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?


The theoretical "Quantum foam" continuously creates Particle/anti-particle pairs. Normally these destroy one another. When something like a blackholes even horizon (hawking radiation), or in this case the magnetic mirror, takes one of the particles out of the system, it's anti-particle doesn't get destroyed. In a blackhole the antiparticle is trapped on the bad side of the event horrizon so the blackhole does lose or gain mass/energy because it's absorbed. In the case of the mirror it most likely reacts with part of the detector and so yes, the mirror would lose energy.
charlimopps
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
The Haefele Keating experiment does not confirm time dilation as interpreted by Einstein at all: Just as the observation of the motion of the planets from earth do not confirm epicycles at all.

The Haefele Keating experiment is a stupid experiment which only proves that the speed of light varies with gravity, and since the time measured by an atomic clock is determined by the speed of light. This changes the time on the clocks NOT SR at all. I can construct a clock that will keep faster time when gravity increases. This states nothing about space-time.


Atomic clocks have nothing to do with the speed of light. They measure the resonant frequency of which ever atom they happen to be using to keep time. All elements have a different resonance and it has nothing to do with the speed of light.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
In fact, in the paragraph you omitted in the quote, I first argued that the asymmetry arises because one twin experiences a force while the other doesn't.
I have not denied this asymmetry: It has already been accounted for by Galileo's inertia. But you are arguing that it is this asymmetry which causes the change in age, and NOT the formula t'=(gamma)*t when there is no asymmetry while the twins are moving with a constant speed. Correct?
So you are arguing that the impulse changes the time, NOT the rectilinear motion.

I cannot answer this because I don't know what you mean.
I have just now reframed it. I think the meaning is crystal clear!
And that this age difference is not caused by the length of time that the one twin moved rectilinearly relative to the other before returning. Correct?
Whose length of time? The SAME length of time that expired simultaneously within each reference frame.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
Atomic clocks have nothing to do with the speed of light. They measure the resonant frequency of which ever atom they happen to be using to keep time. All elements have a different resonance and it has nothing to do with the speed of light.
This resonant frequency is given by the light that the atom emits: And for any coherent-light wave (a photon-wave is one) one has that (omega)=c*k. Thus when the speed of light changes, (omega) changes. Have you ever solved Maxwell's equations? Or have you never heard of them?
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2014
I have not denied this asymmetry: It has already been accounted for by Galileo's inertia.

True
But you are arguing that it is this asymmetry which causes the change in age, and NOT the formula t'=(gamma)*t when there is no asymmetry while the twins are moving with a constant speed. Correct?

No, I am not arguing that. First, I was responding to Eikka because he/she was having difficulty understanding where the asymmetry in the situation comes from. Second, I explicitly said that the deceleration that the non-earthbound twin experiences causes his local notion of space-time to change. Not all of the universe is decelerated--just the traveling twin. This is what breaks the asymmetry of the aging in the twins.
If neither twin decelerates, each will physically interact with the other as if the other has aged more slowly.
charlimopps
3 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
Atomic clocks have nothing to do with the speed of light. They measure the resonant frequency of which ever atom they happen to be using to keep time. All elements have a different resonance and it has nothing to do with the speed of light.
This resonant frequency is given by the light that the atom emits: And for any coherent-light wave (a photon-wave is one) one has that (omega)=c*k. Thus when the speed of light changes, (omega) changes. Have you ever solved Maxwell's equations? Or have you never heard of them?


Do you usually win arguments with insult? You're the one trying to upend science in the comments section of a news article, so I believe the burden of proof is on you, with the whole of science against you.

Are you going to link me to some peer reviewed studies on your inane ideas? Or are you just making this garbage up as you go along?
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
@ Gawad,

You are the one who is promoting Voodoo science.


There's no problem with Hafele and Keating nor with Vessot or Alley, you're just not equipped to understand them. Case closed. I responded to Eikka's questions with essentially the same answers as Furlong, and it's not my intention to get into an argument with a drug-crazed felon like you. Have a better one.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2014
But you are arguing that it is this asymmetry which causes the change in age, and NOT the formula t'=(gamma)*t when there is no asymmetry while the twins are moving with a constant speed. Correct?

No, I am not arguing that.

If neither twin decelerates, each will physically interact with the other as if the other has aged more slowly.


The latter means that neither has aged! So why do you state that you are not arguing that it is only the asymmetry which is causing the age difference and not different ageing while they are moving within a constant speed relative to another? According to my understanding this is precisely what you are arguing.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2014
This resonant frequency is given by the light that the atom emits: And for any coherent-light wave (a photon-wave is one) one has that (omega)=c*k. Thus when the speed of light changes, (omega) changes. Have you ever solved Maxwell's equations? Or have you never heard of them?


Do you usually win arguments with insult?
I was not trying to insult you but was only astonished that you obviously have never heard about k=(omega)/c.

You're the one trying to upend science in the comments section of a news article, so I believe the burden of proof is on you,
I agree! And I have and am supplying the proof.

with the whole of science against you.
Not "the science" but the dogmatic buffoons who think they know science when they just repeat the accepted dogma like a bunch of brainless parrots.

Are you going to link me to some peer reviewed studies on your inane ideas?


Try: Physics Essays 26 (2013) 59, Physics Essays 27 (2014) 38-54
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2014
I responded to Eikka's questions with essentially the same answers as Furlong, and it's not my intention to get into an argument with a drug-crazed felon like you. Have a better one.


Obviously you cannot, since you do not know your physics! No wonder you post anonymously. This is what people always do when they know they are incompetent!
Z99
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
For those confused by the path this thread has taken, I advise the following:
1. Ignore johanfprins. Also ignore any wasting time replying to his logic-chopping. SR and GR have been confirmed to high degrees of accuracy and precision, and they remain VERY good approximations to the "way the Universe works".
2. Note that the "twin paradox" is not well defined here. Simple examples use a traveling twin moving at a constant speed near the speed of light (no acceleration). This isn't possible, at some point the traveler MUST accelerate away from her birthplace (Earth) to reach high speed relative to it. The fact that the twins see light from one emitting it (or sound, etc.) at different times, is indisputable, but has nothing to do with the real twin paradox, signal-lag effect is irrelevant. Simple correct twin paradox assumes either 1) acceleration then decceleration (return) OR 2) acceleration, coasting, then decceleration (return) of ONE twin. So assume no communication till return.
Z99
3.8 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
3. It is NOT true (in the absense of huge gravity fields - meaning SR ) that the two twins are equivalent. You can ALWAYS tell (given the right equipment) that you are either accelerating or not accelerating. Acceleration causes a force you will FEEL.
4. So the twin on Earth, (ignoring the effect of the Earth's gravity, orbital motions, etc.), KNOWS he is in constant motion (inertial motion), and the traveling twin KNOWS she is accelerating (or deccelerating, as the case may be...decceleration is just acceleration in the opposite direction, btw).
5. For the two twins, both at constant velocity (whatever it is), you need to consider the distance between them as important in determining what they will see when they meet. In order for them to meet (again), one MUST accelerate. It is the acceleration in the distance between them that 'slows' one clock so that the one on Earth has lived much longer than the one traveling. It is just as true to say the one traveling has lived less.
Z99
3.8 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
6. "Slows" the clock is really a bad way of putting it: BOTH twins experience one second for every second their clocks tick off. Its just that when they get together again, after one has accelerated out to far far away and then come back, then that twin will have had less ticks tocked up on her clock. She will be physically younger, with fewer memories, than her now older more experienced, more decrepit, twin.
7. The paradox is usually sneaked into this scenario by assuming no acceleration is needed and so by asserting that the twins ONLY differ by their velocity, each moving with exactly the same speed relative to the other. This is the false premise. One accelerates, one doesn't - thats a huge difference.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
The latter means that neither has aged!

No it doesn't.
Just apply the Lorentz transformation to see how this works. Imagine that after each second, a personal light goes off. For you, my light will go off at point -vt*gamma and time t*gamma. But I will measure your light as happening at vt'*gamma and time t'*gamma. If you have some friend at rest with you, some distance x'=-vt' away (so that he is right next to me when his light goes off), you will see him age at the same time you age, so to you, his light will also go off at t'. Well, I will see his light go off at x=(x'+vt')*gamma = 0, t=(t'+x'v/c^2)*gamma = t'*(1-v^2/c^2)*gamma = t'/gamma. So, when I am at age t'/gamma, I will measure your friend to be at age t'. You and your friend will both agree that I am at age t'/gamma at time t'. Furthermore, I will agree with your friend that I am at that age (since I saw his light go off at t'/gamma, signifying he was at age t'). There is no contradiction.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2014
Where did this certifiable IDIOT come from? Zephyr? Is it YOU again?

6. "Slows" the clock is really a bad way of putting it: BOTH twins experience one second for every second their clocks tick off.
Bravo!! Thus they do not age relative to one another! Correct?

Its just that when they get together again, after one has accelerated out to far far away and then come back, then that twin will have had less ticks tocked up on her clock. She will be physically younger, with fewer memories, than her now older more experienced, more decrepit, twin.
Why far far away? Prove this by using STR! You cannot,

. The paradox is usually sneaked into this scenario by assuming no acceleration is needed and so by asserting that the twins ONLY differ by their velocity, each moving with exactly the same speed relative to the other. This is the false premise. One accelerates, one doesn't - thats a huge difference.
Why does this make a difference?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2014
Just apply the Lorentz transformation to see how this works. Imagine that after each second, a personal light goes off.
As usual, you have it all wrong! When the light goes off at t' another person in my reference frame who is coincident with this light will also see it going off at time t'. Since his/her clock is in the same reference frame as my clock, my clock will also show t' at that instant in time: However, relative to me the Lorentz transformation gives that t=(gamma)*t': A LATER TIME.

I do not experience this light at the same coincident time, when it is emitted simultaneously within my reference frame and the moving reference frame (as can be attested to by my friend within my reference frame who coincides with the moving clock/light when the light is emitted); but at a later time t; WHICH IS ALO THE SAME ON BOTH CLOCKS. The simultaneous event is observed by me to be non-simultaneous since I am not coincident with the event. The clocks keep exactly the same time!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2014
When the light goes off at t' another person in my reference frame who is coincident with this light will also see it going off at time t'

If you mean that you and your friend are at rest with each other, and you both see the same event, both of you will agree that this event happened at the same time, then yes. However, that does not mean that the originator of the event (who might not be at rest with you and your friend) agrees that it happened at the same time. I covered this in my explanation.
However, relative to me the Lorentz transformation gives that t=(gamma)*t': A LATER TIME.

But the light went off at your friend's position (who I assume you also agree was passing me at the moment), not yours, so that is not the correct transformation.
You would have seen the event happen at (x'=-vt', t'), not (x'=0,t'). Using the correct transformation, I would have seen this occur at (-vt' + vt')*gamm = 0 and (t' -(v^2)t'/c^2)*gamma = t'/gamma. So, you are not correct
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
If you mean that you and your friend are at rest with each other, and you both see the same event, both of you will agree that this event happened at the same time, then yes.
Good, you are getting there, albeit VERY slowly.

However, that does not mean that the originator of the event (who might not be at rest with you and your friend) agrees that it happened at the same time.
WRONG! The originator of the event must be at the position of the event, and is thus coincident with my friend: Therefore their clocks will show the same time.

This originator is stationary within the RF moving past, and therefore his friend at the origin of this "moving" RF will also see the same time. Only I, at the origin of my "stationary" RF will conclude that the event must have occurred at a later time t=(gamma)*t'. However, after the event I can walk over to my friend who was coincident with the event, and I will find that the event actually did occur at the time t' within my RF.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Good, you are getting there, albeit VERY slowly.

mmmMMMMMmmmmmmm...
WRONG! The originator of the event must be at the position of the event, and is thus coincident with my friend: Therefore their clocks will show the same time.

That does not follow.
This originator is stationary within the RF moving past...

No...you are mixing up people in this thought experiment. I see you and your friend moving. I am at the origin of my IRF. You are at the origin of yours. Your friend is passing me. I am the one who originates the light.
Even if your friend originates the light, though, I will see it at t'/gamma, and your friend will see it at t'. Conversely, if I see you emit a light at t, you will seen it happen at t/gamma. Indeed, even if I see my light go off at t'/gamma and see a light at your position go off at the same time, you will see yours go off at t'/(gamma^2) and mine go off at t'. Your friend will agree with you (not me) on both lights too.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
@johanfprins
There is no contradiction. You and your friend who are in the same IRF agree on the time and position of all events. I and anyone at rest with me will agree on the time and position of all events. You and your friend will agree that I measure those events differently than you do. I and my friends will agree that you measure those events differently than we do.
There would only be a contradiction if two people in the same IRF disagreed on when or where an event occured.
Think of it another way. If I see you passing 40mph to the left, you will see yourself as not moving at all. We disagree on how quickly you are moving, and yet, there is no contradiction. The same is true for this situation, except the things we disagree on are not velocity, but the time and place of events.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
@johanfprins
There would only be a contradiction if two people in the same IRF disagreed on when or where an event occurred.
Instead of correcting all your wrong derivations, I will concentrate on this sentence.

I am at the origin 0 of my reference frame and my friend is at a position x=X from me. You are at 0' within the moving reference-frame. You pass my friend at a time t' on your clock and cause an event when you coincide with my friend. Clearly the time that my friend experiences the event must be t' since one cannot have two different times simultaneously at the same position in space.

From my perspective at 0, I observe the event at time t=(gamma)*t'. Thus, although I and my friend are stationary within the same inertial reference frame, we differ on the time at which the event occurred.

This means that your statement above is wrong: Unless two different times can manifest simultaneously at the same position in space. The latter is clearly absurd.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Clearly the time that my friend experiences the event must be t' since one cannot have two different times simultaneously at the same position in space.

No, not "clearly". My experience of time is not necessarily the same as your friend's experience of time. That's the whole point!
Ok, let's place the origin of your IRF at your friend instead of at yourself, and assume that your friend's clock and my clock are synchronized at the moment we pass, at 0 seconds. I see you passing to the right.

From the Lorentz transformation:
Me: t = 0, x = 0
You and Friend: t' = (0 - 0*v/c^2)*gamma = 0, x' = (0 - v*0)*gamma = 0

So, everybody agrees that I and your friend passed each other at the origin, and at the same time.
Now, 1 s afterwards, I emit a light.
From the transformation:
Me: t = 1 s, x = 0
You and Friend: t' = (1 s - 0*v/c^2)*gamma = 1 s*gamma, x'=(0-v*1 s/c^2)*gamma = -v* 1 s*gamma/c^2
You and your friend still agree on when that light was emitted, but I don't.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
Clearly the time that my friend experiences the event must be t' since one cannot have two different times simultaneously at the same position in space.


Oh my J**** f****** H. C***** (pardon my French)! So *THIS* s your problem? You think because 2 people share the same *locality* they must share the same RF? And *YOU* accuse others of not understanding physics? Wow, just wow. That just beats all. And I was wondering how everything that has been painstakingly explained to you over the years could remain so opaque to you. Now it falls into place. No wonder you're so nasty with your betters; you just can't "see the image in the stereogram", can't you, and you hate them for it. Well, at least that one comment of yours was bloody enlightening!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Oh my J**** f****** H. C***** (pardon my French)!

Haha. This has been my internal monologue for a while.
So *THIS* s your problem? You think because 2 people share the same *locality* they must share the same RF?

I am not sure if it is that he thinks that they must share the same RF, or more that he thinks that when two people occupy the same space-time position that means that they must always agree on the coordinates of that space-time position. What really baffles me is his claim that two people at rest in the same RF will disagree on the simultaneity of events.
I would like to know what he thinks would happen if only he and his friend were present in the scenario, at rest with each other. Would they still disagree if his friend witnessed a flash at this position? Would they only disagree on when it occurred because some third party happened to be passing by at the moment? Either way, the implications are nonsensical!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
From my perspective at 0, I observe the event at time t=(gamma)*t'. Thus, although I and my friend are stationary within the same inertial reference frame, we differ on the time at which the event occurred.

Actually, this raises an interesting point. Suppose you are correct, and you and your friend differ on the time the event occurred. Then, what would happen if only you and your friend were present in the scenario, and you were still at rest with each other?
Would you both still disagree on when the event occurred? Would you only disagree when a moving party was present?
It seem silly that your disagreement should depend on whether there was a 3rd moving party present, so let's assume that you and your friend always just disagree on when things happen when you are far apart. Well, both of your clocks are synchronized and move at the same rate. So, this too is nonsensical. So, there is no way that you could be correct.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
Clearly the time that my friend experiences the event must be t' since one cannot have two different times simultaneously at the same position in space.

No, not "clearly". My experience of time is not necessarily the same as your friend's experience of time. That's the whole point!


Thus when you coincide with my friend and explode a bomb (kamikaze style) only YOU will blow up! My friend will move on to a position z=(gamma)*(vt') and only then blow up at a later time t=(gamma)*t'? Are you all there? Or does this insane ability to argue illogically run in your family? Have one of your forefathers been a Cardinal in the Vatican when Galileo alive?

Gawad has already demonstrated time an again that he is a brainless idiot. Are YOU also one?
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
Gawad has already demonstrated time an again that he is a brainless idiot. Are YOU also one?

Yeah, yeah, Jonny. Down boy.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
@ Furlong and Gawad,

You are stating that YOU and my friend blow up simultaneously at two different times t' and t? LOL. Define what simultaneous means.

Both of you are totally demented! It is no use to state it to you since demented people like you think that they are rational. I pity you both! Logic is definitely NOT within your bloodlines!
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
@ Furlong and Gawad,

You are stating that YOU and my friend blow up simultaneously at two different times t' and t? LOL. Define what simultaneous means.

Both of you are totally demented! It is no use to state it to you since demented people like you think that they are rational. I pity you both! Logic is definitely NOT within your bloodlines!


Skippy why you don't let the smart peoples try to teach you something? If you want to pretend to be the scientist maybe you should do it on a site where there are no peoples who know the real science stuffs. Now if you don't stop with the name calling and outbursts and disruptions Cher, I might just have to send you to the corner with the silly looking pointy cap on your head, eh?

I'll be watching you johnpringle-Skippy.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Thus when you coincide with my friend and explode a bomb (kamikaze style) only YOU will blow up!

And so will your friend.
My friend will move on to a position z=(gamma)*(vt') and only then blow up at a later time t=(gamma)*t'?

No, he will blow up at the same space-time point that I blow up (but we disagree on the coordinate). In fact, even if we synchronize our origins, our coordinate spaces will still differ.
Let me be more explicit.
When your friend is killed by the explosion, he thinks he's aged t'. Just before this, he notes that my age is t'/gamma. You agree with him on this. I agree that he has aged t'.
When I am killed by this same explosion, I also agree that he is aged t', and my age is t'/gamma.
After that, I and your friend are both dead. In your IRF, we were killed at t'. In mine, we were killed at t'/gamma. As the last one alive, you saw it happen at t', but you also know that I thought it happened at t'/gamma.
There is no contradiction.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
No, he will blow up at the same space-time point that I blow up (but we disagree on the coordinate).
How the EFFEN HELL can you blow up at the SAME space-time coordinate but disagree about the coordinate?
] In fact, even if we synchronize our origins, our coordinate spaces will still differ.
If they do it is EFFEN impossible to blow up at the same position and time, as you have just conceded that must happen!
When your friend is killed by the explosion, he thinks he's aged t'. Just before this, he notes that my age is t'/gamma. You agree with him on this.
BULLSHIT!!!
There is no contradiction.
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny? So if I "think" I am older than another person when the same bomb explodes at the same coordinates at which we are at the same time, we will experience the blast at different times!! Really, Even a brainless person like you can think of a better argument than this!
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
How the EFFEN HELL can you blow up at the SAME space-time coordinate but disagree about the coordinate?

If they do it is EFFEN impossible to blow up at the same position and time, as you have just conceded that must happen!

BULLSHIT!!!

LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny? So if I "think" I am older than another person when the same bomb explodes at the same coordinates at which we are at the same time, we will experience the blast at different times!! Really, Even a brainless person like you can think of a better argument than this!


johnpringle-Skippy I got the bad karma points for you. This physorg is the family friendly place and you are disrupting the peace. Into the corner with the silly looking pointy cap you couyon. Pipe your you down and quit interfering with the smart peoples trying to teach you something. These peoples know the science stuff and you are making it hard on them to explain what they know.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny? So if I "think" I am older than another person when the same bomb explodes at the same coordinates at which we are at the same time, we will experience the blast at different times!! Really, Even a brainless person like you can think of a better argument than this!

He's not trying to be funny, this is *run of the mill SR*: Anyone who's done even elementary work in SR will understand that that while a bomb could well kill two people together in a given local space (as in your example), depending on their individual routes through spacetime, each of them might not agree on how much time has elapsed since they were born when the bomb goes off, even if they were born at the same time.

All you're doing here is explicitly demonstrating that you don't understand Relativity and Lorentz transformations. Have you ever hear of Minkowski space or solved problems in Minkowski space? Well there you go.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
we will experience the blast at different times!! Really, Even a brainless person like you can think of a better argument than this!


No, that's *exactly* the point he's trying to get through your THICK HEAD: going back to the example of the twins, that's exactly what happens: the bomb goes off and kills them both TOGETHER, but each of them dies after a different elapsed time, one twin could be age 20 (the "travelling" twin) and the other age 40 (the "static" twin). So in effect, yes, they do die at "different times" as far as each one of them is concerned, even when they die together.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
You are stating that YOU and my friend blow up simultaneously at two different times t' and t? LOL. Define what simultaneous means.


HERE try THIS: http://www.pitt.e...dex.html

To quote: "you will see that this is the central adjustment Einstein made to our understanding of space and time in special relativity . Once you grasp it, everything else makes sense. (And until you do, nothing quite makes sense!)"

Oh my, how "à propos"! (Again, excuse my French, ça pourrais être prire, au moins c'est pas du Chiac ;)

The only way out of this, the only way you'd be right is to postulate a variable speed of light. And that, Johnny, that ain't in the cards.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
How the EFFEN HELL can you blow up at the SAME space-time coordinate but disagree about the coordinate?

No, they blow up at the same space-time point, not the same space-time coordinate. Those are two different things. You can imagine two minkowski coordinate systems as being reproductions of the same picture, but with differently sized dimensions. No matter how much you align the reproductions at a single point, overall, the reproductions will not line up. But they are still of the same picture. Furthermore, the contents of the picture depends on this fact.
If they do it is EFFEN impossible to blow up at the same position and time, as you have just conceded that must happen!

But they do blow up at the same space-time point. Two co-moving objects just won't necessarily agree on the coordinate of that point, no matter how hard they try.
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny?

No, but I am trying to be patient.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Oh my, how "à propos"! (Again, excuse my French, ça pourrais être prire, au moins c'est pas du Chiac ;).


@ Gawad-Skippy, ol Ira don't understand the prayer you said. Maybe in du Chiac the prire mean another thing? Or maybe what you mean is the "ça pourrais être pire" as in the "it could be worse", In the Cajun french and the Paris french "prire" means prayer and the "pire" means worse. With them Canadian Skippys is no telling what they means all the the time.

No that the johnpringle-Skippy would be able to understand in anyway because he don't seem to understand much.

Ol Ira, can understand the Paris french and the Cajun french because us coonass is smart like that. But the Paris Skippys can't understand the Cajun french or they pretend like they can't understand, but going by their expression on their face when I cuss them good in the Cajun I think they understand better then they say they do.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Gawad-Skippy. Good karma points for you.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
@johanfprins

Here's another way to think about this.
Let's say that instead of blowing up, I drop dead, when your friend is passing me at what he perceived to be time t', and he, not knowing my age, does some forensics on my body to determine it. He would find that I would have only been t'/gamma seconds old. So, now, suppose that he wants to double-check, so he does some radiological dating on my corpse. He would find that, once again, I was about t'/gamma years old. No matter what experiment my friend does to determine my age, he will always find that I am t'/gamma seconds old. Now, suppose that, soon after, he drops dead. A person doing forensics or any other measurement on him would find that he was t' seconds old. The results of these experiments would not depend on the IRF.

If nature did things your way, if you remotely measured my age, it would vary depending on how quickly you were moving or how far you were apart from the time of death, which is nonsense.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2014
@ Gawad-Skippy, ol Ira don't understand the prayer you said. Maybe in du Chiac the prire mean another thing? Or maybe what you mean is the "ça pourrais être pire" as in the "it could be worse", In the Cajun french and the Paris french "prire" means prayer and the "pire" means worse. With them Canadian Skippys is no telling what they means all the the time.


Not to offend my Maritime compatriots, but I just ment that "my French could be worse, it could be Chiac." Chiac being the "blend" of French-English often spoken by New Brunswick Acadians. It's jokingly regarded as reflecting an inability to pick one or the other.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny?

No, but I am trying to be patient.


I don't know how you do it, Furlong; you're like some kind of physics Gandhi. Dirac bless you.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Not to offend my Maritime compatriots, but I just ment that "my French could be worse, it could be Chiac." Chiac being the "blend" of French-English often spoken by New Brunswick Acadians. It's jokingly regarded as reflecting an inability to pick one or the other.


Ira-Skippy don't know if they the Maritime Skippys is offended or not no. But they should not be too much. The Cajun french is like that with some mixed in words and it's not so easy to offend us. Except for that Really-Skippy couyon, he offended me when he made the remarks that Ira-Skippy me is a criminal just because he is coonass and peoples should not talk to me because of being the Cajun.

The only time that the Really-Skippy comes around is when he gets the boot at his regular place to pretend he is the BIG CHIEF and science man. He must be taking care with his Q's and P's because he hasn't been around here lately.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Ira-Skippy don't know if they the Maritime Skippys is offended or not no. But they should not be too much. The Cajun french is like that with some mixed in words and it's not so easy to offend us. Except for that Really-Skippy couyon, he offended me when he made the remarks that Ira-Skippy me is a criminal just because he is coonass and peoples should not talk to me because of being the Cajun.

The only time that the Really-Skippy comes around is when he gets the boot at his regular place to pretend he is the BIG CHIEF and science man. He must be taking care with his Q's and P's because he hasn't been around here lately.

You have a fascinating dialect. I got most of it. What does Skippy refer to, though?
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
LOL!!! Are you really totally insane? Or are you trying to be funny?

No, but I am trying to be patient.


I don't know how you do it, Furlong; you're like some kind of physics Gandhi. Dirac bless you.


Heh, thanks. Well, I am clearly a fool for trying to instill some sense in the man. He doesn't even seem to be particularly interested in discussing physics, just insulting people.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
You have a fascinating dialect. I got most of it. What does Skippy refer to, though?


Skippy is just how I call peoples. Like "Dude" or "man" or "guy". I don't mean anything by it. But it seems to bother the really stupid Skippys because they always get mad for me when I use it.

Don't ask me to explain it no, but the smarts peoples don't mind or don't ever tell ol Ira they mind. Like the Captain-Skippy, and the Magnus-Skippy and the Whydening-Skippy and the Q-Skippy and the Otto-Skippy and some more what I am forgetting them, they don't get so upset about my Skippys. But the stupid peoples act like ol Ira said something about their momma or worse, even though they see me call me Ira-Skippy. It is a Louisiana thing maybe. I sometimes use the "Cher" and the "Neg" and the "Podna" the same and not mean nothing by that either.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
If EVER I have come across so many deluded people at one time::

Consider YOU at 0' and ME at 0, and we both have twins who are within our reference frames equal distances x=X and x'=X from 0 and 0''. Thus at t=t'=0, we are coincident and our twins are coincident.

Our twins slap each other when passing one another. They both agree that they are slapping the other guy at the same time t=t'=0. Thus, since the time is the same within each inertial reference frame You at 0' and I at 0 also agree that they slap one another at t=t'=0.

Now transform the slap at x'=X at time t'=0 to get what is observed at 0: You get:

x =G*X and t=G*(v/c^2)*X

Now transform the slap at x=X at time t=0 to get what is observed at 0'

x'=G*X and t'= MINUS*G*(v/c^2)*X

Thus according to YOU, my twin slaps your twin BEFORE YOU and I coincide at time t=t'=0, and also before our twins coincide. How do you explain this in terms of the one doing an autopsy on the other to determine his age; You are insane!!
douglaskostyk
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2014
Simultaneity is relative. This can only be analyzed by comparing intervals, not just a point in space-time. The interval is universal, but the displacement in proper time (age) will be relative.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
Consider YOU at 0' and ME at 0, and we both have twins who are within our reference frames equal distances x=X and x'=X from 0 and 0''. Thus at t=t'=0, we are coincident and our twins are coincident.

Unless you and I are at rest with each other, those initial conditions can never happen. Because of the relativity of simultaneity, when my clock was at 0, I might have measured the twins as being in the same place at t =0, but you, in general, will have not at t' = 0. That does not mean you will never see them touch. Based on our relative motion, you might see them slap each other before, or after I do, but never exactly when I do. Now, here's a very important detail. As you and I pass each other, since the twins are away from us, the physical effects of the slap will not have gotten to either of us yet. They will only get to us after we have passed each other. (to be continued)
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
Now, suppose I receive that information when my clock reads t_s and you receive it when yours reads t_s'. SR dictates that when we use that information to extrapolate when that slap occurred, we will not agree on where or when it occurred. In other words, there is no physical measurement either of us could ever do, which would show that they both slapped each other at the same space-time coordinate.
But, this is ok. Both of us agreed that a twin slap occurred. In fact, everyone agrees that it occurred! There is no contradiction.
And here's the thing, no matter how complicated the physical situation is, (maybe I see 6 people slap each other at the same time), you STILL will not get a contradiction, because in general, people who are moving relative to me will not agree that those slaps happened at the same space-time coordinates. We all will, however, agree that each slap occurred.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
You make me think about an elder in our church who believed that everything was predestined. He used contorted logic to explain why I should still attend church even though God has already predestined whether I will go to heaven or to hell.

You argue: "Both of us agreed that a twin slap occurred. In fact, everyone agrees that it occurred! There is no contradiction." The twins KNOW that it occurred simultaneously at the same time. I agree that I can at my origin only record that the time at which the slap occurred by your twin at a later time on my clock, and you can record that the slap by my twin occurred on your clock at an earlier time than it actually occurred. But this does not mean that the times within the two reference frames are simultaneously different at the instant that the slaps are exchanged. "Simultaneous" means that the times must be the same. Only an insane person will argue that the slaps occurred "simultaneously" at two different times.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
You make me think about an elder in our church who believed that everything was predestined...

mmmMMMMmmmm
The twins KNOW that it occurred simultaneously at the same time.

No, the twins were part of an event in which they slapped each other. Their clocks were not synchronized when this occurred. It is not possible to have a physical situation where both you and I have synchronized our clocks, both of us agree that the the twins have synchronized their clocks at the same time, and the pairs of twins are moving relative to each other.
You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

Furthermore, you never responded to my challenge to your claim that two people at rest with each other would measure the same event as happening at different times.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
@johanfprins
...But this does not mean that the times within the two reference frames are simultaneously different at the instant that the slaps are exchanged. "Simultaneous" means that the times must be the same.

There was one and only one space-time point at which they slapped each other.
There is no physical way to have two people moving relative to each other agree that it happened at the same space-time coordinate by performing physical measurements unless the event happened at each person's space-time origin. Again, it's like two reproductions of the same picture of differently sized length and width. You can always make the pictures match up at one point, but they will never match up at any other point. BUT THEY ARE STILL OF THE SAME PICTURE. Furthermore, the actual contents of that picture depend on the fact that we cannot match up the reproductions.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
@ thefurlong

Now answer the following 2 simple questions:

1. Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?

2. Loooong before clocks were invented, has time been the same at all position points within a SINGLE inertial reference-frame? Yes or No?

These questions are simple: Even a brainless idiot should be able to answer them! So maybe even you can!
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
@ thefurlong

Now answer the following 2 simple questions:

1. Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?

2. Loooong before clocks were invented, has time been the same at all position points within a SINGLE inertial reference-frame? Yes or No?

These questions are simple: Even a brainless idiot should be able to answer them! So maybe even you can!


@ johnpringle-Skippy, you the couyon with the silly looking pointy cap on your head. Why you ask them if you are thinking you are so smart? Or if you think you can't have the answer try the google thing that works for me.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2014
1. Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?

This is irrelevant. Instead of using clocks, people could use radioactively decaying elements to tell time. They could use human fingernail growth. It doesn't matter! All of these things are subject to the assumptions of relativity (and consequential laws thereof). They are all governed by the finite speed of information propagation.
2. Loooong before clocks were invented, has time been the same at all position points within a SINGLE inertial reference-frame? Yes or No?

Well, current evidence seems to indicate that space-time began with a tumultuous explosion, which originated from one point, where all matter and energy was flung every which way, so...I'm going to go with no. But, even if space-time began with everything at rest, spread out over some volume, I don't see what your point is.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
1. Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?

This is irrelevant. Instead of using clocks, people could use radioactively decaying elements to tell time. They could use human fingernail growth. It doesn't matter! All of these things are subject to the assumptions of relativity (and consequential laws thereof). They are all governed by the finite speed of information propagation.


Where have I questioned this? You are getting more and more pathetic!

Your next answer is just pathetic: I did not ask about the creation of our Universe! You are ducking and diving. At least this proves that you are not totally as brainless as you are coming across. You just do not have any honesty or integrity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
@thefurlong

This takes the cake: "There is no physical way to have two people moving relative to each other agree that it happened at the same space-time coordinate by performing physical measurements unless the event happened at each person's space-time origin."

The fact is that the simultaneous slaps did happen at the coincident positions of the twins, thus defining their positions as a space-time origin for the simultaneous slaps that occurred. So why should we accept that our perceptions (when we are not at this space-time origin) of what happened, are correct? You are obviously spouting BS.

What we see are relativistic transformations, and as Galileo has already explained in detail more than 400 years ago, a relativistic transformation is not the same as what is actually happening within the other reference frame.

Furthermore, physics is an experimental science: This means that both you and I can walk afterwards to our twins and confirm that each one was slapped at t=t'=0.
douglaskostyk
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2014
Defining one event in space-time is not the issue, there is a difference in the proper time between two events, and the longer path (accelerated) will experience a shorter proper time.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
Where have I questioned this? You are getting more and more pathetic!

So, you agree that the question, "Time existed looooong before clocks were invented. Yes or No?" is irrelevant then? I am so glad. Perhaps we can move on.
Your next answer is just pathetic.

So you must die, Gelfling! mmmMMMMmmmm.
I did not ask about the creation of our Universe!

Fine, I misunderstood that 2nd question.
If you are asking if the physical situation started out with every single person agreeing that their clock was simultaneously 0, then, no. In fact, this is something you would have to prove.
If you start from this assumption, you get a contradiction. Thus, your assumption is wrong.
We can start with you and me passing at the origin of our respective IRF's, and try to prove that the twins's clocks also agreed as they were passing, but we can't just assume that that's true.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
The fact is that the simultaneous slaps did happen at the coincident positions of the twins, thus defining their positions as a space-time origin for the simultaneous slaps that occurred.

Oye.

Let's start from the beginning.
Here are my assumptions.
1) Everybody is carrying some means of telling the passage of time. Let's call it a clock for convenience's sake.
2) Everybody speaks a different language and hates each other, so there is no way for anybody to conspire to synchronize their clocks, or do anything else for that matter. A person can, however, glance in the direction of another person a distance away and see what time the other person's clock reads. This comes at the price of not immediately knowing what the time on someone's clock reads until after the effect has propagated at the speed of light. All I can do is conduct experiments remotely, using these finitely propagated effects.

(to be continued)
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2014
Well, current evidence seems to indicate that space-time began with a tumultuous explosion, which originated from one point, where all matter and energy was flung every which way, so...I'm going to go with no. But, even if space-time began with everything at rest, spread out over some volume, I don't see what your point is.


I don't think he's being very clear, but I think he may mean "does time elapse at the same rate at all points in a single given RF arbitrarily far back into the past". In which case the answer is yes, since all point share the same RF. I'm not sure that "has time been the same" actually means "does time elapse at the same rate". That's typically vague.
maunas
1 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2014
There is no paradox,the twin who leaves the earth would be younger as: Since many centuries ago, we know the maths of conversion of energy in to force & the reverse. Since about a century we know the maths of conversion of energy into mass & vice versa. We also have the maths of decay of photons into units of spacetime which are constituents of quantum vacuum. Therefore
force, energy, mass, matter, space, time and vacuum are different phases of the same entity and all are quantized. From Einstein's relativity maths,we can know that - 'contraction of 'space' converts 'space' in to time (time dilation) while contraction of 'time' converts 'time' into space.' This indicates that the same entity is changing phase. Since space is expanding, it means that the total potential (magnitude) of time possessed by the universe is decreasing by changing in to space. When the time contained by the universe get's converted fully in to 'space', further expansion of space would 'no more' be possible. Contraction of time means increased velocity of events with simultaneous dilation of space (increase in quantum vacuum), so the universal physical constants do not change. But increase in space (vacuum energy) requires energy, this comes from decay of mass to radiant energy which further deacays to quantum vacuum. The reverse of this process i.e, the process of accretion of mass involves the contraction of space with simultaneous dilation of time. The space between heavenly bodies or particles (with or without mass) which contracts tending to create mass or more mass is the force of gravity.
Contraction of space tends to cause motion and motion tends to cause contraction of space (Force).

The entity 'mass', which provides the energy (or force fields for quantum vacuum) for conversion of time in to space is therefore also the entity 'time'. In this way we see that energy, mass, force, space and time is infact the same entity. The oneness of mass and time is also apparent when they show the same property of dilation with increase in motion.
Motion is therefore conversion of space into time (mass).
Matter is a structure made up of space and time (mass). Acceleration creates mass from space. Resisting the motion of a particle having mass should make it loose mass (energy).Constant motion gives a constant converted amount of space into time (mass). Acceleration goes on creating mass from space (from quantum vacuum force fields/ vacuum energy). All mass produced by acceleration is positive mass. While mass produced by deceleration is negative mass.
The cosmic singularity has a negative mass/energy/time and a negative space/force which equals the positive mass/energy/time and positive space/ force of the universe. Zero mass particle.

thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
(continued)
3) Now, pick a person. I will go with me because I am lovable. I just happen to pass another person, you, and because we hate each other, we slap each other. At the point at which we slap each other, our clocks both read 0 s. Let's say before this point, I was wearing eye patches and ear plugs so that I had no idea where anyone else in the universe was. Just before we passed, I took those ridiculous things off so that I could see and hear properly. In that way, no information about you or the twins got to me before then.
4) Because I hate your and my twins, I also look around for them. In fact, after some time passes, the light from them slapping each other gets to me. Using some physical measurement I determine that that slap, in fact, happened at some point, x, when my clock read 0 s. Not only that, but when I see that when they slapped each other, their clocks read 0 s.
Now, what happens when that same information gets to you?
(to be continued)
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2014
(continued)
Well, the answer is, when the information gets to you, you will find that your clock did not read 0 s!
But I can't just tell you this answer and expect you to believe me, so let me derive it.
Your and my space-time origins coincided the moment we passed and slapped each other. This means that I can use the Lorentz transformation to determine when you would measure the twin slapping event.
For me, it happened at x, t = 0 s
So, using the lorentz transformation, for you the event happened at x' = (x - vt)*gamma = x*gamma, t' = (t - x*v/c^2)*gamma = -x*v*gamma/c^2.

You saw measured that they slapped each other at t' = -x*v*gamma/c^2, which is not 0 s!

So, what conclusion can we draw from this?

Well, assuming that the Lorentz transformation is valid, the only conclusion we can draw is that you measured your clocks not to be synchronized! The two slap events were simultaneous for me, but not for you!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
@ thefurlough,

Thank you for at least making an effort to explain your muddled thinking:

As far as I can ascertain you agree that if YOU are at 0' and I am at 0, then when we pass one another we are sharing the same instant in time, so that if we have clocks we can set them to zero.

It also seems that you agree that within a single inertial reference frame (not looking outside of it as Feynman pointed out), time is the same at every coordinate position. This must surely mean that at the instant that we pass one another, one can assume that all clocks at any position within my reference are at the same time: i.e. t=0; and that all clocks at any position within your inertial reference frame are also at the same instant in time: i.e. t'=0.

It also seems that you agree that my twin can be at a distance x=X from me and your twin can be at a distance x'=X from you, and that this means that when we are passing at time t=t'=0, our twins are also passing one another.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Now assume that both of our twins have a light source, and when they pass one another my twin switches on your twin's light source, and your twin switches on my twin's light source. You and I are not at their position and can only deduce from the light coming from the two sources what has happened.

Your twin's light source is at x'=X from you, and the light will thus reach you after a time interval that T'=X/c. Thus you can confidently conclude that my twin switched on your twin's light source at a time which required the light to reach you after the time interval T'=X/c.

Similarly, my twin's light source is at x=X from me, and the light will reach me after a time interval T=X/c. Thus, I can confidently conclude that your twin switched on my twin's light source at a time which required the light to reach me after the time interval T=X/c.

We can now radio these times to one another and we find that T'=T. Our clocks showed the SAME time when our respective light signals reached us
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
...so that if we have clocks we can set them to zero.

That was not my assumption. I told you that in this thought experiment, we can't conspire to synchronize our clocks. In this scenario, when we pass and our clocks ARBITRARILY match up. Likewise, then the information about the twin slap gets to me, if it wasn't clear, their clocks ARBITRARILY matched up at 0. We should keep it that way to be sure that there is no human interference with the measurement of time.

within a single inertial reference frame..., time is the same at every coordinate position.

No, two people at rest with each other will always experience time at the same rate. That's all we can be sure of.
one can assume that all clocks at any position within my reference are at the same time

Not in general, no. We know that if they are at rest, they tick at the same rate, but there is no guarantee that they clocks are synchronized. (One clock might be offset by a constant amount)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Thus we can conclude confidently that from t=t'=0 to T=T' our clocks have kept exactly the same time.

However, the light from my twin's light source also reaches you and since this light-source is in another reference frame moving relative to you, you must use the Lorentz transformation to transform the actual coordinates t=0 and x=X within my reference frame when your twin switched on my twin's light-source. You then find that:

X'=G*(X) and t(0)'=G*(-(v/c^2)*X). Thus within your reference frame you conclude that my light switches on at the time t(0)'=MINUS*(v/c^2)*X at the position X'=GX. Thus, the time interval T(0)' it takes the light to reach you is T(0)'=X'/c=(G*X)/c. The time at which the light will reach you is thus T''=T(0)'-t(0)'=G*(1+(v/c))*(X/c). G*(1+v/c) is the Doppler-shift that you must observe since my twin's light source is approaching you. It has NOTHING to do with my clock going slower than your clock, or your clock going slower than my clock..

thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
@johanfprins
We must make the fewest number of assumptions possible in order to be certain that we do not reach an erroneous conclusion.
My assumptions are:
1) The differential equations governing physics do not depend on inertial reference frame.
2) This follows from 1, but all clocks at rest in an IRF tick at the same rate as light clocks
3) The only way to determine the time on a clock that is not right next to you is to use physical measurements on physical effects that traveled from it at the speed of light.

Notice how I don't assume (unlike you) that all clocks in the same IRF NECESSARILY start out synchronized. I might perform several measurements, and find that each clock started out at 0 s when my clock read 0 s, but there is no guarantee that my measurements will actually reflect that. I am, however guaranteed that I will measure each clock at rest with me to tick at the same rate. That's all.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
...so that if we have clocks we can set them to zero.

That was not my assumption.
This is the assumption made in all textbooks on the Special Theory of Relativity. Without this assumption the Lorentz equations will look different.

I told you that in this thought experiment, we can't conspire to synchronize our clocks.
So you are stating that Einstein was wrong when he stated that we must do this in order to derive the Lorentz equations? So you are arguing that Einstein conspired to do the impossible?

In this scenario, when we pass and our clocks ARBITRARILY match up.
Whether our clocks are out of sync has nothing to do with the fact that when we pass one another we share the same instant in time and can therefore, if we have two clocks, set both equal to zero, Whether we have clocks and do this or not does not change the fact that we are at the same instant in time: i.e. that the time at your position is the same as the time at my position.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Likewise, then the information about the twin slap gets to me, if it wasn't clear, their clocks ARBITRARILY matched up at 0.
They do not need clocks to arbitrarily match up. Whether they have clocks or not, they are at the same instant in time that we are when we pass one another, since within a single inertial reference frame (not looking outside) time does not vary with position.

We should keep it that way to be sure that there is no human interference with the measurement of time.
Whether there are clocks and humans changing their settings are irrelevant, since time exists and is the exact same at all positions within an inertial reference frame at any instant in time.

No, two people at rest with each other will always experience time at the same rate. That's all we can be sure of.
How is that possible within the same inertial reference frame? Are you claiming that two events cannot happen simultaneously at the positions of these two people? LOL!
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
This is the assumption made in all textbooks on the Special Theory of Relativity. Without this assumption the Lorentz equations will look different.

What's your point? From my perspective, you don't actually understand the set up of the thought experiment (not trying to be insulting), so I am setting up a slightly different thought experiment where nobody can conspire to synchronize their clocks.
So you are stating that Einstein was wrong when he stated that we must do this in order to derive the Lorentz equations?

No, I am not. You think that's what I am saying because you don't understand the premise of his thought experiment, which is why I am setting up a variant. As long as you accept the assumptions of my variant, then we can proceed. If you can't accept those assumptions, then I must start over, and find a new set of assumptions that we can both agree on. Otherwise, this conversation will continue to go nowhere.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Not in general, no. We know that if they are at rest, they tick at the same rate, but there is no guarantee that they clocks are synchronized. (One clock might be offset by a constant amount)


We are talking about time, not about man-made clocks that can be set to read different times simultaneously.

In nature the time at two positions within an inertial reference frame cannot be simultaneously different. Simultaneous means that the time at the two positions MUST be the same or else the concept of simultaneity becomes oxymoronic.

Even Einstein accepted that within the same inertial reference-frame two events can at any instant in time occur simultaneously at any two different positions. This is not possible if the time is not the same at ALL positions within a SINGLE inertial reference frame. So, according to you, Einstein wrote crap?
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
@johanfprins
Can you please stop invoking Einstein as if it has any bearing on the correctness of an argument? You think you know what Einstein thought, but you just don't. None of us do. We can only read his words, and come to our own conclusions. By invoking his name, it muddles the conversation. It goes without saying that you and I differ greatly by what we think Einstein meant, so keep him out of it.

If you wish to use his assumptions, go right ahead, but please try to argue without invoking his name as if he were some god and you were his prophet. Claim your assumptions as your own. Nobody else's. Ok?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
My assumptions are:
1) The differential equations governing physics do not depend on inertial reference frame.
The same equations are valid within any inertial reference frame, but an experiment within a SINGLE inertial reference frame, which is modelled by these equations within that reference frame, are not observed to be the same within other reference frames. Therefore one needs a relativistic coordinate transformation, since the equations which are valid within your inertial reference frame cannot model this experiment.
3) The only way to determine the time on a clock that is not right next to you is to use physical measurements on physical effects that traveled from it at the speed of light. Are you saying that if man-made clocks at two positions are out of sync, the actual time at those positions are different. In other words, the USA is in the past of Africa and therefore two events cannot occur simultaneously in New York and Cairo?

Are you all there?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
What's your point? From my perspective, you don't actually understand the set up of the thought experiment (not trying to be insulting),
I agree that I am unable to "understand" a thought experiment which is based on impossible assumptions; as your experiment is.

so I am setting up a slightly different thought experiment where nobody can conspire to synchronize their clocks.
Whether there are people who can synchronise man-made clocks or not is irrelevant to the physics, which has been the same long before mankind appeared on this planet.

As long as you accept the assumptions of my variant, then we can proceed. If you can't accept those assumptions, then I must start over, and find a new set of assumptions that we can both agree on.
Find assumptions that are not in denial of reality. To assume that time can be simultaneously different at two different positions within the same inertial reference frame, by invoking man-made clocks, is insanity.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
The same equations are valid within any inertial reference frame, but an experiment within a SINGLE inertial reference frame, which is modelled by these equations within that reference frame, are not observed to be the same within other reference frames...

I don't understand what you are saying here. Please rephrase.
Are you saying that if man-made clocks at two positions are out of sync, the actual time at those positions are different. In other words, the USA is in the past of Africa and therefore two events cannot occur simultaneously in New York and Cairo?

The key word in all this is RELATIVE. When you say "actual time" it is meaningless in this context. Please speak in terms of physical measurements. I am really assuming the least amount possible.
You are in only one place at any time. You can only perform local measurements on remote quantities. All I am talking about is how these measurements behave.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Can you please stop invoking Einstein as if it has any bearing on the correctness of an argument? You think you know what Einstein thought, but you just don't.
I do not think that: I only point out when your absurd assumptions are different from the ones that Einstein made. It is up to you to explain why you are using different assumptions.

It goes without saying that you and I differ greatly by what we think Einstein meant, so keep him out of it.
I am not invoking Einstein by claiming that I know what Einstein meant. But am pointing out when your assumptions are violating what he assumed.

If you wish to use his assumptions, go right ahead, but please try to argue without invoking his name as if he were some god and you were his prophet.
Your absurd assumptions clearly contradicts his assumptions. So you need to explain why? I do not think Einstein is a god: A god would not have proposed time dilation and length-contraction; which are both wrong.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
I agree that I am unable to "understand" a thought experiment which is based on impossible assumptions; as your experiment is.

I would like to know which of those initial assumptions are impossible.
Whether there are people who can synchronise man-made clocks or not is irrelevant to the physics, which has been the same long before mankind appeared on this plane

Agreed! And you'll notice that my thought experiment honors this by having nobody conspire to alter their clocks! So, if you accept this, we can move on.
To assume that time can be simultaneously different at two different positions within the same inertial reference frame, by invoking man-made clocks, is insanity.

This is what you think I assume because you are unable to understand what I am saying. Let me rephrase it.

The only thing anybody can be sure of is the result of local measurements of local and remote quantities. Do you agree?
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
I am not invoking Einstein by claiming that I know what Einstein meant.

Great!
But am pointing out when your assumptions are violating what he assumed.

...Uhh...but you just said "I am not invoking Einstein by claiming to know what Einstein mea--"
Your absurd assumptions clearly contradicts his assumptions.

So...let me get this straight. You don't claim to know what Einstein meant, but, you...wish to point out that I am wrong because you know what Einstein meant...

How about we avoid this particular can of worms and avoid mentioning him, or Feynman, or arbitrary relativity book writers. Claim your assumptions as your own. That's all I have to say about that. From now on, I will only respond to points you make that don't involve invoking authoritative figures. We'll be better off for it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Not surprisingly since you do not have a clue what relativity is all about. Consider a bomb dropped from an aeroplane. It can be modelled by Newton's laws which are valid within the plane in terms of a single force. Relative to earth the bomb is also launched horizontally even though there is no launch-force as required by Newton's laws within the reference frame of earth. Thus this motion can only be found in terms of a relativistic transformation, not in terms of a launch force as required by Newton's laws.

The key word in all this is RELATIVE. When you say "actual time" it is meaningless in this context.
Within a SINGLE inertial reference frame events can occur simultaneously at many different points. It is in principle possible that events can occur simultaneously at ALL the points within this reference frame. This is only possible if at any instant in time, time is the SAME "actual time" at ALL positions.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
I would like to know which of those initial assumptions are impossible.
Please summarise your assumptions so that I do not miss one of them.
And you'll notice that my thought experiment honors this by having nobody conspire to alter their clocks!
But you still use the concept of clocks! So you are not "honoring" anything. You want to deny that when two persons moving relative to one another coincide, they are at the SAME instant in time; whether they have clocks or no clocks is irrelevant.

The only thing anybody can be sure of is the result of local measurements of local and remote quantities. Do you agree?
No I do not agree. My son is in Denver, and I am sure that at a specific instant in time at my position in South Africa, the time at his position is the same. Technical problems of how we can synchronise our clocks have NOTHING to do with this knowledge of which I am damn sure of.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
Consider a bomb dropped from an aeroplane.

Yes, let's do that. In fact, a person on earth would see the bomb follow a parabolic arc, while a person on the plane would see it follow a straight path. OH MY GOD! HOW CAN THIS BE? It can't follow a straight path and a curved path at once! Oh wait...
But when we talk about people measuring the passage of time differently, suddenly it's all mysterious--and wooOOOooo--because my primitive brain can't handle something so unfamiliar. I know! I will just assume that two people measuring time differently must somehow mean that that event happened at two space time points. Yeah...that's the ticket!
And when people try to respectfully reason with me, and point out that that doesn't necessarily follow, well, I will be such an unpleasant, little prick to them, that our conversation will devolve into childish name-calling.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
[q How about we avoid this particular can of worms and avoid mentioning him, or Feynman, or arbitrary relativity book writers. Claim your assumptions as your own. That's all I have to say about that. From now on, I will only respond to points you make that don't involve invoking authoritative figures. We'll be better off for it.

If your assumptions contradict what can be found in textbooks I will point it out, since you then owe an explanation. This does not mean that I agree with all the assumptions one can find in text books: However, you are defending the accepted mainstream dogma as if it is holy scripture, and when I point out that your defence violates your own holy scripture you want to prevent me from quoting what can be found in textbooks. It is up to you to be consistent; if it is possible for you to be.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Consider a bomb dropped from an aeroplane.

Yes, let's do that. In fact, a person on earth would see the bomb follow a parabolic arc, while a person on the plane would see it follow a straight path. OH MY GOD! HOW CAN THIS BE? It can't follow a straight path and a curved path at once! Oh wait...
But when we talk about people measuring the passage of time differently, suddenly it's all mysterious--and wooOOOooo--because my primitive brain can't handle something so unfamiliar.
No it is not that my brain cannot handle this but that this is not correct when the Lorentz transformation applies. The different times and positions obtained from the Lorentz transformation do not demand that two clocks anywhere in inertial space must keep different times. I have given you the proof above in terms of the thought experiment where our twins switch on each other's light sources; You just ignore the impeccable logic since you want to believe otherwise; come what may.

contin
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
It is astonishing that you know that the laws of physics must be the same within each and every inertial reference frame, and you then claim in the next breath that two identical clocks, operating on the same physics laws, will keep different time rates within different inertial reference frames!!

Are you a physicist?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
@charlimopps

Do you usually win arguments with insult? You're the one trying to upend science in the comments section of a news article, so I believe the burden of proof is on you, with the whole of science against you.

Are you going to link me to some peer reviewed studies on your inane ideas? Or are you just making this garbage up as you go along?


I have supplied what you asked after you insulted me. You did not respond which proves that you have no honesty or integrity. Do you have any shame? Or did your parents not instil it in you? Maybe you do not know who your parents are?
thefurlong
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
The different times and positions obtained from the Lorentz transformation do not demand that two clocks anywhere in inertial space must keep different times.

No! They demand sacrifice of filthy Gelfling! mmmMMMMmmm.
I have given you the proof above in terms of the thought experiment where our twins switch on each other's light sources

No...you have given a thought experiment with initial conditions that are not physically possible. As I showed you, in that experiment, if I happen to measure that everybody's clock read 0 s during the two twin slaps, you will measure that your clock read -x*v*gamma/c^2 seconds during the twin slap.
So, the conclusion to draw for this is that you will measure your and your twin's clocks not to have been synchronized during the twin slap. I showed this using the Lorentz transformation. I don't know what you think it's for, if not for that.
In fact, let's take a new approach. What is the Lorentz transformation used for?
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
It is astonishing that you know that the laws of physics must be the same within each and every inertial reference frame, and you then claim in the next breath that two identical clocks, operating on the same physics laws, will keep different time rates within different inertial reference frames!!

No, Johan, you are concluding that from what I am saying, but that is not what I am saying. Two clocks will tick at the same rate in an IRF. This does not preclude them from being offset by a constant amount of time.

Maybe if I write it a hundred more times, in different variations, you will understand. Maybe...
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
No I do not agree. My son is in Denver, and I am sure that at a specific instant in time at my position in South Africa, the time at his position is the same.

So...you have the magical power to...instantaneously look at your son's clock in Denver and be certain that it reads the same time as yours? That's amazing! Why are you hording FTL communication from the rest of us?
Technical problems of how we can synchronise our clocks have NOTHING to do with this knowledge of which I am damn sure of.

No, Johan, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Everything that changes with time can be considered a clock. Everything obeys the same laws of physics. If your clock is keeping some rate, and it is behaving properly (otherwise known as performing physical measurements), YOU ALSO KEEP THAT SAME RATE. It follows that if you can't synchronize clocks in some way, then you can't bloody synchronize anything else in that way!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
No...you have given a thought experiment with initial conditions that are not physically possible. As I showed you, in that experiment, if I happen to measure that everybody's clock read 0 s during the two twin slaps, you will measure that your clock read -x*v*gamma/c^2 seconds during the twin slap.
No I will not be able to do that since I am not at the position of the twins to read my clock. All I know is that the twins are passing one another at time t=t'=0 and can thus only slap one another, or switch on each other's light sources at that instant in time. It am not so dimwitted to think that it can happen when they are not at the same position at the same instant in time.

That this is so is conformed by the fact that the light from my twin's light source reaches me when my clock reads X/c and that the light from your twin's light source reaches you when your clock reads X/c. Thus your twin switched on my twin's light source at a time minus X/c before the light reached me
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
And vice versa.

Now both lights thus started sending out light at t=t'=0. But if you look at my twin's light source which is moving relative to you the Lorentz transformation will give the relativistically distorted time at which my light emitted as minusG*(v/c^2)*X and at a position X'=G*X.

But all you can check from this data is when the light from my twin's light-source reaches you at 0'. When you calculate this you find that you are observing a Doppler-shifted wave since my twin's light source moves towards you. Similarly I will see a Doppler-shifted wave from your twin's light-source since this light-source is moving away from me. In other words this is what you expect without having to invoke time-dilation.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
No, Johan, you are concluding that from what I am saying, but that is not what I am saying. Two clocks will tick at the same rate in an IRF. This does not preclude them from being offset by a constant amount of time.
Why would one position within an inertial reference frame be in the future while another position will be "simultaneously" in the past. Can you not see that you are using insane reasoning.

Maybe if I write it a hundred more times, in different variations, you will understand. Maybe...


No I will NEVER understand illogical gobblydegook! Simultaneous means THE SAME TIME AND HAS ALWAYS MEANT THE SAME TIME.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
So...you have the magical power to...instantaneously look at your son's clock in Denver and be certain that it reads the same time as yours?
I do not have do this. Unless it is impossible for an event to occur in Denver simultaneously with an event occurring where I am. I know this is not impossible and therefore the time at such an instant MUST be the same in Denver and at my position. If you state it is not so you must prove that simultaneous events cannot occur at different positions within an inertial reference frame.

Everything obeys the same laws of physics.
Correct, but you are the one who violates this by stating that the physics can be different at different positions within an inertial reference frame. This obviously violates time-symmetry. There is no position in an inertial reference frame where the laws of physics can be different from other positions.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Technical problems of how we can synchronise our clocks have NOTHING to do with this knowledge of which I am damn sure of.

No, Johan, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Everything that changes with time can be considered a clock. Everything obeys the same laws of physics. If your clock is keeping some rate, and it is behaving properly (otherwise known as performing physical measurements), YOU ALSO KEEP THAT SAME RATE. It follows that if you can't synchronize clocks in some way, then you can't bloody synchronize anything else in that way!
Within an inertial reference frame time has always been synchronised to be the same at all positions within the reference frame. This has NOTHING to do with man-made clocks at all. It is just plain common-sense. I cannot travel to Denver and become younger since the time is there in the past. Stop spouting Vodoo!
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
Are you all there?


Yeah Cher, I'm still here. But johnpringle-Skippy, I am still the displeased with your conduction of your you. So for the time being was it is you have to keep the silly looking pointy cap on your head and sit there in the corner. Oh yeah I almost forgot, you still get the bad karma points for all the calling of names.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy-Doo and we'll be keeping the eye on you Neg.

thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
I do not have do this.

If your son's clock runs out of batteries, and he changes them, but it now disagrees with yours, you have the ability to instantaneously know this?
Unless it is impossible for an event to occur in Denver simultaneously with an event occurring where I am.

This does not follow.
I know this is not impossible and therefore the time at such an instant MUST be the same in Denver and at my position.

Whose time? Your own local clock or your sons?
If you state it is not so you must prove that simultaneous events cannot occur at different positions within an inertial reference frame.

Neither of us believes this. But you are so fixated on your own preconceived notions, you are unable to understand what I am saying. If I am moving relative to you and your son, and I measure your clocks to show the same time, you and your son will insist that your clocks show different times (they will be offset by a constant amount).
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
Are you a physicist?


Non, ol Ira is not the physicist but I a lot people make that mistake. Because I use the google a lot before I try to say something smart. I wish more peoples here would do that because it would sure make things easier on the Ira-Skippy.

Not the physicist, I'm the engineer man, I went to the community college in St Martinville for that. That's down no the Teche, eh?
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
@ thefurlong-Skippy, I wish they the nice peoples at physorg would let me give more than just the five good karma points for you. How you stay so nice and calm with this couyon calling you all those names and talking about your momma you?

Laissez les bons temps rouler thefurlong-Skippy

I almost forget again. Sorry about the one bad karma point but they won't let ol Ira fix his boo boo. I was working on grading johnpringle-Skippy's conduction grades and got carried away.

thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
Within an inertial reference frame time has always been synchronised to be the same at all positions within the reference frame.

How? What experiment can you do to show that all time-keeping things that are not tampered with must show that the same time has elapsed in the same inertial reference frame?
Also, I hate to break this to you, but when I measure your clocks when I am moving relative to you, I am not measuring them in your IRF. In the thought experiment, I see them synchronized in my IRF, NOT YOURS.
This has NOTHING to do with man-made clocks at all.

And maybe if I tell you that I agree just one more time, you will understand that.
I cannot travel to Denver and become younger since the time is there in the past.

1) No, the time there is not in the past.
2) Your clock is not the same as your sons.
3) Saying the clocks will not be synchronized for you and your son if I see them synchronized while moving relative to you does not imply time travel.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
@ thefurlong-Skippy, I wish they the nice peoples at physorg would let me give more than just the five good karma points for you. How you stay so nice and calm with this couyon calling you all those names and talking about your momma you?

Heh, thanks. I am starting to lose patience, though.
Laissez les bons temps rouler thefurlong-Skippy

Amen
I almost forget again. Sorry about the one bad karma point but they won't let ol Ira fix his boo boo. I was working on grading johnpringle-Skippy's conduction grades and got carried away.

That's ok. I figured Johan was the one who was vindictively downgrading my posts. Personally, I prefer to stay out of such things. He can downgrade my posts all he wants. It doesn't mean he's correct.


thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
All I know is that the twins are passing one another at time t=t'=0 and can thus only slap one another, or switch on each other's light sources at that instant in time.

I will go through this once more. When you and I pass each other, neither of us are aware that a twin slap has occurred. We are unable to be affected by the twin slap at that point.
Only after we have traveled past each other will we each receive the physical information about that twin slap. At that point, I will measure that the twin slap occurred at t=0s, and you will measure that it occurred at t'=-x*v*gamma/c^2.

In my IRF, I think the slaps were simultaneous. In your IRF, you AND YOUR TWIN agree that they were not simultaneous. If you and your twin, instead, measured the slaps to be simultaneous, I and my twin will agree that they were not simultaneous.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
But all you can check from this data is when the light from my twin's light-source reaches you at 0'. When you calculate this you find that you are observing a Doppler-shifted wave since my twin's light source moves towards you. Similarly I will see a Doppler-shifted wave from your twin's light-source since this light-source is moving away from me. In other words this is what you expect without having to invoke time-dilation.

With respect to whose IRF? How do you know who's moving so you can make these adjustments? What if there is a third party moving at yet another velocity relative to you?

There is no way for you to make these adjustments because there is no way for you to determine just how light was doppler shifted.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
If your son's clock runs out of batteries, and he changes them, but it now disagrees with yours, you have the ability to instantaneously know this?
What the EFFEN HELL do the batteries in my sons clock have to do with the time in Denver?

Unless it is impossible for an event to occur in Denver simultaneously with an event occurring where I am.
This does not follow.
Obviously not in a demented mind like yours.
I know this is not impossible and therefore the time at such an instant MUST be the same in Denver and at my position.

Whose time? Your own local clock or your sons?
The simultaneous time at my and my son's positions.

If I am moving relative to you and your son, and I measure your clocks to show the same time,
How do you do that? You can only observe events.

that occur you and your son will insist that your clocks show different times (they will be offset by a constant amount
Wrong!! Only in Alice's Wonderland.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Within an inertial reference frame time has always been synchronised to be the same at all positions within the reference frame.

How? What experiment can you do to show that all time-keeping things that are not tampered with must show that the same time has elapsed in the same inertial reference frame?
How any times must I repeat it to you that it is not a clock that determines the time at a position, but the time at the position that should be set on a clock!! Are you really so daft? Unbelievable!!

Also, I hate to break this to you, but when I measure your clocks when I am moving relative to you,
How do you do this? Please explain! Are you stopping at my clocks and then recording the time on them? You are an IDIOT you know!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
This has NOTHING to do with man-made clocks at all.

And maybe if I tell you that I agree just one more time, you will understand that.
So why are arguments in disagreement with this statement that you supposedly accept?
I cannot travel to Denver and become younger since the time is there in the past.

1) No, the time there is not in the past.
Thank God for acknowledging this. Are you now arguing that it is in the future?
2) Your clock is not the same as your sons.
In which way? Why can we not both have atomic clocks. But even so, we do not have to own clocks to be simultaneously be at all instants at time at the same instant in time.
3) Saying the clocks will not be synchronized for you and your son if I see them synchronized while moving relative to you does not imply time travel.
YOU are the one who are implying that time travel is possible by just moving from one position to another within an inertial reference frame: Not I.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
When you and I pass each other, neither of us are aware that a twin slap has occurred.
correct.

We are unable to be affected by the twin slap etc..
correct

Only after we have traveled past etc.
correct.

At that point, I will measure that the twin slap occurred at t=0s, and you will measure that it occurred at t'=-x*v*gamma/c^2.
WRONG! That is why I changed the slaps to switching on the light sources by the twins. And then BOTH of us will find that the other twin has switched on our twin's light source at the same time t=t'=0. It is only when you look at the light coming from the light source that your twin switched on within the other reference frame that the Lorentz transformation gives a distance X'=G*X and a time t"=G*(v/c*2)*X. But you cannot "observe" this since you are not at position X' at the time t'. All you can observe is the Doppler shifted light wave that arrives at your position. Thus you are blatantly lying that you measure X' & t'.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
What the EFFEN HELL do the batteries in my sons clock have to do with the time in Denver?

Because you don't actually know what his clock says until that information gets to you.
The simultaneous time at my and my son's positions.

Ok, so clearly there is miscommunication here. Let's slightly alter that thought experiment so that you understand what I am saying. You and your twin each have two clocks. One set of those clocks is synchronized from some point that you and your twin agree is in the past. Let's say you synchronized those clocks millions of years ago, and you and they have been in the same rest frame ever since. Both of you have a long distance relationship, and you communicate by signals. You were able to synchronize those clocks by sending signals back and forth to each other, and doing calculations to set them to 0 at the right time.
Now, millions of years pass, and you haven't spoken to each other in a while.
(to be continued)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
With respect to whose IRF?
What are you referring to here?
What with respect to what?

How do you know who's moving so you can make these adjustments?
What "adjustments" require this? I have not made any "adjustments". I only used the Lorentz transformation. Is this an adjustment??

What if there is a third party moving at yet another velocity relative to you?
You are now becoming desperate by introducing an element that has not been a part of the discussion up to now!! You are getting more and more pathetic.

There is no way for you to make these adjustments because there is no way for you to determine just how light was doppler shifted.
I have just now DERIVED the formulas for you from the Lorentz transformation. Are you too stupid to understand high school algebra? It does not surprize me at all.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2014
Because you don't actually know what his clock says until that information gets to you.
I do not have to know anything about his clock to know that at this instant in time he and I exist simultaneously. Are you really so demented that you cannot understand this?

I better take a break for now. Sorry to state this, but You stupidity is unbelievable?
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
(continued)
Since you haven't spoken for a while, you don't know what he or his clock have been doing. Now, at the moment that we pass (my clock reading 0s), let's exactly 10 M years, you also obtain a new clock and set it to 0 s, but don't touch the old clock.
Now, before going on, I want to make some things clear. All the things I have written thus far are THE ONLY initial assumptions I am making. I have said nothing yet about what has been happening with your friend since you stopped talking millions of years ago.
I am about to add one and only one new assumption, and from this assumption, and the rest, I can derive the rest of the information about the scenario.
And that is this. After we pass, I start paying attention to your friend and see that he has two clocks. The first one is the old one covered in a shroud, concealing the time it reads. The second one is a newer clock, and this one reads 0 s.

So far, this narrative should all be acceptable to you.
(To be continued)
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2014
(continued)
Now, just after we pass, you now start paying attention to your friend again. Based off the information I just gave, I will now derive when you happen to see your friend's new clock read 0 s.
Using the Lorentz transformation (I will not repeat the calculation), you will measure that his clock measured 0 s when your clock read 10 M years -x*v*gamma/c^2.
So, now, after you perform this measurement, your friend removes the shroud from his old clock.
Now, assuming your friend did nothing to his old clock, we can assume that they have kept the same rate. This means that his old clock will read 10 M years!
So what we can conclude is that when your friend set his new clock to 0 s, for you (not me), it did not happen at the same time (10 M years).
That's what I mean about you not being able to synchronize clocks in the way you describe. By saying I measure your new clocks both to read 0 s, you are implying that in your own IRF, they will not have been set to 0 s at the same time
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
I better take a break for now. Sorry to state this, but You stupidity is unbelievable?

Fine. You are an unpleasant, decrepit, old man with the maturity of a 10 year old.

Now that we got that out of the way, can we stop with the childish insults, please?
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
Well when I look at the following quotes:
I do not think Einstein is a god: A god would not have proposed time dilation and length-contraction; which are both wrong.

and
time is the same at every coordinate position.


It's not only clear that you reject Relativity–without having demonstrated that you understand it, mind you–but on the whole it becomes evident that you're hanging on to some kind of notion of universal time.

Why would one position within an inertial reference frame be in the future while another position will be "simultaneously" in the past. Can you not see that you are using insane reasoning.

No, it's just that you don't get it. All that sharing an RF means is that ***for the time that two entities (whether particles or paper airplanes)
are moving together***, they experience ***the same PASSAGE OF TIME*** (and can swap info on spatial dimensions and not disagree). Cont.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
(Cont.) Their clocks *tick* at the same rate and the meters on their tape measures are the same length.

This says ***NOTHING*** about how they were moving BEFORE they met up and therefore how the PASSAGE of time in their OWN personal RF may have been distorted with respect to each other (and the rest of the universe) BEFORE THEY MET.

If one of a set of twins makes a near light speed round trip to Proxima Centauri before meeting back up with his housebound twin on Earth and they slap each other "simultaneously" as a greeting ***when one is 32yrs old and the other 40yrs old** time cannot be said to simply be "the same" for both twins. The 32yr old's calander could well say it was AD 2202 while the 40yr old's calendar reads AD2210. To the traveling twin the round trip took 2 yrs; to the static twin it took 10. Which is why your notion of twins slapping each other "at the same time" is ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst (or just sloppy?).

(Cont.)
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
Whether our clocks are out of sync has nothing to do with the fact that when we pass one another we share the same instant in time and can therefore, if we have two clocks, set both equal to zero, Whether we have clocks and do this or not does not change the fact that we are at the same instant in time: i.e. that the time at your position is the same as the time at my position.


Of course you could slap each other as you *pass* each other and at the same time SET or RESET each of your clocks to 0, yes, but if either one of you had to accelerate differently from the other to get to the meeting point, your clocks will fall out of synch as they are not *ticking at the same RATE*. Even in a case where one twin *joins* the other to tell tales of Proxima Centauri, and he resyncs his *clock and calendar* (even if he can't advance his *own physical age* to match that of his house-bound twin, as soon as he's off again their clock's will fall out of sych (cont.)
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
(Cont.) as he will have accelerated to an RF different from his brother's.

Simultaneous means THE SAME TIME.


Yes it does, but in Relativity, two events (and a mutual slap is ONE event, btw) that are
simultaneous to one person may not be to another (in a different RF).

You didn't even bother to look at the link on simultaneity in SR I posted, did you? See that's the whole point: in Relativity, "simultaneous" is purely circumstantial. The only restriction is that different observers cannot see events *out of order* as that would require one or more of them to move faster than light.

In fact, an interesting consequence of SR is that if one of the twins in the paradox were to
manage to accelerate to the speed of light (setting aside the impossibility of actually achieving c for the moment) to him, all events that occur around him during the time he is at c would be simultaneous as he no longer experiences the passage of time, *and* he gets to his destination instantaneously.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
The only restriction is that different observers cannot see events *out of order* as that would require one or more of them to move faster than light.

I would like to make a slight addendum because johanfprin's brain is like murphy's law in grey matter form. Causal sequences must be seen in order by all (though not necessarily taking up the same amount of time). Non-causal sequences might be seen as happening "out of order". But then again, order in terms of non-causal sets of things has no meaning anyway.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
I better take a break for now. Sorry to state this, but You stupidity is unbelievable?


Well don't forget to put the silly looking point cap on the hookum by the door. The next couyon might need to wear it some him. You can put it back on if you come back with the same bad conduction and misbehaviouring, okayeeei?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy and watch your you in the tall grasses there maybe might be the big ol momma gator in there.

Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
The only restriction is that different observers cannot see events *out of order* as that would require one or more of them to move faster than light.

I would like to make a slight addendum because johanfprin's brain is like murphy's law in grey matter form. Causal sequences must be seen in order by all (though not necessarily taking up the same amount of time). Non-causal sequences might be seen as happening "out of order". But then again, order in terms of non-causal sets of things has no meaning anyway.


Absolutely! I was *assuming* causal sequences were understood in my statement (as you say, *unrelated events* not being subject to this restriction), though I probably shouldn't have, given the circumstances *at this point in time* ;^)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
What the EFFEN HELL do the batteries in my sons clock have to do with the time in Denver?
@johanfprins
you are one acerbic contemptible repugnant pilgarlic old man at times... are you INTENTIONALLY trying to be obtuse?
I am following along just fine (until you get all pissy), perhaps your issue is more one of age and inability to step out of the paradigm which your brain has congealed into? This would explain your fear of QWT
Sorry to state this, but You stupidity is unbelievable?
a LOT of people are thinking the same about you and wondering... what is the deal? WHY are you being so intentionally stupid?
Since you haven't spoken for a while
@thefurlong
KEEP IT UP... a lot of other people are enjoying this and it is useful. you make a good teacher... and with Gawad, yall make a good team. maybe yall should co-author a book for simpletons like me?
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2014
I am following along just fine (until you get all pissy)


Yes well that can only mean you're one of the demented...right Johan?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2014
@thefurlong
KEEP IT UP... a lot of other people are enjoying this and it is useful. you make a good teacher... and with Gawad, yall make a good team. maybe yall should co-author a book for simpletons like me?


Yeah that thefurlong-Skippy is the good explainer him. I can follow, most of the time, what he says. I wonder how thefurlong-Skippy is able keep the nice dispositional on him while that couyon calling him all those names, eh? That johnpringle-Skippy is one ornery ol coot though. What make that man so mad at everybody anyway?.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2014
your notion of twins slapping each other "at the same time" is ambiguous at best and meaningless at worst (or just sloppy?)


Johanfprins should not use the phrase "at the same time" without defining that Operationally,.... in terms of physical clocks,... then, "who's clock" would be implied.

It appears he imagines himself as a separate observer of the thought experiment with a universal and purely intuitive notion of time, rather than regarding "time" as another physical system.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
The furlong stated that he is not using clocks and humans synchronising clocks in his arguments and then his arguments, and those of his minnows like Gawad, and Noumenon are totally based on what he claims he is not doing.

It is really pathetic to read your comments. And oh Yes Gawad, I have looked at the reference you gave: It is totally wrong as you yourself can ascertain (if you have the brains to understand physics) by going to my references that I have given above; which have been published in a peer reviewed journal after the referees tried to block it with the same insane arguments that the furlong is posting here.

After more than a year, under the guidance of the editor to keep the altercation civil, these referees had to agree that they are wrong, and had to allow publication. But of course, you, who cackle your empty brains will not read this since you think you know better than the antagonistic referees that had been appointed by a peer-reviewed journal.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
Now let us get away totally from clocks when talking about time and what is physically possible and not possible when it comes to this enigmatic concept. Nobody can really define what time is, even though every living being who has self-awareness knows that it exists. We can only measure it in terms change. But even if we are locked up in a cupboard where we can observe no change, we are aware that time is passing by.

The only definition that can be given for time is that it is the NOW that sits at the interface of the past and the future. Everything in our Universe exists SIMULTANEOUSLY at the NOW. If something does not, it does not exist within our Universe, since it exists either in our past Universe or our future Universe which we can only visit if we have time-machines.

This means that at the NOW-instant, time MUST simultaneously be the exact same at every position, and any possible reference frame, in our Universe. A single Universe cannot span a space-time manifold

continu
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
If time is different within two different reference frames, these reference frames cannot co-exist within the same Universe ever. That is why I can state confidently that my NOW must be simultaneously exactly the same as the NOW of my son in Denver. If it is not, I will not be able to ever visit my son since he does then not then co-exist with me in the same Universe.

The Lorentz transformation simply means that if you are not coincident with an event occurring within another inertial reference frame, you will have to conclude that this event has occurred at a different time within your reference frame than the actual time at which you would have observed it if you had been coincident with the event. It does not mean that this different time is simultaneous on your clock with the time at which the event actually occurred. The latter is in either case impossible.

continue
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
Simultaneity of the NOW demands that time within our Universe must be everywhere the same. If it is not, then it is futile to even talk of the age of our Universe, or that our Universe started at a SINGLE time when the Big Bang occurred.

Actual time does NOT slow down within a gravity-field. The speed of light slows down, and since within the equations that model electromagnetic waves one has a time relationship given by ct, it is then foolishly concluded that time is slowing down. It is NOT.

A clock that measures its rate by using the frequency of emitted light will automatically slow down since w=kc: If c slows down, w slows down, and the clock-rate slows down. This does not mean that time slows down: If it does, that part of space must exist in our past, and it will then not be accessible to us unless we have time machines.

If you use another clock, for example a pendulum clock, the clock rate will speed up when gravity increases. This does not mean that time is faster.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
Simultaneity of the NOW demands that time within our Universe must be everywhere the same. If it is not, then it is futile to even talk of the age of our Universe, or that our Universe started at a SINGLE time when the Big Bang occurred.

In other words, "I will completely ignore those salient points that thefurlong (that doodyhead with--uhh--minnows) was making about the old clocks and new clocks, because--
HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! PHILOSOPHY! Also, everyone else around me is wrong, and I am the correct one. I could never consider the possibility that people reject my ideas because, one, people covered that crap years ago and moved on, and two, I am an insufferable man-baby who goes on a science internet news site and yells at commenters about my earth shattering theories. I think relativity happens a certain way, even though that way leads to contradiction, and is the reason I have these incredible ideas to begin with."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2014
the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.
Wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?


The theoretical "Quantum foam" continuously creates Particle/anti-particle pairs. Normally these destroy one another. When something like a blackholes even horizon (hawking radiation), or in this case the magnetic mirror, takes one of the particles out of the system, it's anti-particle doesn't get destroyed. In a blackhole the antiparticle is trapped on the bad side of the event horrizon so the blackhole does lose or gain mass/energy because it's absorbed. In the case of the mirror it most likely reacts with part of the detector and so yes, the mirror would lose energy.
Didn't you read the article? It's about light (photons). Photons are neutral (no antiparticle). What's to destroy?

So again, wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
@thefurlong
KEEP IT UP... a lot of other people are enjoying this and it is useful. you make a good teacher... and with Gawad, yall make a good team. maybe yall should co-author a book for simpletons like me?


You ain't no simpleton Cap. The very fact that you are relearning this stuff instead of spending your time, say not learning anything new and ranting at people about your incredible ideas backed by impeccable logic, makes you intellectually curious.

I don't know. I like writing about this stuff, and explaining it to people, strangely even to people who respond by hurling verbal feces in my direction, but not to people who are not interested in thinking for themselves. I was a tutor before, and I just wanted to impart all I knew to my students, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Instead of instilling a sense of wonder in our students and teaching them underlying principles, the system seems more concerned with hammering SOHCAHTOA into their heads.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2014
In other words, "I will completely ignore those salient points that thefurlong (that doodyhead with--uhh--minnows) was making about the old clocks and new clocks, because--
HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! PHILOSOPHY! Also, everyone else around me is wrong, and I am the correct one. I could never consider the possibility that people reject my ideas because, one, people covered that crap years ago and moved on, and two, I am an insufferable man-baby who goes on a science internet news site and yells at commenters about my earth shattering theories. I think relativity happens a certain way, even though that way leads to contradiction, and is the reason I have these incredible ideas to begin with."


Well thefurlong-Skippy just wrote down the the theory of "johnpringle-Skippy's-meanness" in the one paragraph. Hooweeei,. it would have taken ol Ira-Skippy a book whole to say so much.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
In other words, "I will completely ignore those salient points that thefurlong (that doodyhead with--uhh--minnows) was making about the old clocks and new clocks, because--
HEY! LOOK OVER THERE! PHILOSOPHY!
You probably do not know this but physics is experimental philosophy where logic and experiment together play a role.

Also, everyone else around me is wrong, and I am the correct one.
Not always but in this case I am since not one of you could give an argument how the past, NOW, and the future can exist simultaneously within our Universe.

I could never consider the possibility that people reject my ideas because, one, people covered that crap years ago and moved on,
Here you are proving that you do not understand what physics is all about. It is incumbent on any physicist to continually question what we think is correct, and NOT to think that since others have "covered that crap years ago and moved on" that it is correct.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
and two, I am an insufferable man-baby who goes on a science internet news site and yells at commenters about my earth shattering theories.
No I do not start the yelling. I just state what my research has led to , and then the yelling and insults are directed at me. You should then not cry when I retaliate. I can give it as good as any other person.

I think relativity happens a certain way, even though that way leads to contradiction, and is the reason I have these incredible ideas to begin with."
Nope. It is not what I just "think" but what I derive in terms of the rules of mathematics and logic which are NOT contradictory that shape my thoughts. I am always open to change my mind and logic when somebody else comes up with a better logic. The reviewers and you have not been able to do so: And I think that you realise this, and is now like a petulant baby throwing your toys out of your cot.

Your reaction is typically what I expected from a person with your mentality.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
I was a tutor before, and I just wanted to impart all I knew to my students, but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
When it comes to relativity you are not a tutor's asshole. I think that you are lying that you have been a tutor. Where and for how long? For three years in Kindergarten?

Instead of instilling a sense of wonder in our students and teaching them underlying principles, the system seems more concerned with hammering SOHCAHTOA into their heads.
No wonder if it appoints people like you as tutors. God help our planet!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
You probably do not know this but physics is experimental philosophy where logic and experiment together play a role.

You still did not address my point about old and new clocks. Also, physics is science and math first and philosophy second. If physics does not conform to your philosophy, get a new one.
Not always but in this case I am since not one of you could give an argument how the past, NOW, and the future can exist simultaneously within our Universe.

Yes, not one professional physicist either. Only personal friends and relatives with no physics background who nod nervously in your presence when you start talking about "those relativity ideas again", and who, for some reason, have somewhere to go 1 minute into your expository.
It is incumbent on any physicist to continually question what we think is correct

Correct, but that doesn't mean to keep rehashing the same old, tired, protestations to a hundred year old theory as if they were new.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
No I do not start the yelling

This thing we have ample evidence of, because information on the internet does not go away? No! It doesn't happen!
Nope. It is not what I just "think" but what I derive in terms of the rules of mathematics and logic which are NOT contradictory that shape my thoughts.

Honey, you think that SR (the accepted version, not yours) allows a person moving relative to two other observers to agree with them that two events are simultaneous, which is wrong. This is relativity 101. People in two different reference frames do not agree on the simultaneity of events. And because of this erroneous assumption, you have derived your topsy-turvy-bizarro ideas that fly in the face of all accepted SR. And then you reason that because they fly in the face SR, it isn't because your initial assumptions are incorrect, but that there is some giant conspiracy in the physics community to reject your ideas because they are too powerful.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
You still did not address my point about old and new clocks.
Why should I address this after you have stated that your arguments do not rely on clocks. You have been lying and wasting my time by being dishonest., Why do you not explain to me how the past, NOW and future can co-exist in a SINGLE universe?

Also, physics is science and math first and philosophy second.
Another proof of how STUPID you are! According to you mathematics is NOT philosophy!! LOL!! And if you read my papers you will see that all my conclusions have been derived in terms of impeccable mathematics. But this you do not want to see, since you do not want to think for yourself (well, in fact you probably are not able to do so) but only wants to parrot the "crap" from which other people have already moved on from!

If physics does not conform to your philosophy, get a new one.
It is not physics that conforms to my philosophy, but my philosophy that conforms to known physics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
Not always but in this case I am since not one of you could give an argument how the past, NOW, and the future can exist simultaneously within our Universe.
Yes, not one professional physicist either. So you admit that it is impossible to justify such an impossible situation? Thanks!

Only personal friends and relatives with no physics background who nod nervously in your presence when you start talking about "those relativity ideas again", and who, for some reason, have somewhere to go 1 minute into your expository.
So you know what I am doing without knowing me? You are getting more and more pathetic. Yes people with common sense, amongst which you do not find yourself, realises easily that this is not possible.
It is incumbent on any physicist to continually question what we think is correct

Correct, but that doesn't mean to keep rehashing the same old, tired, protestations
I have not done this at all! Why do you have to lie??
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
No I do not start the yelling

This thing we have ample evidence of, because information on the internet does not go away? No! It doesn't happen!
I agree, and you and your friends are not looking good: just read above. I agree that I retaliate to insults.

Honey, you think that SR (the accepted version, not yours) allows a person moving relative to two other observers to agree with them that two events are simultaneous, which is wrong.
You see how you deliberately LIE to try and win arguments! I have NOWHERE stated this at all. If you are too stupid to read please do not put words in my mouth. I agree that the Lorentz transformation gives non-simultaneity; and if you read my papers you will see that I agree, but I do not agree with the oxymoron concept that this requires that the time within two inertial reference frames, moving relative to one another, must be simultaneously different. Only an idiot will reason the latter.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2014
Why should I address this after you have stated that your arguments do not rely on clocks.

Uh...what? When did I state this?
Why do you not explain to me how the past, NOW and future can co-exist in a SINGLE universe?

If you actually understood SR, you would know of the concepts of absolute past and absolute future. These are causally related regions of the universe that happen "in order", just as you expect. They cannot exist within a single universe. In SR, a cause can never precede an effect. Non-causally related things can be measured to happen in different orders depending on who is measuring them. Two clocks that are synchronized some distance away are not causally related. Hence, depending on who is measuring them, their ticks can be simultaneous, or happen in any order. If you would address my comments about old and new clocks, you might understand.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
Only an idiot will reason the latter.


Which is why you are the one wearing the silly looking point cap on your head while you sit into the corner with everyone making the fun of you Cher. The thefurlong-Skippy is trying to teach some stuffs but all you want is to act like the couyon with the foolishment you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
And then you reason that because they fly in the face SR, it isn't because your initial assumptions are incorrect, but that there is some giant conspiracy in the physics community to reject your ideas because they are too powerful.


Where have I ever stated this? Idiots do not have to "conspire" in order to think alike. They do it naturally because they are brainless. Especially if they are so stupid to believe that when scientists have moved on from the "crap" in the past, this crap should NEVER be questioned again. This is the trademark of an inquisitor, not a person with a normally functioning brain.

The fact that physics has since 1927 fallen more and more under the control of idiots is just a sad reflection of our times, not a conspiracy. Even these idiots are writing books in which they raise concern about modern physics. Something has gone wrong since Voodoo concepts like wave-particle duality and time-dilation came into vogue.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
Another proof of how STUPID you are! According to you mathematics is NOT philosophy!!

Uh...math..isn't philosophy. Math consists of rigorous proofs and systematic algorithms that are either correct or incorrect based on the underlying axioms. Philosophy consists whose correctness will never be established, just accepted by schools of thought.
And if you read my papers you will see that all my conclusions have been derived in terms of impeccable mathematics.

Describe for all of us how Einstein divided by 0 again.
since you do not want to think for yourself

This is a frequent error crackpots make. Because somebody subscribes to an accepted system that the crackpot disagrees with, it must mean they can't think for themselves, and not because they spent a long time thinking about the subject. You have not offered any argument against SR that I have not heard before. Hence, I have no reason to change my mind.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
It is not physics that conforms to my philosophy, but my philosophy that conforms to known physics.

Uhhh...no. This is demonstrably false, seeing as how all elementary SR textbooks teach that two observers moving relative to each other will not agree on the simultaneity of events. Also, there are all those experiments that have been accepted by peer review, which demonstrate time dilation and length contraction (AKA KNOWN PHYSICS). Oh--by known physics, you mean the physics you know. Ok.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
If you actually understood SR, you would know of the concepts of absolute past and absolute future. These are causally related regions of the universe that happen "in order", just as you expect. They cannot exist within a single universe. In SR, a cause can never precede an effect.
But YOU argue that this is possible.
Non-causally related things can be measured to happen in different orders depending on who is measuring them. Two clocks that are synchronized some distance away are not causally related.
Bullshit that can only come from a deranged mind
Hence, depending on who is measuring them, their ticks can be simultaneous, or happen in any order.
Who is simultaneously present at the two clocks to measure them? You are insane!
If you would address my comments about old and new clocks, you might understand.
I cannot address this since your arguments are so illogical that nobody with a sane mind can follow them.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
This is demonstrably false, seeing as how all elementary SR textbooks teach that two observers moving relative to each other will not agree on the simultaneity of events.
I HAVE NEVER DISPUTED THAT THE LORENTZ TRANFORMATION CAUSES NON-SIMULTANEITY: STOP LYING LIKE A BASTARD!

Also, there are all those experiments that have been accepted by peer review, which demonstrate time dilation
I do not know of a SINGLE experiment where two clocks moving rectilinearly relative to one another within a constant gravity field has been compared to prove time-dilation: YOU ARE LYING AGAIN.
and length contraction (AKA KNOWN PHYSICS). Oh--by known physics, you mean the physics you know. Ok.
I also do not know of any experiment where length contraction of a rod was measured when the rod passes by on a linear path.

Nether do YOU know of such experiments: Why do you have to resort to lies all the time?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
I cannot address this since your arguments are so illogical that nobody with a sane mind can follow them.


He is the only one making the sense here johnpringle-Skippy. You should do like the Otto-Skippy told me once, use the google before you post on the hard stuffs so you don't write things that are easy to find you are wrong on the google.

That's why everybody always mistake the Ira-Skippy for being the scientist, I use the google find out what means what. Now I will admit sometimes the stuffs on the google stump me for awhile, but usually some of the smart peoples here can get me straightened out on it, like the thefurlong-Skippy is trying to help with you Cher.

According to the google you are very too much confused and you need to remediate on some of the stuffs that you don't have down pat yet, eh?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
Honey, you think that SR (the accepted version, not yours) allows a person moving relative to two other observers to agree with them that two events are simultaneous, which is wrong.
You see how you deliberately LIE to try and win arguments!

So...you agree that there is no way to take physical clocks, man-made, or otherwise, and synchronize them so that everybody agrees that they are synchronized. So, beating hearts or rhythmically firing synapses can also be considered clocks too. And you agree that that those, too, cannot be synchronized so that everyone agrees that they give the same time, which means that your experience of time is affected by SR. But, still there is this elf--I mean--Time, that nobody can actually measure because everybody is subject to SR, and this is the thing that is not altered by SR. Got it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
Math consists of rigorous proofs and systematic algorithms that are either correct or incorrect based on the underlying axioms. Philosophy consists whose correctness will never be established, just accepted by schools of thought.
There exists mathematical systems for which the latter is true. Garbage in garbage out: Like your skull!
And if you read my papers you will see that all my conclusions have been derived in terms of impeccable mathematics.

Describe for all of us how Einstein divided by 0 again. x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.

You have not offered any argument against SR that I have not heard before. Hence, I have no reason to change my mind.
If you have heard it before and cannot yet give logical arguments why it is wrong, then it proves that you are a fool.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
But YOU argue that this is possible.

Nope. Try again. Or maybe I should use your strategy. STOP LYING! YOU ARE STUPID!
Bullshit that can only come from a deranged mind

Or every single professional physicist. They must all be deranged.
Who is simultaneously present at the two clocks to measure them? You are insane!

...
What? Nobody. We can only conduct local measurements of local and remote quantities. This makes us disagree on the simultaneity of events.
I cannot address this since your arguments are so illogical that nobody with a sane mind can follow them.

What part about them is illogical? The fact that the old clocks would agree on time to you and your twin, since they were keeping the same rate, which is something that you accept?
But keep vaguely insisting that they are illogical without addressing and specific parts. That will convince us.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
So...you agree that there is no way to take physical clocks, man-made, or otherwise, and synchronize them so that everybody agrees that they are synchronized.
There are technical problems, but this does mean that since it is difficult to synchronise clocks at different positions that the time at those positions are not simultaneously the same as they MUST be not to have any contradictions and stupidities in physics. Clocks do not GENERATE time, they only measure it!

But, still there is this elf--I mean--Time, that nobody can actually measure because everybody is subject to SR, and this is the thing that is not altered by SR. Got it.
You think that time does not exist unless you have a clock that generates time. Time has always existed.

Signing off to recover from the endless bullshit you are posting!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
Or every single professional physicist.
I am a professional physicist and a damn good one at that, And I know many professional physicists who will disagree with you. The reviewers of my latest papers disagree with you or else my papers will not have been published.

What the hell are YOU?? Obviously not a professional physicist. If you are, let us compare our CV's so that we can decide who is more competent when it comes to physics. But, of course you will not do this since you are a scoundrel with no integrity who hides behind anonymity. So put your money where your mouth is. If you do not do so, it will be proof that you agree that you are incompetent when it comes to physics!

Now I am off to try and wash you and your stupidities out of my hair!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2014
x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.

Please refer me to the original source.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2014
x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.

Please refer me to the original source.


You speaking to the original couyon. That Skippy make the stuff up and don't use the google to check to see if it's a real thing no.

The johnpringle-Skippy says he is the "professional physicist" but ol Ira would be thinking that he means the "pretend physicist" because a professional physicist would already know how to check on the google if his new theorizing can work with what already out there. Plus to that, most of the real professional physicists aren't so mad and grumpy all the time.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
Simultaneity of the NOW demands that time within our Universe must be everywhere the same.


What a drug-crazed felon you are, Johnny; there is no "Simultaneity of the NOW", that just proves how mired you are in a world that was considered true 400 yrs ago you senile old fool.

If it is not, then it is futile to even talk of the age of our Universe, or that our Universe started at a SINGLE time when the Big Bang occurred.


No it's not you demented narcissistic maniac: it still makes PERFECT SENSE to talk of the age of our Universe in OUR reference frame. It would make little sense to talk of the age of the universe in terms of a CMB photon's RF (even though you could) as then, indeed, you'd get an age of 380k yrs.

And, yup, guess what? If you *were* to take a snapshot of the whole universe it would include 380k yr old photons (in *THEIR* RF) as well as us at 13.8G yrs old (in *OUR* RF) all coexisting together in your mystical "now". No contradiction.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2014
Describe for all of us how Einstein divided by 0 again. x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.


Wow, you are so full of shit, leaving no place for any physics or math, that it beggars the imagination. Uncle Ira asked how someone could turn as mean as you and I was thinking of pegging it on the usual problem of the narcissist being exposed as irrelevant and, of course being unable to deal with that reality (or in your case, just reality), turing hostile and purulent.

But that's all to complicated in your case.

Uncle Ira, the simple reason Johan Prins is the way he is is that he came out of him mother's asshole instead of the usual place. Shit happens.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
You probably do not know this but physics is experimental philosophy where logic and experiment together play a role.
@johan
I can agree with the logic and experiment part but the philosophy part is way, WAY off base. there is NO ROOM for philosophy in physics, much like religion

physics is the SCIENCE of matter and its motion... NO PHILOSOPHY in there at all. none. SCEINCE! any philosophy in physics is malleable and changes with the empirical data (see GR/SR)

Philosophy is the study of existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. in many cases this is open ended and subjective to the individual.
IOW - philosophy does NOT require empirical data (in fact, it can be the bane of philosophy)

PHYSICS IS
philosophy MIGHT BE...
big difference
According to you mathematics is NOT philosophy
its not. Mathematics is the body of knowledge justified by deductive reasoning about abstract structures, starting from axioms and definitions
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
the mirror turns the quantum vacuum into particles.
Wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?


In a blackhole the antiparticle is trapped on the bad side of the event horrizon so the blackhole does lose or gain mass/energy because it's absorbed. In the case of the mirror it most likely reacts with part of the detector and so yes, the mirror would lose energy.
Didn't you read the article? It's about light (photons). Photons are neutral (no antiparticle). What's to destroy?

So again, wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?
Yes, the mirror system whould have to lose energy equivalent to the momentum of what ever particle was made "real". BTW, BHs do not just absorb antiparticles from a pair, that's completely wrong. They can absorb either one as BOTH particles are created from the energy in the S-T at the EH. The BH only gets one back.
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2014
Uncle Ira, the simple reason Johan Prins is the way he is is that he came out of him mother's asshole instead of the usual place. Shit happens.


Well he walked out so angry he forgot to leave the silly looking pointy cap at the door. But that is not the grande problem no. Ira-Skippy keeps the extra two or one around in case some couyon shows up needing one.

But if the Returnering-Skippy and the Really-Skippy and the Reg-Skippy and the johnpringle-Skippy comes back without his all at the same time then there may be a problem deciding which one should get left out of wearing one.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2014
You probably do not know this but physics is experimental philosophy where logic and experiment together play a role.


physics is science and math first and philosophy second. If physics does not conform to your philosophy, get a new one.


The one area where johanfprins is correct here is the above quoted statement. Those who are naive of physics and its historical developement tend to think philosophy is a separate pursuit from physics. Actually, physics and logic is a branch of philosophy, and ones philosophical outlook guides hypothesis and theories. Then to compare philosophy to religion, is deliberate ignorance.

There is a entire field called 'philosophy of physics',... important questions wrt what physics is saying.

Even reading Roger Penrose's book 'Road to Reality' one will see him use the phrase 'philosophy' many many times,... why?,... because is a mature mathematical physicist, not a naive neophyte (not directed at anyone in particular).
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
,... one important areas of philosophy that helps guide physicists is epistemology where one questions what intuitive philosophical outlooks physicists make,....like Einstein's "god does not play dice", or the philosophical outlook of absolute "now", or the recent phys.org article about space-time Being a flowing liquid substance in and of itself complete with a viscosity,... and on and on.

Bernard D'Espagnat, a physicist and former student of De'Broglie, has written extensivily on "philosophy of physics", Heisenberg, and on and on. Don't let naivete cause you to be artificially mentally compartmentalized.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2014
@ Nounemon-Skippy, you supposed to wait until oI Ira give you the bad karma points before you vote for your you Cher. When you go first it makes peoples make fun with you, eh?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2014
Then to compare philosophy to religion, is deliberate ignorance.
@Noumenon
sorry, I disagree.
I have read a bit on the history of physics and I know/understand WHERE it came from but things diverged when the scientific method was adopted for scientific pursuits. For those wishing to study the "philosophy" of physics, more power to them, HOWEVER, there is no room in the scientific method for "knowledge by faith alone", which is both religious or philosophical knowledge.
now, I grant you there is MUCH more logic in philosophy than in religion. I WILL give you that, however, when an idea is so malleable that each person can have a completely different answer to the exact same "proof" of something, then you are talking about a faith, not empirical data.

Empirical data IS
philosophy MIGHT BE... and that is pretty much how it works with religion too
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2014
Bernard D'Espagnat... has written extensivily on "philosophy of physics", ... Don't let naivete cause you to be artificially mentally compartmentalized.
@Nou
to continue...
This may seem like a mark of naiveté for some, but I approach from the perspective of the investigator. In order for me to "prove" something or to find evidence I must make speculations, true. And some of those conjectures are based upon certain philosophical idea's, but they are only primers to lead into a certain search or direction.

Philosophy might give a way to deal with the facts as they arise (justification), but that is a shortcoming of the human mind, not of the data.
When it comes to empirical data and proof, philosophy falls short, because each individual ultimately believes an individual way that may or may not coincide with another. this is the bane of the scientific method, therefore it's NOT empirical, and as such CANNOT be conjoined with physics as physics is underpinned by empirical data
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2014
the philosophical outlook of absolute "now"
@Nou
in conclusion, whereas I agree that philosophy can help point science and physics into realms in which there needs to be a decision or definition (such as absolute now), it is, at its basic form, molded and underpinned by faith with a logical argument. There is no definitive single philosophy with fringe off-shoots of working hypothesis like in physics (QM/QWT/QED/GR/SR).
Johan hates QM/QWT when it is probably the single most successful theory in existence... which means, IT WORKS, whether he likes it or not.
Philosophy doesn't work that way, and only gains support thru acolytes and followers (another religious method).

There is no absolute truth in philosophy, whereas in the scientific method, there is empirical data.

This is just my perspective though. But I know that most scientists I've ever chatted with pretty much agree with it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2014
x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')*2=0. He then divided the first expression by the second to "derive" the Lorentz transformation equations. Which of course is not allowed by any mathematics.

Please refer me to the original source.


This is done in all textbooks. You can pick up any of them; for example Goldstein's Classical Mechanics. Unfortunately I am not at home at the moment or else I will pick a list of books from my shelves to refer you to.

I have written a paper in which I derive the Lorentz equations correctly by not dividing by zero. This derivation proves that Minkowski's space-time cannot exist. A space-time only exists within the volume of an electromagnetic wave, where this time is the phase-time of the wave, not actual time outside the wave. This is why Maxwell's equations can be written in a covariant format. This need not be the case for other physics equations; and is not the case.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
There has been an interesting discussion on philosophy in physics and I must commend Noumenon for posting sense. Captain Stumpy lives in a naive, non-real dream-world by thinking that in physics there is no philosophy, and then classifying statements as being not physics since they involve philosophy. There are many assumptions in physics which cannot be proved experimentally, for example, it is impossible to prove experimentally that there is electric field energy around a solitary electron. It is assumed that there is, and this assumption leads to exploding integrals in QFT, which are then fudged away by "renormalisation".

Even worse is the
the philosophical outlook of absolute "now"
This is not a philosophical outlook, it is a necessity to avoid absurdity in physics. It is a very powerful tool in physics to make a postulate and then prove it wrong by showing that it leads to an absurdity.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2014
The interpretation in Relativity, which thefurlong advocates, namely that time within two different inertial reference frames can simultaneously be different, is an obvious absurdity. It is similar to stating that two twins are identical especially the one. Time cannot simultaneously be different and therefore the NOW can only imply that time must at the instant of NOW be the same within all reference frames of our Universe. This has nothing to do with philosophy but with avoiding absurdity in physics.

I take exception to the following deliberate lie:
Johan hates QM/QWT when it is probably the single most successful theory in existence... which means, IT WORKS, whether he likes it or not.
I do not hate QM/QWT since I use it every day to model physics. Yes it works and it works successfully: But what I am pointing out is that these successes do not require the concept of wave-particle duality, since any freely moving EM-wave has a centre-of-mass that moves like a "particle".
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
Thus Captain Stumpy, please do me a favour and first check before you throw around unfounded accusations. It only proves that you are not competent in your thinking.

And this inability of yours to understand physics is further illustrated by the following statement:

There is no absolute truth in philosophy, whereas in the scientific method, there is empirical data.
If you think there is absolute truth in physics, then you are just as naïve as a monkey. Physics is sometimes based on philosophical assumptions which cannot be measured experimentally. But are used since it leads to self-consistency.

I think you should not venture into this field since you obviously are not competent to understand the interplay of philosophy with physics. There is a good reason why the founding fathers of the Royal Society of London defined physics as "experimental philosophy". I think you need to do a lot more reading on this subject before proceeding to make an even bigger fool of yourself.
Uncle Ira
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2014
I think you need to do a lot more reading on this subject before proceeding to make an even bigger fool of yourself.


@ The johnpringles-Skippy, some friendly advice for you from ol Ira. Have you seen that man's picture on the Captain-Skippy profile you? He looks like one tuff customer Cher. He also don't like he real nice like me. I would not be calling the man the couyon that looks like he could take on the momma gator watching her eggys with his bare hands. We me knows that you aren't very smart like the other peoples so I thought I'd warn you about stepping around in the tall grass without looking where you stepping.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
But what I am pointing out is that these successes do not require the concept of wave-particle duality, since any freely moving EM-wave has a centre-of-mass that moves like a "particle"

Ahhh, good this you reminded me of your distaste for wave-particle duality, Johan.
I am just chiming in here, because I have a ton of work to do for the rest of the weekend, but I would like to point something out that maybe another of you could take and run with. Wave-particle duality is in the final stages of being understood, (if it hasn't been already). There is a phenomenon known as quantum decoherence, which uses only the wave equations of QM to show that wave-function collapse occurs at the interface between macroscopic and quantum systems. It is not some magical phenomenon. It is a direct consequence of a "quantum-sized" object causing a macroscopic change. Look it up.
Captain seems to be doing a good job of arguing, so that's all I will say for today.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
There is a phenomenon known as quantum decoherence, which uses only the wave equations of QM to show that wave-function collapse occurs at the interface between macroscopic and quantum systems.


Sorry to have run the other way furlong, but the above is factually incorrect. In decoherence, the 'wavefunction' does NOT collapse at all, it merely gets entangled with the environment, giving merely "the appearance" of 'wave-function collapse'. Further, decoherence does NOT solve the measurement problem, nor does it have anything to do with wave-particle duality itself, which is intrinsic to the mathematical formulation of QM.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
the 'wavefunction' does NOT collapse at all, it merely gets entangled with the environment, giving merely "the appearance" of 'wave-function collapse'.

I was not being specific. When I said quantum decoherence explains wave-particle duality, I meant that it accounts for it. Give me an example of wave-particle duality that doesn't happen at the interface of the quantum and macroscopic, and I will rescind my claim.
Further, decoherence does NOT solve the measurement problem, nor does it have anything to do with wave-particle duality itself, which is intrinsic to the mathematical formulation of QM.

I don't agree. The Schrodinger and Dirac equations are just wave equations, and they completely model the quantum mechanical world. Presumably, the macroscopic world is just the quantum mechanical world with an astronomically large number of particles, hence, it has its own wave function. This wave function is also subject to the Schrodinger and Dirac equations.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
@Noumenon
And remember, that I said it is in the final stages of being understood, not that it IS understood. There is a possibility that not every example of apparent wave-function collapse is accounted for by quantum decoherence, but I doubt it. My point is, people are quick to throw ideas like QM and relativity out the window because it doesn't conform with their preconceived notions of how the world works, but in the end, almost always, science finds a way to put them into acceptable terms for us.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
@Noumenon
If I wasn't clear, I meant that the only mathematics that the microscopic and macroscopic world follows is that of wave equations (neglecting gravity possibly), and that is the evolution of wave functions goverened by schrodinger and dirac. Furthermore, QM always applies to measurements on ensembles of particles, not individual particles. When we speak of individual photons being emitted, it is always in the statistical sense.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
I have read a bit on the history of physics and I know/understand WHERE it came from but things diverged when the scientific method was adopted for scientific pursuits.


Yes, they have diverged into even MORE profound and important philosophical issues as a consequence, not less,... epistemological issues related conceptual and intuitive presumptions, and interpretations of theories.

Further, ones philosophical outlook,... scientific realism,... scientific positivist,... as a physicist will necessarily guide various presumptions.

You could not have missed in the history of physics, where the 'Copenhagen Interpretation', a philosophical Positivist outlook, in that it discarded intuition as useful in guiding theory, ... was counter to that taken up by Einstein, Schrödinger, etc.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014

there is no room in the scientific method for "knowledge by faith alone", which is both religious or philosophical knowledge.


Do you think that the 'scientific method' fell out of the sky? It did not come from passive data lying on the ground. It came about through an analysis of knowledge, ....deductive, inductive reasoning, synthetic, analytic.... philosophy.

The history of modern physics involved " knowledge by faith" through various intuitive presumptions,... counterfactuality, locality, separability, absolute simultaneity, determinism,... which turned out to be false, and STILL causes physicists great confusion. Only through epistemology, a philosophical analysis of knowledge itself, can one make rational sense of this.

What about theories like string theory/m-theory, or spin network loop quantum gravity, or other various quantized space-time theories, ... where there is no empirical data available to rely on?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
....Or what of multiverse (regarding the wave-function as a physical entity in itself), or multi-universe (cosmology)?

I grant you there is MUCH more logic in philosophy than in religion.


You're doing yourself a favour here , not me, as logic itself is a branch of philosophy,... and what is science without logic?

There is no definitive single philosophy with fringe off-shoots of working hypothesis like in physics (QM/QWT/QED/GR/SR).


What do you think interpretations of theory is? There are various such interpretations of QM, yet the basic mathematical formulation remains the same.

In conclusion, it is not really possible to disentangle so naively philosophy from modern physics. Ironically, the only interest that I have in philosophy of physics is in identifying when physics 'goes off the rails' by making intuitive presumptions not justified by empirical evidence.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
Further, decoherence does NOT solve the measurement problem, nor does it have anything to do with wave-particle duality itself, which is intrinsic to the mathematical formulation of QM.


I don't agree. The Schrodinger and Dirac equations are just wave equations, and they completely model the quantum mechanical world. Presumably, the macroscopic world is just the quantum mechanical world with an astronomically large number of particles, hence, it has its own wave function. This wave function is also subject to the Schrodinger and Dirac equations.


I fully agree with your post here, but fail to understand what it has to do with my quoted one.

The "measurement problem" refers to the incompatibility between the unitary evolution of the wave-function, and the state reduction, or collapse of the wave-function, upon a measurement. There is NO 'wave-function collapse' in decoherence.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
Give me an example of wave-particle duality that doesn't happen at the interface of the quantum and macroscopic, and I will rescind my claim.


That is precisely where it occurs, but not for reasons you have cited. There is NO such interface, ....except that artificially created by Observational Experiment and Physicist,... which is fundamentally different from just loss of coherence of phase angles....

....even though an 'omnipotent observer' would see the entire quantum system, apparatus, and physicists, as a single wave-function evolving deterministically (it is valid to have faith that there is an objective underlying reality afterall),... this Non-Observational notion does not resolve the indeterminism of QM.

[as usual I counter the troll-rater and imbecile Ira]
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
@ Nounemon-Skippy, you not suppose to give your you the good karma votes until AFTER I give you the bad points. When you go the first vote it makes you look like you are cheating.

Or do you really think that you are so smart that you should vote your you the fives just so somebody who don't usually come around is sure to see how smart you thinking you are and hope they don't realize it is you voting for your own you?

This is why you always get a silly looking pointy cap to wear Cher. Now you start going with the rules and wait until AFTER somebody gives you the bad karma points.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
what I am pointing out is that these successes do not require the concept of wave-particle duality
@johan
I apologize and stand corrected
If you think there is absolute truth in physics, then you are just as naïve as a monkey
first off... where did I state that physics has "absolute truth"? Please show me?
Physics has EMPIRICAL DATA, and given the measurements as well as uncertainties (which are a known) although are NOT absolute truth, it is closer than faith based speculations in a thought process. EMPIRICAL DATA is replicable as well as repeatable, a philosophical logic process needs acolytes for support and can be altered or debunked with every generation (or brought back into fashion). anything that is based upon the whims of a belief cannot be absolute, nor truthful
Physics is sometimes based on philosophical assumptions which cannot be measured experimentally
that's what I said already, did you not comprehend this? it's used for direction, not proof. Look again
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2014
When I said quantum decoherence explains wave-particle duality, I meant that it accounts for it.


Wave-particle duality has nothing to do with decoherence though. It is intrinsic to non-commutative descriptions, like position and momentum, or energy and time,.. it depends on the Hilbert space representation one uses.

I will note also that Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is as valid in qm, ....in fact equivalent to,... Schrödinger's' wave formulation,... so one should not take these waves as objectively real entities. Schrödinger held this Philosophical position, but was correct by Max Born,... the 'waves' are just amplitudes that cancel and add, and when squared, are interpreted as probabilities (renormalization assumed however).
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2014
I think you should not venture into this field since you obviously are not competent to understand the interplay of philosophy with physics
@johan
personal conjecture based upon your acerbic nature an lack of comprehension... try re-reading, and this time put your glasses on and make an attempt to comprehend what is there.

ALSO... I am NOT a physicist, I am an INVESTIGATOR. I investigated crime as well as fires. I am probably more well versed in the application of philosophy to physics as well as utilizing the two in conjunction for a result than you are, so quit being so bitter ad condescending.

again... please feel free to RE-READ what I wrote. pretty much I can sum it us thus: Philosophy is NOT empirical, but it can be useful for directional input and application. And the similarities to religion are far more similar than to physics.Physics is EMPIRICAL and is the same no matter WHO views it or where: philosophy=malleable per the individual, unlike physics

Uncle Ira
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
[as usual I counter the troll-rater and imbecile Ira]


Well Nounemon-Skippy, ol Ira is not the philosophering type like you are pretending. So maybe you help me understand a philosophy thing I'm having the trouble with. You use that word up there, the "counter". Down the bayou here the "counter" we say when we mean to say "to reply" or "go second turn". Obviousment it mean another thing for talking about philosophy stuffs. So "I counter" when a philosopher says means "I'm going first", eh Cher?

I can see why everybody says that the philosopher-Skippys are not real good with the truths stuffs, they use the words to mean opposite of everybody else uses them.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
This is done in all textbooks
@johan
then finding a link to support your argument should be easy, right? or did you not pass that section of the computer course yet?
Captain Stumpy lives in a naive, non-real dream-world by thinking that in physics there is no philosophy
conjecture without evidence
in my world there MUST BE PROOF. period.
I am an investigator. I need proof. empirical data. something that will stand up in a court, not some wild speculative verbiage which sounds good to the modern hipster
there is electric field energy around a solitary electron
and until it is PROVEN it is speculation
BUT someone found a way to make the math work. not hard, here, grouchy

dont mistake my outlook with my ability to assess reality or evidence. I am quite able to do that, unlike your continued rant above
Just because you dont like something that is against your belief, doesn't mean that it doesn't work... just like your solitary electron above
step out of your box and DEAL
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
@ Nounemon-Skippy, you not suppose to give your you the good karma votes until AFTER I give you the bad points. When you go the first vote it makes you look like you are cheating.


Sorry, i'm I annoying you? It's just that your immature trolling is so predicable. Look's like I am now causing you work, lol.

1) It is clear from the content of your posts that you are not qualified to rate my mine.

2) It is clear that you do not read nor comprehend my posts but simply troll-rate them 1's.

3) You have been banned from this site, because of me, and should not even be here again.

Conclusion; your votes are invalid, thus I counter them. [why others encourage your useless unfunny trolling stupidity is likely because you pay them 5's]
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
You could not have missed in the history of physics, where the 'Copenhagen Interpretation', a philosophical Positivist outlook, in that it discarded intuition as useful in guiding theory, ... was counter to that taken up by Einstein, Schrödinger, etc
@Nou
nope. didnt miss it... but the proof is the pudding. What works, works
It came about through an analysis of knowledge...philosophy
I understand this, I am just pointing out that physics requires empirical data for proof, whereas philosophy does not. this is not a challenge to philosophy or its uses, just that it is not useful as a tool for proving something, only in directing one to a path that allows one to find empirical data, or proof
What about theories...where there is no empirical data available to rely on?
IMHO - they are pretty, but not real. for instance: Higgs... it was speculation until CERN gave us proof. that is how I see the world.

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
The history of modern physics involved " knowledge by faith" through various intuitive presumptions,... counterfactuality, locality, separability, absolute simultaneity, determinism,... which turned out to be false, and STILL causes physicists great confusion
@Nou
I am going to ask for some links about this, please. to WHAT are you referring specifically?
What about theories like string theory
to continue from above... about theories that have no empirical data, just math and proofs? MY THOUGHT PROCESS: when it comes to "believing" something in physics, I start with the theory. IF the math works out and we've got some empirical data, I can feel confident. if there isn't even math (see Reg Mundy) then it is no better than speculating about Leprechaun urine.
but philosophy doesn't even have that, really. the underpinning of philosophy is logic (at least, it should be) but that changes with time and belief systems. which is why it is useful as a tool, but not as a proof.
2Bcont
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
I am just pointing out that physics requires empirical data for proof, whereas philosophy does not.


I think your error is in thinking of Philosophy and Physics as working causally independently for the same concluding purposes. This is a falsely and was not stated by me nor johanfprins above. We are not here discussing old scholastic philosophy nor philosophy 'in general', but "Philosophy Of Physics", an important and valid field pursued by physicists in modern times.

If physicists did not care about what their theories were telling them about reality, nor have any philosophical outlook as mentioned above to guide them, then they would be mathematicians.
Uncle Ira
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
It's just that your immature trolling is so predicable. Look's like I am now causing you work, lol.


Non Cher, it is the big fun.

1) It is clear from the content of your posts that you are not qualified to rate my mine.


So the Nounemon-Skippy gets the decide on who is qualified to vote, eh? I went to the community college to be the engineer. You go to the philosopher's school you? Make much money being the the philosopher?

2) It is clear that you do not read nor comprehend my posts but simply troll-rate them 1's.


Nobody but you comprehend them Cher.

3) You have been banned from this site, because of me, and should not even be here again.


How that is Neg? Here I am so you must not be much better at the banning than you are at the science, non?

[why others encourage your useless unfunny trolling stupidity is l]


They send suggestions for the list. Returnering-Skippy, Reg-Skippy, Really-Skippy, johnpringle-Skippy and the Nounemon-Skippy.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
it is useful as a tool, but not as a proof.
do you understand where I am coming from now?
philosophy is a tool for gauging direction, potential paths, and the like, much like a compass, but it cannot pinpoint where you are without empirical data (which would be the map)

this is essentially what I said above, and it is much like religion in that aspect. Religion and philo require people to believe in it, in order to spread or be followed. They are tools used for various purposes, but offer nothing empirical in return.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
I think your error is in thinking of Philosophy and Physics as working causally independently for the same concluding purposes. This is a falsely and was not stated by me nor johanfprins above
@Nou
nope. I never said that. I said
philosophy is a tool for gauging direction, potential paths, and the like, much like a compass, but it cannot pinpoint where you are without empirical data (which would be the map)
all of this started because I disagree about the nature of philosophy and this comment
Then to compare philosophy to religion, is deliberate ignorance
the only difference between religion and philosophy is the leadership.
religion is a tool for controlling people and how they think, like philosophy
religion does not require proof and is based upon a faith/belief, like philosophy
religion/philosophy are used to guide people

they are the same thing in many respects. and though many a philosopher could contest the similarities, they are still far more similar than not
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2014
it is useful as a tool, but not as a proof. [...]
philosophy is a tool for gauging direction, potential paths, and the like, much like a compass, but it cannot pinpoint where you are without empirical data (which would be the map)


See my previous post.

Btw, there is NO "proof" in science. Science is Inductive, which is not Deductive. What is the difference? In deductive reasoning (mathematics), one can arrive at Certainty/proof but learn nothing new, not already contained in the starting premises, ....whereas in inductive reasoning (science), one can not attain Certainty, but can learn new things not already presumed.

I know you know this, I'm just stating it to make the point that Inductive Reasoning involves a synthesis of data to form hypothesis, which may evolve to a scientific theory contingent upon empirical verification. Philosophy is involved at the start, in the process, especially wrt interpretations, concepts presumed, and knowledge claimed.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
why others encourage your useless unfunny trolling stupidity is likely because you pay them 5's
No, it is because
1: I like him. He's funny and I enjoy some of his comments
2: we're neighbors right now
3: he never has a problem calling it, nor does he shy away from saying what he feels.
4: HE LEARNS, and can learn very quickly, if you would give him a chance.
the first time he interacted with me I got downvoted because of an argument I was having with Zeph... but he picked up on what was being said and started asking good questions.
then in another thread he asked something and I answered. We get along because I don't treat him like an idiot. I've worked the river boats before (ACBL for a short time: chemical barges). I KNOW how hard his engineering job is.

if ya don't like him, ignore him.
otherwise why not try to pass on information and talk to him like a man?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2014
religion is a tool for controlling people and how they think, like philosophy
religion does not require proof and is based upon a faith...


Once again, the context here is 'philosophy of physics', not old scholastic philosophy.

Your generalizations comparing 'philosophy of physics' with religion, are ridiculous and so sweeping that they are vacuous.

I can refer you to 'philosophy of physics' texts full of equations. It is not possible to disentangle philosophy from physics, one is subsumed within the other. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy for example, and obviously has to do with any claim of knowledge.

No one is claiming here that philosophy can replace experiment and data, as if it was an Independent method of acquire understanding. It's the synthesis of that data via hypothesis and interpretations of what knowledge is claimed on account of theory, where elements of philosophy are relevant.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2014
why others encourage your useless unfunny trolling stupidity is likely because you pay them 5's
No, it is because
1: I like him. He's funny and I enjoy some of his comments
2: we're neighbors right now
3: he never has a problem calling it, nor does he shy away from saying what he feels.
4: HE LEARNS, and can learn very quickly, if you would give him a chance.

if ya don't like him, ignore him.
otherwise why not try to pass on information and talk to him like a man?


You're kidding right? You expect me to speak to him like an adult, even despite the fact that 95% of his posts are adolescent meaningless trolling, with zero substantive content?!

As far as I can tell the guys a moron, and has less than no interest in anything substantive at a science site, .....only mindless and childish trolling,...and you know it!

I do ignore him most of the time.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
The history of modern physics involved " knowledge by faith" through various intuitive presumptions,... counterfactuality, locality, separability, absolute simultaneity, determinism,... which turned out to be false, and STILL causes physicists great confusion

@Nou
I am going to ask for some links about this, please. to WHAT are you referring specifically?


The above list are conceptual artifacts of intuition, that where found to fail in synthesizing physical theory consistently with empirical verification,....

Why these concepts fail, i.e. why QM is non-intuitive, is not understood, and requires philosophical reflection by virtue of their incompatibility,... interpretations of qm.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2014
Your generalizations comparing 'philosophy of physics' with religion, are ridiculous and so sweeping that they are vacuous
@Nou
your opinion. The philosophy (phil) of physics (POP) differs from general phil only in that is is more specific. again, it is a tool for direction, but it is like any other phil in that it is meant to control an outcome by manipulating people via a thought process and a specific line of logical reasoning. See Johan above. His specific line (phil/reasoning) is anti-particle-wave-duality. This POP is also a paradigm that does not allow the individual to be open to another possibility if it is against the general POP that he/she believes.

This is evidence that POP is like general phil in that it is a tool for direction but is still used for weeding out ideas that might otherwise be quite clear and logical (like above) which supports my assertion that it is like religion

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree at this point, if you don't understand
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
there is NO "proof" in science
@Nou
you & I also see this comment differently. By "proof" I mean empirical data as well as data that definitively points to a conclusion that can be used as evidence in a court, and can be shown to be valid in such a manner as to not allow a refute without engaging in unlikely circumstances that are statistically improbable under normal conditions (such as: the likelihood of DNA coming from a doppelganger alien cloned to sow confusion vs. the likelihood of a offender being present at a crime scene)
You're kidding right?
no
No one is claiming here that philosophy can replace experiment and data
I never said they were... I simply gave my PHILOSOPHY.... my perceptions about POP and how it is related to religion

like I said, we shall just have to agree to disagree on that point, because you are not comprehending what I am saying and I am apparently not able to show you how religion and philosophy are related in the way they are used.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2014
only mindless and childish trolling,...and you know it!
@Nou
again, this is your personal perception
no, I see Ira very differently, mostly because I gave him a chance. I have not regretted it. I've also given others a chance but they are better described as vacuous than my "ridiculous sweeping comments comparing POP to religion"

as I see it right now, we will not come to an agreement (on the religion/POP issue) because it is likely that you studied philosophy and are entirely too serious about it. I've studied it some, as well as enjoyed different cultures and philosophies over my life, and I perceive things very differently than you.

Thanks for the discourse. it was interesting.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
Wave-particle duality is in the final stages of being understood, (if it hasn't been already).
It is impossible to understand an absurdity unless you are bipolar.

There is a phenomenon known as quantum decoherence,
No there is not anything like this: A single coherent wave cannot EVER decohere: It can only disentangle into more coherent waves, each of which has less energy than he original wave.

A photon wave is a coherent wave since it has a SINGLE frequency and a SINGLE wave-vector: An electron-wave also. When two photons entangle, they form a SINGLE COHERENT wave having a SINGLE frequency and a SINGLE wave-vector. Only a fool, who has NEVER solved a differential wave equation will argue that a SINGLE coherent wave can decohere.

which uses only the wave equations of QM to show that wave-function collapse occurs at the interface between macroscopic and quantum systems.
This is based on the misinterpretation of QM based on the stupidity of Born.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
the 'wavefunction' does NOT collapse at all, it merely gets entangled with the environment, giving merely "the appearance" of 'wave-function collapse'.
Bravo Noumenon!

I was not being specific.
When have you EVER been?

When I said quantum decoherence explains wave-particle duality, I meant that it accounts for it.
No it does not.

Give me an example of wave-particle duality that doesn't happen at the interface of the quantum and macroscopic, and I will rescind my claim.
Give me an experimental example that wave-particle duality is a reality: You cannot: There exists no experiment that proves that this is so. It is only a figment of Bohr's fertile imagination.

Further, decoherence does NOT solve the measurement problem, nor does it have anything to do with wave-particle duality itself, which is intrinsic to the mathematical formulation of QM.
Bravo again.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
The Schrodinger and Dirac equations are just wave equations, and they completely model the quantum mechanical world.
The Shrodinger equation is a non-relativistic equation which cannot explain spin. The Dirac equation is based on the existence of Minkowski's space-time, which is not a physically, nor mathematically a justifiable concept.

Any and all waves derived from Maxwell's equations have distributed mass energy and thus a centre-of-mass If the wave is a truncated coherent wave, like a photon, which is moving through space with speed c, the centre of mass of the wave is moving with a momentum p=mc, with m=E/c^2 where E is the total amount of electromagnetic energy of the wave. What has this got to do with "wave-particle" duality. The entity is an electromagnetic wave not a wave that can act like a particle.

There is no "interface" between Maxwell's classical waves and quantum waves: They are all solutions of Maxwell's equations for the correct gauges that apply.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
Give me an example of wave-particle duality that doesn't happen at the interface of the quantum and macroscopic, and I will rescind my claim.


That is precisely where it occurs, but not for reasons you have cited. There is NO such interface, ....except that artificially created by Observational Experiment and Physicist,... which is fundamentally different from just loss of coherence of phase angles....

....even though an 'omnipotent observer' would see the entire quantum system, apparatus, and physicists, as a single wave-function evolving deterministically (it is valid to have faith that there is an objective underlying reality afterall),... this Non-Observational notion does not resolve the indeterminism of QM.


You have been doing very well up to this point, and then spoiled it all by parroting unsubstantiated physics-religious dogma. I feel let down. Nonetheless, if you are not a physicist, I can forgive you. If, however, you are ?!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
I apologize and stand corrected
Thank you. My opinion of you has improved

Physics has EMPIRICAL DATA, and given the measurements as well as uncertainties (which are a known) although are NOT absolute truth, it is closer than faith based speculations in a thought process.
That is what physics should be, but it has left this path in 1927: Modern theoretical physics is at present faith-based on speculations.

EMPIRICAL DATA is replicable as well as repeatable,
And can be incorrectly interpreted since the physicists want to cling to a
a philosophical logic process
which is supported by
acolytes
who refuse to accept that their wrong philosophy
can be altered or debunked with every generation (or brought back).


anything that is based upon the whims of a belief cannot be absolute, nor truthful
This is why it is so sad that modern theoretical physics is primarily based on the whims of beliefs that tolerate no heresies.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
ALSO... I am NOT a physicist,
That is blatantly obvious.

I am an INVESTIGATOR. I investigated crime as well as fires. I am probably more well versed in the application of philosophy to physics as well as utilizing the two in conjunction for a result than you are, so quit being so bitter ad condescending.
You see this is the arrogance of the crackpot: Since you have investigated fires and crime, you consider yourself better qualified to understand the intricacies of the interplay between philosophy and physics than I am, even though I have practised and taught physics for more than 50 years.

. please feel free to RE-READ what I wrote. pretty much I can sum it us thus: Philosophy is NOT empirical, but it can be useful for directional input and application.
And physics is not purely empirical. Modern theoretical "particle" physics is NOT empirical at all. There is no experimental proof possible that the Higgs-noise observed at CERN gives "particles
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
This is done in all textbooks
@johan
then finding a link to support your argument should be easy, right?
This is why you should not pose around on a physics forum as if you are capable of reasoning physics, just because you investigated fires and crime. What I refer to is so ubiquitous in text books that it does not require a link for those who know physics.

conjecture without evidence in my world there MUST BE PROOF. period.
You are lying since you are making many assertions which cannot be proved at all.

I am an investigator. I need proof. empirical data. something that will stand up in a court,
I agree, and that is what I am presenting

not some wild speculative verbiage which sounds good to the modern hipster
Do not ascribe your style to me.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
when it there is electric field energy around a solitary electron and until it is PROVEN it is speculation

You have just stated that you only accept empirical data that will stand up in court! So give me the experimental measurements which will give the empirical data which will stand up in court that there is an electric field energy around a solitary electron. Put your money where you big irresponsible mouth is.

BUT someone found a way to make the math work. not hard, here, grouchy
Who did this? Even Feynman in his lectures described in detail that the self-energy field around an electron remains to this day a very big problem. And Dirac disagreed with the mathematics that have been developed , called renormalisation, to fudge the problem away. So you know more than Feynman and Dirac since you investigated fires and crime? LOL.

Like all of us Feynman and Dirac also made foolish mistakes, but in contrast to you they have not been certifiable fools.
Writela
3 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2014
Give me an experimental example that wave-particle duality is a reality: You cannot:
Of course I can. At first, the photon is not a pure harmonic Maxwell wave - but a localized wave packet at the same moment. It therefore has a mixture of frequencies assigned like every soliton. The resulting wavelenght and frequency of photon is given by its quantized action to another resonators, not with photon itself. For example the very short and sharp photon would act to resonator in similar way, like the large but slowly changing photon: they both vibrate the resonator into the same frequency, because the total energy content of both photons is what remains constant here. In addtion, even the photons of the same wavelength can have another parameters assigned, like the spin and angular momentum: this may serve as an evidence, that the "pure wave" concept is not sufficient for description of photon.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
It is impossible to understand an absurdity unless you are bipolar.


Not "mad", "insane", "crazy", or "out of your mind", eh? Specifically "bipolar", a.k.a., manic depression. Interesting.

Sure does explain a lot.

In addition to having trumped Einstein, Feynman, Maxwell, Dirac, Born, and Bohr, I don't suppose...you play poker.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
Give me an experimental example that wave-particle duality is a reality: You cannot:
Of course http://en.wikiped...ly_view.
Where in this referral do everybody agree that it is a reality? Where is the impeccable experimental evidence? So you are lying! Shame on you!

At first, the photon is not a pure harmonic Maxwell wave - but a localized wave packet at the same moment.


You obviously have NEVER solved a differential wave equation in your life. A Maxwell-wave OF ANY SIZE for which its angular frequency w=kc, where k is the magnitude of its wave vector and the speed of its wave fronts, is a coherent wave AND NOTHING ELSE THAN A COHERENT WAVE EVER!!

As any first year student (even one who is not very bright) knows a wave-packet is a superposition of waves with different frequencies which moves with a speed v given by v=dw/dk. A photon wave is thus not a wave-packet and can NEVER be one EVER!!

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
It therefore has a mixture of frequencies assigned like every soliton.
It cannot be a mixture of frequencies when its energy E=(hbar)*w is determined by a SINGLE requency and its momentum p=(hbar)k by a single wave-vector. Neither can it be a soliton, since the relationship k=w/c where c is the speed of light means it MUST be the coherent solution of a harmonic wave equation: The latter is a LINEAR equation. The differential equation for a soliton is the Korteweg-DeVries equation which is not linear NOR harmonic.

The resulting wavelenght and frequency of photon is given by its quantized action to another resonators, not with photon itself
This is the case for ALL coherent light waves: Each wave's wavelength and frequency is determined by the properties of the source that emits the wave. However, after having been emitted, these properties are inherent in the emitted wave, and only change when the wave encounters new boundary conditions.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
For example the very short and sharp photon would act to resonator in similar way, like the large but slowly changing photon: they both vibrate the resonator into the same frequency, because the total energy content of both photons is what remains constant here.
So what is new? For a coherent light wave to emit or be absorbed or be detected, it must resonate with either the source, the absorber or detector NO MATTER WHAT ITS SIZE OR TOTAL ENERGY IS. This is normal coherent wave behaviour which any radio-engineer models every day.

In addtion, even the photons of the same wavelength can have another parameters assigned, like the spin and angular momentum: this may serve as an evidence, that the "pure wave" concept is not sufficient for description of photon.
These parameters are not "assigned" but are determined by the properties of the source that emits the light wave.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
The "particle" physicists interpret polarisation of a coherent photon-wave as being "spin"; even though a photon-wave has NO charge whatsoever! This they do since against all experimental evidence they WANT TO BELIEVE FOR SOME DOGMATIC RELIGIOUS REASON, that a photon wave MUST be a "particle".

I am able to derive ALL the properties EVER measured for a photon-wave directly from Maxwell's differential equations for the electric-field amplitude and its concomitant magnetic field amplitude. Thus, contrary to what you are claiming without any proof whatsoever, the concept of a pure electromagnetic wave is sufficient for the description of a photon-wave. One does not need anything else, unless you WANT to believe in Voodoo like "wave-particle" duality. I will not be surprised if you still believe the earth is flat.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
I was not being specific.
When have you EVER been?

The world is such a magical place for you.
Give me an experimental example that wave-particle duality is a reality: You cannot: There exists no experiment that proves that this is so. It is only a figment of Bohr's fertile imagination.

I could, but predictably, you would dismiss them because they don't conform to your philosophy. I think we both know that physicists have conducted plenty of experiments from which they concluded wave-particle duality. Whether or not you agree makes no difference. The point is that the phenomena exhibited by these experiments (call it what you will) can be attributed to quantum decoherence. It is not necessary to add a further postulate that measurement collapses wave-function, when we have something else that predicts the same experimental effects.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
The Shrodinger equation is a non-relativistic equation which cannot explain spin.

And?
The Dirac equation is based on the existence of Minkowski's space-time, which is not a physically, nor mathematically a justifiable concept.

And yet, it is, experimentally, one of the most successful equations in the history of physics. The fact that it predicts spin and anti-matter? Nahh, you believe in a fairy-version of time that exists but cannot be measured by anyone, but somehow is far more important than what we actually observe.
Any and all waves derived from Maxwell's equations have distributed mass energy and thus a centre-of-mass...The entity is an electromagnetic wave not a wave that can act like a particle.

Oh, Johan, Johan, Johan. You and your popular-science level of understanding.
Electromagnetic waves are macroscopic phenomena, not quantum phenomena. They are not quantum waves. You should know this. You are, after all, GREAT PHYSICIST!
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
This is done in all textbooks
@johan
then finding a link to support your argument should be easy, right?
This is why you should not pose around on a physics forum as if you are capable of reasoning physics, just because you investigated fires and crime. What I refer to is so ubiquitous in text books that it does not require a link for those who know physics.

In other words, "I don't actually have any examples, so I am going to perform some (obvious) chicanery in which it looks like the burden of proof for my extraordinary claim should be on the person asking me to furnish evidence for it."
No wonder they rejected your research papers, Johan. I bet your conclusion went something like, "In this paper, I have demonstrated my claim, which counters accepted science, using only philosophy. If you want actual mathematical arguments or physical evidence, provide them yourself. Q.E.D."
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
You have been doing very well up to this point, and then spoiled it all by parroting unsubstantiated physics-religious dogma. I feel let down. Nonetheless, if you are not a physicist, I can forgive you. If, however, you are ?!!


I direct you to exhibit A:
No I do not start the yelling. I just state what my research has led to , and then the yelling and insults are directed at me.


When it is dinner time, and everyone else wants to eat that delicious roast quail with thyme and rosemary, and you only want to eat broccoli covered in mayonnaise and sardines, you start yelling at them too, don't you?
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
No wonder they rejected your research papers, Johan


Unfortunately, it appears they relented. And no wonder, can you imagine the hell he put them through? (He even admitted to that too when he said it took the intervention of the the Editor "to keep things civil". Egads!) This is why he doesn't refer people to his paper on the arXiv; because it is so important to him to be able to say he's exposed his ideas in a peer-reviewed journal (so you have to dig it out of ResearchGate). Of course, if you go to the arXiv pick up his 67 page masterpiece you'll see it's really the same crackpot crap he drools on about here even though it's all dressed up to party (good on you for that Johnny!)
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
Of course http://en.wikiped...ly_view.

Where in this referral do everybody agree that it is a reality? Where is the impeccable experimental evidence? So you are lying! Shame on you!

At first, the photon is not a pure harmonic Maxwell wave - but a localized wave packet at the same moment.


You obviously have NEVER solved a differential wave equation in your life.


I will not be surprised if you still believe the earth is flat.


Again, I direct you to:
No I do not start the yelling. I just state what my research has led to , and then the yelling and insults are directed at me.


Nope, there is absolutely no evidence that you start yelling at and insulting people who disagree with you. I stand corrected.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
No wonder they rejected your research papers, Johan


Unfortunately, it appears they relented. And no wonder, can you imagine the hell he put them through? (He even admitted to that too when he said it took the intervention of the the Editor "to keep things civil". Egads!)

I'm sure it involved him demanding the addresses and credentials of every person on the review board, followed by much verbal harassment, and likely, threats of a frivolous lawsuit. I shudder to think of what would happen if he ever learned where I worked or lived. I am sure he would start calling my P.I. and demanding my immediate resignation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
I could, but predictably, you would dismiss them because they don't conform to your philosophy.
It has NOTHING to do with my philosophy. YOU are the one who clings to textbook philosophy as it is holy religion: Not I. I question all physics as demanded by physics-ethics

I think we both know that physicists have conducted plenty of experiments from which they concluded wave-particle duality.
I do not know of a single experiment from which this can be deducted without jumping to unproved conclusions. Please give me one. If you do not then you are lying again as usual.

Whether or not you agree makes no difference. The point is that the phenomena exhibited these experiments (call it what you will) can be attributed to quantum decoherence.
There is no such thing as quantum decoherence possible since both a photon-wave and an electron-wave, and entangled forms of these waves are ALL COHERENT WAVES. Obviously you do not have a clue what coherence is about.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
It is not necessary to add a further postulate that measurement collapses wave-function, when we have something else that predicts the same experimental effects.
You do not predict the same experimental effects, except that measurement can disentangle a SINGLE coherent wave into an ensemble of wave, each of which is still coherent.

Furthermore a coherent wave does not just collapse when its boundary conditions change but also inflates when required. For example, a SINGLE photon-wave encounters a double slit and inflates to move through both slits so that at the other side these two parts of the SAME wave interfere to generate a diffracted wave-front that moves towards the detection screen consisting of a myriad absorbers, each of which can resonate and absorb this photon-wave; so that it collapses in size to be absorbed; while remaining a coherent wave ALL THE TIME!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
The Dirac equation is based on the existence of Minkowski's space-time, which is not a physically, nor mathematically a justifiable concept.

And yet, it is, experimentally, one of the most successful equations in the history of physics. The fact that it predicts spin and anti-matter?
It does NOT predict anti-matter. It is a SINGLE electron equation which predicts that this SINGLE electron must have an energy of minus infinity. It also does not physically explain how this infinitely large electron can have spin. So you are lying again!

Nahh, you believe in a fairy-version of time that exists but cannot be measured by anyone, but somehow is far more important than what we actually observe.
Have you observed this infinitely large electron wave which ahs an energy of minus infinity? How and where. Please talk some practical physics.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
Oh, Johan, Johan, Johan. You and your popular-science level of understanding.
Electromagnetic waves are macroscopic phenomena, not quantum phenomena. They are not quantum waves. You should know this.


The amount of energy within an electromagnetic wave is determined by the amount of energy that a source emits. One cannot model an electromagnetic wave without specifying the source. If you do not specify the boundary conditions of the source, your solution does not find the gauges of the solution to ensure that the solution is physically possible.

Now if you start with Maxwell's equations and solve it for physically possible sources, you find that there are sources that emits coherent light-waves with energy (hbar)*w, and that this is the lowest energy that a source can emit, and an absorber can absorb. This is still a wave and has NOTHING to do with a "particle" except that its centre-of-mass can follow a definite path.

You are, after all, GREAT PHYSICIST!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
You are, after all, GREAT PHYSICIST!
Well I am not ashamed of what I have achieved in physics; like you obviously are.

Therefore I do not have to hide my ignorance behind anonymity. My citation index speaks for itself as well as my successful career in both academia and industry. Evfen though I have been employed by Industry which re4stricted my ability to publish I still surpassed my colleagues which are full-time at Universities. Most of my publications are solo. My rating is above those of 92.5% of the scientists on ReearchGate.

What is your claim to fame?: The ability to vomit what you read in textbooks? Yes that is it: You are a parrot with no inherent ability to think for yourself.

This is done in all textbooks
@johan
then finding a link to support your argument should be easy, right?
Correct, and although I am on Holiday I di refer you to Goldstein.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
No wonder they rejected your research papers, Johan.
They did not: They are published.

I bet your conclusion went something like, "In this paper, I have demonstrated my claim, which counters accepted science, using only philosophy. If you want actual mathematical arguments or physical evidence, provide them yourself. Q.E.D."
Do you see why you are such a despicable entity? You make up stories in your hallucinating, demented mind, for which you have no proof whatsoever, and then you post them as if the are revelations from God to his favourite prophet on earth. You are VERY sick you know.

This is further proved by:
direct you to exhibit A:No I do not start the yelling. I just state what my research has led to , and then the yelling and insults are directed at me.


If people insult me like you have all along it is worse than yelling, especially when you are such a coward that you hide behind anonymity.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
When it is dinner time, and everyone else wants to eat that delicious roast quail with thyme and rosemary, and you only want to eat broccoli covered in mayonnaise and sardines, you start yelling at
Can you not see how despicable you are! making up stories in your mind just to throw insults at me. You are beneath contempt. One of the lowest of the lowest beings I have ever come across.

Unfortunately, it appears they relented.
There was no relenting: Just an acknowledgement that my arguments cannot be refuted.

And no wonder, can you imagine the hell he put them through? (He even admitted to that too when he said it took the intervention of the the Editor "to keep things civil". Egads!)
Another example of you creating your own dream world within your demented head. Yes the editor decided to change the reviewer of one of the manuscripts to a more civil one. I did not have to give anybody hell. The editor had integrity: Something you will NEVER understand.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
No I do not start the yelling. I just state what my research has led to , and then the yelling and insults are directed at me.


Nope, there is absolutely no evidence that you start yelling at and insulting people who disagree with you. I stand corrected.
Thank you for a bit of honesty even though it is a pathetic attempt at sarcasm.

I'm sure it involved him demanding the addresses and credentials of every person on the review board, followed by much verbal harassment, and likely, threats of a frivolous lawsuit. I shudder to think of what would happen if he ever learned where I worked or lived. I am sure he would start calling my P.I. and demanding my immediate resignation


Here we go again: You again creating a world within your demented head which you want to believe in, even though there is no evidence that your hallucinations can ever be true. Have you got no shame whatsoever?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
Thank you for a bit of honesty even though it is a pathetic attempt at sarcasm.

I was wondering what strategy you would use once I called you out on your crap and provided unequivocal evidence of you insulting people (Noumenon, Writela) who have done nothing else but argue with you respectfully. Now I know. You just completely ignore the evidence. Boy, you really have this crackpot thing downpat, don't you grandpa?
Have you got no shame whatsoever?

I am shocked, I tell you! Shocked and chagrined that anybody could make a prediction about my RL behavior based on my indiscriminate accosting of people on this internet who argue with me! Writela, you haven't solved a differential equation in your life, and you probably believe in flat Earth. Noumenon! Stop subscribing to RELIGIOUS SCIENTIFIC DOGMA. Why do you people treat me as if I am the internet equivalent of some guy who gets on a NY subway train and starts yelling with spittle flecks at people?
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
It's ok furlong, I'm used to johanfprins manner of speaking. He's the 'Don Rickles' of physics.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
Now if you start with Maxwell's equations and solve it for physically possible sources, you find that there are sources that emits coherent light-waves with energy (hbar)*w...

That would be great, except for the fact that
1) Electromagnetic waves can disperse radially from the oscillating source. Hence, the energy emitted would be distributed over the widening wave front
2) There is nothing in EM that forbids an electron from absorbing only part of the energy of the expanding wave-front. You could position 20 classical electrons and each could absorb 1/20th the energy.
3) In experiments, this is not how photons behave. Rather, the energy they impart is localized.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2014
(continued)
4)Furthermore, in the photoelectric effect, the number of electrons liberated is a function of frequency AND magnitude of the wave, with no electrons liberated below a certain threshold frequency, determined by the work function of the metal. If you were correct, we could just superimpose a whole lot of EM waves until they had enough energy to liberate the electrons. Again, this doesn't happen in in experiment.

Keep trying though. Next time you make a hypothesis, you might consider combining the sum off all experimental observations since, say 1900. ;)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2014
It's ok furlong, http://phys.org/n...ple.html johanfprins manner of speaking. He's the 'Don Rickles' of physics.

Don Rickles was funny. Johan is unstable.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
Have you observed this infinitely large electron wave which ahs an energy of minus infinity? How and where. Please talk some practical physics.


Well, QFT supplanted the Dirac Equation, and rendered the Dirac Sea unnecessary. But you are GREAT PHYSICIST, so you knew that already.
Meanwhile, the number of experiments supporting your ideas about relativity and QED is what again? Oh right! 0! But hey, you've got an impressive CV.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
You guys got off easy. In the above linked thread, johanprins says that I'm "a traitor to everything that objective science stands for" .... and that I'm "guilty of high treason",.... and should "be given the death penalty!"
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2014
You guys got off easy. In the above linked thread, johanprins says that I'm "a traitor to everything that objective science stands for" .... and that I'm "guilty of high treason",.... and should "be given the death penalty!"


:^) Priceless !

Some MD must be adjusting his medication. Maybe moved him from lithium to Lamictal to try to help him into the 21st century.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2014
You guys got off easy. In the above linked thread, johanprins says that I'm "a traitor to everything that objective science stands for" .... and that I'm "guilty of high treason",.... and should "be given the death penalty!"

Hahah. I feel so neglected, now. Oh Johan, why don't you love me?

Also, it really is too bad that I missed his saying this in that thread up until now:
We are wasting billions of dollars looking for non-existing "particles" like the Higgs boson
- johanfprins of crackpot past

I bet that crow sure tastes sweeter with every passing experimental confirmation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2014
Why do you people treat me as if I am the internet equivalent of some guy who gets on a NY subway train and starts yelling with spittle flecks at people?
You see this is why I yell at you since you are so dishonest that you are not even able to recognise when you insult other people.

Here you are claiming that I will get on a NY subway and yell at people without any provocation. You are dishonest in your approach to physics and in your interactions with people; and when you get shouted at owing to this, it must be the "other people". NEVER YOU.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2014
That would be great, except
that you are too closed-minded and dogmatic to even look at the physics involved.

for the fact that
1) Electromagnetic waves can disperse radially from the oscillating source. Hence, the energy emitted would be distributed over the widening wave front
This is determined by the source. And even if the source is spherically symmetric, the wave fronts are still coherent. You are claiming that all EM sources emit waves that disperse radially. This proves that you do not know your physics. Ask any radio-engineer what one gets with different sources. For example, a laser source does not emit waves that radially disperse from the source.

2) There is nothing in EM that forbids an electron from absorbing only part of the energy of the expanding wave-front.
I have NEVER claimed otherwise. Why do you always make up stories in your head and then attack yourself? Please try and be rational.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
You could position 20 classical electrons and each could absorb 1/20th the energy
Only when the energy is enough. If not, some of them will absorb nothing. If the wave is a SINGLE photon wave with a volume spread across the position of all 20 electrons, only one of them will absorb the wave. A fool will then conclude that the photon-wave is a "particle".

3) In experiments, this is not how photons behave. Rather, the energy they impart is localized.
Obviously this must be so, since the energy is absorbed by a localised absorber. The photon wave, which has a volume across all 20 electrons, can only be absorbed by one of them. When it resonates with one of them it has to collapse in size in order to be absorbed. There is ZILCH proof that the photon wave was a localised entity BEFORE if resonated with this electron. To assume that it is localised before being absorbed is jumping to a conclusion that cannot be substantiated experimentally.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
(continued)
4)Furthermore, in the photoelectric effect, the number of electrons liberated is a function of frequency AND magnitude of the wave, with no electrons liberated below a certain threshold frequency, determined by the work function of the metal.
This does not prove that the light that has entered the metal consisted of separate photon-particles. It only proves that there are electrons that can absorb light-energy, but not more that h*nu at a time. Thus, if you send in a laser-wave, which is a SINGLE coherent wave, it has to disentangle into coherent waves with smaller energies, since each electron-absorber cannot absorb more than this amount of energy. You yourself just now stated that: " There is nothing in EM that forbids an electron from absorbing only part of the energy of the expanding wave-front". This is exactly what happens during the photo-electric effect! Why do you suddenly ignore your own correct insight into physics when it comes to the p-e effect?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
If you were correct, we could just superimpose a whole lot of EM waves until they had enough energy to liberate the electrons. Again, this doesn't happen in in experiment.
This is exactly what is happening: When you increase the amplitude of a laser beam, you liberate more electrons. In fact by increasing the intensity of the laser beam you can collapse the metal since you eject most of the valence electrons that bond the atoms.

Keep trying though. Next time you make a hypothesis, you might consider combining the sum off all experimental observations since, say 1900. ;)
I have done that in my books.

I want to commend you that you for a change tried to raise rational arguments so that we can discuss physics without having to insult one another. Please try and keep this up, and try and instil this approach also in commentators like Gawad, Noumenon etc. It will be nice to be able to argue physics in a civilized manner.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2014
You guys got off easy. In the above linked thread, johanprins says that I'm "a traitor to everything that objective science stands for" .... and that I'm "guilty of high treason",.... and should "be given the death penalty!"


I agree I came across strongly. But the most important principle in physics is that one must accept that what we have achieved so far and believe is correct can be proved wrong at any instant. Once a physicist becomes so dogmatic that he/she does not want to even consider the latter possibility, he/she is committing treason against everything that physics is supposed to stand for. I feel so strongly about this principle that I consider it treason if a physicist violates it: Therefore the death penalty.

You have come across consistently as a person who refuses to question accepted dogma. Although I must admit that you surprised me with your interaction with Captain Stumpy. I might thus have been too harsh on you and I therefore apologise.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
We are wasting billions of dollars looking for non-existing "particles" like the Higgs boson
- johanfprins of crackpot past


I bet that crow sure tastes sweeter with every passing experimental confirmation.
Where is the experimental confirmation that the noise discovered at CERN is that of a field which gives "other particles" their mass? You do not need such an extra field, since the EM energy of a wave (and thus also for a photon-wave and an electron-wave) is mass-energy. The origin of mass has already been solved by Einstein in 1908 when he discovered that E=m*c^2. You do not need anything more to understand where mass is coming from!
Writela
not rated yet Apr 29, 2014
since the EM energy of a wave is mass-energy
Yes, but WHY is it so? This is just, what the Higgs field is good for. Higgs field is a system of tiny density fluctuations, which are exposed to the space-time when the energy wave is traveling across them. Without it all waves would penetrate mutually like the ghosts and massless waves.

In this way many people refuse the existence of Higgs field into account of E=mc^2, despite the fact, just this field explains the validity of E=mc^2 equation. The memo is, the validity of equation itself doesn't provide explanation, only description of phenomena.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
You yourself [thefurlong] just now stated that: " There is nothing in EM that forbids an electron from absorbing only part of the energy of the expanding wave-front". This is exactly what happens during the photo-electric effect!


He was refering there to the "classical" Maxwell EM representation, not the subsequent QM one, where experimentally that does not occur. In classical EM, purely wave theory, as opposed to a "particle" QM formulation, the number of electrons ejected from the metal would have been expected to be proportional to the intensity of the light. However, when the intensity is lowered, the number of electrons ejected from the metal is in proportion to the frequency of the light ONLY, and NOT intensity. "Intensity" in QM would have to mean 'number of photons'. [above assumes monochromatic light]
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
[correction--- not the number of electrons but the energy of the knocked out electrons is proportional to frequency, while if the intensity is increased more electrons are emitted at that same frequency]

if you send in a laser-wave, which is a SINGLE coherent wave, it has to disentangle into coherent waves with smaller energies, since each electron-absorber cannot absorb more than this amount of energy.


If that was the case then the ejected electrons would have momentum proportional to the intensity of the source light and not the frequency as is actually found to be the case.

The P-E effect uses source light of a particular frequency at very low 'intensity', then the electron momentum is examined. If intensity is increased more electrons are knocked lose, however the electron emergy is proportional to frequency of the incoming light,... if the frequency is increased with same intensity, the same number of electrons are knock lose but higher higher momentum.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
,... [but with higher momentum].

Imagine the source light being of a specific frequency of low enough intensity that relativily few electrons are emiited from the metal so that their momentum can be determined, within reasonable experimental capability. What happens in your world?
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
... When Hertz found discovered the P-E effect, he his world view was Maxwell wave EM, (except without the notion of quantum.), but could not explain the results.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2014
... if the frequency is increased with same intensity, the same number of electrons are knock lose but higher higher momentum.


Oh yeah! Thanks for adding that, Noumenon. I forgot to mention that.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
for the fact that
1) Electromagnetic waves can disperse radially from the oscillating source. Hence, the energy emitted would be distributed over the widening wave front
This is determined by the source. And even if the source is spherically symmetric, the wave fronts are still coherent. You are claiming that all EM sources emit waves that disperse radially.


Wow, Johan, way not to read my post, I said EM waves CAN disperse radially. Not that the ALWAYS do so. STOP LYING! Oh wait. That's what you would say.

2) There is nothing in EM that forbids an electron from absorbing only part of the energy of the expanding wave-front.

I have NEVER claimed otherwise. Why do you always make up stories in your head and then attack yourself?

Hahah. Did I SAY that you said this? No I didn't but seeing as how your mind is apparently equivalent to a context-free grammar, I'll just tell you that you need to read 2), THEN 3). XOXO
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2014
If the wave is a SINGLE photon wave with a volume spread across the position of all 20 electrons, only one of them will absorb the wave.

Umm, what? Why? What's the difference between a single photon wave and a regular old EM wave? And don't just tell me "it is the smallest amount of energy an electron can produce", this is begging the question.
Obviously this must be so, since the energy is absorbed by a localised absorber. The photon wave, which has a volume across all 20 electrons, can only be absorbed by one of them. When it resonates with one of them it has to collapse in size in order to be absorbed.

And what is your mathematical argument for this, exactly? Why can it only resonate with only one of them? What if two electrons are both placed at anti-nodes? What's to prevent them from each resonating with their respecting parts of the wave?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
since the EM energy of a wave is mass-energy
Yes, but WHY is it so?
Since kinetic T energy is also mass-energy i.e. T=m*c^2-m(0)*c^2 for any entity. Light moving with speed c has no rest-mass. Its total energy is kinetic energy so that its total energy E=T=m*c^2. Its total energy-density is U=(epsi)*E(e)^2, where E(e) is its electric-field at the point. By integrating across its volume, one obtains it s total EM energy U(T) which must be m*c^2.

This is just, what the Higgs field is good for. Higgs field is a system of tiny density fluctuations, which are exposed to the space-time when the energy wave is traveling across them.
This is exactly what a Maxwell light-wave does within its volume. Why do you need an extra field?

Without it all waves would penetrate mutually like the ghosts and massless waves
This is exactly what Maxwell's light waves do: They can do it since they do not have REST-MASS energy.

continued
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
[as anyone can see, "Uncle_Ira" troll rates me 1's no matter how factual my posts are, not that such an idiot could understand them,.... so on account of this disruptive behavior I ask those rational people not to encourage him,.... gawad, furlong, captain..... it is clear this child is not qualified to debate cranks much less know who is one and who is not.]
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
In this way many people refuse the existence of Higgs field into account of E=mc^2, despite the fact, just this field explains the validity of E=mc^2 equation.
No you do not need a Higgs field to explain rest-mass. When you trap a Maxwell light wave within a cavity, it becomes a stationary wave within the reference frame in which the cavity is stationary. Is EM energy then becomes REST-MASS within the inertial reference frame of the cavity.

The interesting thing is that as soon as this happens, the magnetic-field component of the light, becomes an imaginary field, which is replaced by an induced distributed electric charge which keeps the electric-field to be a stationary electric-field. If the wave has an even number of nodes, and one integrates across this distributed charge, it sums to zero. If the number of nodes are uneven a residual charge remains. The wave also develops a half-integer magnetic moment for n uneven. All this follows directly from Maxwell's equations.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2014
Obviously this must be so, since the energy is absorbed by a localised absorber. The photon wave, which has a volume across all 20 electrons, can only be absorbed by one of them. When it resonates with one of them it has to collapse in size in order to be absorbed. - johnprins


And what is your mathematical argument for this, exactly? Why can it only resonate with only one of them? What if two electrons are both placed at anti-nodes? What's to prevent them from each resonating with their respecting parts of the wave? - thefurlong


This is the key question, one I have asked johan several times, in the above link, etc,..... since the wave can spread over many electrols with proper resonance,.. why would one absorb the photon and not another some distance away,... presuming a pure type of material. Is it the "center of mass" that determines this? Why is not the photon split between multiple absorbers with lower but equivalent energy, as you stated above???
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
To make a long story short: An electron can thus be modelled as a trapped EM wave with a single node which gives it a distributed charge that adds to -e. Assuming that the cavity that traps it is spherical with a diameter d, the electron-wave will be a small stationary sphere with which has trapped the rest-mass EM energy m(e)*c^2.

If you observe this electron from a passing inertial reference frame moving with speed v, and transform its stationary coordinates into your reference frame, one obtains that the electron-wave develops a length L along the direction in which it is moving relative to you AND time difference across this length. This time difference is a phase time, and when you derive the wavelength from the phase-time you obtain de Broglie's wavelength. Thus the electron's mass is trapped electromagnetic energy. It is a light wave moving with a speed v
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
Now just like light waves two electron-waves can also move through one another PROVIDED that their magnetic moments cancel. If not they repel. If there are more than two electron waves, Pauli's exclusion principle prevents them from all moving through one another, unless you can force pairs of electrons together to form waves that all now have zero magnetic moments. These waves can then condense to form a SINGLE stationary wave.

I have formed such a wave in my laboratory by extracting electrons by an anode from a highly-doped n-type diamond.

The point to note so far is that one does not require Dirac's equation to derive charge and magnetic moments: These entities follow, just like de Broglie's wavelength, directly from suitable waves derived from Maxwell's equations. In fact these solutions also give answers to the main "weirdnesses" of QM, like the measurement problem and entanglement.

What traps the EM energy? I believe that it is the gravity field. I am still working on this.
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2014
[as anyone can see, "Uncle_Ira" troll rates me 1's no matter how factual my posts are, not that such an idiot could understand them,.... so on account of this disruptive behavior I ask those rational people not to encourage him,.... gawad, furlong, captain..... it is clear this child is not qualified to debate cranks much less know who is one and who is not.]


If you can vote 5 three or two times for your self Cher, why can't ol Ira vote you a 1 only once?

Ol Ira is entitled to his one opinion of Nounemon-Skippy just the same as the Nounemon-Skippy is entitled to have three or two opinions of himself.

Ol Ira only votes one time because down here that is fair and even. But we allow Nounemon--Skippy to vote three or more times because he is handicapped and needs an advantagement.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
He was refering there to the "classical" Maxwell EM representation, not the subsequent QM one, where experimentally that does not occur.
It is the same in BOTH cases: You can prove it by irradiating a metal with a SINGLE coherent Laser-beam. You get separate electrons coming out of the metals since each electron absorber only absorbs the amount of energy it requires from the wave-fronts moving through the metal.

In classical EM, purely wave theory, as opposed to a "particle" QM formulation, the number of electrons ejected from the metal would have been expected to be proportional to the intensity of the light.
In fact above the critical frequency the number of electrons that is ejected IS proportional to the intensity of light.

However, when the intensity is lowered, the number of electrons ejected from the metal is in proportion to the frequency of the light ONLY
No it is not!! You need to read some elementary books on physics my friend.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
[correction--- not the number of electrons but the energy of the knocked out electrons is proportional to frequency, while if the intensity is increased more electrons are emitted at that same frequency]
Thanks, reality at last!

If that was the case then the ejected electrons would have momentum proportional to the intensity of the source light and not the frequency as is actually found to be the case.
No they would not. Please take a course on Maxwell's equations before spouting further nonsense. Within a wave the energy and momentum are continuously distributed. If a part of the wave disentangles, this part has its own momentum: When this part has energy (hbar)*w, it has a momentum p=(hbar)*k.

The P-E effect uses source light of a particular frequency at very low 'intensity', then the electron momentum is examined. If intensity is increased etc. etc.
Where have I disputed this? Please! I know physics better than you will ever be able to understand it!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
Imagine the source light being of a specific frequency of low enough intensity that relativily few electrons are emiited from the metal so that their momentum can be determined, within reasonable experimental capability. What happens in your world?


Obviously when the amount of disentangled energy per electron is (hbar)*w, that energy will have momentum p=(hbar)*k to impart to the electron. What happens in your world? Are you all there?

When Hertz found discovered the P-E effect, he his world view was Maxwell wave EM, (except without the notion of quantum.), but could not explain the results.
Correct he did not realised that not all sources and absorbers are the same. The physics still remain Maxwell's equations except that your sources and absorbers cannot emit or absorb more than or less than (hbar)*w.

That is ALL that changed: NOTHING ELSE DID, except that the brains of the physicists started to ossify since the stupidly interpreted a light-wave as a "particle".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
Umm, what? Why? What's the difference between a single photon wave and a regular old EM wave?
There is no difference except that a photon has electromagnetic energy that is (hbar)*w=(its total EM energy), while a larger coherent wave has more energy

And don't just tell me "it is the smallest amount of energy an electron can produce", this is begging the question.
How is this begging the question? an electron is in an excited state E1=m(1)*c^2, since it has this stationary EM energy and it is allowed by its boundary conditions to lose EM energy and have a lower stationary EM energy. E2. the emitted energy is light energy with energy E=E1-E2=(hbar)*w. I though you knew your QM. How can the electron source emit less than this energy?

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
Obviously this must be so, since the energy is absorbed by a localised absorber. The photon wave, which has a volume across all 20 electrons, can only be absorbed by one of them. When it resonates with one of them it has to collapse in size in order to be absorbed.

And what is your mathematical argument for this, exactly? Why can it only resonate with only one of them? What if two electrons are both placed at anti-nodes? What's to prevent them from each resonating with their respecting parts of the wave?


It is not a mathematical argument it is a physical fact that an electron resonator cannot absorb more than, or less than the energy (hbar)*w. Thus, even if the photon-wave resonates with more than one electron, it can ONLY be absorbed by one of them. So it will have to collapse into only one electron. A fool will then conclude that the photon-wave was a "particle" even before it was absorbed.

Half a mind needs many words. I will be back tomorrow.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2014
I decided to sign off with another post after In have seen the following
]this is the key question, one I have asked johan several times, in the above link, etc,..... since the wave can spread over many electrols with proper resonance,.. why would one absorb the photon and not another some distance away,
If you have read my comments you would have understood that an electron resonator cannot absorb less energy than the difference in energy between two stationary electron states. Have you NEVER had a course on QM?

presuming a pure type of material. Is it the "center of mass" that determines this?
Nope: We all know that during resonance the centre-of-mass can change direction. Heisenberg stupidly called this an "uncertainty"

Why is not the photon split between multiple absorbers with lower but equivalent energy, as you stated above?
Since the electron absorber can only absorb between two stationary states E1 and E2 which requires the full energy (hb)*w. Get it?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2014
]this is the key question, one I have asked johan several times, in the above link, etc,..... since the wave can spread over many electrols with proper resonance,.. why would one absorb the photon and not another some distance away,

If you have read my comments you would have understood that an electron resonator cannot absorb less energy than the difference in energy between two stationary electron states. Have you NEVER had a course on QM?


Of course that is already presumed to be the case, are you purposely being obtuse? You're the one rejecting 1) the particle nature of light, and 2) indeterminency,.... so I would expect under those conditions that there would be a explainable reason for a light-wave to be absorbed into a particular electron AS OPPOSED TO another some distance away, (of course assuming the same energy levels of these teo absorbers.)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2014
E=T=m*c^2. Its total energy-density is U=(epsi)*E(e)^2, where E(e) is its electric-field at the point. By integrating across its volume, one obtains it s total EM energy U(T) which must be m*c^2.

You do realize that E=mc^2 was first predicted by SR, right? As in, we can use the Lorentz transformation to determine how relativistic objects respond to forces and impulses, because of how they meaure time and space, right? And this, in turn, allows us to take the integral F*dx = integral (dp/dt)*dx = integral v*dp = integral p*c*dp / sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2) = sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2), indicating that when p = 0, E = mc^2, and that this is not the only relativistic argument for why E = mc^2?

It amazes me that you can accept one conclusion, but not the other. Why accept the experiments that show evidence for E=mc^2, but not the ones that show evidence for time dilation?

I will get to your other arguments about EM waves at some point, but I have a lot of work to do today.
Pejico
Apr 29, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Apr 29, 2014
A small correction: I meant to write p*c^2*dp/sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
Of course that is already presumed to be the case, are you purposely being obtuse? You're the one rejecting 1) the particle nature of light, and 2) indeterminency,.... so I would expect under those conditions that there would be a explainable reason for a light-wave to be absorbed into a particular electron AS OPPOSED TO another some distance away, (of course assuming the same energy levels of these teo absorbers.)


It is right in front of your eyes why this must be so. Consider an AF coherent carrier-wave encountering many radio-antennas. It will only interact with those antennas with which it resonates: The others it will pass by. This is high school physics my boy.

The first antenna with which it resonates will be the first one that draws energy from the wave. If the wave has only enough energy for a single antenna to absorb, only one antenna will absorb this energy: i.e. the one with which it first resonates.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
The electron antennas within a material are stationary EM electron-waves. Such a wave can only add the EMK energy of the impinging photon to its own EM energy if it can morph into a stationary wave with this increased EM energy. Thus two "energy-levels" are involved which must be spaced at the energy of the impinging photon-wave.

However, the latter is not the full story: The electron waves are subject to quantum fluctuations given by (deltaE)*(deltat)=g*(hbar) where g>1/2. When the photon wave encounters an electron wave which suffers such a fluctuation, it cannot resonate with this electron-wave and will thus pass it by. The first electron-wave for which the energies match, will be the one that absorbs the photon-wave. The photon-wave then collapses to add its energy to that of the electron-wave.

Since the quantum fluctuations occur at random, identical impinging photon-waves will collapse into different absorbers.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
Obviously, resonance with an electron-absorber occurs more easily where the intensity of the impinging photon-wave is highest. Thus, after many diffracted photons have impinged into a screen with many electron-absorbers, the intensity of the individually diffracted wavefronts will appear on the screen. If you are stupid enough to destroy these wavefronts by making measurements at the slits, you destroy the diffracted intensity.

If you are now even more stupid you will conclude that it is your act ok "looking" which warns the photons that they should not move through both slits simultaneously. You then end up with Wheeler's Voodoo interpretation that what you do at present affects the past.

If you are a total moron, a la Max Born, you will conclude that the intensity of the photon-wave's wavefront is a probability distribution.

Why do you people want to defend Voodoo-superstition when quantum effects follow logically from the known behaviour of Maxwell's EM waves?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
You do realize that E=mc^2 was first predicted by SR, right?
Please STOP being so arrogant to think that you can teach me physics which I have taught for more than 50 years while practising as a damn good professional physicist, who is not ashamed, like you are, to let people know who I am. I find you insulting and then you cry foul when I yell at you. Why are you so despicable?

It amazes me that you can accept one conclusion, but not the other. Why accept the experiments that show evidence for E=mc^2, but not the ones that show evidence for time dilation?


Since the experiments that prove E=m*c^2 are indisputable, while the experiments, which are claimed to show evidence for time dilation, are flawed. When you derive the Doppler effect by using Einstein's second postulate, you do not get the correct answer when you assume time-dilation. You only get the correct answer if you also assume that light can move relative to a moving object with a speed higher than c.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2014
This is exactly what a Maxwell light-wave does within its volume. Why do you need an extra field?
The Maxwell waves are massless in accordance to special relativity, because they fulfill Lorentz symmetry.
Correct.

The evaporation of matter into radiation in supernovae requires the massive photons, which are fundamentally different from Maxwell waves.


No they are not: They are still EM waves, but this EM energy is now trapped by gravity so that it is stationary within an inertial reference frame. Thus, within another inertial reference frame, this EM energy is moving like a coherent EM-wave; except that this wave has a speed v that is less than c. This is also the case for a freely moving electron-wave.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2014
A small correction: I meant to write p*c^2*dp/sqrt(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2)


It makes no difference to your argument on which you, however, base flawed conclusions.
Writela
5 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2014
when quantum effects follow logically from the known behavior of Maxwell's EM waves
The Maxwell theory just cannot be quantized by itself. You cannot derive the existence of photons, i.e. wave packets from smooth harmonic Maxwell's wave, which has no beginning, nor end. The quantization requires the introduction of Lorentz symmetry or some other gauge symmetry. There is no single logical way, how to do it.
Writela
5 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2014
They are still EM waves, but this EM energy is now trapped by gravity so that it is stationary within an inertial reference frame
I doubt, that only gravity force is involved but anyway: this "trapping" effect is just what makes the particle (i.e. wave packet) from free EM wave. I can't understand, you're willing to spend hundreds of hours in fighting this trivial concept. BTW You're describing the J.A.Wheeler's geon from 1954 with this model.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
Please STOP being so arrogant
Please stop being so full of spittle flecks. Or at least brush your teeth. Not everyone enjoys broccoli-mayonnaise-sardines surprise.
Since the experiments that prove E=m*c^2 are indisputable, while the experiments, which are claimed to show evidence for time dilation, are flawed.

Yes, we all know they don't conform to your personal philosophy. Ho hum...any thing new?
When you derive the Doppler effect by using Einstein's second postulate, you do not get the correct answer when you assume time-dilation. You only get the correct answer if you also assume that light can move relative to a moving object with a speed higher than c.

This is new...and incorrect...ok, Johan, tell, me, what is your equation for the doppler effect on light?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2014
The Maxwell theory just cannot be quantized by itself.
Obviously not when you are using a solution of Maxwell's equations without specifying the boundary conditions of the source that emitted the wave. Fortunately, in addition to having a very good background in theoretical physics since I have taught this for many years, I did my doctorate at an Engineering school. Thus I am not as foolish as modern day theoretical physicists are to think that you can model reality in terms of gauge-invariant equations.

You cannot derive the existence of photons, i.e. wave packets from smooth harmonic Maxwell's wave, which has no beginning, nor end.
Only a fool will try to do this since such a wave cannot exist within our Universe.

The quantization requires the introduction of Lorentz symmetry or some other gauge symmetry.
This is a fallacy. The energy of a wave is determined by the properties of the source that emits it. Ask any radio engineer!
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2014
This is new...and incorrect...ok, Johan, tell, me, what is your equation for the doppler effect on light?
But predictable, as Johnny always is. To quote myself from earlier above "the only way you [Prins] could be right is to assume a variable speed of light." And BINGO the crackpot strikes again. He's playing fast and loose all over the place, as usual, so you have a lot of material to go on if you're into it, but be warned...I think there's a good chance we're about to see detour to another sparing match between Prins and Zeph (Writela).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
They are still EM waves, but this EM energy is now trapped by gravity so that it is stationary within an inertial reference frame
I doubt, that only gravity force is involved
I agree that at this point this is debatable.

but anyway: this "trapping" effect is just what makes the particle (i.e. wave packet) from free EM wave.
NOPE! The trapped wave has a specific frequency and a specific value for k (even though it has no momentum) It cannot be a wave-packet EVER!

can't understand, you're willing to spend hundreds of hours in fighting this trivial concept.
Since it is obviously wrong as any radio-engineer who actually use and superpose waves can attest to. Only a modern theoretical physicist will be stupid enough to think that a wave-packet can have a SINGLE frequency and a SINGLE value for k.

BTW You're describing the J.A.Wheeler's geon from 1954 with this model.
Can you give a reference. Maybe Wheeler is not such a crackpot after all!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2014
Yes, we all know they don't conform to your personal philosophy. Ho hum...any thing new?
No philosophy involved just hard experimental facts.
When you derive the Doppler effect by using Einstein's second postulate, you do not get the correct answer when you assume time-dilation. You only get the correct answer if you also assume that light can move relative to a moving object with a speed higher than c.

This is new...and incorrect...ok, Johan, tell, me, what is your equation for the doppler effect on light?


Go to this link and show where I have made a mistake, if you can: If the little bit of high school algebra is too much for you try and engage a grade 10 pupil to assist you.

https://www.resea...=prf_act

Gawad could also try, but I do not think he has enough grey matter. I am gambling by hoping that you might have.

Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2014
If anyone wants a look at Johnny's paper without having to sign up to RG, you can go to this page instead (at least it works outside of Physorg, once posted here...we'll see).

http://www.resear...dilation

But then again, what would be the point? From his conclusion:

"Einstein's time-dilation on a moving clock does not exist and cannot exist. This should have been obvious from the start, since this concept leads to a contradiction in terms: It requires the impossibility that an event must occur simultaneously at two different times."

Wait, WAIT! I seem to recall this from somewhere...hang on...mmmmmm....Oh! That's right! This very tread! Now, why would anyone want to go through all that again (and, again, and again, and again) without even changing thread??? I don't know...must be my lack of grey matter!
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2014
Why are you telling me about RF and antennas, when we are discussing single photons wrt the P-E effect?

Allow me a moment to herd the cattle once again,.....

if you send in a laser-wave, which is a SINGLE coherent wave, it has to disentangle into coherent waves with smaller energies, since each electron-absorber cannot absorb more than this amount of energy.- johan


If that was the case then the ejected electrons would have momentum proportional to the intensity of the source light and not the frequency as is actually found - Noumenon


Now, you use the excuse of the uncertainty principal, misapplied, which you have called VOODOO on other occasions,....

The electron antennas within a material are stationary EM electron-waves. Such a wave can only add the EMK energy of the impinging photon to its own EM energy if it can morph into a stationary wave with this increased EM energy. Thus two "energy-levels" are involved ...


Yes, great, but,...
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2014
However, the latter is not the full story: The electron waves are subject to quantum fluctuations given by [ΔE * Δ t ≥ ħ/2]. When the photon wave encounters an electron wave which suffers such a fluctuation, it cannot resonate with this electron-wave and will thus pass it by. The first electron-wave for which the energies match, will be the one that absorbs the photon-wave. The photon-wave then collapses to add its energy to that of the electron-wave.


Oh, boy.

But the electron energy levels are Stationary states whose solutions are found by the Time Independent form of the Schrödinger equation, so you will need to find a yet another mechanism to answer my question ⇒

"You're the one rejecting 1) the particle nature of light, and 2) indeterminency,.... so I would expect under those conditions that there would be a explainable reason for a light-wave to be absorbed into a particular electron AS OPPOSED TO another some distance away."
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2014
Btw, there is no basis for saying that electrons themselves have "EM" energy.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2014
Gawad could also try, but I do not think he has enough grey matter.


I have enough gray matter to know there's little point in arguing with someone who:

1) considers me an idiot.

2) I happen to believe is actually insane (probably bipolar based on the hints you've dropped, but without a doubt batshit crazy).

3) happens to consider Max Born stupid (along with the host of intellectual giants who built 20th century particle physics)

Hey, at least you haven't been trying to foist your book on us (good on you for that!). But ya know, there's not much I can do to help a guy who's already decided that an electron is a variable length antenna (among a constellation of other bongo ideas which he switches around or forgets about as is convenient). It's kind of fun to watch though. (Recall that I tried to just ignore you at the start of this thread, but you couldn't help but to start insulting–so, btw, why don't you just stop lying about that stuff also Johnny?)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
If anyone wants a look at Johnny's paper without having to sign up to RG, you can go to this page instead (at least it works outside of Physorg, once posted here...we'll see).

http://www.resear...dilation
Thank you for doing something useful for a change.

From his conclusion:

"Einstein's time-dilation on a moving clock does not exist and cannot exist. This should have been obvious from the start, since this concept leads to a contradiction in terms: It requires the impossibility that an event must occur simultaneously at two different times."
Another illustration of your lack of grey matter: You only read the conclusion of a manuscript and then decide in terms of your preconceived ideas whether the manuscript can be correct. I go through the derivations on which the conclusion is based, and see whether I can find any mistakes. But of course, I have integrity, while you cannot even spell this word.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Why are you telling me about RF and antennas, when we are discussing single photons wrt the P-E effect?
Since in both cases you have coherent electromagnetic waves. Or are you arguing that when the energy of an EM wave becomes equal to (hB)*w, it is suddenly something else?. Why?

If that was the case then the ejected electrons would have momentum proportional to the intensity of the source light and not the frequency as is actually found - Noumenon
Nope! Have you EVER heard of Poynting's vector S and distributed wave momentum-density g=S/c^3. Each part of an EM wave has its own local momentum, so that if a part with energy (hB)*w disentangles it has its own momentum p=(hB)*k.

Now, you use the excuse of the uncertainty principal, misapplied, which you have called VOODOO on other occasions,....
I have called the interpretation Voodoo, not the fact that the equation exists.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Oh, boy.

But the electron energy levels are Stationary states whose solutions are found by the Time Independent form of the Schrödinger equation, so you will need to find a yet another mechanism to answer my question ⇒
Oh boy, Oh boy , Oh boy. Only the intensity of the wave is time independent NOT the amplitude. Even Heisenberg tried to model this fact in terms of a "unitary operator". Do you enjoy it to display your stupidity on this forum?

"You're the one rejecting 1) the particle nature of light, and 2) indeterminency,.... so I would expect under those conditions that there would be a explainable reason for a light-wave to be absorbed into a particular electron AS OPPOSED TO another some distance away
And that is what I gave you by using the known ways, from Maxwell's equations, how EM waves interact with sources and absorbers on ALL energy-scales from the photon-wave to the rf-carrier wave. But you want to believe that QM is "weird". It is not!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Btw, there is no basis for saying that electrons themselves have "EM" energy.


What is then the energy of an electron-wave? Even in QFT it is assumed that its mass energy is electric-energy, and that the electron must have a magnetic moment. But YOU your majesty just ignore this with one sweeping statement. For God's sake please take an elementary course in physics before posting your absurd opinions.

Furthermore, as I have proved time and again on this forum, the de Broglie wavelength of an electron is a result of the Lorentz-transformation, which is a result of electromagnetic energy. But YOU know better. You are an even bigger moron than Gawad is.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Gawad could also try, but I do not think he has enough grey matter.


I have enough gray matter to know there's little point in arguing with someone who:

1) considers me an idiot.
You have proved this SOLO over and over and over again on this forum. A person who judges a manuscript on the conclusion and then rejects the manuscript since he does not like the conclusion, instead of going through the derivation of the conclusion and thus to argue real physics, is the moron of all morons who have ever lived.

2) I happen to believe is actually insane (probably bipolar based on the hints you've dropped, but without a doubt batshit crazy).
Again this is from evidence which you produced SOLO.

3) happens to consider Max Born stupid (along with the host of intellectual giants who built 20th century particle physics)
So they are ''gods" who cannot reach any moronic conclusions? They are actually human beings and like all of us they also made moronic mistakes.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Hey, at least you haven't been trying to foist your book on us (good on you for that!).
You could have avoided making such an asshole of yourself if you have read this book.

But ya know, there's not much I can do to help a guy who's already decided that an electron is a variable length antenna (among a constellation of other bongo ideas which he switches around or forgets about as is convenient).
Does a stationary electron-wave not absorb a photon light-wave?

It's kind of fun to watch though. (Recall that I tried to just ignore you at the start of this thread, but you couldn't help but to start insulting–so, btw, why don't you just stop lying about that stuff also Johnny?)
If you ignored me you would not have been coming over as the biggest moron on this forum. Where have I been lying? If you want to make such accusations you must be specific. This is impossible for a moron to do since it requires from him to think. At least the furlong tries to think.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
A person who judges a manuscript on the conclusion and then rejects the manuscript since he does not like the conclusion


If only you could read at more than a 3rd grade level, johnny, you'd understand that my main objection was over the fact that there was simply nothing new there. This thread is just a rehash of what's in there. In other words, been there done that. No need to go all OCD on this.

like all of us they also made moronic mistakes
That's hardly makes one stupid, but when someone goes batshit crazy I suppose it could seem that way.

Does a stationary electron-wave not absorb a photon light-wave?
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the objection. You should run for office. (That's another other reason there's little point in engaging with you: you are a dishonest debater. I understand it's because your out of your mind, but that makes it no more productive).
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
Again this is from evidence which you produced SOLO


You're right. I should avoid doing that. It makes me sound like someone who only cites himself in his "scientific" papers.

Exhibit A:

"It has recently been shown that a moving rod cannot contract in length, but must become longer [1]."

Exhibit B:

"The impossibility of time-dilation and length-contraction has serious implications when it comes to the concept of Minkowski's space-time manifold, as well as the arguments on which Einstein based his General Theory of Relativity [2]."

Exhibit C:

"[1] J. F. Prins, The length of a longitudinally...
[2] J. F. Prins, Directional emissions from ..."

And that's all of them.

You apear to have no trouble with "evidence produced SOLO" but only so long as it's YOU doing it. So not only are you batshit crazy, you're also a god damn hypocrite. Way to go Johnny.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: where was your experimental data for [1] again?
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: where was your experimental data for [1] again?

Where have I been lying? If you want to make such accusations you must be specific.


"Now you are claiming that just because the twin has changed reference frames the clock of the second clockmaker is now out of sync! Absurd!!"

And yes, if you can consider "You do realize that E=mc^2 was first predicted by SR, right? " an insult, then I sure as hell am going to consider that calling my response to another poster "Absurd!!" qualifies as well. Your amlost always the first one to throw out the insults, johnny. You're a hypocrite. You're batshit crazy AND you're a dishonest debater. What's not to love?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
If only you could read at more than a 3rd grade level, johnny, you'd understand that my main objection was over the fact that there was simply nothing new there. This thread is just a rehash of what's in there. In other words, been there done that. No need to go all OCD on this.
And this you decide without being able to analyse the actual derivations in this manuscript! You think you do not have to motivate what you state since your statements are all holy gospel! This is why you are a certifiable moron.

like all of us they also made moronic mistakes
That's hardly makes one stupid, but when someone goes batshit crazy I suppose it could seem that way.
I agree that this moronic insight of Born does not make him totally stupid. To be a consistent moron requires a special talent: A talent that you have in abundance.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Does a stationary electron-wave not absorb a photon light-wave?
Yes, My God! The man knows a bit of physics. Who in his right mind would ever have suspected this?

but that has nothing to do with the objection.
Why not? Because you in your dementia says so?

You should run for office. (That's another other reason there's little point in engaging with you: you are a dishonest debater.
You are the one who do not motivate your "holy insights" and who refuses to read the whole content of a manuscript, and then YOU call ME a dishonest debater!! LOL. How deluded can a being become??
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Again this is from evidence which you produced SOLO


You're right. I should avoid doing that. It makes me sound like someone who only cites himself in his "scientific" papers.

Exhibit A:

"It has recently been shown that a moving rod cannot contract in length, but must become longer [1]."

Exhibit B:

"The impossibility of time-dilation and length-contraction has serious implications when it comes to the concept of Minkowski's space-time manifold, as well as the arguments on which Einstein based his General Theory of Relativity [2]."

Exhibit C:

"[1] J. F. Prins, The length of a longitudinally...
[2] J. F. Prins, Directional emissions from ..."

And that's all of them.


Why are one not allowed to cite yourself if you are the original source of what you are quoting? The rest of the material in the publication has been in textbooks for many years and does thus not require citing.

You are really becoming desperate to smear me without proving my physics wrong.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: where was your experimental data for [1] again?
It is quoted in the publication. It was already produced nearly a century ago when electron diffraction was proved and the deBroglie wavelength was measured.

"Now you are claiming that just because the twin has changed reference frames the clock of the second clockmaker is now out of sync! Absurd!!"
Where have I EVER claimed this stupidity. It comes from your hallucinating mind. I claim that the clocks, if they are both perfect, will always show the same time.

You do realize that E=mc^2 was first predicted by SR, right? " an insult,
Of course it is insulting since it is patronising.

What's not to love?
Oh God forbid. The last thing I want in life is the love of a moron!

Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
"Now you are claiming that just because the twin has changed reference frames the clock of the second clockmaker is now out of sync! Absurd!!"

Where have I EVER claimed this stupidity. It comes from your hallucinating mind.


No you drug-crazed, demented maniac, it's a direct quote from YOU from the *top of this thread*. Anybody but you apparently would have enough wits to use their browser's page search function to find it. And to top it all off this demonstrates that you are even capable of calling YOURSELF an IDIOT thinking you are someone else. Or do you think that you could be two different people in the same thread at once, seems on par with your usual reasoning? Well whatever else it is it again shows that any kind of discourse with you is POINTLESS.

Johnny, you need to find you pills FAST.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
No you drug-crazed, demented maniac, it's a direct quote from YOU from the *top of this thread*.
Quote it directly in quotation marks and direct to my post. I am not going to waste my time looking for something you are most probably deliberately and deceitfully, as is your style, quoting out of context.

And to top it all off this demonstrates that you are even capable of calling YOURSELF an IDIOT
Yes I proudly confess that I am capable of calling myself an idiot since I have been an idiot to teach "time dilation" and "wave-particle duality"" for many years. I have thus also been an idiot in my life but I am trying not to make a career of it like you are doing.

Well whatever else it is it again shows that any kind of discourse with you is POINTLESS.
It is obviously pointless between us since you are a professional moron.

Johnny, you need to find you pills FAST.
Unfortunately for YOU there are no pills that can help a congenital deficiency like you have.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
Quote it directly in quotation marks

That's *what I did*. Are you BLIND as well?

and direct to my post.


What the hell do you mean "and direct to my post."? Since when do the post have IDs?

Just ctl+f for "Absurd"! It's the first match on the page ya fucking moron!

And that will STILL make you calling yourself an IDIOT from between the beginning and the end of this thread, never mind over your so-called career. You should have stuck to doping. It suits you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Quote it directly in quotation marks

That's *what I did*. Are you BLIND as well?
Maybe I am blind since I cannot find it anywhere that I posted what you quoted. I might have posted that if there is a difference, it would only be caused by one (or both clocks) being deficient. If they are perfect, they will be the same and remain the same. By this I stand since any other possibility can only exist in Alice's Wonderland. If the times are different within the twin's respective reference frames, the twins can NEVER meet up since the one will be in the past of the other.

and direct to my post.
Well, count the number of posts upwards from this one and post this number. Or can you not count?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
And that will STILL make you calling yourself an IDIOT from between the beginning and the end of this thread,
If anybody can come up with arguments based on real physics and prove that I was wrong anywhere on this thread, I will obviously admit that I was an idiot. But so far nobody did. I have only been entertained on parroting of mainstream dogma which I have also taught when I was an idiot.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
It's number 12 from the TOP (one doesn't have to go far before you start flinging insults you lying idiot). But feel free to count up from the bottom if you want. I've no doubt you're stupid enough to do so.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
If anybody can come up with arguments based on real physics and prove that I was wrong anywhere on this thread, I will obviously admit that I was an idiot


You've already have called yourself an idiot, based on your own post here.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) May 01, 2014
Maybe I am blind since I cannot find it anywhere that I posted what you quoted


Bullshit. You're just proving my point: useless, pointless, dishonest debater. And so within a year after you are dead no one will remember you. So unlike the giants of 20th century HEP and cosmology you like to disparage so much.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
It's number 12 from the TOP (one doesn't have to go far before you start flinging insults you lying idiot). But feel free to count up from the bottom if you want. I've no doubt you're stupid enough to do so.


Thank you. The full quotation is "Now you are claiming that just because the twin has changed reference frames the clock of the second clockmaker is now out of sync! Absurd!! I stand by this. It was NOT I that claimed it, as could be deduced from your deceitful use of this remark, but the "you" refers to an idiot like you. The clocks, if they represent the actual times within the reference frames of the two twins will be exactly the same, just like the ages of the two twins will be exactly the same.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
If anybody can come up with arguments based on real physics and prove that I was wrong anywhere on this thread, I will obviously admit that I was an idiot


You've already have called yourself an idiot, based on your own post here.
Like I said, I am willing to call myself an idiot if somebody can prove in terms of impeccable mathematics that what I have derived in terms of mathematics is wrong. Nobody has done this up to now, even though my papers are in the public domain. You did not do this, probably because you are far to stupid to do simple mathematics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Maybe I am blind since I cannot find it anywhere that I posted what you quoted


Bullshit. You're just proving my point: useless, pointless, dishonest debater. And so within a year after you are dead no one will remember you. So unlike the giants of 20th century HEP and cosmology you like to disparage so much.
In contrast you are of course in the fortunate position that you will be remembered as the biggest moron, scoundrel and rubbish that EVER existed: And you will deserve this. Even your wife will probably remember you as such!
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
It's number 12 from the TOP (one doesn't have to go far before you start flinging insults you lying idiot). But feel free to count up from the bottom if you want. I've no doubt you're stupid enough to do so.


Thank you. The full quotation is "Now you are claiming that just because the twin has changed reference frames the clock of the second clockmaker is now out of sync! Absurd!! I stand by this. It was NOT I that claimed it, as could be deduced from your deceitful use of this remark, but the "you" refers to an idiot like you.
That's *really interesting* Johnny, but try to FOCUS your old decrepit brain for just one moment. I know the "you" was referring to me, that was never the issue when I initially REposted that (did you catch that, Johnny? ***REPOSTED***, NOT initially posted?). The issue was the FACT that YOU are the first one to fling insults despite all your claims to the contrary so that you in fact lie about that as well.

FOCUS, Johnny, *FOCUS*!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
That's *really interesting* Johnny, but try to FOCUS your old decrepit brain for just one moment. I know the "you" was referring to me, that was never the issue when I initially REposted that (did you catch that, Johnny? ***REPOSTED***, NOT initially posted?).
I finally did.

The issue was the FACT that YOU are the first one to fling insults despite all your claims to the contrary so that you in fact lie about that as well.
Then why did you not state this stupid reasoning of yours? And where is the insult? It can only be in your demented mind. Such a pity that there are no pills that can EVER help you.

Signing off for now!!

Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) May 01, 2014
You could have avoided making such an asshole of yourself if you have read this book.


It make no difference to read the book or to not read the book. Everybody who don't read it is the a**h***, or they can take the choice to read it and be the idiot like you say everybody who read it is because they recognize for being foolishment.

[q[Does a stationary electron-wave not absorb a photon light-wave?

I thought you try to say you the honest man Skippy? Now you stoop to stealing the Zephir-Skippy ideas? Shame on you.

If you ignored me you would not have been coming over as the biggest moron on this forum.


Well you are a hard couyon to ignore johnpringles-Skippy. Whenever someone try to do that you make the big outburst of complaint that the physicists of the world is ignoring you, eh?

Where have I been lying? If you want to make such accusations you must be specific.


Specific you lie here Skippy. That specific enough for you Cher?
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) May 01, 2014
Then why did you not state this stupid reasoning of yours? And where is the insult?


Again, all you do here is demonstrate what a useless, pointless, and dishonest debater you are. Either that or you really are completely unable to remain focused and follow a discussion thread. But whether the former or the latter, or even a combination of both, it simply doesn't matter; the end result is always the same: any and all discussions with you are completely futile. That's why there's really nothing to be gained by playing with ya Johnny, not even potentially and for either party.

Have a good night. It's getting late where you are.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2014
Then why did you not state this stupid reasoning of yours? And where is the insult

Go back and reread the last 32 posts if you must. It's hardly a major burden (timewise anyway). Most didn't even come close to using up their 1000 characters. Reread them 2, 3 times if you have to. Maybe you'll finally clue in. Really doubtful but maybe. 'Cause there's no point in repeating them again (and again, and again), you'd just ask "what was that?" at the end of each round as usual anyway. Useless.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2014
Like I said, I am willing to call myself an idiot if somebody can prove in terms of impeccable mathematics that what I have derived in terms of mathematics is wrong...

Ok, time for a different strategy. Suppose you are completely correct, Johan. First, I direct you to the following article, which has nothing to do with relativity, or even physics, but a claimed math proof that is so incomprehensible, nobody can understand it to tell if it it is correct. http://projectwor...e-proof/ . Now, what does this have to do with this thread?

Well, in all the time I have been here, I have never seen one person, no matter how physically or mathematically educated respond positively to your reasoning (with the exception of Reg Mundy, but he has demonstrated himself to be highly incompetent). Now, either every single person on Physorg is unable to understand your reasoning, or you are incorrect. (to be continued)
Pejico
May 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2014
(continued)
However, I began the last comment by assuming that you are correct. So, that must mean that nobody on physorg is capable of understanding your reasoning. On the contrary, there is a "cabal" of commenters (including me) who all understand each other's reasoning, and all agree that your reasoning makes no sense.

So, what am I getting at? Well, the author makes a very compelling argument. Peer review really can't happen without a community. If you write a proof, and nobody can understand it, then your proof is useless, unless you can actually use your proof to demonstrate something tangible. In this sense, a flawed proof that everybody can understand is better than a perfect proof that nobody can understand because people can take the first, iron out the kinks, and make something better with it, whereas, if the author of the second proof dies, nobody will probably) ever be able to do anything with it. (to be continued)
Pejico
May 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 01, 2014
(continued)Even if you are correct, someone else will likely come along, and make a better proof that everyone can understand. Either way, you will have gained nothing from writing a proof that is incomprehensible to people, and insulting people who argue with you about your reasoning.

Now, that being said, let me try to understand your reasoning. Let's go back to your example. Suppose you took one of a pair of twins and sent him off on a journey near the speed of light. Each twin has two clocks. One of those clocks is a normal mechanical clock. The other is a clock hooked up to the heart, so that it ticks with every heart beat. The other twin remains on earth. The traveling twin travels to Alpha Centauri, and immediately starts traveling in the other direction, and returns to earth finally.

How will all the clocks compare to each other?

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 01, 2014
Captain Stumpy lives in a naive, non-real dream-world
@johan
I was going to respond to this but then I saw this:
"Now you are claiming that just because the twin has changed reference frames the clock of the second clockmaker is now out of sync! Absurd!!"

Where have I EVER claimed this stupidity
I did a ctrl+f search and found that this is VERBATIM from your Apr 21 post! now I only feel sorry for you.
you cant remember what you said?
since I cannot find it anywhere that I posted what you quoted
and you say I live in a dream-world? how long did it take you to find it?

why is it that everyone else here understands the furlong arguments except you? also, I dont agree with everything Nou said, but he DOES have valid points, which I stated. I stand behind my posts as it is my belief, and since there is nothing empirical about philosophy, your belief is just as valid as mine, or the belief that "Unicorn turds cause global warming"
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
Since you have investigated fires and crime, you consider yourself better qualified to understand the intricacies of the interplay between philosophy and physics than I am, even though I have practised and taught physics for more than 50 years
@johan
personal conjecture, appeal to authority. I don't care, as philo is NOT empirical.
I simply gave my PHILOSOPHY
philosophy is a tool for gauging direction, potential paths, and the like, much like a compass, but it cannot pinpoint where you are without empirical data (which would be the map)
you can argue till blue in the face but you will never convince me without some serious proof that philo is anything other than the above. and without proof, you are just as right as me, or anyone else, and are equally as valid as believing in fairies, leprechauns and angels or religions. a philo is NOT empirical, therefore it is relegated to the realm of circumstantial or even faith

IOW - your philosophy is every bit as valid as mine
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
you should not pose around on a physics forum as if you are capable of reasoning physics
@johan
communication issue. you cannot read? I never claimed to be a physicist, I claimed that I am here to learn. given that you are INCAPABLE of teaching, and that you love to share that
I have practised and taught physics for more than 50 years
but you cannot effectively communicate or teach here, then I would say that the problem lies with you, not I. in fact, I can follow Gawad or Furlong, but all I get from you is ascerbic twisted geriatric soliloquey about how I should "behave" rather than showing me proof, or TEACHING me, like Furlong et al has done. Perhaps it is time for you to hang up your keyboard and submit to long term continual care with regular cognitive assessments for your own good?
You are lying since you are making many assertions which cannot be proved at all
only with regard to philo, and my philo is every bit as valid as anyone else's.
I guess we should just agree to disagree about philosophy, but I fully expect you to rant on instead. You seem to be someone who thinks only YOU can be correct on that issue.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
So give me the experimental measurements which will give the empirical data which will stand up in court....
@johan
try putting your glasses back on and re-reading
So you know more than Feynman and Dirac since you investigated fires and crime?
again, try reading for comprehension
but in contrast to you they have not been certifiable fools
at least they (and I) can comprehend english. again, re-read for comprehension and quit being an arse
from re-reading the post again, at least thrice, we have a point of agreement but you are taking it as a personal attack and venting. WTF?
is this what happens when you are a physicist with more than 50 yrs? you decide that only you can be correct, and only when you say so? no matter how much anyone else agree's?

Well, at least now I remember why I ignore you in a thread. you have communication issues, you are egotistical, self-centered and stuck in a paradigm with no room for logical discourse. feel free to answer Furlong et al. I'm done with you. I can't do blatant stupid
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
Again, all you do here is demonstrate what a useless, pointless, and dishonest debater you are. Either that or you really are completely unable to remain focused and follow a discussion thread. But whether the former or the latter, or even a combination of both, it simply doesn't matter; the end result is always the same: any and all discussions with you are completely futile. That's why there's really nothing to be gained by playing with ya Johnny, not even potentially and for either party.
You are keeping it the same old discussions since you are too incompetent to read a very short manuscript and to then base you criticisms on finding mistakes in the postulates and/or the mathematics used. And then you call me a dishonest debater. You are really beneath contempt.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
Then why did you not state this stupid reasoning of yours? And where is the insult

Go back and reread the last 32 posts if you must. It's hardly a major burden (timewise anyway). Most didn't even come close to using up their 1000 characters. Reread them 2, 3 times if you have to. Maybe you'll finally clue in. Really doubtful but maybe. 'Cause there's no point in repeating them again (and again, and again), you'd just ask "what was that?" at the end of each round as usual anyway. Useless.
Please read my manuscripts and criticise the physics postulates and mathematics used, instead of venting your anger at being incompetent by spitting in my face.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
@ the furlong

You have just given a long lot of arguments in order to avoid arguing the actual physics and mathematics on my manuscript on the Doppler-shift and time-dilation. I find your approach extremely dishonest and in total violation of the ethical code on which physics is supposed to function. Now let me be specific on the postulates and mathematics in my manuscript and see whether you have the integrity to give honest answers. If you do not have this integrity it is just as useless to argue with you as ir is to argue with a moron like Gawad. Just answer the following simple questions with a yes or a no.

1. Do you accept Einstein's second postulate on which he based his Special Theory of Relativity to be correct?

2. Do you agree that according to this postulate the speed of light is the same within two inertial reference frames moving relative to one another?

3. Do you agree that when a light source that is stationary within K (using the normal nomenclature)
continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
it can send out a wave-front at time t=t'=0?

4. Do you agree that after a time t>0 has elapsed the source sends out the next wave-front; which means that the frequency of the source is f=1/t?

5. Do you agree that if the time on the moving clock is t' when the second wavefront is emitted at time t within K then, according to Einstein's postulate, the first wavefront must have moved a distance ct' within K.

6. Do you agree that to obtain the relationship between the frequency f-1/t within K and the frequency f' within K' I used Einstein's concept of time dilation to get the relationship between t and t'?'

7. Do you agree that when I did this I did not obtain the correct formula for the Doppler shift?

8. Do you agree that this means that either Einstein's second postulate must be wrong, or that Einstein's concept of time -dilation must be wrong?

9, Do you agree that if Einstein's second postulate is wrong then the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
10. Do you agree that when I rejected Einstein's concept of time dilation, and rather assumed that the clocks keep the same time, I did get the correct formula for the Doppler-shift.

11. Do you agree that this is incontrovertible proof that the time-difference between the clocks obtained from the Lorentz transformation cannot be simultaneously on the two clocks as it has to be if Einstein's interpretation is correct?

These are simple arguments which cannot have any other interpretation if Einstein's second postulate is correct. The only way in which you can disprove this impeccable physics is to prove that Einstein's second postulate is wrong: But this will mean that we must reject the Special Theory of Relativity en toto.

So please try and discuss physics with the integrity that is required from a physicist, even though most theoretical physicists abandoned integrity long ago. Try and be an exception and to return to the original guidelines which keep physics self-correcting.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy,

Your arguments above are deliberated distortions of what happened. I misunderstood what Gawad was aiming at since he posted what I have posted in a manner that implied that the term "you" applied to me. I have now corrected this misunderstanding. Now you come in from the side like a bull in a China shop: Typical!

I have no desire to argue physics or philosophy with you since you are obviously not qualified to do so. Although I have met people in my life who could argue these topics without having had formal training in these field, you are obviously not one of them. The best advice I can give you is the following: Empty faucet, keep your valve closed: Maybe people will then think that you are not empty.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
You cannot prove in terms of impeccable mathematics, that the geocentric epicycle model is false on behalf of Copernicus. At the moment, when the epicycle model is fitted to the state-of-art observations with sufficient number of parameters, then it becomes literally indistinguishable from heliocentric model in terms of formal math - just its model is much more complex, thus violating the Occam's razor criterion.
I agree. But if you have read my manuscript you would have realised that the situation is not the same. May I suggest that you first check your facts before spouting.

In my manuscript I give the textbook derivation which rest on two assumptions: 1. The light approaches the detector with a speed c+v; and 2. That Einstein's concept of time dilation on a moving clocks is correct. This gives the correct answer.

Then instead of using c+v as the first assumption, I use Einstein's postulate that the speed of light must be c, and only c, within both inertial

Continued
Writela
1 / 5 (1) May 02, 2014
if Einstein's second postulate is wrong then the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong
No postulate of any theory is universally correct so far. The physical theories are mental models/abstractions of reality and they exhibit wider or narrower validity scope. In particular the STR fails for non-inertial systems (non-flat space-time with "boundary conditions" and acceleration) and for such a situations just the general relativity has been designed. Are you sure, you didn't violate just this condition in your deductions?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
5. Do you agree that if the time on the moving clock is t' when the second wavefront is emitted at time t within K then, according to Einstein's postulate, the first wavefront must have moved a distance ct' within K.


This one may need more clarification for thefurlong,...

It would have moved a distance ct' in K', not in K. If K is to use K' clock he will need to make use of inverse Lorentz transform to "fix" t'.

[I'm assuming that you are not starting with the postulate that time dilation is wrong, but that you are attempting to derive that it is]
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
reference frames. When I combine this with Einstein's concept of time-dilation, I do NOT get the correct answer at all. But if I assume that the clocks keep the same time, then I do get the correct answer. Thus there are two derivations giving the correct answer where the one is based on c+v and time-dilation, and the other is based on c being the same within both reference frames without time-dilation. So which one is correct?

Well if the assumption that c is the same within both inertial reference frames is incorrect, then the Special Theory of Relativity is incorrect in toto. Thus this assumption MUST be correct, and this correct assumption demands that there cannot be time dilation in order to derive the correct formula for the Doppler shift.

The textbook derivation is based on the assumption that light can approach an object with a relative speed c+v which is higher than the speed of light. This violates Einstein's second postulate and requires time-dilation

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
It should be clear to anybody with common sense that the derivation which does not require a speed for light that is higher than c, does not violate Einstein's second postulate and must thus be the correct one.

And that the textbook derivation that requires a speed for the light of c+v must be in violation of the second postulate.

The derivation which does not violate the second postulate only gives the correct Doppler-shift when one assumes that the two clocks keep the same time, while the textbook derivation which does violate the second postulate requires time-dilation to get the correct answer.

Thus is there time dilation or is there not time dilation? Since in the textbook case c+v violates the second postulate, it must mean that the correct answer is obtained since two wrongs cancel one another where the other wrong is the concept of time-dilation.

QED
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
5. Do you agree that if the time on the moving clock is t' when the second wavefront is emitted at time t within K then, according to Einstein's postulate, the first wavefront must have moved a distance ct' within K.


More generally, what needs clarification imo, is what do you mean by "when the second wavefront is emitted"? The word "when" implies a "time" which must be defined operationally, i.e. in terms of a physical clock,... who's clock?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
5. Do you agree that if the time on the moving clock is t' when the second wavefront is emitted at time t within K then, according to Einstein's postulate, the first wavefront must have moved a distance ct' within K.


More generally, what needs clarification imo, is what do you mean by "when the second wavefront is emitted"? The word "when" implies a "time" which must be defined operationally, i.e. in terms of a physical clock,... who's clock?


If would take the time to read my manuscript you will see that the source is stationary, thus the time at which the second wavefront is emitted within K is t=1/f. Then it is assumed that the corresponding time on the clock is t' as given by Einstein 's time-dilation, in order to derive the Doppler shift: The wrong answer is then obtained.

Then then it is assumed that the time t' is not simultaneous as is demanded by time-dilation, but ONLY non-simultaneous: i.e. a later time, and then the correct formula is derived.

con.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
,.... in the above linked thread I posted step by step how to derive the difference between t' and t, from each observers determination of distance.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
By assuming non-simultaneity one has to use the Lorentz transformation from K to K' instead of the Lorentz transformation from K' to K as in the case of time-dilation on a moving clock.

If the transformation from K to K', which gives the correct results, is interpreted as time -dilation, it would mean that the stationary clock is now keeping slower time. The latter is not possible if the moving clock is keeping slower time as Einstein deduced. This means that not one of the two clocks can keep slower time than the other.

QED
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
5. Do you agree that if the time on the moving clock is t' when the second wavefront is emitted at time t within K then, according to Einstein's postulate, the first wavefront must have moved a distance ct' within K.


This one may need more clarification for thefurlong,...

It would have moved a distance ct' in K', not in K. If K is to use K' clock he will need to make use of inverse Lorentz transform to "fix" t'.

[I'm assuming that you are not starting with the postulate that time dilation is wrong, but that you are attempting to derive that it is]


I am NOT starting with the postulate that time dilation is wrong. In fact I am starting with the postulate that time dilation is correct and then find that when I use Einstein's second postulate, which requires that the speed of light must be c within K and K', I get the WRONG formula for the Doppler-shift.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
if Einstein's second postulate is wrong then the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong
No postulate of any theory is universally correct so far. The physical theories are mental models/abstractions of reality and they exhibit wider or narrower validity scope. In particular the STR fails for non-inertial systems (non-flat space-time with "boundary conditions" and acceleration) and for such a situations just the general relativity has been designed. Are you sure, you didn't violate just this condition in your deductions?


Really Zephyr!! Your usual hallucinations. Please watch the bubbles your duck is farting and keep quiet.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
Regarding the question, whether the electron is wave or particle (or both), the simplest argument may sound just from you, when you're considering electron as a stationary EM wave, which is partially bouncing back and forth due to "boundary conditions" or "gravity field" of the wave itself.
A stationary EM wave does not "bounce back and forth" since its time dependence is given by exp(iwt). Only a stationary wave within a medium can "bounce back and forth". An EM wave does not form within a medium since this would violate energy-conservation for such a wave.

Please solve Maxwell's equations for a stationary EM wave before wildly making generalised statements which are not based on any evidence or any derivation from physically accepted differential equations.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
By assuming non-simultaneity one has to use the Lorentz transformation from K to K' instead of the Lorentz transformation from K' to K as in the case of time-dilation on a moving clock.

If the transformation from K to K', which gives the correct results, is interpreted as time -dilation, it would mean that the stationary clock is now keeping slower time. The latter is not possible if the moving clock is keeping slower time as Einstein deduced. This means that not one of the two clocks can keep slower time than the other.


But the only way to observe that (science requires observation to state such things),... that both are running slower than each other,... is to then bring the two clocks back together, which requires changing IRF to do so, and then it is found that both are not and can not be running at slower rate.

Also, it is not that failure of simultaneity is assumed, it is rather derived.

[I will step aside and let you debate thefurlong so it is one on one]
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
But the only way to observe that (science requires observation to state such things)
Sometimes it is not possible to observe or measure in science. What is then done is to make derivations from postulates and to look for self-consistency.

,... that both are running slower than each other,... is to then bring the two clocks back together, which requires changing IRF to do so, and then it is found that both are not and can not be running at slower rate.
If Einstein's second postulate, which determines the Lorentz equations, and which, if wrong, means that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong, when combined with the concept of time-dilation, does not give the correct Doppler-formula which has been experimentally verified. But it does give the correct formula when assuming that there is no time-dilation: i.e. that the clocks are keeping the same time.

Einstein's second postulate cannot be wrong since this will mean that we must scrap

continue
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
the Special Theory of Relativity; which makes all the arguments on this thread moot.

Thus since the second postulate is correct, as had been proved experimentally, and since when it is combined with time dilation it does not lead to the Doppler formula which has also been verified, and since when combining the second postulate with no time-dilation does give the correct Doppler formula, self-consistency demands that there cannot be time dilation on a clock.

Why do you want to bring the clocks together to prove what must be inherent in the formulas that model the Special Theory of Relativity in order to be self-consistent? Why do you want to bring in acceleration when this is not even being modelled by the Lorentz-equations?
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
You have just given a long lot of arguments in order to avoid arguing the actual physics and mathematics on my manuscript on the Doppler-shift and time-dilation.

No. I did not give you arguments "in order to" do that. As you would say, STOP LYING!
I find your approach extremely dishonest and in total violation of the ethical code on which physics is supposed to function.

You find my approach of pointing out the logical fact that either nobody hereunderstands what you are arguing, or you don't understand what you are arguing dishonest? You find my approach of saying that no matter how correct you are, if nobody can understand your argument but you, and you have not used your argument to effectively demonstrate anything as evidence that it works, then your argument is useless?

We have tried to approach from starting from axioms several times before, and it got nowhere. Surely you agree that a different approach to arguing is probably necessary.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
@johanfprins

Now, I might agree to answer your questions, if you answer mine first. You don't need to explain your reasoning. You just need to tell me what the clocks in my example will say compared to each other after the second twin returns. I will not use this to jump down your throat. I am interested in getting at what you actually believe, which, at this point seems contradictory to me. You can help it not seem contradictory to me by answering my questions first.
Second, if I do answer your questions, I will not simply just say yes or no. You know that scientific inquiry doesn't work that way. If the premise of your question is incorrect to begin with, then yes or no won't ork. If someone asked, "Do the aliens living a billion light years away from here have green eyes? yes or no."
An answer of yes or no would not suffice in this case, because we don't know if such aliens exist to begin with.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
You find my approach of pointing out the logical fact that either nobody hereunderstands what you are arguing, or you don't understand what you are arguing dishonest?
This is very strange that nobody on this forum can understand my manuscript on the Doppler effect and time dilation, since I had graduate and undergraduate students read it, and they had no problem in understanding the arguments in that manuscript.

I think it is more a case that nobody on this thread wants to understand my arguments, just like the Cardinals in the time of Galileo did not want to understand his arguments and did not want to see mountains on the moon. Since undergraduate students could follow my arguments very well, it reflects badly on the physics competence of the people who post on this thread.

We have tried to approach from starting from axioms several times before, and it got nowhere.
Because you duck and dive all the time. How about answering my questions above with a yes or no?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
Now, I might agree to answer your questions, if you answer mine first. You don't need to explain your reasoning. You just need to tell me what the clocks in my example will say compared to each other after the second twin returns.
The twins cannot return to one another if the times within their reference frames are different since then one will be in the future of the other. They can only meet up with one another when the times in their reference frames are the same; which means that they will have the exact same age.

Second, if I do answer your questions, I will not simply just say yes or no. You know that scientific inquiry doesn't work that way. If the premise of your question is incorrect to begin with, then yes or no won't ork
Fair enough. But just try and be honest. So far, in my opinion, you have not been willing to be open minded about anything that is not already within a text book.
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (6) May 02, 2014
@johan, so for example, when you say something about "the time", as you did in
5. Do you agree that if the time on the moving clock is t' when the second wavefront is emitted at time t within K then, according to Einstein's postulate, the first wavefront must have moved a distance ct' within K.

You implicitly mention a quantity of time that has not been well defined. You give a clock that is at t', and a clock that is at t, but then you related them by saying that "when" they read these times, something happens, implying that there is some party who measures clock 1 and clock 2 to read those times when his clock read some time, t''. What is this time, t'', and where has it been measured in relation to clock 1 and clock 2? Do you see why it would be pointless for me to answer "yes or no?" Your question is ill-defined.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
The twins cannot return to one another if the times within their reference frames are different since then one will be in the future of the other.


This statement presumes an Universal Absolute Time, which is to beg the question.

There is NO 'subjective intuitive time' useful for physics,... one must define time AS A physical system unto itself, which being a physical system is also effect by physical conditions, like an observer as well.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
I think it is more a case that nobody on this thread wants to understand my arguments, just like the Cardinals in the time of Galileo did not want to understand his arguments and did not want to see mountains on the moon.

Well, if you think that, then surely you agree that it makes no sense to continue trying to argue with us, since we are inherently unreasonable. However, you keep coming back here, indicating that you think there is a chance that one of us is reasonable enough to understand your arguments. But that means that you need to change your argument strategy, because you keep butting heads with the same people and getting nowhere.
Since undergraduate students could follow my arguments very well, it reflects badly on the physics competence of the people who post on this thread.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that if a group of people does not understand you, then they are the incompetent ones. The other possibility is that you are the incompetent one.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
@johanfprins
And if you argue that you can't be wrong, because you are a successful physicist with a long CV, that is also a fallacy. Before we knew about fusion, there were successful physicists who argued that the sun must be burning some unknown fuel to continue combusting for so long. And no matter how many grad students agree with you, you are not correct, if your argument is not sound. It might just be a case of folie à plusieurs.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
The twins cannot return to one another if the times within their reference frames are different since then one will be in the future of the other. They can only meet up with one another when the times in their reference frames are the same; which means that they will have the exact same age.

Thank you! Now, give me some time to think about what next to ask you. In the meantime, I will tell you that my answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 are all yes. I will not answer the others yet.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
This is very strange that nobody on this forum can understand my manuscript on the Doppler effect and time dilation, since I had graduate and undergraduate students read it, and they had no problem in understanding the arguments in that manuscript.


Lol! Please, we don't have to brown-nose you for pass marks.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
The twins cannot return to one another if the times within their reference frames are different since then one will be in the future of the other. They can only meet up with one another when the times in their reference frames are the same; which means that they will have the exact same age.

Thank you! Now, give me some time to think about what next to ask you. In the meantime, I will tell you that my answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 are all yes. I will not answer the others yet.
Very kind of you Sir! Bless you.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
Your arguments above are deliberated distortions of what happened
@johan
no, they are not. They are highlighting something: the fact that this is a common occurrence with you
COMMON!!
this happens in most threads where you comment and even ONE person slightly disagrees with you
I have no desire to argue physics or philosophy with you
good, because you have so far shown that you are not capable of understanding a personal philosophy which is stated as a disagreement, and, apparently, you are having problems comprehending English as well (This could be your advanced age or sigs of a cognitive disorder)

nor are you capable of comprehending a physics discussion where people show physics that you are afraid of and don't agree with (see furlong et al above)

perhaps you should seriously consider having a cognitive assessment from a local trusted professional. Please consider this.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
Lol! Please, we don't have to brown-nose you for pass marks.
@Gawad

it is very well possible/probable that this the reason for his acerbic nature in the comments...
no one here defers to his experience like they do to Runrig or Q-star... of course, the latter are also usually helping others comprehend instead of bashing everyone over the head with their 50+ years etc etc etc

thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
@johanfprins
Now, I want to understand what exactly mechanical clocks mean to you. Let's say that somebody with a mechanical clock passes you, moving at velocity v. How quickly will you measure that person's mechanical clock to be ticking?
Gawad
3.8 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
Lol! Please, we don't have to brown-nose you for pass marks.
@Gawad

it is very well possible/probable that this the reason for his acerbic nature in the comments...
bashing everyone over the head with their 50+ years etc etc etc.


Well, I'd definitely include it as a contributing factor, but I'd think the issue is more complex than that as far as he's concerned.

Truth is, I've done some teaching as well and while it may have been a while, I can't even imagine the degree of obtuseness involved in believing you must be correct because all/some (?) of your students agree you are correct. I mean, fur Christ's sake, they're *your students*, you're in a power relationship with them and you're holding the big end of the stick. What do you expect...*especially* if you are as nasty and self-entitled as Prins. How could they object? So how could he possibly believe that that's evidence that he's right and use that as an argument? It's completely disconnected from reality.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
What I find intriguing is that he admits he use to "tow the line" so to speak. I'd be curious to know what happened, and how...exactly. You mentioned age or cognitive issues, but often these go together. I have an uncle who was a university professor (in art and photography, nothing to do with science) who I watched sink into–diagnosed–dementia in his seventies. Brilliant guy, though he'd always been what I'd described as off beat and opinionated (though that's not unusual in the university crowd). But good god I saw him swerve off into a paranoid and unreal world in the space five years or so where all his eccentricities were magnified to the point where he was hardly functional. But this was not Alzheimer's. And that was the span where we could see it, yet apparently it had probably been going on much longer than that. Anyway, it's just that Prins's claim of "I use to be an idiot" rang some odd bells. (Doesn't make me sympathize with him any more though. So no worries, ok Johnny?)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
@johanfprins
Now, I want to understand what exactly mechanical clocks mean to you. Let's say that somebody with a mechanical clock passes you, moving at velocity v. How quickly will you measure that person's mechanical clock to be ticking?
Physics has to do with time: Technology has to do with clocks and how accurately different clocks can measure time. I thus do not understand the relevance of this question. Please rephrase it in terms of time only or explain what you are aiming at by bringing in technological problems into physics. Gracias.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
@johanfprins
Now, I want to understand what exactly mechanical clocks mean to you. Let's say that somebody with a mechanical clock passes you, moving at velocity v...
Physics has to do with time: Technology has to do with clocks and how accurately different clocks can measure time. I thus do not understand the relevance of this question. Please rephrase it in terms of time only or explain what you are aiming at by bringing in technological problems into physics. Gracias.

But technology relies on physics. So, please, humor me for a moment. I am not asking you to accept that every clock everywhere accurately reflects time, but surely you acknowledge that if you have a perfectly working watch that never leaves your side, which you measured to be at 0 s when you obtained it, it will perfectly reflect the amount of time that you have experienced since obtaining it. Do you agree?
Now, as for question 4, I must ask you to elaborate (to be continued)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
I have an uncle who was a university professor (in art and photography, nothing to do with science) who I watched sink into–diagnosed–dementia in his seventies. Brilliant guy, though he'd always been what I'd described as off beat and opinionated (though that's not unusual in the university crowd). But good god I saw him swerve off into a paranoid and unreal world in the space five years or so where all his eccentricities were magnified to the point where he was hardly functional.
Did he swerve off or was he born that way. It runs in the family does it not? He was your uncle: This explains a lot!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
But technology relies on physics.
Correct! But physics is not limited by technology.

So, please, humor me for a moment. I am not asking you to accept that every clock everywhere accurately reflects time,
So why select a a mechanical clock? It does not make sense

but surely you acknowledge that if you have a perfectly working watch that never leaves your side, which you measured to be at 0 s when you obtained it, it will perfectly reflect the amount of time that you have experienced since obtaining it.
If it is a perfect clock, yes: But this is irrelevant, since even if I did not have a clock, time will still have an instantaneous time where I am.

Do you agree?
I agree that time will have an instantaneous value at any instant where I am and increase from one instant to another, EVEN If I do not have a clock. If a perfect clock is possible, which is not the case, it should be able to record this progression of instantaneous time.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
(continued)
Before I can answer yes or no, you have to be more explicit.

Let's talk in terms of relative measurements. Certainly, you and I would agree that if I sent out a pulse of light at what I have measured to be t seconds, then I must have experienced t seconds of time. Likewise, if you and I have been traveling right next to each other, you and I will both agree on the time and place where this pulse of light is emitted.

But my problem with this kind of question is when a second party is introduced who is not local to the emitter of light. Regardless of how fast this second party is moving, I argue that we must derive the results of the second party's attempts at measuring where and when this event took place. There is little harm in shedding assumptions, don't you agree? Certainly, if something is true, then, it is better to use what I know to show it to be true, than just to a priori assume so. Correct?
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 02, 2014
I have an uncle who was a university professor (in art and photography, nothing to do with science) who I watched sink into–diagnosed–dementia in his seventies. Brilliant guy, though he'd always been what I'd described as off beat and opinionated (though that's not unusual in the university crowd). But good god I saw him swerve off into a paranoid and unreal world in the space five years or so where all his eccentricities were magnified to the point where he was hardly functional.
Did he swerve off or was he born that way. It runs in the family does it not? He was your uncle: This explains a lot!


I only got to know him in his mid 40's so I don't know about him being "born that way". He was married to my aunt who is a blood relative, so no, he was actually an in-law. Nice try though. And yes, it does run in families, but I hope yours is fairing well. (BTW, for what it's worth, I'd rather discuss this with Captain through PM but Physorg's remains broken.)
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
If it is a perfect clock, yes: But this is irrelevant, since even if I did not have a clock, time will still have an instantaneous time where I am.

But it isn't irrelevant. I am trying to use this to get at the root of our disagreement. You claim that mechanical clocks are irrelevant. I claim that they are relevant if they work perfectly. More explicitly, if you are carrying a perfectly working mechanical clock with you the entire time, it will always reflect the amount of time that you have experienced. This should not be a controversial claim.

I am not trying to trick you. I am trying to start with as few assumptions as possible, and come to a conclusion we can both accept on the merit of my reasoning.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 02, 2014
Let's talk in terms of relative measurements. Certainly, you and I would agree that if I sent out a pulse of light at what I have measured to be t seconds, then I must have experienced t seconds of time.
Correct.

Likewise, if you and I have been traveling right next to each other,
You mean we are coincident all the time? If this is what you mean: Correct.

you and I will both agree on the time and place where this pulse of light is emitted.
Obviously when we are coincident in space at that instant in time we will agree on this,.

But my problem with this kind of question is when a second party is introduced who is not local to the emitter of light.
Which second party: I thought you and I are already two?

There is little harm in shedding assumptions, don't you agree?
Which assumptions are you talking about? Please be more specific. Maybe I am too slow, but I have difficulty in following you here.

Signing off for today.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
Likewise, if you and I have been traveling right next to each other,
You mean we are coincident all the time? If this is what you mean: Correct.

I mean that we are always touching so that the distance between us is, for all intents and purposes, 0 m.
you and I will both agree on the time and place where this pulse of light is emitted.

Obviously when we are coincident in space at that instant in time we will agree on this,.

So, just to be clear, all I am saying is that if I spend 10 s at a distance of 0 m from you, you will also agree that you have spent 10 s at a distance of 0 from me. That is all I am assuming for now. I am not yet talking about how much time we have experienced from when we started existing, but merely that when we do meet up, for however long we remain 0 m from each other, we will both agree on the passage of time.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
But my problem with this kind of question is when a second party is introduced who is not local to the emitter of light.

Which second party: I thought you and I are already two?

Sorry if that was unclear. I meant that if instead of you being local to me, we talk about you being a distance away from me, then we should not make assumptions about us sharing the same passage of time. Since we seem to disagree on how much time people experience when non-zero distance is involved then you should agree that the only way for us to come to a mutual conclusion is to arrive at that conclusion through reasoning that we both agree with. That means we should start only from assumptions we both accept.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
but surely you acknowledge that if you have a perfectly working watch that never leaves your side, which you measured to be at 0 s when you obtained it, it will perfectly reflect the amount of time that you have experienced since obtaining it.

If it is a perfect clock, yes: But this is irrelevant, since even if I did not have a clock, time will still have an instantaneous time where I am.


I would suggest not making reference to "experienced time" at all. It is the quickest way to confuse a discusion of SR, to conflate "experience of time" with a physical system that we define AS BEING time. Forget about the intutive experience of time. It is irrelevant.

Clocks, no matter their design, do not "measure" some imagined physical substance "Time" that exists out there independently of us. Rather, a clock is what we define AS BEING time, and is just another physical system.

I recommend using a light clock with mirrors perpendicular to direction of motion.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
I would suggest not making reference to "experienced time" at all. It is the quickest way to confuse a discusion of SR, to conflate "experience of time" with a physical system that we define AS BEING time. Forget about the intutive experience of time. It is irrelevant.

I disagree. Johan's whole problem seems to be a disconnect with devices that measure time (including light clocks) and the actual passage of time one experiences. I have tried the strategy of telling him that the type of clock used is a light clock, and I have also tried the strategy of telling him that it uses particle decay. He immediately rejects the argument by claiming that because it is a device, and not time itself, it is not relevant. My goal is to show him that they are relevant, because the passage of time indicated by a perfect, local, clock is indistinct from the passage of locally experienced time.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
The "actual passage of time one experiences" is merely an intuition, and is not a physical thing. We are discussing physics.

If you cannot agree with the starting principal of using an operational definition of time and in fact to make no reference to "time" at all, but to only reference clock readings, then this thread will go to 800 posts.

Would he agree to the observers being robots with no intuitive sense of time, or maybe the clocks can be 1,000 grams of radioactive material with a half-life.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
,... it is pointless imo to move forward without the agreed starting premise that any speak of "at the same time" or "instantaneous" , etc, must make reference to a clock reading, a number, or weight of a radioactive material, etc.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
The "actual passage of time one experiences" is merely an intuition, and is not a physical thing. We are discussing physics.

Well, no, it is a physical thing. It just isn't the same for all physical objects. In other words, for at least every physical macroscopic object, there is a rigorous definition of its "age", and if it carries a perfectly functioning clock with it from its inception, its clock will correctly read its age. Also, if its age is determined beforehand to be A, and it acquires a clock at some space-time point when it is at age A, and sets it to 0 s, then whatever time, t, is read on the clock at some space-time event in the absolute future will reflect the age A + t. So, time is a perfectly rigorous physical concept. It just doesn't defined as Johan thinks it's defined.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
If you cannot agree with the starting principal of using an operational definition of time and in fact to make no reference to "time" at all, but to only reference clock readings, then this thread will go to 800 posts.

But the problem is, I tried that. He does not accept arguments that refer to clock readings because he dismisses arguments based on time-measuring devices as irrelevant. Thus, the way I see it, the only way to get anywhere is to convince him that they are relevant. Ultimately, any macroscopic physical object can be considered a "clock", because virtually every macroscopic physical object undergoes some kind of change, even if it is as little as heat dissipation through EM radiation.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
,... it is pointless imo to move forward without the agreed starting premise that any speak of "at the same time" or "instantaneous" , etc, must make reference to a clock reading, a number, or weight of a radioactive material, etc.

For you and I, that goes without saying, but not for Johan, for one of his premises seems to be that "instantaneous" is rigorously defined for all physical objects, even ones moving relative to each other. This premise causes him to conflate disagreements between local measurements of time, aka physical age, with the notion of time travel, which is not true. The way I see it, if I can convince him that that is not actually a useful premise, then maybe this will get somewhere.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
The "actual passage of time one experiences" is merely an intuition, and is not a physical thing. We are discussing physics.

Well, no, it is a physical thing. It just isn't the same for all physical objects. In other words, for at least every physical macroscopic object, there is a rigorous definition of its "age", ...


Yes exactly, ....as I said above, time is a physical thing ONLY to the extent that it can be Defined as such. An object's age is merely that it is congruent with some other physical system, a clock of any manner of design. There is a difference between Defining "time" to be a congruency with some physical system, and independtly observing a physical time-field or time-particle that physically causes "age" (not entropy either).

It's important imo in SR thought experiments to reject the notion that time is anything other than defined as a cyclic physical system of some sort. That way one is prevented from mixing intuitive concepts with physical systems
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
,... it is pointless imo to move forward without the agreed starting premise that any speak of "at the same time" or "instantaneous" , etc, must make reference to a clock reading, a number, or weight of a radioactive material, etc.

For you and I, that goes without saying, but not for Johan, for one of his premises seems to be that "instantaneous" is rigorously defined for all physical objects, even ones moving relative to each other. This premise causes him to conflate disagreements between local measurements of time, aka physical age, with the notion of time travel, which is not true.


It is because he views time as having some ontological existence of its own. That is fundamentally the problem here. If you both can agree that clocks do not "measure" some time "substance" , but rather that clocks are simply independent physical systems like any other, with only a human defined relation to intuitive-time, then the thought experiment can be quantified properly.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 02, 2014
At this point I will step away so not to add more complication to the argument than is necessary (déjà vu).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2014
So, just to be clear, all I am saying is that if I spend 10 s at a distance of 0 m from you, you will also agree that you have spent 10 s at a distance of 0 from me. That is all I am assuming for now. I am not yet talking about how much time we have experienced from when we started existing, but merely that when we do meet up, for however long we remain 0 m from each other, we will both agree on the passage of time.
Why did you not state this from the start: And why state the obvious at all?

Sorry if that was unclear. I meant that if instead of you being local to me, we talk about you being a distance away from me, then we should not make assumptions about us sharing the same passage of time.
We do not need to make assumptions about it: If are both stationary within the same IRF no matter how far apart we MUST share the same passage of time. If this is not possible, simultaneous events cannot occur at different positions within the same IRF, as is accepted happens.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 03, 2014
Well, I'd definitely include it as a contributing factor, but I'd think the issue is more complex than that as far as he's concerned
@Gawad
absolutely. But without actually being able to physically observe (there are some things that may not manifest the same way with comments vs. other communication styles) it is speculative and circumstantial. Sorry about your uncle. I know what it is like to watch it progress (being in the Med. profession as well as having a Geriatric Nurse for a wife). AS for PM's... do you use http://www.scienceforums.net/ ? Truck.Captain.Stumpy
fire off your e-mail in the PM function
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2014
I want to suggest that we ignore the long incoherent arguments by Noumenon and try to find a platform that incorporates what you have stated here
Certainly, if something is true, then, it is better to use what I know to show it to be true, than just to a priori assume so. Correct?


To ensure that we both try and do this, and in the light of the fact that you became stuck at my question 4, I want to suggest that we start off by sticking as closely as we can to what has been in textbooks since 1905. So do you agree that in text books:

1. It is assumed that we have identical perfect clocks which when synchronised will keep the exact same time ad infinitum when they are co-stationary within the same IRF?

2. It is assumed two such clocks ar stationary at the origins 0 and 0' of two IRF's K and K' where K' is moving relative to K with a speed v along their coincident axes x and x'.?

3. It is assumed when the clocks coincide they are synchronised so that t=t'=0?

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2014
4. That at the instant when the clocks are being synchronised a wave-front is emitted from the coincident position in space of 0 and 0'?

5. That this wave-front moves with the same speed c within both K and K'?

Yes or no.

Now in order to model the Doppler effect I assumed that:

1. The source is stationary within the stationary IRF K and emits a flat wave-front along the -x direction of K, and thus also along the -x' direction of K'.

This is then followed by my question 4 above, which I will rephrase in a bit more detail:
Do you agree that the source can now sent out a second wave-front after a time t on the clock in K in which the source is stationary, and that this means that the source must have a wavelength lambda=ct and a frequency=1/t.

Please confirm whether we agree up to this point; and if not with what you disagree.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
I want to suggest that we ignore the long incoherent arguments by Noumenon and try to find a platform that incorporates what you have stated here


The fact that you think my arguments are incoherent, despite 'Operational_definition' being of fundamental importance to physics, ensures that this thread will evolve to 800 posts.

The is no universal "flow rate" of anything physical we can call Time. Each type of physical system that we can choose to Define time, has a different and arbitrary "flow rate", which shows that the "flow of time" as an intuitive concept, is useless of itself. Your first number 5 postulate above is a direct result of a failure to define terms ("when") operationally.

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." - Albert Einstein

[ok, I'll shutup for realzies this time]
Pejico
May 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pejico
May 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
[EDIT for clarification: Each type of physical system that is choosen to Define a represention of time, has a different and arbitrary "flow rate",.... i.e. cycle count relative to another such system, .....which shows that the "flow of time" as an universal concept taken to be "actual [rate of] time one experiences", is a useless and a wrong concept in physics.]
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
To ensure that we both try and do this, and in the light of the fact that you became stuck at my question 4

On the contrary, I think we should pretend we are ignorant of anyone else's argument, and try to come to a mutual understanding by starting with assumptions we both agree with.
I want to suggest that we start off by sticking as closely as we can to what has been in textbooks since 1905. So do you agree that in text books:

I don't agree. We've established that you and I differ on how we interpret the content of those textbooks. Therefore, we need a different approach.

From the way I understand such textbooks, I wouldn't even pose 1 and 4 that way, because it would be ambiguous to me. In 1, when you say "when synchronised", when and where does "when" take place? Is it local? In other words when all clocks are synchronized, are they all 0 m apart? Or is there some guy who sees at least two clocks get synchronized 10 m apart? (to be continued)
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
(continued)
In 4, I have similar questions. Who measures "the instant", and when they do measure this instant, how far apart do they measure the two clocks to be? 0 m? 10 LY? Is there a 3rd clock that this person also measures to be synchronised with these two? How far far away does this person measure that clock to be? Is the person doing the measuring moving relative to any of the clocks when they measure them to be that way?

My answer to 1 and 4 depends on the answer to the questions above.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
@johanfprins
Basically, the moment you put a "bird's eye view" (so to speak) in the thought experiment, I get nervous. We can avoid me asking these kinds of questions entirely, if we restrict ourselves to always specifying who is doing the measuring, and not assuming that everybody who is more than 0 m apart agrees on some event, no matter how they are moving with respect to each other.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) May 03, 2014
....various intuitive presumptions,... counterfactuality, locality, separability, absolute simultaneity, [actual physical flow of time], determinism,... which [...] STILL causes physicists great confusion

@Nou
I am going to ask for some links about this, please.


As you can see from above, philosophy is intertwined with physics necessarily in starting postulates and conceptual definitions.

Certain otherwise "obvious" conceptual presumptions, like counterfactuality in qm, as implicit in experimental design, is invalid, while some attempts at unifying GR and QFT, like loop quantum gravity, consider space and time as emergent rather than substantive elements of reality, while other ideas drop "time" altogether.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2014
To ensure that we both try and do this, and in the light of the fact that you became stuck at my question 4

On the contrary, I think we should pretend we are ignorant of anyone else's argument, and try to come to a mutual understanding by starting with assumptions we both agree with.

I want to suggest that we start off by sticking as closely as we can to what has been in textbooks since 1905.

I don't agree. We've established that you and I differ on how we interpret the content of those textbooks.
Where has this been established? I have not made any interpretations from text books on which we disagree.

In text books two identical perfect clocks are assumed at the origins 0 and 0', which are then synchronised to read t=t'=0 when the clocks coincide. What is the interpretation here on which we do not agree?

In text books it is postulated that at t=t'=0 a light-source emits a wave from this coincident position. What interpretation is in disagreement?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2014
From the way I understand such textbooks, I wouldn't even pose 1 and 4 that way, because it would be ambiguous to me. In 1, when you say "when synchronised", when and where does "when" take place? Is it local?
Why does it has to be local? The clocks on GPS satellites and on earth are synchronised each day, even though they move relative to one another.

It is even easier within a single IRF since you can measure the distances between clocks and then send light signals from one clock to the other and synchronise them no matter how far they are from one another: And since we assume perfect clocks, which are stationary relative to one another ONE synchronisation is enough for the clocks to keep the same time ad infinitum.

In other words when all clocks are synchronized, are they all 0 m apart? Or is there some guy who sees at least two clocks get synchronized 10 m apart?
It is impossible for the same guy to be at two separate positions, but this is not required.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2014
(continued)
In 4, I have similar questions. Who measures "the instant", and when they do measure this instant, how far apart do they measure the two clocks to be? 0 m? 10 LY?
There is a light source at 0 which is coincident, and remains coincident with the clock at 0. This clock measures the first wavefront appearing at its coincident position at time t=0, and measures the second wavefront at its coincident position at a time t later where this time is 1/f.

To quote again: "Do you agree that after a time t>0 has elapsed the source sends out the next wave-front; which means that the frequency of the source is f=1/t?"

Is there a 3rd clock that this person also measures to be synchronised with these two?
There are ONLY two clocks which coincide at t='t'=0 when the first WF is emitted, and Only ONE clock that coincides with the source when the second WF is emitted. It is so clear that this is so that I am wondering if your are just being deliberately spiteful.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2014
@johanfprins
Basically, the moment you put a "bird's eye view" (so to speak) in the thought experiment,
I have not done this ANYWHERE in my derivation of the Doppler formula.

We can avoid me asking these kinds of questions entirely, if we restrict ourselves to always specifying who is doing the measuring, and not assuming that everybody who is more than 0 m apart agrees on some event, no matter how they are moving with respect to each other.
The first and second wavefronts are measured by the person who is stationary at the source at 0. The first wavefront is also measured by the person at 0' who is passing by at the time t=t'=0. I can see no reason why you should be confused by this since it clearly explained in my manuscript.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 03, 2014
I don't agree. We've established that you and I differ on how we interpret the content of those textbooks.

Where has this been established? I have not made any interpretations from text books on which we disagree.


Well, for one thing, you pointed it out. Here were your words

If your assumptions contradict what can be found in textbooks I will point it out, since you then owe an explanation.

and
This is the assumption made in all textbooks on the Special Theory of Relativity. Without this assumption the Lorentz equations will look different.


You think what I have to say contradicts what textbooks say. Similarly, I think what you have to say contradicts what they say. Hence, it won't do to use textbooks as the starting point, because we disagree on the meaning of the content.

thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
In text books two identical perfect clocks are assumed at the origins 0 and 0', which are then synchronised to read t=t'=0 when the clocks coincide. What is the interpretation here on which we do not agree?

Well, for one thing, that phrasing misses an important detail. The people synchronizing the clocks (call them A and B) are both at 0 or 0', and are a distance of 0 m away from each other. In other words, there is some event where A and B are next to each other, and synchronize their clocks clocks while being next to each other.

If you put it that way, I accept it.
However, once we start talking about, say, a third person, C, moving relative to B, who is not local to B, then things go off the rails. We can perform this thought experiment just fine if we always talk in terms of local measurements--or do you disagree?
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
From the way I understand such textbooks, I wouldn't even pose 1 and 4 that way, because it would be ambiguous to me. In 1, when you say "when synchronised", when and where does "when" take place? Is it local?

Why does it has to be local?

I asked "Is it local?"
The clocks on GPS satellites and on earth are synchronised each day, even though they move relative to one another.

Synchronized with respect to earth, yes. And they also don't orbit quickly enough with respect to earth or each other for relativistic effects to really affect this synchronization, but even making that argument supposes that we both agree on what those relativistic effects should be in the first place. Surely, you agree that we do not agree on those relativistic effects. Hence, it is pointless to use this argument, because we're just going to talk past each other. You are jumping too far ahead. Let's get back to foundations, please.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2014
You think what I have to say contradicts what textbooks say.
I stated that WHEN you contradict what is in text books I will ask for an explanation. And I expect you should do the same when I do. What I quote from textbooks are not the conclusions that have been reached, but the postulates and the derivations that have been made in terms of these postulates; You are just looking for an excuse not to argue logic.

Similarly, I think what you have to say contradicts what they say.
Then point pout where. You are NOT doing this! Why NOT?

Hence, it won't do to use textbooks as the starting point, because we disagree on the meaning of the content.
No we do not generally disagree on all their content, and you know this very well. Why do you always have to lie? Thus you are arguing that the postulates that Einstein made and the derivations in terms of these postulates must be ignored, since you are not willing to think? I do not think this is a logical argument.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2014
Well, for one thing, that phrasing misses an important detail. The people synchronizing the clocks (call them A and B) are both at 0 or 0', and are a distance of 0 m away from each other. In other words, there is some event where A and B are next to each other, and synchronize their clocks clocks while being next to each other.
I have not stated anything else anywhere in my manuscript EVER! Why are you consistently lying?

If you put it that way, I accept it.
However, once we start talking about, say, a third person, C, moving relative to B, who is not local to B, then things go off the rails.
Where the EFFEN HELL did I do this. You keep on blatantly lying: Have you got no shame?

We can perform this thought experiment just fine if we always talk in terms of local measurements--or do you disagree?
That is exactly what I did in my manuscript.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2014
I asked "Is it local?"
This argument is irrelevant to my manuscript sine I am not using non-local synchronization anywhere in it.
The clocks on GPS satellites and on earth are synchronised each day, even though they move relative to one another.

Synchronized with respect to earth, yes.
So the one clock can be synchronized while the other clock is not synchronized! LOL.

And they also don't orbit quickly enough with respect to earth or each other for relativistic effects to really affect this synchronization,
Then why are the physicists consistently lying that these adjustments prove Relativistic Effects?

Hence, it is pointless to use this argument, because we're just going to talk past each other.
I agree, since this argument does not play any role in my manuscript which is SOLELY based on a SINGLE synchronisation off the clocks at 0 and 0', when they pass each other at t=t'=0.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) May 03, 2014
Prins, you're starting to lose patience, relax, he just wants to take it step by step. It is not necessary to argue each sentence. Return to your numbered starting assumptions...
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2014
You are just looking for an excuse not to argue logic.

No, I am not.
Then point pout where. You are NOT doing this! Why NOT?

This conversation is quickly becoming an ouroboros.
No we do not generally disagree on all their content, and you know this very well. Why do you always have to lie?

Why do you always have to lie about me lying?
Do you want to convince me, or not? Because if you do, then you'll have to stop having such a goddamned hair-trigger temper. It gets in the way of everything. I am not out to lie, or make you look like a fool. Calm down. If you aren't interested in convincing me in a level-headed manner, then that's fine with me. I can just go back to working on this theory, which is frankly, far more interesting than trying to reason with you. Now, do you think you can argue in a respectful manner without accusing me of stupid things, or is this conversation finished?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2014
Why do you always have to lie about me lying?
You have claimed that I took a "birds eye view" and that a 3rd clock is involved which are not in my derivation anywhere. To me this lying.
Do you want to convince me, or not?
Is it possible to convince you of anything that would require from you to admit that you are, or even just could have been wrong?
If you aren't interested in convincing me in a level-headed manner.
I have been trying to do that all along, but you keep on claiming aspects which are not in the derivation without giving any proof of where your claims come from.
I can just go back to working on this theory,
Which theory?
Now, do you think you can argue in a respectful manner without accusing me of stupid things, or is this conversation finished?
Now do you think that you can argue in a truthful manner without grabbing issues out of the air which do not form part of my derivation? If you can, it will restore respect on both sides.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2014
You have claimed that I took a "birds eye view" and that a 3rd clock is involved which are not in my derivation anywhere. To me this lying.

I was referring to the generic you, not you specifically!
Is it possible to convince you of anything that would require from you to admit that you are, or even just could have been wrong?

Yes, people do it all the time, including me.
I have been trying to do that all along, but you keep on claiming aspects which are not in the derivation without giving any proof of where your claims come from.

You have a strange idea of levelheadedness.
Which theory?

One, which does not concern you.
Now do you think that you can argue in a truthful manner without grabbing issues out of the air which do not form part of my derivation?

Well, I can and have been doing that, but seeing as you just demonstrated the inability to control yourself and not accuse me of things, this conversation is now over.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2014
You have claimed that I took a "birds eye view" and that a 3rd clock is involved which are not in my derivation anywhere. To me this lying.

I was referring to the generic you, not you specifically!
We are supposedly specifically discussing my manuscript point-for-point What has my "generic you" have to do with this?
Is it possible to convince you of anything that would require from you to admit that you are, or even just could have been wrong?

Yes, people do it all the time, including me.
I have not seen it on this forum. Maybe it is so but then you have to give concrete examples. If you do not do the latter, there is only one conclusion and that I that you are a liar.
I have been trying to do that all along, but you keep on claiming aspects which are not in the derivation without giving any proof of where your claims come from.

You have a strange idea of levelheadedness.
How does this statement

continued
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
@johanfprins
From now on, I will no longer engage you in conversation or argument. I will only speak of and to you in the context befitting your emotional age. I have no interest in attempting to reason with a 70 year old man baby who has no self control, and who is incapable of self-examination.
Now, seeing as you are incapable of this, you'll probably respond with more childish name-calling and accusations, and remind us all once again of how great a scientist you are and how long your penis--I mean CV--is, and that's ok, because you have demonstrated that you are a little child stuck in a decrepit, old man's body. And clearly, you are comfortable with that existence. And if you are, I am too.

So without further ado, I will go back to working on this theory that doesn't involve holding the hand of a baby who returns the favor by flinging poo at me. Ok, hon?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
contribute to the point-for-point discussion between us to which you have agreed?

Which theory?

One, which does not concern you.


Then why are you raising it: Just to avoid arguing real physics and real logic?

Now do you think that you can argue in a truthful manner without grabbing issues out of the air which do not form part of my derivation?

Well, I can and have been doing that, but seeing as you just demonstrated the inability to control yourself and not accuse me of things, this conversation is now over.
Bringing in a theory in the discussion "that does not concern me", or referring to my "generic you" are hardly "doing that": I would state that it is clear proof that you are grabbing issues out of the air which do not form part of my derivation.

It is clear that you cannot fault my derivation but do not have the honesty and integrity to admit it, like a true scientist is supposed to do.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
I will no longer engage you in conversation or argument. I will only speak of and to you in the context befitting your emotional age. I have no interest in attempting to reason with a 70 year old man baby who has no self control, and who is incapable of self-examination.
..., you'll probably respond with more childish name-calling and accusations, and remind us all once again of how great a scientist you are and how long your penis--I mean CV--is, and that's ok, because you have demonstrated that you are a little child stuck in a decrepit, old man's body. And clearly, you are comfortable with that existence. And if you are, I am too.

So without further ado, I will go back to working on this theory that doesn't involve holding the hand of a baby who returns the favor by flinging poo at me.


Precisely the reaction I expected from you: And you call ME "a little child". I do not mind never hearing from you again, since you will NEVER be able to contribute to real physics.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
Precisely the reaction I expected from you: And you call ME "a little child". I do not mind never hearing from you again, since you will NEVER be able to contribute to real physics.

If believing that makes you happy, hon, that's fine with me. Even a lonely, elderly, dementia patient needs something to occupy his dimming intellect in the remaining years of his life. I am glad you have found something for your simple mind to focus on.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
We are supposedly specifically discussing my manuscript point-for-point


NOWHERE did Furlong state he was approaching this conversation as a point-for-point discussion of your manuscript. WHY CAN'T YOU ***STOP LYING*** you drug-crazed criminal FELON?!?!

From now on, I will no longer engage you in conversation or argument.


And so the pseudo-physics Nazi finds the boundary condition of the physics Gandhi. An impressive achevement in and of itself! Congarts, Johnny! There's a real 1st for you. Enjoy it; it's the only one you get in your life.

AS FOR YOU, Gelfl....Gandhi! YOUUU...LYING...CRIMINAL...***TRAITOR***!!!! HAAARRR!!!

YOU are sentenced to ***DEATH***! DRAAAAAAAWN and quartered you will be! Then all your various bits and pecies gathered up and CREAMATED! The ASHES then spread FAR and WIDE across the deepest POINT of the OCEAN! [cough]Simulteneously[cough].

HAAAR! But I am MERCIFUL pseudo-physicist!

You get to pick the ocean. HAAAAAARRR!!!
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
If you aren't interested in convincing me in a level-headed manner

I have been trying to do that all along
@johan
this is level headed?
they should not take a jackass like you seriously
&
Have you ever solved Maxwell's equations? Or have you never heard of them?
as if only YOU can be conversant with physics here?
dogmatic buffoons who think they know science when they just repeat the accepted dogma like a bunch of brainless parrots
&
Where did this certifiable IDIOT come from
&
As usual, you have it all wrong
&
[does this insane ability to argue illogically run in your family? Have one of your forefathers been a Cardinal in the Vatican when Galileo alive? ...has already demonstrated time an again that he is a brainless idiot. Are YOU also one?
&
Both of you are totally demented! It is no use to state it to you since demented people like you think that they are rational. I pity you both! Logic is definitely NOT within your bloodlines!
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
Prins should start a show like Jerry-Springer, except for physics.

Prins, you listed your assumptions by number nicely above and all thefurlong wanted to do was to take one at a time step by step, as is necessary to determine where there is disagreement.

What difference does it make WHY is his asking a question? You act as though he was accusing you of something or insulting you. Why? The train didn't even make it out of the station because of your desire to "argue" rather than discuss with humility.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
Precisely the reaction I expected from you: And you call ME "a little child". I do not mind never hearing from you again, since you will NEVER be able to contribute to real physics
@johan
you are delusional. you are calling people unable to contribute to physics but your "level headed manner" contributes
Your usual hallucinations. Please watch the bubbles your duck is farting and keep quiet

thank goodness you are trying to be level headed... although I can understand your aversion to Zeph's ramblings, you are NOT the only one here who knows physics. Just because people dont agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. you ASSUME that your longevity gives you authority. it doesn't
everyone has a specialty. some may not specialize on physics, but when you resort to name calling and appeals to authority/your manuscript, we can rightfully assume that you are full of crap.

and just because physics is not everyone's strong suit doesn't mean that they dont understand
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 04, 2014
Bringing in a theory in the discussion "that does not concern me", or referring to my "generic you" are hardly "doing that": I would state that it is clear proof that you are grabbing issues out of the air which do not form part of my derivation
@johan
calling your manuscript out as a reference without providing supporting links for everyone to view the data is the same thing. therefore you are just as guilty and worse. see
Please read my manuscripts and criticize the physics postulates and mathematics used
in fact, it is known as SPAMMING, as the only way to validate your statement is to buy your book and pay you money... which is like Reg Mundy's continual assertions that he is correct in his expansion theory without evidence, just "buy my book"...
IOW - you are every bit the spamming troll for this just like reg
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) May 04, 2014
... do you use http://www.scienceforums.net/ ? Truck.Captain.Stumpy
fire off your e-mail in the PM function


Hi Captain, no I'm not on scienceforums. I already spend too much time on PO, so I'll keep that in mind just in case, but for now I'll put up with the lack of PMs here and hope they get it sorted out. Besides, this way at least Johnny can't say we're conspiring behind his back, right Johnny?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) May 05, 2014
Didn't you read the article? It's about light (photons). Photons are neutral (no antiparticle). What's to destroy?

So again, wouldn't this violate conservation? Or, do the "mirrors" somehow lose energy to this process?
Yes, the mirror system whould have to lose energy equivalent to the momentum of what ever particle was made "real".
So, what's the process? What energy is lost in the exchange?

BTW, BHs do not just absorb antiparticles from a pair, that's completely wrong. They can absorb either one as BOTH particles are created from the energy in the S-T at the EH. The BH only gets one back.
Right. Hawking Radiation is about negative energy from a distant observers point of view. The problem is, Hawking appears to have missed Gravitational Potential Energy in his calculations, which is relevant to the distant observer.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 05, 2014
Our Universe consists of light and matter which co-exist (while moving relative to one another).

We are part of the Universe since we co-exist with the contents of the Universe.

Time is a progression from one instant as if at that instant all motion in our Universe is frozen to a future instant which can also be considered as frozen.

We have no method to define an absolute rate at which time changes since time is the rate.

All we know is that at any instant in time EVERYTHING in our Universe must co-exist. If it does not, then it cannot be part of our Universe.

Thus in order to co-exist, the same instant in time must be present simultaneously everywhere in the Universe.

Different times within different inertial reference frames are thus impossible at the same instant in time: Or else one has the absurd situation that everything in our Universe do not co-exist.

With this I close my arguments here. Posterity will be the judge: Not the morons on this thread.

QED
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2014
If only we could both be right! That way we could hop on a train and have you fall out of our universe into our past. Wouldn't THAT be sweet :)

QED
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Time is a progression from one instant as if at that instant all motion in our Universe is frozen to a future instant which can also be considered as frozen...

For those who don't already understand, this is the crux of Man-baby's source of error. Man-baby starts out by ASSUMING that there is a physically meaningful quantity, absolute time, which is composed of physically meaningful snapshots of the universe called instances. At any point, Man-baby posits, everything belongs to only one of these instances, which can be denoted by a number along the real line. To Man-baby, every single differential equation of physics refers to this march of absolute time "from instant to instant."
SR does not start from this assumption. Rather, it starts with a less general assumption, and that is that two entities at rest with each-other measure SPANS of space and time the same way. In other words, they agree on distances between events and lengths of time between events. (to be continued)
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
(continued)
Let's call this assumption the relativistic assumption, and Man-baby's the absolutist assumption.
Thus, there is no assumption that there is some absolute time with which everything marches in step. Hence, Man-baby is adding an assumption that doesn't actually exist in SR. Now, that isn't to say we can't DERIVE that there is some absolute time. It's possible that starting from the relativistic assumption, we can arrive at a theorem, which is equivalent to the absolutist one.
Well, it turns out that there is no place in SR, starting from the relativistic assumption, in which the absolutist assumption falls out. Furthermore, using only the relativistic assumption in conjunction with the 1st Principle of Relativity, we get a complete description of how physically interacting entities must interact.
Thus, Man-baby's argument isn't correct because he starts from the absolutist assumption. But as we can see, we don't need to start from this general assumption.(continued)
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
(continued)
So, since the absolutist assumption doesn't fall out, and we still get a complete description of physical interaction using the weaker relativistic assumption, then that must mean that the absolutist assumption is, at best, physically meaningless. We could remove it, and physical measurements would remain the same.
Man-baby's entire contention with SR rests on his assumption that absolute time is physically meaningful, which is not correct. So, this must mean that the rest of his derivations rest on a faulty assumption. Hence, even if Man-baby's conclusions were correct, his argument is not.
What Man-baby should do is, instead of just assuming that the majority of physicists are crazy, ask himself why they all seem to be able to communicate with each other and perform physics in a coherent manner, and why after 100 years, SR has still not been contradicted by physical measurement. He might actually learn something.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
What Man-baby should do is, instead of just assuming that the majority of physicists are crazy, ask himself why they all seem to be able to communicate with each other and perform physics in a coherent manner, and why after 100 years, SR has still not been contradicted by physical measurement.


But, Furlong, he *has* done this (at least according to himself). He has even said so repeatedly. It's not just that he considers all other physicists crazy morons; it's that he believes that there's a *conspiracy* of crazy morons. What he should then be asking himself is, how could a bunch of crazy morons conspire so effectively for so long? I mean, they're crazy morons after all.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 05, 2014
But, Furlong, he *has* done this (at least according to himself). He has even said so repeatedly.

Yes, I can believe that, and that is the unfortunate thing about his brain. He has painted his thought process into a corner where he is unable to correct himself. It makes me wonder--how does one develop the faculties to be self-correcting? It's not like I started out logical. It took lots of arguments with friends and family to understand how to form a rational argument. Sometimes, it was quite painful. In contrast, if Man-baby is to believed, and he actually had grad students, I wouldn't be surprised if he spent years surrounded by sycophants who wouldn't dare disagree with him. So who else would have given him that benefit of humility? Lay people? I think not.

Whatever the truth, he obviously ascribes a very high probability to those around him being stupid, or liars. Ironically, that combined with his temper means he will probably never learn to be correct.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2014
Your usual hallucinations. Please watch the bubbles your duck is farting and keep quiet

On the other hand, Man-baby did gives us this this golden nugget of humor. I am not sure if a more stable mind could have wrought such a marvelous confluence of water-fowl and flatulence jokes.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
So, what's the process? What energy is lost in the exchange?


From what I gather from their paper (http://arxiv.org/...01.0129) it would be a loss of kinetic energy of the vibrating mirror.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2014
Different times within different inertial reference frames are thus impossible at the same instant in time: Or else one has the absurd situation that everything in our Universe do not co-exist.

With this I close my arguments here. Posterity will be the judge: Not the morons on this thread.

QED [Quackery Enhanced Dementia]


Your argument is invalid because your starting premise includes the presumption of Absolute Instant Of Time, the very thing that is being contested here, and with no physical justification. You object to allowing time as Defined by physical systems, to derive your premise, despite that is the only way available to quantify that concept.

We have no method to define an absolute rate at which time changes since time is the rate.


The word "rate" implies quantifiability. If your above statement is true, then there would exist some independent time-substance, time-field, time-force, or time-particle that is this "time". Where is it?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
Nowadays most pupils in grade 10 can tell you that an n-dimensional manifold can ONLY exist if you have linearly-independent coordinates. This allows one to use n-dimensional vectors in order to relate any two points (each with n-coordinates) so that one can frame your equations in a format that is covariant: i.e. that can be written down in any set of suitable coordinates that are used to denote each n-dimensional point within the n-dimensional manifold. Thus when you use a specific set of coordinates, covariance ensures that there is a a set of n unique coordinates for each point in the manifold.

Now Minkowski postulated (when ignoring gravity) that three space coordinates combined with time, defines a four-dimensional manifold within which the laws of physics can modelled in covariant format. This means that each point must have a unique set of three space and one time coordinate. Thus if you have a specific time t(0) at the coordinates x(0), y(0), z(0), then

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
There cannot be another time t co-existing with t(0) at this point, since then you do not have a unique set of coordinates as is demanded by the mathematics of coordinate manifolds.

According to Minkowski one can have another point P(e) x,y,z,t that is not the same as P(0) x(0), y(0), z(0), t(0): When one moves through space-time one can start at P(0) and end up at a later time t at P(e). Thus, a clock who started at P(0), or a human being or whatever, will have aged by t-t(0). It is impossible to have aged by a different amount since it will require that at P(e) there are two different time-coordinates.

Consider two twins leaving the point P(0) at t(0) to go on different journeys through space-time. In order to meet up in future they must end up at the same space-position at the same time. Assume that they do meet up at P(e) at time t. Then they both could only have aged by t-t(0); or else you do not have a unique set of coordinates for your 4-dimensional manifold.

QED
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) May 07, 2014
Thus when you use a specific set of coordinates, covariance ensures that there is a a set of n unique coordinates for each point in the manifold.


General covariance means that there is NOT a set of unique coordinates for each point. In fact, it is why SR/GR is expressed in tensor form, (coordinate free representation),... because a particular set of coordinates are arbitrary and observer dependent.

You can have two invariant quantities expressed in two different sets of coordinates, .... the invariant quantity is equal even though each of the coordinate components (-t,x,y,z; -t',x',y',z') differ in the two systems.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) May 07, 2014
That the laws of physics remain the same for each observer's IRF means that invariant quantities are equal for each observer, not that each observer's coordinate representation is equal.

Also, even though because of the Lorentz factor the coordinates are hyperbolic, they are still orthogonal,... linearly-independent coordinates.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
@ Noumenon,

You are a stickler to nonsense after having been brainwashed like all physics students have been for the past 100 years.

Covariant means only one thing, and that is the ability to write physics equations in terms of vectors and tensors without having to use a specific reference frame. This is only possible if each of the points which constitute a manifold can be uniquely denoted by a vector that has the same dimensionality as the manifold. And the latter is ONLY mathematically and physically possible if, when the manifold is represented in coordinate format, the coordinates are linearly independent.

Hyperbolic coordinates can NEVER be linearly independent and therefore also not be orthogonal.

But ignoring the latter typical bullshit argument that regularly spouts from your empty upper extremity, one only needs one set of coordinates when analysing the twins. They both move within the same space-time and they both start at the same space time point

continued

johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
x(0), y(0), z(0), t(0) and return to another space-time point x, y, z, t at a later time t. Thus the change in time for both cannot be anything else than t minus t(0). Unless you want to argue that they are both at the position x, y, z, at different times. The latter means that they are not able to meet up ever to compare their clocks and their ages.

Thus in order to meet up, they must have the same age when they meet up. This argument is so simple that even you should be able to understand it: Although I despair: There is nobody so blind as the person who does not want to see!
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) May 07, 2014
If a) each observer carries his own coordinate system , and b) these coordinate system components are Defined in terms of physical systems themselves, ...a physical clock and physical rods,... since there is no other means for ascertaining Time and Distance except as is physically Defined,.... it stands to reason that because those physical systems are subject to physical laws themselves along with the respective observers, that they should be effected by their particular physical circumstance,.. in SR relative velocity, in GR also acceleration/ gravitation.

Hyperbolic coordinates can NEVER be linearly independent and therefore also not be orthogonal.


Of course it is just a mathematical result. Minkowski spacetime is simply a useful mathematical construct.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
If a) each observer carries his own coordinate system , and b) these coordinate system components are Defined in terms of physical systems themselves, ...a physical clock and physical rods,... since there is no other means for ascertaining Time and Distance except as is physically Defined,....
This does not change anything about my argument above.

it stands to reason that because those physical systems are subject to physical laws themselves along with the respective observers, that they should be effected by their particular physical circumstance,.
Do you realise that you are arguing that the equations which model physics within an IRF cannot be written in covariant format.

Hyperbolic coordinates etc.


Of course it is just a mathematical result. Minkowski spacetime is simply a useful mathematical construct.
It violates mathematical rules: So on what evidence are you calling it a "mathematical" result? It is only useful as a superstitious belief.

Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 07, 2014
@ Noumenon,

You are a stickler to nonsense after having been brainwashed like all physics students have been for the past 100 years.


What our dearly beloved Quackery Enhanced Dementia (priceless!) patient is *trying* to say, Noum, is that you know your stuff. Good on ya :)

If you want to have a bit more fun, try explaining to him that what observers in different RFs all agree on, that what's actually *invariable*, are space-time intervals. That one's always a good bit of fun. (You can probably break 1000 posts on that alone with Johnny :)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2014
If you want to have a bit more fun, try explaining to him that what observers in different RFs all agree on, that what's actually *invariable*, are space-time intervals.


I have not denied this anywhere. Why should somebody explain this to me? What I am denying is that this requires time-dilation and length-contraction. The correct implications are that an event which occurs within an IRF is non-simultaneous within a passing IRF, and that the stationary length of a rod increases within an IRF in which the rod is not stationary.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
it stands to reason that because those physical systems are subject to physical laws themselves along with the respective observers, that they should be effected by their particular physical circumstance,.

Do you realise that you are arguing that the equations which model physics within an IRF cannot be written in covariant format.


No, an "universal absolute rate of time" and a "universal absolute measure of distance" are not physical laws,... they are an imposition on your part, not one of on the part of observable reality.

The laws of physics are the same in each IRF, the invariant quantities are agreed upon by all IRF, just not their component description.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
No, an "universal absolute rate of time" and a "universal absolute measure of distance" are not physical laws,... they are an imposition on your part, not one of on the part of observable reality.
I do not impose anything anywhere. I am just applying the fundamental postulates of relativity correctly. Einstein's first postulate is an extension of Galileos impeccable reasoning that the same experiment done within different IRF's must give the SAME result within these IRF's.

Measuring time is an experiment, and this means that identical clocks within different IRF's MUST give the same experimental result: i.e. they MUST keep the SAME time-rate within their respective IRF's. Furthermore, if these clocks are used to measure the distance d=c*(delta)t , (delta)t must be the same time interval since the clocks are keeping the same time rate: Thus the distance measured by these experiments within their respective IRF's MUST be the same.

continued

johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
If c, (delta)t and c*(delta)t are not the exact same within all IRF's the laws of physics are not the same within all IRF's. And then Einstein's first postulate must be wrong.

The laws of physics are the same in each IRF,
Exactly, but your arguments violate this statement of yours. This is because you do not understand what a relativistic transformation is all about. A relativistic transformation is required when an experiment that is done within an IRF, and thus adheres to the laws of physics within that IRF, is viewed from a passing IRF. Owing to your motion, you do not see the coordinates of the experiment as they actually are within the IRF in which the experiment is being done. You see a ""distorted" version of the experiment: For example a stationary body used in the experiment is not stationary within your IRF even though it is actually stationary within the IRF in which the experiment is being done.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
An event that occurs at a time t' when an experiment is done within an IRF, does not occur simultaneously within a passing reference frame but at another time t. This however does not mean that the clock measuring the event is keeping slower time than your clock, just as a stationary body within an IRF, when moving within your IRF, remains stationary within the IRF in which it is stationary, The clock that measured the experimental event at time t' does not keep slower time because you observe the event at a non-simultaneous time since you are looking in from the outside. Both clocks keep the same time, since if they do not Einstein's first postulate will be wrong.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014

Measuring time is an experiment, and this means that identical clocks within different IRF's MUST give the same experimental result


THIS is where you are going wrong imo as I have attempted to make clear above, and is where we disagree and are unable to get beyond;.....

There is NO SUCH THING as "measuring time". There is NO such substance to measure, thus NO such measuring is ever being performed.

All we ever really do is to compare one physical cyclic system to another, ...how many such cycles are congruent with some other system. Every physical system that WE choose to designate as a clock, has a rate that is entirely arbitrary and in fact particular to that physical system, and does not represent some absolute ontological Time, ... there is no such thing.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
,... "measuring time" can not be a meaningful experiment because there is zero physical substance being "measured",.... the "measuring device" in question, the clock, is simply an independent physical system operating according to the laws of physics and subject to be effected itself by the laws of physics, ....not a system physically Interacting with Time.

It is as meaningless to say that things "age" BECAUSE OF time. A physicist would not say this, he would instead quantify the physical forces that cause such change, and merely Use a clock to quantify the rate of change relative to that calibrated system, the clock.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
,... "measuring time" can not be a meaningful experiment because there is zero physical substance being "measured",.... the "measuring device" in question, the clock, is simply an independent physical system operating according to the laws of physics and subject to be effected itself by the laws of physics, ....not a system physically Interacting with Time.


Can you not see that you have with this argument proved yourself wrong?

You are correct to state that "the clock is simply an independent physical system operating according to the laws of physics"". You have also posted above that the laws of physics are the same within ALL IRF's. So how the HELL can two identical clocks, operating on the SAME laws of physics, which are the SAME within different IRF's, keep different time rates just because they are stationary within different IRF's IN WHICH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE THE SAME.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Since we have come full circle with the twin "paradox" we'll leave it here.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
HELL can two identical clocks, operating on the SAME laws of physics, which are the SAME within different IRF's, keep different time rates just because they are stationary within different IRF's IN WHICH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE THE SAME.


If we imagine the purest form of a physical clock, a light clock,.. a photon reflecting between two mirrors with mirrors parallel to direction of travel; Observer S see's observer M's clock-M ticking slower as compared to S's own clock-S, because the photon of clock-M according to S is traveling a longer distance in a zig zag pattern between the mirrors rather than straight back and forth as M sees his own clock-M doing. This is necessarily so if the speed of light is constant.

So, the two clocks are not equivalent physical systems according to either party, yet a such a clock is the ONLY way of determining time.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2014
If we imagine the purest form of a physical clock, a light clock,.. a photon reflecting between two mirrors with mirrors parallel to direction of travel; Observer S see's observer M's clock-M ticking slower as compared to S's own clock-S, because the photon of clock-M according to S is traveling a longer distance in a zig zag pattern between the mirrors rather than straight back and forth as M sees his own clock-M doing. This is necessarily so if the speed of light is constant.
Are you REALLY as stupid as all this, or are you just playing at being a moron? You have TWO light clocks each within its OWN IRF. Each clock will keep exactly the SAME time within its OWN IRF. So how the HELL can they NOT be equivalent?

When you look in from a passing IRF, you will not see the ticks on the other clock simultaneously owing to the Lorentz equations. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE OTHER CLOCK IS ACTUALLY KEEPING SLOWER TIME WITHIN ITS OWN IRF. This is the whole point about relativity!
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
So how...can two identical clocks...IN WHICH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE THE SAME.
I'll point out that "being stationary in your IRF" is redundant, and that "operating on the same laws of physics" can be assumed here, so I'd start by simplifying this to "how can two identical clocks keep different time rates just because they are in different IRFs?"

The answer is that each clock ticks at 1s/s in its own IRF. This is always true. However, if Alice and Bob, out of the blue, happen to cross each other at, e.g., 50% the speed of light, *each* will note the *other's* clock is slow by roughly 1/7th of a second, even if synched at the point they *cross*. If they *both* apply the same thrust to *meet*, each will see the other's clock tick equally closer and closer to 1s/s until they meet, which point each sees the other's clock tick at 1s/s. If only BOB applies thrust to meet Alice after crossing and synching, only HE is no longer in an IRF and HIS clock will be missing s's when they meet.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
Oh, and I ran out of characters to toss in QED, so...

QED
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) May 08, 2014
When you look in from a passing IRF, you will not see the ticks on the other clock simultaneously owing to the Lorentz equations. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE OTHER CLOCK IS ACTUALLY KEEPING SLOWER TIME WITHIN ITS OWN IRF. This is the whole point about relativity!

When Man-baby says that you will not see the ticks simultaneously, does he mean that you will not measure them to be ticking simultaneously, or that it just looks that way? There's a difference. In regular old Galilean relativity, we get the Doppler effect, but that doesn't mean we can't use other means to measure the actual frequency. Is Man-baby suggesting that this non-simultaneous ticking is more akin to the Doppler effect? If so, what method does Man-baby propose for actually measuring where and when it occurs?
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
Ooh, I have a very good question for Man-baby. Suppose that Man-baby has a spinning 1 m long baton. One-half of it is made of fissile material. The other half is made of lead. It is constructed so that its center of mass is its geometric center. Let's say that I now hurl a ball of fissile material at Man-baby. If the ball and the fissile end of the baton touch, they go super-critical and release a deadly burst of ionizing radiation. If, however, the ball collides with the lead end, we'll both be ok.

Now, we assume that first Man-baby and I pass each other moving at relative v, our clocks both read 0 s, and I measure his baton to be rotating at 1 RPS, and it is in the horizontal position with its fissile end pointing down -x. Now, when my clock reads t seconds, I throw my ball at Man-baby at veclocity (0.5 m - kv)/(t-k), where k is some constant, so I would see the ball get to within 0.5 m of Man-baby in k seconds.
(to be continued)
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
(continued)
Now, if k is a whole number, then then the fissile end and the ball will meet.

Now, suppose that Man-baby plans to swat the baton away just before his clock reads k-seconds. Now, Man-baby acknowledges that I will see Man-baby's clock moving slower, at t/gamma, and I assume he also accepts that I will see Man-baby as if he is also slowed down. However, by Man-baby's reasoning, when k seconds will have passed on Man-baby's clock, the baton and the ball will also meet. So, what I will see is the baton and the ball meeting, but Man-baby just standing idly by, especially if v is really, really close to c.
So, my question is, how do I witness the event where Man-baby swats the baton away, assuming that Man-baby is correct?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
The answer is that each clock ticks at 1s/s in its own IRF. This is always true.
So you agree with what I have been saying all along, namely that the time formula t=G*t' does not mean that the clock within K'' keeps a different time rate than the clock within K; or vice versa.

However, if Alice and Bob, out of the blue, happen to cross each other at, e.g., 50% the speed of light, *each* will note the *other's* clock is slow by roughly 1/7th of a second, even if synched at the point they *cross*
Correct.

If they *both* apply the same thrust to *meet*, each will see the other's clock tick equally closer and closer to 1s/s until they meet,
This is irrelevant as far as the interpretation of t=G*t' is concerned. The latter formula has been interpreted by Einstein as proving that the clocks are keeping different time rates within their respective reference frames; and therefore the twins will age differently even if they NEVER meet up again.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
Furthermore, if you can do the simple algebra, you will see that the "moving clock" only keeps slower time within the "stationary" IRF when it moves away from the stationary origin 0. When it moves towards the origin 0, it keeps faster time.

Thus, as measured within K, the clock within K' will lose time on the outward journey, and then gain time on the return journey: So that within K the two clocks will show the exact same time when they meet up again.
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
Furthermore, if you can do the simple algebra, you will see that the "moving clock" only keeps slower time within the "stationary" IRF when it moves away from the stationary origin 0. When it moves towards the origin 0, it keeps faster time.


Let's just say that I understand that this is based on your paper/ideas, which treat this as a Doppler effect.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
Let's just say that I understand that this is based on your paper/ideas, which treat this as a Doppler effect.
Which is of course correct! The Doppler effect is caused by the non-simultaneity of the emission of wavefronts within two IRF's from a source that is stationary within one of these IRF's.

When a source is moving away from you, you will conclude that a wavefront is emitted at a later time within your IRF, than it is actually emitted within both reference frames at the coincident position of the source: And when a source is moving towards you, you will conclude that a wavefont is emitted at an earlier time within your reference frame than it is actually emitted within both reference frames at the coincident position of the source.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2014
A coherent light source is the best clock that one can have since it has a definite frequency. This frequency increases relative to an observer when the light source approaches the observer and decreases when it moves away from the observer:

This is called the Doppler effect. If the observer has a source with the same fequency stationary relative to him, the frequency is the actual (non-shifted) frequency of the source, which the sources that approache him and recede from him have within the inertial reference frames in which they are stationary.

If the observer is stupid, he will conclude that a light-source (clock) that recedes from him is actually keeping slower time. It is amazing that a genius like Einstein could have made this mistake. What is even more amazing is that not a single theoretical physicist could pick up this mistake during the past 110 years; but used it to lead physics back into the dark ages.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 09, 2014
If the observer is stupid, he will conclude that a light-source (clock) that recedes from him is actually keeping slower time.

Man-baby does not understand that time dilation and length contraction are not due to the Doppler effect. SR already accounts for this. When we say that we measure others to be aging slowly, it isn't just that it looks that way. Physically, IT IS THAT WAY. In other words, there is no physical experiment we can do to measure it any other way than that. This is the crux of SR, something that Man-baby cannot seem to wrap his mind around. It has nothing to do with time travel. Just measurement. It represents how physical systems interact. One would hope that if this point were repeated enough times, Man-baby would realize that the time-travel-as-a-consequence-of-time-dilation canard that he refuses to retire is irrelevant. But then, that would be wishful thinking.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2014
Man-baby does not understand that time dilation and length contraction are not due to the Doppler effect. SR already accounts for this. When we say that we measure others to be aging slowly, it isn't just that it looks that way. Physically, IT IS THAT WAY.
This is wrong pseudo physics; and when a new generation of physicits come along which can use their brains, it will be proved that the furlong does not know Artha from Martha. Such a pity that he is too ashamed of his track record to come out of the closet and reveal who he really is: A dropout?

When my clock and the clock with my twin, who moves with any speed relative to me, are keeping the same synchronous time (as even Gawad admitted that they MUST), and as is proved that they must owing to the Doppler shifts, then it is impossible for one of us to age at a different rate from the other.

So if the fullong wants to keep on drinking tea with Alice in Wonderland. So be it. Only he can free himself from his dementia.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
keeping the same synchronous time (as even Gawad admitted that they MUST)


No, that's not what I "admitted". Tell ya what: you try not to put words in my mouth, and I promise to try not to put words in yours. Really. Deal?

What I said was that the local "experience of time" is always the same. In fact, even in an accelerating frame of reference, locally the exerience of time is always 1s/s. What I was trying to make clear in my allotted 1000 characters, when I wrote "this is always true" is precisely that this is a truism and that as such it is not what is relevant. What *is* relevant is how spacetime is warped in different IRFs and accelerating RFs *with respect TO EACH OTHER* (hence "Relativity" and "covarience", hummm?). And that latter bit is what the "*each* will note the *other's* clock is slow by roughly 1/7th s" was about (and NOT simply "*each* will note the *other's* clock *appears* to be running slow by roughly 1/7th" BTW).
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
Moreover, this effect is the same wheather Bob or Alice (who each are in an IRF) are heading towards or away from each other. While to each other they will appear blue-shifted in the former case and red-shifted in the latter, each will calculate the other's clock is slow by 1/7th of a second throughout the pass.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
@ Gawad,

You stated: "The answer is that each clock ticks at 1s/s in its own IRF. This is always true." So!?

I am not intersted in Bob and Alice (in Wonderland) fairytales. Einstein did not know about Bob and Alice when he incorrectly concluded that a clock moving relative to another clock keeps slower time. It does not. They keep exactly the same time all the time: When a clock moves relative to you, its ticks occur simultaneously within both IRF's at the instantaneous position of the " moving"" clock. Its ticks are, however, not observed simultaneously when viewed from the origin 0 of the "stationary" IRF. That is the only logical conclusion when you take BOTH the position and time coordinates into account, which Einstein for some foolish reason did not do.
.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
Einstein did not know about Bob and Alice when he incorrectly concluded that a clock moving relative to another clock keeps slower time. It does not.

The very fact the Man-baby thinks this statement makes any context in SR shows how poorly he understands the subject. There is no absolute statement that one clock keeps slower time over the other (though there could definitely be an IRF in which an observer at rest sees this, but). Each person measures the other's clock to keep slower time.
I will say it again, because this is something Man-baby has still not grasped--saying that one clock keeps slower time than the other without saying who is doing the measuring is meaningless. What you need to say is that one person physically measures the other's clock to keep slower time.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
When my clock and the clock with my twin, who moves with any speed relative to me, are keeping the same synchronous time (as even Gawad admitted that they MUST), and as is proved that they must owing to the Doppler shifts, then it is impossible for one of us to age at a different rate from the other.

If Man-baby and his (hopefully less chin dribbly) twin lived their entire lives in the same IRF, and they both measured their clocks to read 0 s when they were born, then they would always measure each other to be at the same age.

If, however, Man-baby experienced an acceleration at any point in that IRF, then decelerated back to that IRF, but but his twin never left the IRF, Man-baby's age would consequently be offset by a constant amount. If both accelerated and decelerated at the same rates relative to someone else (say A) in the IRF, then, when they returned to each other, their ages would be the same, though younger than they would have been had they not accelerated to A.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
The very fact the Man-baby thinks this statement makes any context in SR

I meant that the very fact the Man-baby thinks this statement makes any sense in the context of SR...
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (5) May 10, 2014
Many-baby claims there is no actual time dilation on account of coordinate time, even though it was pointed out to him that physical invariant quantities require a coordinate free representation, as in proper-time, which involves also the clocks history of switching IRF's, and is why the twins effective physical history upon returning may not be symmetrical.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2014
If Man-baby and his (hopefully less chin dribbly) twin lived their entire lives in the same IRF, and they both measured their clocks to read 0 s when they were born, then they would always measure each other to be at the same age.
Congratulations! At least this you got right. Thus you agree that even if since birth, I and my equally stupid twin have lived not at the same coordinate position within the same IRF, but at different positions within the same IRF, will we NOT have different ages?

If, however, Man-baby experienced an acceleration at any point in that IRF, then decelerated back to that IRF, but but his twin never left the IRF, Man-baby's age would consequently be offset by a constant amount.
This is Voodoo speculation. There is no experimental proof for this whatsoever, and it violates the Lorentz transformation.

If both accelerated and decelerated at the same rates relative to someone else (say A) in the IRF
In whose IRF is A?
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 10, 2014
This is Voodoo speculation. There is no experimental proof for this whatsoever, and it violates the Lorentz transformation.

But Man-baby is incorrect about this. There is experimental evidence of this. Lot's of it! Man-baby just doesn't accept it as experimental evidence. We have been over Hafele and Keating, which Man-baby claims is flawed without any argument as to why (Of course, as with any experimental result, some challenges to the experiment were raised, but were subsequently analyzed and dismissed by the scientific community). There are also the muon experiments, which showed that muons moving relative to us decay slower than muons at rest. The Global Positioning System routinely has to correct for error introduced by time dilation (I know I said that GPS satellites are moving too slowly relative to Earth to worry about synchronizing clocks. I was incorrect and should have known better).
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
In whose IRF is A?

A measures Man-baby and his twin to be at rest with him. Then he sees them accelerate then decelerate back to being at rest. A will then measure them to be younger than they would have been had they not accelerated at all.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) May 10, 2014
If, however, Man-baby experienced an acceleration at any point in that IRF, then decelerated back to that IRF, but but his twin never left the IRF, Man-baby's age would consequently be offset by a constant amount.


This is Voodoo speculation. There is no experimental proof for this whatsoever, and it violates the Lorentz transformation.


How does it violate the LT?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2014
@ the furlong

I asked you a question: "Thus you agree that even if since birth, I and my equally stupid twin have lived not at the same coordinate position within the same IRF, but at different positions within the same IRF, we will we NOT have different ages?

Only after you have answered this question will I respond to your insane hallucinations.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 10, 2014
@ Noumenon
If, however, Man-baby experienced an acceleration at any point in that IRF, then decelerated back to that IRF, but but his twin never left the IRF, Man-baby's age would consequently be offset by a constant amount.


This is Voodoo speculation. There is no experimental proof for this whatsoever, and it violates the Lorentz transformation.


How does it violate the LT?
When you use the Lorentz tranformation for a clock moving away from you, then within your refeence frame at the origin 0 you will conclude that the moving clock is keeping slower time. When you do the same Lorntz transformation for a clock approaching you at 0, you will conclude that the moving clock is keeping faster time. The two times cancel.This is a DIRECT result when applying the Lorentz transformation. It cannot be oherwise unless the Lorentz equations are wrong!
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) May 10, 2014
When you use the Lorentz tranformation for a clock moving away from you, then within your refeence frame at the origin 0 you will conclude that the moving clock is keeping slower time. When you do the same Lorntz transformation for a clock approaching you at 0, you will conclude that the moving clock is keeping faster time. The two times cancel.This is a DIRECT result when applying the Lorentz transformation


Are you applying LT to t only, but not using LT to determine the proper time, which involves also the space coordinates as well as t? The proper time is what all observers would agree on, being dependent on the spacetime interval.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 10, 2014
I asked you a question: "Thus you agree that even if since birth, I and my equally stupid twin have lived not at the same coordinate position within the same IRF, but at different positions within the same IRF, we will we NOT have different ages?

This question is meaningless. "We will NOT have different ages" is an absolute statement. If you mean that one twin measures that the time his clock read 0 s and the time his twin's clock read 0 s were the same, then yes, assuming neither accelerates, then both twins will age at the same rate. This will be true for all IRFs.
What you tried to do earlier in this thread is assume this AND assume that a person moving relative to the twins who was coincident with one twin when his clock read 0 s would also have measured that the other twin's clock ALSO read 0 s when he and the first twin were coincident. But, you can't assume this. You can try to prove it. But you can't assume it.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 10, 2014
How does it violate the LT?
When you use the Lorentz tranformation for a clock moving away from you, then within your refeence frame at the origin 0 you will conclude that the moving clock is keeping slower time. When you do the same Lorntz transformation for a clock approaching you at 0, you will conclude that the moving clock is keeping faster time.
This is not true at all. If a person sees two clocks moving at the same speed, but different directions, he will see both clocks ticking at the same rate. I will show you the math for that, if you want. That does not, however, preclude the clocks from being offset by some constant amount of time.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2014
This is not true at all. If a person sees two clocks moving at the same speed, but different directions, he will see both clocks ticking at the same rate. I will show you the math for that, if you want.
I can do the mathematics and I conclude that what you are arguing is that when you tranform two subsequent ticks on a clock within K', you get the same longer interval within K whether the clock is receding or approaching.

But this is NOT what an observer at 0 will 'see' as you are claiming. He can only 'see' when light reaches him fom the two consecutive ticks. When adding this to the analysis, he will 'see' that the frequency of the clock approaching him is higher than the frequency of the clock receding from him.

You are arguing that the person at 0 is instantaneously aware ('sees' instantaneously) what is happening at a position that is not at 0. I do not buy this. So please explain to me what you mean by: " he will 'see' both clocks ticking at the same rate".
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2014
But this is NOT what an observer at 0 will 'see' as you are claiming. He can only 'see' when light reaches him fom the two consecutive ticks. When adding this to the analysis, he will 'see' that the frequency of the clock approaching him is higher than the frequency of the clock receding from him.

Well, yes, there will be a Doppler affect, but that's already taken into account in the calculations for time dilation and length contraction.
You are arguing that the person at 0 is instantaneously aware ('sees' instantaneously) what is happening at a position that is not at 0.
Not at all. I don't know why you think that. In fact, this entire time, I have vehemently pointed out that you can only measure a remote event "after" it has happened.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 11, 2014
So please explain to me what you mean by: " he will 'see' both clocks ticking at the same rate".

There are a number of ways to do this. Here's one of them: He sends a continuous stream of signals to the other clock, and gets a continuous stream of responses. He then takes the instantaneous change in frequences (This is where the Doppler effect comes in), and uses this to extrapolate how quickly the clock is moving.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2014
Well, yes, there will be a Doppler affect, but that's already taken into account in the calculations for time dilation and length contraction.
No it is not. As I have shown in my manuscript: When you derive the Doppler effect by invoking Einsteins' second postulate, you find that there cannot be any time-dilation.. And as I have shown in another manuscript Einstein derived the motion of a rod by transforming from the IRF within which the rod is moving into the IRF in which the rod is stationary; while any ape should know that motion is a relativistic transformation from the IRF in which a body is stationary into the IRF in which it is moving.

Not at all. I don't know why you think that. In fact, this entire time, I have vehemently pointed out that you can only measure a remote event "after" it has happened.
Please do the mathematics which you claim that you can do while OVER and OVER proving that you are not able top do it.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 11, 2014
Consider a clock within K' at position x'=D' which ticks at the time t'(1)=t'=0. The coordinates within K are

x(1)=G*(-D') and t(1)=G*[-(v/c^2)D'

Is the observer at origin 0 of K at the position x(1)? NO! So he cannot "see" this tick. He can only "see" this after light has moved fom x(1) to reach him. The time interval required for this to happen is (delta)t(1)=-x(1)/c=(G*D')/c. Since the time on his clock was t(1), he will "see" the tick at a time T(1)=t(1)+(delta)t(1)=[(G*D')/c](1-(v/c)].

The next tick is at t'=t(2) at the same position -D' in K': The coordinates within K are:

x(2)=G*[-D'+vt(0)] and t(2)=G*[t(0)-(v/sc^2)D'] The obserrver at 0 IS NOT at the position x(2) and can only "see" the next tick after a time internal (delta)t(2)=-x(2)/c=G*[vt(0)-D']/c, so that the time on his clock when he "sees" the next tick is T(2)=t(2)+(delta)t(2).

Thus the diffrence in time between the ticks "seen" by the observer at 0 is (delta)T=T(2)-T(1). Can you calculate the rest?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2014
@ thefurlong,

You just disappeared! Are you still maintaining that an observer at 0 at time t=t'=0 "sees" the tick at x=-G*D' at the time t=-G*[(v/c^2)D'] when it occurs at t'=t=0. So the observer can see something happening in the past that is actually happening at t'=t=0. LOL!! No wonder you believe in the impossibility of time-dilation. Do you also believe in Dumbo, the flying pink elephant?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2014
You just disappeared!

Yes, because I have other things to do in my life besides discuss things on popular science forums. Have patience. I will get to correcting your posts soon enough.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2014
I am waitiing with bated breath to see what new hallicinations will eminate from your demented mind
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 12, 2014
Consider a clock within K' at position x'=D' which ticks at the time t'(1)=t'=0. The coordinates within K are

x(1)=G*(-D') and t(1)=G*[-(v/c^2)D'

You meant that x'=-D', right? Also, just to be clear, v is positive, right? Finally, using x(1) to denote the "second" x is confusing notation because it looks like you are evaluating x at 1. You should use x_1 instead.
...Since the time on his clock was t(1), he will "see" the tick at a time T(1)=t(1)+(delta)t(1)=[(G*D')/c](1-(v/c)].

Looks good so far.
The next tick is at t'=t(2) at the same position -D' in K': The coordinates within K are:

x(2)=G*[-D'+vt(0)] and t(2)=G*[t(0)-(v/sc^2)D']

Did you mean to write t'=t'(2)? Where on earth did t(0) come from? Is t(2) the time of the second "tick" event measured in K? Please use consistent notation, because right now, I don't know what you want me to calculate.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2014
x(1)=G*(-D') and t(1)=G*[-(v/c^2)D'

You meant that x'=-D', right?
Correct. I did type itn that way but the minus got lost.

Also, just to be clear, v is positive, right?
Correct: The usual convention..

using x(1) to denote the "second" x is confusing notation because it looks like you are evaluating x at 1. You should use x_1 instead.
It is the Lorentz-tranformed distance at which first tick occurs.

I realise I made some typing errors which cause confusion and I apologise. So I am repeating he corrected version in the next post.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 12, 2014
Consider a clock within K' at position x'=minusD' which ticks at the time t'(1)=t'=0. The LT coordinates within K are

x(1)=G*(-D') and t(1)=G*[-(v/c^2)D'

Is the observer at origin 0 of K at the position x(1)? NO! So he cannot "see" this tick. He can only "see" this after light has moved fom x(1) to reach him. The time interval required for this to happen is (delta)t(1)=-x(1)/c=(G*D')/c. Since the time on his clock was t(1), he will "see" the tick at a time T(1)=t(1)+(delta)t(1)=[(G*D')/c](1-(v/c)].

The next tick is at t'=t'(0) at the same position -D' (minusD') in K': The LT coordinates within K are:

x(2)=G*[-D'+vt'(0)] and t(2)=G*[t'(0)-(v/c^2)D']. The obserrver at 0 IS NOT at the position x(2) and can only "see" the next tick after a time internal (delta)t(2)=-x(2)/c=G*[vt'(0)-D']/c, so that the time on his clock when he "sees" the next tick is T(2)=t(2)+(delta)t(2).

Thus the diffrence in time between the ticks "seen" by the observer at 0 is (delta)T=T(2)-T(1).
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
Is the observer at origin 0 of K at the position x(1)? NO! So he cannot "see" this tick. He can only "see" this after light has moved fom x(1) to reach him.


Questions;

- By your same reasoning K' did not "see" the tick t'_1, at -D' either,... so why even add this offset position -D' of clock ?,...

- The clocks along K's x coordinate are all synchronized, and are so for K' x' coordinate.

- I would not recommend using "D" because that implies a distance rather than a coordinate. Distances in Space-Time require the interval to which all IRF agree and is not the same as coordinate length contraction.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
,.... however having stated the last bit, one should be careful not to get trapped into the fallacy of insisting on a dichotomy between ""Real" Physical Phenomena, wink wink" and "just the effects of measurement circumstances".

The latter is ALL that physicists have available to them for speaking objectively about Reality and the term "physical phenomena" already presumes this at the start.

For example, is time dilation really "real"? For all observable Operational purposes, because we must define time in terms of a physical system and distance in terms of a physical rod,... the answer is yes.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
By your same reasoning K' did not "see" the tick t'_1, at -D' either..
You give the answer in your next sentence:

The clocks along K's x coordinate are all synchronized, and are so for K' x' coordinate.
At t=t'=0 the time along both the x and x' coordinate is everywhere zero. Thus an observer at 0' within K' will only see this tick at a time D'/c later. However a co-observer within K'' at the position minusD', will see the clock tick at t'=0. Similarly a co-observer within K at position x=minusD' will also coincide with the clock at t=t'=0 and will also see the clock tick at t=t'=0.

However, what the observer at 0 within K eventually sees is determined by the Lorentz transformation. For this observer, the Lorentz transformation gives a transformed time t(1)=-G*(v/c^2)D'; which he cannot directly observe and which is physically impossible since this would mean that the event occurred within K BEFORE it occurs within K'.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
This relativistic time is required to ensure that when the event is observed at 0, the Doppler shift caused by the motion of the clock towards 0 is taken into account. The observer at 0 will thus see the tick rate to be higher than it actually is on the clock until the clock reaches him/her and passes by. After passing by the observer at 0 will see the ticks arriving at his position at a slower rate owing to the Doppler shift.

I would not recommend using "D" because that implies a distance rather than a coordinate. Distances in Space-Time require the interval to which all IRF agree and is not the same as coordinate length contraction.
The clock is stationary within K' at a DISTANCE x''=D' from 0' which does not change with time or speed since the clock is not moving relative to 0'. Where does "length contraction" come into the picture?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 13, 2014
,.... however having stated the last bit, one should be careful not to get trapped into the fallacy of insisting on a dichotomy between ""Real" Physical Phenomena, wink wink" and "just the effects of measurement circumstances".

The latter is ALL that physicists have available to them for speaking objectively about Reality and the term "physical phenomena" already presumes this at the start.


I am only talking at what can be measured at the position of an observer. Time dilation assumes that an observer who is at 0 can instantaneously see what is happening at a distance x=G*(vt') from him: This is clearly BS!!

For example, is time dilation really "real"? For all observable Operational purposes, because we must define time in terms of a physical system and distance in terms of a physical rod,... the answer is yes.
There is no time-dilation and also not length-contraction, whether real or unreal. These two concepts have led modern physics into the quagmire it is in.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2014
x(2)=G*[-D'+vt'(0)] and t(2)=G*[t'(0)-(v/c^2)D']. The obserrver at 0 IS NOT at the position x(2) and can only "see" the next tick after a time internal (delta)t(2)=-x(2)/c=G*[vt'(0)-D']/c, so that the time on his clock when he "sees" the next tick is T(2)=t(2)+(delta)t(2).

This only works if that D' < vt'(0). Eventually, vt'(0) will be larger than D', and you won't be able to say that (delta)t(2) = -x(2)/c. But let's suppose that's true for now.
I don't know what the point of this exercise is, but T(2) - T(1) should be G*((1 + v/c)t'(0) - 2D'/c) , and since t'(0) = t'(1) + 1 s, then, T(2)-T(1) = G*(t'(1) + (1 + v/c) s + v*t'(1)/c - 2*D'/c). So, there's your answer, assuming I have made no algebraic mistakes (which is very possible, since it's late). Why does this matter?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2014
Somewheren there is a mitake: I should first have written it down: So let me repeat:

Clock is in K' at position x'=minusD'=-D' at time t=t'=0 when it ticks. The Lorentz coordinates of this tick in K, are

x(1)=-G*D' and t(1)=-G*(v/c^2)*D' . The time-interval for light to reach 0 is (del)t(1)=G*(D'/c) .Thus time after the tick at which tick is seen at 0 is

T(1)=t(1)+(del)t(1)=-G*(v/c)*(D'/c)+G*(D'/c) Eq.1

Second tick at x'=-D' and t'=tau'. Lorentz coordinates in K are thus
x(2)=G*(-D'+v*tau') and t(2)=G*[tau'-(v/c)*(D'/c)]. The time-interval to reach 0 is thus (del)t(2)=G*(D'/c)-(v/c)*tau'. Thus time at which tick is seen at 0 is

T(2)=t(2)+(del)t(2)=-G*(v/c)*(D'/c)+G*tau'+G*(D'/c)-(v/c)*tau' Eq. 2

Thus the time interval tau as seen at 0 follows from Eqs. 1 and 2 as

tau=T(2)-T(1)=G*[1-(v/c)]*tau'.

This is the Doppler increase in frequency from f'=1/tau' (the stationary frequency) to f=1/tau when a synchronous entity approaches you with speed v.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2014
Thus, if the same synchronous entity is stationary within K it will have a frequence f within K. Thus two synchronised entities, clocks or coherent light sources with the same frequency will show this Doppler-shift. You can do the same derivation for x'=+D', to find that:

tau=G*[1+(v/c)]*tau'

Thus the "time-dilation" formula t=G*t' is required to ensure that there is a Doppler effect when a moving light source emits a wavefront simultaneously at time t' (on both clocks) at a coincident position d' within both K and K'. Within K the emission is recorded as if it occurs at a later time t>t' after the source has moved on a further distance d=G*d' with speed v. If this is not the case one would not have a Doppler shift when two synchronous clocks move relative to one another.

Thus when a clock (light source) approaches you the frequency is shifted to a higher value and when it passes you and recedes from you the frequency decreases. There is NO time-dilation on the moving clock!!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2014
Somewheren there is a mitake

Yes, you're correct about that. Redoing the calculation, I got T(2) - T(1) = t'(0)*G*(1-v/c)
And yes, this is the doppler effect.
You can do the same derivation for x'=+D', to find that:

tau=G*[1+(v/c)]*tau'

That's also true.
Thus the "time-dilation" formula t=G*t' is required to ensure that there is a Doppler effect when a moving light source emits a wavefront simultaneously at time t' (on both clocks)...

And this is where you lose me, in varying degrees. First, the doppler effect has nothing to do with time dilation. We can see this if we replace light waves with sound waves. In that case, we can use relatively low speeds so that we don't need to worry about relatvistic effects, and we'll still get the doppler effect, albeit without the lorentz factor. But where does the lorentz factor come from--the lorentz transform! And that's what ultimately baffles me. (continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2014
(continued)
You use the Lorentz factor in a manner I completely agree with, yet, correct me if I am wrong, you disagree with the interpretation that it gives us a way to say how one person will measure how and where an event took place compared with how another person will measure how and where it took place.
Now, I just want to return to some comments you made.
Within K the emission is recorded as if it occurs at a later time t>t' after the source has moved on a further distance d=G*d' with speed v.

I just don't understand the point you are making here. It seems to me that you are confusing "witnessing" with measuring. If lighting occurs, and thunder follows, I know that the thunder didn't actually happen after the event, because sound travels slower than light. So, even though I witnessed the thunder after the lightning strike, I can use physical measurements to determine that it happened simultaneously with the lightning. (continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2014
(continued)
My and others' whole point is that this lapse in time between when the event occurred and when it was witnessed is actually accounted for in conventional SR calculations. In fact, I would say that this is an integral part of deriving the Lorentz transformation.
Take for example deriving t' = (t - xv/c^2)*gamma (eq 1)
Suppose for a second that we have already derived x' = (x - vt)*gamma.
Well, (eq 1) is found by first determining how long in K it took for the signal to reach the guy in K'. Assuming the case where the guy in K measures x > vt,
then this is t_0 = (x+(c-v))/c (eq 2).
Now, by the assumption that x' is the place that the guy in K' measured the event to have occurred, then we know the guy in K' can take x' and divide it by c to measure how long ago the event occurred. In particular, if the guy in K measures the guy in K's clock to be at t_0' when he received the signal, then we can find t' by
t' = t_0' - x'/c. (continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2014
(continued)
But what's t_0'? Well, we know that since the guy in K measures light to travel at c, and the guy in K' has a light clock, then we know that the guy in K will measure the traveling light clock to be ticking at a rate of (1/gamma) ticks per second. Hence, t_0' = t_0/gamma.
Now, do the math, and you'll find that (eq 1) is satisfied, and we arrived at this BECAUSE we assumed that the guy in K' would have used the fact that light takes time x'/c to travel a distance of x' to actually determine where it occurred.
Furthermore, the Lorentz transform is mathematically equivalent to time dilation and length contraction. You can use each to derive the other, so I just don't understand what point you are trying to make about doppler effects,
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2014
@johanfprins
There are also other ways of unambiguously measuring distance that don't require bouncing light signals back and forth between yourself and events.
Here's one way I am pretty sure will work based off of a more complicated measurement strategy that I know works:
Assuming that the event occurs along the x-axis, position a detector at the origin, and at y=d along the y axis.
So, you have 2 detectors. Now, an event occurs. The expanding wave front of the signal will be detected by the detectors at different times, such that the distance of the event from the origin is uniquely determined by the time difference between when each detector detected the event. Then, using this distance, we can calculate how long ago the event occurred too.
So, in that case, there is no signal being bounced, and you will still measure the clock to be ticking slower by gamma.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
@johanfprins
I wrote a typo instead of t_0 = (x+(c-v))/c, I meant to write t_0 = (x+(c-v)t)/c
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
Thus the "time-dilation" formula t=G*t' is required to ensure that there is a Doppler effect when a moving light source emits a wavefront simultaneously at time t' (on both clocks)...

And this is where you lose me, in varying degrees. First, the doppler effect has nothing to do with time dilation. I agree. That is why "time-dilation" as interpreted by Einstein has nothing to do with physics reality.

We can see this if we replace light waves with sound waves.
No you cannot do this. The energy of sound waves is within the medium (air) through which the waves are moving. Light waves do not have a medium (an aether) since the energy of the latter waves reside within the waves. In contrast to his wrong interpretation of time-transformation as "time dilation", Einstein was spot on when it comes to light not moving within a medium. Thus, to compare light-waves with sound waves, is not comparing apples with apples. It is non-sensical to do so.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
But where does the lorentz factor come from--the lorentz transform! And that's what ultimately baffles me. You use the Lorentz factor in a manner I completely agree with, yet, correct me if I am wrong, you disagree with the interpretation that it gives us a way to say how one person will measure how and where an event took place compared with how another person will measure how and where it took place.
It depends on the relative positions of the persons. If an event occurs at the time and instance that the two persons coincide, they will fully agreen on the coordinates and time of the event. If they are not coincident, an event that occurs at the position and time of one of them (person 1) gives when Lorentz transformed into the IRF of the other person (person 2), position and time coordinates which do not coincide with those of the coincident position and time at which the event actually occurs. This is so since person 2 is now not coincident with person 1.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
But person 2 is also not coincident with the Lorentz transformed coordinates: So he/she can also not verify that these coordinates are actually correct. He/she can only verify the latter after light has moved from the transformed coordinates to his/her position: And when you add this time you obtain the Doppler shift; which in reality means that this confirms that the event actually occurred at the coincident time and position of p 1, but since p 1 is moving relative to p 2, p 2 "sees" this event as being as being Doppler shifted.

Now comes the million dollar question: Are the Lorentz transformed coordinates real or are they an illusion? They are a relativistic effect, just as the horizontal launch force on a bomb being dropped, when observed from earth, is a relativistic effect. BUT these effects cause real physics. The bomb follows a parabolic path while the light from the event at p1 is Doppler shifted when it reaches p 2.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
Now, I just want to return to some comments you made.[

Within K the emission is recorded as if it occurs at a later time t>t' after the source has moved on a further distance d=G*d' with speed v.

I just don't understand the point you are making here. It seems to me that you are confusing "witnessing" with measuring.
You can only witness an event when the light leaving the event reaches your position. And when you include this you find that the event did not actually occur at the Lorenz-tranformed coordinates, but at the coincident coordinates, so that you observe this event as being Doppler-shifted since it is moving relative to you.

If lighting occurs, and thunder follows, I know that the thunder didn't actually happen after the event, because sound travels slower than light. So, even though I witnessed the thunder after the lightning strike, I can use physical measurements to determine


This is not relevant to the Lorentz transformation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
My and others' whole point is that this lapse in time between when the event occurred and when it was witnessed is actually accounted for in conventional SR calculations. In fact, I would say that this is an integral part of deriving the Lorentz transformation.


There are two ways to interpret the Lorentz equations: The wrong way and the correct way. Before Einstein came along in 1905, Lorentz gave a self-consistent interpretation in terms of length-contraction, and thus also time-dilation.

But Einstein then pointed out that this interpretation must be wrong since the Lorentz equations are a result of the constant relative speed of light. What is amazing is that this clearly proves that length contraction and time dilation, although seemingly self-consistent, give the wrong interpretation. Einstein should have realised that the constancy of the speed of light replaces "length-contraction" and "time-dilation":
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2014
But, amazingly, after Einstein's insight about the speed of light, which confirms his genius, he went ahead and "derived" length-contraction and time-dilation as if the Lorentz interpretation is still valid. This proves that a genius can also be stupid.

Obviously, one can derive this from the Lorentz equations in terms of Lorentz' interpreation. But the Lorentz interpretation is now replaced by the constancy of the speed of light. which means that length-contraction and time-dilation are now two irrelevant concepts; which belong to the wrong interpretation of the Lorentz equations.

You cannot have your cake and eat it: Either Lorentz is correct, which means that length-contraction and time-dilation are correct, or Einstein is correct, which means that the interpretations that length-contraction and time-dilation occur must be wrong.

I will rest my case at this point!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2014
@johanfprins
I will respond to you tomorrow.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 17, 2014
That is why "time-dilation" as interpreted by Einstein has nothing to do with physics reality.

But, time dilation, as interpreted by you has nothing to do with relativistic calculations.
We can see this if we replace light waves with sound waves.

No you cannot do this. The energy of sound waves is within the medium (air) through which the waves are moving.

...there was miscommunication here. in the interest of saving time, I'll leave it alone.
He/she can only verify the latter after light has moved from the transformed coordinates to his/her position: And when you add this time you obtain the Doppler shift;

No you don't--not from P2's perspective! P1 is using the doppler shift because he sees P2 moving. P2 does not see himself moving, so it makes no sense to use the doppler shift. And what if a third person is moving at a different relative velocity, V2, to P1? Which doppler shift does P2 use? Because now there are two.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 17, 2014
Lorentz gave a self-consistent interpretation in terms of length-contraction, and thus also time-dilation.

Well, I am glad you at least agree that they give a self-consistent interpretation.
But Einstein then pointed out that this interpretation must be wrong since the Lorentz equations are a result of the constant relative speed of light. What is amazing is that this clearly proves that length contraction and time dilation, although seemingly self-consistent, give the wrong interpretation.

No, it doesn't clearly prove that--and Einstein didn't say the interpretation must be wrong because of the constant speed of light. Please provide an actual quote.
Sorry, but I find your reasoning baffling. You could help me understand, though, if you would respond to my thought experiment about a spinning baton.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2014
But, time dilation, as interpreted by you has nothing to do with relativistic calculations.
I agree that it has nothing to do with the Voodoo relativistic calculations which the retarded mainstream theoretical physicists believe in.

He/she can only verify the latter after light has moved from the transformed coordinates to his/her position: And when you add this time you obtain the Doppler shift;

No you don't--not from P2's perspective!
From where else must the light within P2's reference frame move to his/her position?

P1 is using the doppler shift because he sees P2 moving.
At whose position is the clock? P1 or P2? Who is trying to find out what is occurring on the moving clock? P2 who is stationary or P1 who is moving with the clock?

And what if a third person is moving at a different relative velocity, V2, to P1?
This is a STUPID question! Are you asking what this third person will see on the moving clock that is with P1?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2014
Well, I am glad you at least agree that they give a self-consistent interpretation.
Lorentz did, but just like Ptolemy's epicycles his interpretation was wrong since it was based on length contraction and time dilation.
No, it doesn't clearly prove that--and Einstein didn't say the interpretation must be wrong because of the constant speed of light.
Then why did he postulate that the Lorentz transformation is caused by c, if Lorentz's interpretation is corredt?

Please provide an actual quote.
What actual quote must I supply. Einstein himself was too stupid to realise that his postulate on c made length-contraction and time-dilation redundant.

Sorry, but I find your reasoning baffling. You could help me understand, though, if you would respond to my thought experiment about a spinning baton.
Of course you will find it "baffling" since you WANT to believe in epicycles. A spinning baton has NOTHING in common with linear motion on which STR is based.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
P1 is using the doppler shift because he sees P2 moving.

At whose position is the clock? P1 or P2? Who is trying to find out what is occurring on the moving clock? P2 who is stationary or P1 who is moving with the clock?

P2 is stationary now? I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying but, I am going to drop this for now.
Sorry, but I find your reasoning baffling. You could help me understand, though, if you would respond to my thought experiment about a spinning baton.

Of course you will find it "baffling" since you WANT to believe in epicycles. A spinning baton has NOTHING in common with linear motion on which STR is based.

Well, it doesn't have to be a spinning baton, if you don't like the non-linear motion. We can replace it with an incredibly elastic ball of fissile material that completes one bounce every second, and the problem would remain the same. In fact, (continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
(continued)
Let's have the usual set up where A sees B moving, and A and B's clocks start are at 0s when they pass each other.with velocity, v.

Now, let's say that B has a perfectly elastic bounding ball of volatile material that's really close to him and bounces between two surfaces. A measures B's ball to be bouncing at 2 bounces/s, so that at every second, the ball returns to B's position.
Now, at time, t on A's clock, A throws another ball of highly volatile material at B, measured in his IRF as traveling at velocity, kv/(k-t), where k is some constant. Thus, after k seconds, A's ball will get to B's position. Now, remember that since B's ball is traveling with him.
Now, let's suppose you are correct. Then, A would measure B's ball to be bouncing more slowly than it "actually" is and B knows that the ball is really bouncing faster than what A is measuring. In fact, since time dilation doesn't occur, B's clock actually matches A's. (continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
(continued)
So, then the ball must really be bouncing at speed of 2*gamma bounces /s. Now, suppose that k is a whole number. Then, A would see the two fissile balls meet, which should create an explosion, killing B. However, that's not really what happens by your reasoning. What really happens is that when A's ball gets to B, B's ball will be in the middle of a bounce so that the balls will harmlessly pass each other. So, what exactly would A see?

Let's try something even simpler. Suppose B is just holding his ball. Now, A throws the his ball like before. Again, A is measuring B to be aging slowly, when "in reality", he's aging at the same rate as A. So, when A's ball gets to B, B can quickly move his ball out of the way out of self preservation. But, that's not what A sees. A sees the ball actually get to B's ball. Since A sees B moving slowly, A will measure B as just standing there while the two balls collide. So, what will A see? (continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
(continued)
Will A just see the ball pass through B's ball, then at some later time, see B moving his ball away, well after the thrown ball has passed B? Suppose B doesn't move his ball out of the way. Will A see the thrown ball and B's ball explode in two different places?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 18, 2014
Let's have the usual set up where A sees B moving, and A and B's clocks start are at 0s when they pass each other.with velocity, v.
At last some sense from you.

Now, let's say that B has a perfectly elastic bounding ball of volatile material that's really close to him and bounces between two surfaces. A measures B's ball to be bouncing at 2 bounces/s, so that at every second, the ball returns to B's position.
How does he "measure" this? To do so he must "see" the ball bouncing and to be able to do so, light must move from the bouncing ball to the position of A while the ball is moving away from A. You keep one assuming that A is at the instantaneous position of the ball, so that he does not need light from the ball to reach him. Can you really not see how absurd you are?

Thus the rest of your argument is pure bullshit, and a waste of time.

continued

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet May 18, 2014
I did type itn that way but the minus got lost.
@johanfprins
are you using a laptop? with Windows software?
if you are: disable the installed laptop mouse and close all windows while typing. The more you have open, the more RAM is being used, which also affects the CPU. Concentrating on single windows (open) and locking out unnecessary functions running in the background will help, as will expanding your RAM and upgrading the CPU.

for desktop PC's, ignore only the part about disabling the laptop mouse.

If you are adaptable, you should seriously consider Ubuntu Linux and switch. If not... ignore last comment.

another problem may also be priority.

You can seek assistance from your local IT technician and it will help (unless you use work computers, then contact your MIS/IT personnel and talk them through fixing your problem) - it should NOT take very long at all for a skilled tech... so don't get suckered with a high bill if you go civilian IT

johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
The fact is that when B's clock gives its second tick at time t', B has moved from A by a distance v*t'. The Lorentz transformation, however, gives that this tick occurs within A's IRF at time G*t' after the clock has moved a distance G*v*t' from A. But A cannot be at this position to verify that this is correct. He must wait for light leaving this position at time G*t' to reach him; and when you add this you find that any entity at the position of B that changes with a frequency f (whether it is a clock or a coherent light source) will be seen by A to have afrequency f, which is the Doppler-shifted frequency.

B will see the same Doppler shift for any entity at the position of A which changes with frequency f (whether it is a clock or a coherent light source). Einstein violated the covariance of the Lorentz transformation by ONLY considering the time transformation on its own, instead of the COMPLETE Lorentz tranformation which requires BOTH time and position!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy,

Thank you for the advice. I know that I should learn more about IT, but I just do not have the time. It is more important to me to do actual resaerch in physics. And with the utter stupid opposition I am experiencing it is a full time job to write manuscripts for posterity. The reason why I post on a forum like this, is to find out how dogmatic people who cannot think for themselves, and consider it their duty to be inquisitors who must protect mainstream dogma, actually reason. It helps me to try and write my manuscripts so that I expose these stupidities. BTW, you have been very helpful in this regard.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
How does he "measure" this? To do so he must "see" the ball bouncing and to be able to do so, light must move from the bouncing ball to the position of A while the ball is moving away from A.

So, what? Why is this relevant? We could ask the same question about how A measure's B's velocity.
You keep one assuming that A is at the instantaneous position of the ball, so that he does not need light from the ball to reach him.

No, I never said that, nor have I assumed it. What did I say, which indicated that A should instantaneously know the position of the ball? I said A measures B's ball to be moving at velocity V when he passes A. Please assume that when I say A measures any remote event, he does so by waiting for the signal of the event to get to him. Accusing me of such silliness is one of the reasons this conversation never goes anywhere.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 18, 2014
Can you really not see how absurd you are?

Thus the rest of your argument is pure bullshit, and a waste of time.

You'll notice that I have spent the last few comments no longer calling you Man-baby, and, in general being very patient and respectful. Please show me the same respect.

Now, you didn't even bother to read my second question. In that one, you have a very simple set up. B's ball doesn't bounce at all, so there's nothing to complain about. Please read it and respond.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet May 19, 2014
BTW, you have been very helpful in this regard
@Johan
you are welcome
The reason why I post on a forum like this, is to find out how dogmatic people who cannot think for themselves, and consider it their duty to be inquisitors who must protect mainstream dogma, actually reason
You may or may not believe this, but this is much of the reason that I am currently posting/rating and so active. Collecting data for a psyche study. You should be perusing some of those... you might gain some insight.

P.S. EVERYONE has blinders, blind spots, or issues where they ignore reality to believe in some personal prejudice/belief that is wrong/stupid/fallacious
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
How does he "measure" this? To do so he must "see" the ball bouncing and to be able to do so, light must move from the bouncing ball to the position of A while the ball is moving away from A.

So, what? Why is this relevant?
It is THE most important relevant point which you keep on ignoring.

We could ask the same question about how A measure's B's velocity.
Correct: A can ONLY measure B's velocity by recording the Doppler-shift from a light-source moving with B.

I said A measures B's ball to be moving at velocity V when he passes A.
How does he measure this? Please explain.

Please assume that when I say A measures any remote event, he does so by waiting for the signal of the event to get to him. Accusing me of such silliness is one of the reasons this conversation never goes anywhere.
If you read your posts above you will see that you consistently succumbed to this silliness.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
You'll notice that I have spent the last few comments no longer calling you Man-baby, and, in general being very patient and respectful. Please show me the same respect.
I will take you up on this provided that you promise to behave in future.

Now, you didn't even bother to read my second question. In that one, you have a very simple set up. B's ball doesn't bounce at all, so there's nothing to complain about. Please read it and respond.
I have read it but you keep on adding aspects which make no physics sense and only complicates a very simple situation. Consider for example this statement by you:
Now, at time, t on A's clock, A throws another ball of highly volatile material at B, measured in his IRF as traveling at velocity, kv/(k-t), where k is some constant. Thus, after k seconds, A's ball will get to B's position.
This does not make sense: Why does the ball have to reach an infinite velocity to reach B?

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
A has a clock and B has a clock which are synchronized when A passes B: At that instant the clocks simultaneously tick. Assume that with each tick each clock also emits a wavefront (WF).

After a time t', B has moved a distance v*t' from A and his clock gives its second tick and second WF. This WF moves with a speed c away from B within B's IRF. It must also move towards A with speed c within A's IRF. In order to ensure that this happens, one must use the LT to find the covariant coordinates of t' and v*t' within A's IRF. They are found to be t=G*t' and x=G*(vt').

The WF must thus move from these coordinates within the IRF of A towards A. This means that the WF reaches A after a time interval (del)t=x/c. Thus A will see this wavefront (and thus the second tick on the clock of B) at the time T=t+(del)t. This gives a Doppler-shift: NOT a change in time rate on B's clock.

A's clock ticks at time t and sends out a WF: Now LT x=0 and t into B's IRF. One gets the SAME Doppler-shift.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
You may or may not believe this, but this is much of the reason that I am currently posting/rating and so active. Collecting data for a psyche study. You should be perusing some of those... you might gain some insight.
Another proof that psycholgists are usually more insane than their patients.

P.S. EVERYONE has blinders, blind spots, or issues where they ignore reality to believe in some personal prejudice/belief that is wrong/stupid/fallacious
I cannot agree more: But if you want to study this aspect you should first remove your blind spots and personal prejudices: Not search them in my posts.

I have taught all the delusions that the mainstream propagandists like the furlong post here, but have been open-minded enough to admit that I was wrong when the overwhelming evidence emerged that I was wrong; even that some of my publications are wrong. I am thus hardly a person with "blind spots" and "prejudices".

Some serious introspection is required on your side!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
Please assume that when I say A measures any remote event, he does so by waiting for the signal of the event to get to him. Accusing me of such silliness is one of the reasons this conversation never goes anywhere.

If you read your posts above you will see that you consistently succumbed to this silliness.

That's just not correct. Where have I succumbed to this? Show me one quote where I have done this.
I will take you up on this provided that you promise to behave in future.

I promise to behave if you promise to behave. You will hear no insults out of me, unless you start accusing me of silly things like "never having done calculus" or "being demented", or being a "mainstream propagandist", like you did in the last comment you left. This conversation has no use for personal attacks.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
If you read your posts above you will see that you consistently succumbed to this silliness.
That's just not correct. Where have I succumbed to this? Show me one quote where I have done this.
I do not have the time to scan all your posts again.

But you have stated all along that A can "see" that B's clock is going slower. You based this on the time transformation t=G*t' which is only half of the Lorentz tranformation: The other half being x=G*(v*t'). You did not once take the fact into account that A can only "see" this tick on B's clock after light has moved from the transformed position of the clock x to reach A after an additional time interval x/c.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet May 19, 2014
I cannot agree more: But if you want to study this aspect you should first remove your blind spots and personal prejudices: Not search them in my posts
@johan
and who says my posts aren't directed at you for a specific response?
I am thus hardly a person with "blind spots" and "prejudices"
hate to tell you this, but this only indicates that you've considered yourself infallible, and thus also supports the conclusion that you've well established "blind spots" with firm walls against any outside proof telling you that you're wrong
it is good that you can admit when you are wrong, but as you can see by this post, and this
I do not have the time to scan all your posts again
only when you think you are wrong in certain area's, which, by definition, is a blind spot.

I do admit that watching you get angry and vent here is fun, though. We take bets on how you (and others) will lash out. I've made some good money on it so far. Guess I can't be too far off the mark....
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
I said A measures B's ball to be moving at velocity V when he passes A.

How does he measure this? Please explain.

Here's a way: he sets up four detectors around himself, at spatial coordinates (1,0), (0,1),(-1,0), and (0,-1). He can set these up before hand, using signals passed back and forth. But now, he has detectors, which allow him to measure the time and position of such an event.
To do this, each detector will intercept the wave front of an event at different time. Call these, in order of the detectors, t0,t1,t2,t3.
Now, the (X,Y,Z) coordinate of an event is given by
t = (t3^2-t2^2+t1^2-t0^2)/(2*(t3 - t2 + t1 - t0))
and the x-position of an event is given by
x = c^2((t2^2-t0^2) + 2*t*(t0-t2))/4
y = c^2((t2^2-2t1^2+t0^2)+2*t*(t2-2*t1+t0))/4, with, of course, A only measuring these detection times after the detectors have sent him their signals.
Using this, A can determine where and when every bounce occurred. Does this satisfy you?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
That's just not correct. Where have I succumbed to this? Show me one quote where I have done this.

I do not have the time to scan all your posts again.

Well, then I have no reason to believe you. If you are going to make a claim, you need to furnish evidence.
But you have stated all along that A can "see" that B's clock is going slower.

Yes, as in A measures B's clock to be going slower. This is not an issue. Just assume that when I say that A measures anything, he does it by waiting for signals of an event to reach him. Arguing otherwise is a waste of time.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
Now, at time, t on A's clock, A throws another ball of highly volatile material at B, measured in his IRF as traveling at velocity, kv/(k-t), where k is some constant. Thus, after k seconds, A's ball will get to B's position.

This does not make sense: Why does the ball have to reach an infinite velocity to reach B?

No, you misunderstand. At some later time, t2 = k, A will measure that the ball intercepts B. Plug it in. the trajectory of the ball is (kv/(k-t))*(t2 - t) = (kv/(k - t))*(k - t) = kv, which would be B's position after k seconds according to A.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
Now, you didn't even bother to read my second question. In that one, you have a very simple set up. B's ball doesn't bounce at all, so there's nothing to complain about. Please read it and respond.

I have read it but you keep on adding aspects which make no physics sense and only complicates a very simple situation.

The situation is not complicated at all. B, who is carrying a volatile payload, passes A with velocity, v, and then, when A's clock reads t, he throws a volatile ball at B so that A will measure the ball to intercept B. If the ball strikes the payload, there will be an explosion killing B. If B pulls the payload out of the way just as the ball gets there, everything will be fine.
Now, assuming you are correct, let's consider two scenarios. In one, B decides to pull the payload out of the way when his clock measures k seconds. In the other, B decides to do nothing, and the ball ends up striking the payload. (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
(continued)
Consider the first scenario. A measuring B's clock to be moving slowly is just an illusion, and B's clock really reads k seconds when the ball gets to him. So, he moves the ball out of the way.
However, when the ball gets to B, from A's perspective, B's clock still reads k/gamma. Hence, A will measure B as standing idly by when the ball gets to him. Will A see the ball pass right through B, and then see B pull the ball away at some later time on his clock, with nothing in front of him? That seems to run contrary to what we actually observe. So, I am asking you, how will A actually measure this scenario play out.

Now, let's consider the scenario where B doesn't pull the payload away. Then at k seconds on B's clock, an explosion will occur, killing him. But A is measuring B's clock to be moving slowly, so A will, again, see B at a point where the ball hasn't gotten to him yet. How will A then see the resulting explosion? (to be continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2014
(continued)
Will A measure an explosion at position vt, but also measure B to continue moving for an amount of time afterwords, at which point, A will measure him explode? Will A see the ball pass through B, and measure B and the ball to explode at, say, k*gamma?
Again, these sorts of observations run counter to what we observe in reality, so I am asking you. How does A measure these scenarios as playing out.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2014
I hate to tell you this, but this only indicates that you've considered yourself infallible, and thus also supports the conclusion that you've well established "blind spots" with firm walls against any outside proof telling you that you're wrong
You are describing yourself here. Your blind spot is to believe that you ar able to evaluate other people: You are not able to do this. I doubt that you have any competency whatsoever.

The worst is that you do this while hiding behind anonymity. No person with self-respect , honesty and integrity will act in this manner: Another collossal blind spot on your part since it is obvious that you believe that you are "great". You are totally unable to do any introspection but think that you are capable to judge other people. How pathetic can a human being be? If you have ever known what integrity means you will refrain from posting your opinions and not revealing who and what you are.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
If you read your posts above you will see that you consistently succumbed to this silliness.
That's just not correct. Where have I succumbed to this? Show me one quote where I have done this.
I do not have the time to scan all your posts again.


You are crying foul. I thus quickly scanned you posts:
If a person sees two clocks moving at the same speed, but different directions, he will see both clocks ticking at the same rate.
The implication is that you instantaneously and simultaneoulsy see the two clocks
After we pass, I start paying attention to your friend and see that he has two clocks. The first one is the old one covered in a shroud, concealing the time it reads. The second one is a newer clock, and this one reads 0 s.
Again the implication is clear: You can instantaneously see the two clocks.

There are more, but I do not have the time, nor the desire, to reread all the illogical arguments that you have posted on this thread.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
@ thefurlough,

You have posted a long-winded argument that is an entanglement of illogical reasoning. It will take a long time for me to disentangle each aspect and show that it is illogical. A task I am not looking forward too and for which at present I do not have the time. Maybe I will have the time in two to three weeks.

But why should I spend the effort, when you just blatantly ignore my posts? For example, my post on A and B and their clocks which I posted on May 19. Before I will be willing to even consider going through your long-winded and obscure arguments, I demand that you first tell me where you disagree with my deductions on May 19th. Do you agree that my conclusions are valid? Or if you disagree, then point out were I have gone wrong without posting "balls" and other irrelevant aspects.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
You are crying foul. I thus quickly scanned you posts:
If a person sees two clocks moving at the same speed, but different directions, he will see both clocks ticking at the same rate.
The implication is that you instantaneously and simultaneoulsy see the two clocks

No, you are making that implication. That is not implied by what I said. I am talking in English, which is not built for expressing things in the language of relativity in a concise fashion. Assume that whenever I say A sees something or measures something, I mean that A measures it by waiting for the signal. I honestly don't know what is so difficult about this.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
You have posted a long-winded argument that is an entanglement of illogical reasoning. It will take a long time for me to disentangle each aspect and show that it is illogical.

No, I haven't. It is a very simple scenario followed by a bunch of questions. B, who is carrying a payload, passes A. A throws volatile ball at B, which explodes unless B pulls the payload out of the way. There are two scenarios to consider. B pulls his payload out of the way when his clock reads k seconds, or he doesn't.
In each scenario, what does A see? In other words, if A were shooting a video of the event from afar, what would A see? Surely this is not too complicated for you.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 20, 2014
But why should I spend the effort, when you just blatantly ignore my posts? For example, my post on A and B and their clocks which I posted on May 19.

Well, you ignored my post about batons, and my other post about old clocks, so...
Look, I fundamentally disagree with you that the effects of relativity have anything to do with the Doppler effect. It is clear that the strategy of proving things to each other won't work because you and I greatly differ on what conclusions can be drawn from something. Why would I waste any more of my time proving something to you, then? I apologize for not telling you that I was ignoring your argument, but I refuse to continue down this path of inquiry. You should too.
With the above scenario, I am giving you a chance not to prove some thing to me, but to show me that you have thought the implications of your ideas through. You have convinced yourself of this. Convince me. The scenario above is very simple.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2014
No, you are making that implication. That is not implied by what I said. I am talking in English, which is not built for expressing things in the language of relativity in a concise fashion. Assume that whenever I say A sees something or measures something, I mean that A measures it by waiting for the signal. I honestly don't know what is so difficult about this.
Then why do you not bring the time that it takes the signal to reach A into account? It is EASY to calculate. I am not interested in what "you think" you are stating but in you using this fact in your derivations; which you HAVE NEVER done!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
No, I haven't. It is a very simple scenario followed by a bunch of questions.
It is not a simple scenario since it includes a lot of unneccesary baggage like "balls". You are posting "balls". One has two observers with two clocks moving relative to one another and the Lorentz transformation based on Einstein's two postulates. My scenario posted on 19h May is the simple scenarion: Yours is not.

here are two scenarios to consider. B pulls his payload out of the way when his clock reads k seconds, or he doesn't.In each scenario, what does A see? In other words, if A were shooting a video of the event from afar, what would A see? Surely this is not too complicated for you.
Where in Einstein's postulates are thre balls being thown between two observers moving relative to one another. If you know STR you will know that you must calculate the speed of the ball relative to B as seen by B, and this speed does not add according to Galilean relativity as you are assuming.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2014
Well, you ignored my post about batons, and my other post about old clocks, so...
Since you keep on bringing in irrelevant things and then making irrelevant wrong deductions from them. Stick tomtwo clocks, the LT and the speed of light.

Look, I fundamentally disagree with you that the effects of relativity have anything to do with the Doppler effect.
Well then prove that my derivation on the 19th of May is wrong. My derivation is not lbased on long-winded obscure illogical entangled arguments. It is so simple I could post in in one post. So it should be easy for you to find where I have made a mistake.
With the above scenario, I am giving you a chance not to prove some thing to me,
Who the hell are YOU to give ME a chance. You hide behind anonymity. If you think you know are more capable than I am, produce your credentials.

but to show me that you have thought the implications of your ideas through.
I HAVE shown you this time and again.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
You have convinced yourself of this. Convince me. The scenario above is very simple.
It is simple-minded yes, but full of wrong turns and twists. It will take a very long thesis to challenge all the feathers you have strewn about. And again, why should I convince YOU??

Who the Hell are you to have such an inflated opinion of yourself? Furthermore, I do not think anybody will ever be able to convince you of anything; even with the best experimental evidence and logic in the world. Once you WANT to believe, you will resist any new evidence like a true inquisitor. I deserve a medal for my patience with you.

I am awaiting your arguments against my post of the 19th of May. If they are not forthcoming I will accept that you do not have any arguments and do not really know what you are talking about. If you do post such arguments, I will, as soon as I have time, give you my arguments against your last impossible scenario; even though it will be fruitless waste of my time.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
Well then prove that my derivation on the 19th of May is wrong. My derivation is not lbased on long-winded obscure illogical entangled arguments. It is so simple I could post in in one post. So it should be easy for you to find where I have made a mistake.

I am convinced that whatever proof I submit to you, you will disagree with. That's because you and I have completely different ideas of what conclusions can be drawn from first principles. Don't you agree? If that's true, then it is impossible for either of us to get anywhere by trying to prove things to each other. Thus, I am trying a different strategy. I am assuming your premise and asking you to explain what its implications are in a particular scenario so that I can understand it better.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2014
Who the hell are YOU to give ME a chance. You hide behind anonymity. If you think you know are more capable than I am, produce your credentials.

Please stop taking everything as a personal affront, and calm down. This is one of the reasons this conversation never gets anywhere. I have no interest in divulging my personal identity to you. You are not a friend, nor are you are a colleague. We are strangers arguing over the internet. Demanding somebody's personal information on the internet is not only rude, but dangerous for the person giving it out. I live in the US, am a physics student, and work as a software developer/researcher for the govt. That's all you need to know.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
It is simple-minded yes, but full of wrong turns and twists.

Then, it is not simple enough. I cannot imagine what is objectionable about it. Maybe if you named one such thing I could simplify it for you so that you could, in confidence, answer the question. What do you think I am asking?
Who the Hell are you to have such an inflated opinion of yourself?

For doing what? Not believing that you have thought this through? Producing a manuscript is not evidence of this, and neither is a long cv.
I am awaiting your arguments against my post of the 19th of May. If they are not forthcoming I will accept that you do not have any arguments and do not really know what you are talking about

If you can't even accept a simple question about A throwing a ball to B, which should be absolutely non-controversial, what hope do I have of convincing you with a proof? That seems like an utterly futile thing to do.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
If you do post such arguments, I will, as soon as I have time, give you my arguments against your last impossible scenario; even though it will be fruitless waste of my time.

The only way I will do this if
1) You promise to stop taking every critical thing said about you as a personal affront.
2) If I tell you that I have assumed something, then accept that I have assumed it. If you feel that conflicts with a conclusion of mine, then challenge my conclusion, NOT MY ASSUMPTION. Several times, you have told me that I am assuming A can measure something remotely instantaneously. But, I have never said this. If you think I am incorrect, and you agree with my initial premise, it follows that my conclusion is incorrect, not my initial premise.
3) Stop asking me to provide my credentials. I don't care what you do for a living. You could be a McDonald's cook, and be completely correct, or a celebrated Rhodes scholar, and be batsh*t insane.
(continued)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2014
(continued)
4) If it is unclear to you why I have reached a conclusion, don't just assume that I have assumed something I have not explicitly stated. Ask me to clarify WHY I have reached such a conclusion.
5) If, after 10 exchanges, the conversation has gone no where, you accept that it is, indeed, pointless to try to prove things to each other, and a new strategy is necessary to overcome the impasse.
6) You stop losing your temper
7) You stop losing your temper
8) You stop losing your temper
9) You answer my question about A throwing the ball to B
Do you accept these conditions?
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2014
6) You stop losing your temper
7) You stop losing your temper
8) You stop losing your temper


The temper thing is a cover for his incompetence; It's always replaced "the cover of anonymity" for him.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2014
(continued)
4) If it is unclear to you why I have reached a conclusion, don't just assume that I have assumed something I have not explicitly stated. Ask me to clarify WHY I have reached such a conclusion.
5) If, after 10 exchanges, the conversation has gone no where, you accept that it is, indeed, pointless to try to prove things to each other, and a new strategy is necessary to overcome the impasse.
6) You stop losing your temper
7) You stop losing your temper
8) You stop losing your temper
9) You answer my question about A throwing the ball to B
Do you accept these conditions?
See, this is what happens when you try to do physics with WORDS. Never works. Like typing with your elbows. Try using math but first, get an education.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2014
Um, Otto, math has actually been pretty much front and centre here. But it's not helping, because while math *is* essential to seperate the wheat from the chaff and to provide concrete answers it's not all that's needed. There's lots of math that will give unphysical answers. You also need insight, the ability to grasp physical principles (something I've compare to the ability to see the image in a stereogram) and when you don't have that...you end up like Johnny and no amount of math will save you. (Especially when you can just loose your temper when presented with math or a "word problem" requiring math that threatens you.)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2014
See, this is what happens when you try to do physics with WORDS. Never works. Like typing with your elbows. Try using math but first, get an education.

Both of us have, to one degree or another, used math. That's not the problem. I have tried deriving things like the Lorentz transformation from first principles for Johan. It does no good because because even though he accepts the math as valid (as far as I can tell), he doesn't accept the conclusions. He as even admitted that the conventional interpretation is consistent. He just doesn't agree that it is physically valid. Instead, he thinks that time dilation and length contractions are illusions, and based off of this, he constructs his own faulty first principles, and arrives at incorrect conclusions, again, using math.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
I am convinced that whatever proof I submit to you, you will disagree with. That's because you and I have completely different ideas of what conclusions can be drawn from first principles.
This is only possible if one of us did not have an adequate Physics education: Which I suspect is the problem with you.

If that's true, then it is impossible for either of us to get anywhere by trying to prove things to each other.
No it is not, provided that we both understand the basic principles of physics and abide by them.

I am assuming your premise and asking you to explain what its implications are in a particular scenario so that I can understand it better.
On the 19th 0f May, I have posted a logical and direct derivation using basic physics principles. If you are able to understand physics you should be able to go through my derivation and point out where I have made a mistake. If you cannot, you must admit that you cannot. That IS physics-integrity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
Please stop taking everything as a personal affront, and calm down.
It is a personal affront when an anonymous person arrogate him/herself the position of being an expert in a field in which he/she is not. And then to suffer indirect attacks from such a person on my competency; which are unwarranted since I do not hide my competency like a criminal under anonymity.

This is one of the reasons this conversation never gets anywhere.
No the main resaon why our conversation goes nowhere is that you are NOT interested in objectively analysing my physics arguments (like those on 19 May) since you believe that it must be impossible that an interpretation in mainstream physics could have been wrong for more than 100 years. That is the attitude of a faceless inquisitor not a person who follows the rules of scientific interaction.

People like you were responsible that Copernicus only published after his death, and why Galileo was placed under house arrest.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
Demanding somebody's personal information on the internet is not only rude, but dangerous for the person giving it out.
It is not rude if the person takes the attitude that he/she is better versed in the subject about which he/she is arguing with you. If you do not want to supply this information you should not take on the arrogant attitude you are taking on on the internet. This is rude!! Not just rude but totally unacceptable: It gives the opportunity for persons with a total lack of integrity, like Captain Stumpy, to contaminate interactions on the internet.

I live in the US, am a physics student, and work as a software developer/researcher for the govt. That's all you need to know.
You are still a student! But you arrogate yourself the right of being an expert? You still have a lot to learn my boy: Especially about humility.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
It is simple-minded yes, but full of wrong turns and twists.

Then, it is not simple enough. I cannot imagine what is objectionable about it.
Your main objective is NOT to engage me in the manner that scientists should, but to at all cost raise long-winded arguments in order to avoid objectively analysing my arguments which I am posting and which I have published. As already mentioned above you are acting as an inquisitor, not as a person following the ethics on which physics should be based.

Maybe if you named one such thing I could simplify it for you so that you could, in confidence, answer the question.
Why should I do this if you are not willing to objectively analyse my arguments which I have posted on the 19th of May. I have already pointed out that it is simple to strew feathers around and then to challenge another person to pick up the feathers one by one. The latter is a tedious and unnecessary task.

Please play ball instead of posting "balls".
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
Who the Hell are you to have such an inflated opinion of yourself?

For doing what? Not believing that you have thought this through?
Your personal beliefs have NOTHING to do with physics. Physics is NOT a religion. If I did not think it through, then it is up to you to use what I have published, and to PROVE that I have made a mistake. This you refuse to do: Like all inquisitors through the ages have done.

Producing a manuscript is not evidence of this, and neither is a long cv.
I agree, but coming back with irrelevant arguments to try and obsuscate what I have published instead of objectively first analysing what I have published, is treason against the scientific morals and ethics. Secondly, why do you think that you, who have no cv tom talk about, are in a better position to argue physics than I am? If there are reasons that this can be so you must give them: But you refuse since "your life might be in danger" if you do not hide behind anonymity: LOL!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
I am awaiting your arguments against my post of the 19th of May. If they are not forthcoming I will accept that you do not have any arguments and do not really know what you are talking about

If you can't even accept a simple question about A throwing a ball to B, which should be absolutely non-controversial, what hope do I have of convincing you with a proof? That seems like an utterly futile thing to do.
I have promised to tediously pick up the feathers you have strewn around, after you have acted like a physicist should act, and first analysed my post of 19 May. Your analysis of the ball IS controversial since it violatesthe essence of Einstein's postulates and thus also the Special Theory of Relativity. My derivation does not do this. So PLEASE try and act like a physicist; even though it is clear that are not yet an expert in physics.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
If you do post such arguments, I will, as soon as I have time, give you my arguments against your last impossible scenario; even though it will be fruitless waste of my time.

The only way I will do this if
See how arrogant you are? You are not in a position to lay down rules for me my little boy/girl.

First finish you education in physics, and then follow this up with proof that you can also think for yourself. You have been deficient in your knowledge and your thinking all along on this forum. Physics is hard work my boy: Not just programming algorithms.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Um, Otto, math has actually been pretty much front and centre here. But it's not helping, because while math *is* essential to seperate the wheat from the chaff and to provide concrete answers it's not all that's needed. There's lots of math that will give unphysical answers. You also need insight, the ability to grasp physical principles (something I've compare to the ability to see the image in a stereogram) and when you don't have that...you
are the furlong. Yes, just like Captain Stumpy you think that you are competent enough toe see the splinters in the eyes of other persons while not being able to see the massive beam in your own eye. The clinical term for this malady is called Schizophrenic Psychopathy.
You still have a long way to go before you will be a competent physicist, if ever you will be, my boy.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
See, this is what happens when you try to do physics with WORDS. Never works. Like typing with your elbows. Try using math but first, get an education.


Both of us have, to one degree or another, used math. That's not the problem. I have tried deriving things like the Lorentz transformation from first principles for Johan.
No you have not. In fact not even Einstein has done this correctly without dividing by zero.

It does no good because because even though he accepts the math as valid (as far as I can tell), he doesn't accept the conclusions.
You see how misleading you are? And if I then justifiably call you a liar, you take exception to it.

He as even admitted that the conventional interpretation is consistent.
Another dishonest distortion. I stated that BEFORE Einstein postulated the constance of the relative speed of light c, Lorentz's WRONG interpretration based on length contraction and time dilation seemed self-consistent.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
He just doesn't agree that it is physically valid. Instead, he thinks that time dilation and length contractions are illusions,
I do not have to "think" so since it is easy to prove in terms of Einstein's second postulate c=constant, that IT IS SO.

and based off of this, he constructs his own faulty first principles, and arrives at incorrect conclusions, again, using math.
I have NOT constructed my "own" principles ANYWHERE. What I have derived are solidly based on Einstein's two postulates.

What you want to dogmatically believe is ONLY valid if Einstein's postulates are wrong, and therefore Lorentz' analysis is correct. Lorentz' analysis fell by the way when Einstein formulated his postulates, just like epicycles fell by the way when Copernicus. Keppler and Galileo came on the scene. Like their inquisitors, you want to keep on believing which is not valid anymore; and you just refuse to see the mountains on the moon.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
You are still a student!


And you are still a failure.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
You are still a student!


And you are still a failure.

Yes I have failed in many instances, but I am not a schizophrenic psychopath like you who hides behind anonymity when I differ with other people!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
Both of us have, to one degree or another, used math. That's not the problem
Sure it is. I see your math. It is grade school math not physics math. Physicists don't discuss physics the way you 2 do. They use words as substitutes for complex equations and data sets that all parties in the discussion are intimately familiar with. And they use whiteboards. I see no whiteboards here.

You guys are just fiddling with yourselves. In public.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) May 21, 2014
[volUmEs Of Old FoGEy spUTTErinG! BLaRg, BlaRG, BLarG! pReteNdInG I AM aN ACcompLisHEd pHysicist ThAt pEoplE cARe ABOuT Means THAT YOU have no rIghT TO QuEsTiOn My jUdgEMeNt! not beING aN eXpERT IN aLl Of pHYSIcs Is equIvAleNt TO NoT BeInG an expErT In rElATivity!]...Like their inquisitors, you want to keep on believing which is not valid anymore; and you just refuse to see the mountains on the moon.

I see you are more interested in waving your old-timey penis around than actually discussing physics. I was trying to be respectful (which is not the same as being obsequious, like you would want me to be), but you clearly can't help yourself. If you are interested in actually having a discussion where we don't talk about silly things like how pretend-accomplished you are , or how I am threatening you with internet prison and excommunication like Galileo just because I am daring to challenge you on your inchoate ideas, then let me know. Until then, this conversation is over.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
Sure it is. I see your math. It is grade school math not physics math. Physicists don't discuss physics the way you 2 do. They use words as substitutes for complex equations and data sets that all parties in the discussion are intimately familiar with. And they use whiteboards. I see no whiteboards here.

Man, shut up. Last time I talked to you, you claimed Einstein divided by 0, which I quickly showed to be wrong. The arguments involved here require at most, Calc II. That means you, at most, need to work with differentials, and that's only for derivation of relativistic momentum, force, and energy. The lorentz transformation is found from high school math. More sophisticated maths, such as tensor calculus, or laplace transformations, are not necessary here. Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. I don't think you know what you are talking about either.
Gawad
not rated yet May 21, 2014
You are still a student!


And you are still a failure.

Yes I have failed in many instances, but I am not a schizophrenic psychopath like you who hides behind anonymity when I differ with other people!


You forgot "lying criminal traitor".
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
Both of us have, to one degree or another, used math. That's not the problem
Sure it is. I see your math. It is grade school math not physics math. Physicists don't discuss physics the way you 2 do. They use words as substitutes for complex equations and data sets that all parties in the discussion are intimately familiar with. And they use whiteboards. I see no whiteboards here.

You guys are just fiddling with yourselves. In public.


No Otto. Furlong's math, literally, hasn't been "grade school" math, but nor does it need to be Kaluza–Klein geometry. SR only needs, high school and some college math. You don't even need integral calc (which happens to be Calc II where I'm from) or anything undergrad. So where the hell are you getting your ideas about what it's *supposed* to be?

There's no chalk here either. So? It that too old school for ya?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
No Otto. Furlong's math, literally, hasn't been "grade school" math, but nor does it need to be Kaluza–Klein geometry.

I am not sure what value he thinks there is in conversing in mathematical jargon when the two parties can't even agree on the underlying physical principles, unless he's one of those pedants who thinks that talking math at somebody amounts to explaining fundamental ideas.
SR only needs, high school and some college math. You don't even need integral calc (which happens to be Calc II where I'm from)

Honestly, it's been so long since I took introductory Calc courses, they all blend together--except for multivariable calc, but that was a little traumatic for me because the prof didn't know how to teach :).
But you do kind of need integral calc to do some of SR, like when you get into derivation of relativistic momentum and energy. That's actually one of the coolest parts of SR.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) May 21, 2014
The three stooges of phys.org, ...Otto, Stumpy, and Ira, (who know each other evidently), ... don't appear to actually know much physics themselves as they don't engage in detailed discussions, but yet think they're qualified to inform others of "the scientific method" and "empirical data" and "words are not physics",.... same tune over and over without any actual substance.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2014
But you do kind of need integral calc to do some of SR, like when you get into derivation of relativistic momentum and energy. That's actually one of the coolest parts of SR.


Yup, that was slack; I'd been thinking only of the to and fro you and Prins have been doing on this thread (sorry, it's been a long thread...you should know. Heck, given your contribution at this point I'm tempted to label it "heroic").
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
But you do kind of need integral calc to do some of SR, like when you get into derivation of relativistic momentum and energy. That's actually one of the coolest parts of SR.


Yup, that was slack; I'd been thinking only of the to and fro you and Prins have been doing on this thread (sorry, it's been a long thread...you should know. Heck, given your contribution at this point I'm tempted to label it "heroic").

Haha. I just feel strongly about pseudo-authoritative wannabes posting their personal theories about subjects that are infamously difficult to grasp, which could confuse people.
It is alright to speculate--even wildly, but when you start arrogantly spouting nonsense as if you know better than an entire community of people studying something that has been through decades of advances, then be prepared to be taken down.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
I see you are more interested in waving your old-timey penis around than actually discussing physics.
Thanks for giving us an extra insight in your cv. Pornography enthusiast. Are you maybe also a paedophile? I would not be amazed.
I was trying to be respectful
Where have you been trying to do this? You just cant help yourself from being a LIAR, can you?

If you are interested in actually having a discussion where we don't talk about silly things
Yes that is what I have hoped for. But you decided not to objectively analyse what I have published (even peer reviewed articles), but to create your own insane and wrong scenarios, and then expecting me to spend hours to correct your stupidities.

how I am threatening you with internet prison and excommunication like Galileo just because I am daring to challenge you on your inchoate ideas,
You have NOT challenged my ideas anywhere. You ignore my ideas and post your own childish, half-baked hallucinations.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2014
Man, shut up. Last time I talked to you, you claimed Einstein divided by 0, which I quickly showed to be wrong.
You DID NOT do this anywhere. You did not even read my peer-reviewed publication in which I proved that this is so. Why MUST you keep on being a LIAR?
The arguments involved here require at most, Calc II. That means you, at most, need to work with differentials, and that's only for derivation of relativistic momentum, force, and energy.
Exactly; and you have proved that you are too incompetent to interpret this mathematics.

The lorentz transformation is found from high school math. More sophisticated maths, such as tensor calculus, or laplace transformations, are not necessary here.
Exactly, and you have proved to be too stupid to even understand KinderGarten maths.

Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about.
Obviously not. You are still a student and a VERY STUPID one at boot!

I, in contrast, am an accomplished physicist.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
You are still a student!


And you are still a failure.

Yes I have failed in many instances, but I am not a schizophrenic psychopath like you who hides behind anonymity when I differ with other people!


You forgot "lying criminal traitor".
Thanks for updating your cv. I will remember these extra qualifications, which you so proudly added!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
I, in contrast, am an accomplished physicist.

Yes, and it was Edward Teller who famously said, "B===D"
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2014
Honestly, it's been so long since I took introductory Calc courses, they all blend together--except for multivariable calc, but that was a little traumatic for me because the prof didn't know how to teach :).
That is obvious. You should go back and redo calculus under a prof who knows what he is doing. Maybe you will then also learn to know what you are doing.

But you do kind of need integral calc to do some of SR, like when you get into derivation of relativistic momentum and energy. That's actually one of the coolest parts of SR.
If you do these derivations correctly you will find out that these formulas are not physically possible when invoking Einstein's wrong derivations of time-dilation and length contraction.

johanfprins
1