Newsgroup sci.physics 208164

Directory

devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote [in part]:
>Brian D. Jones (bjon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: briank@ibm.net (Brian Kennelly) wrote [in part]:
>: >>If a clock travels between two events, there's only one value for this
>: >>particular clock, and it is an absolute reading, not a relative one.
>: >>And the clock that has the greatest reading has taken the shortest
>: >>absolute route between the two events, which is the absolute distance
>: >>between them.
>: >>
>: >You seem to have shifted the meaning of absolute.  You now have equated 
>: >absolute time with proper time.  This is radically different than either
>: >Newton's or Einstein's use of the term.  I don't think that is what you 
>: >meant.
>: A single clock traveling between events records a single time - this
>: is clearly not relative, but absolute, or not observer dependent.
>The problem with this demand is that the CLOCK becomes the observer.
So who is Mr. Clock observing?
>: >>>: Obviously, for many events, there's not enough time for a clock to
>: >>>: "span" them, even at lightspeed, so there would be no proper time for
>: >>>: the events.  This is the case above. 
>: >>
>: >>>Yes, because we've switched from trig to hyperbolic trig.
>: >>>We've switched from Pythagorus to Lorentz/Minkowski.
>: >>>Thus, the interval is spacelike.
>: >>
>: >>>Oooooooo, scarey.  Ooooooh.   I dunno about you, kids, 
>: >>>but that sure convinces old Count Floyd, boy, I'll tell you.  Oooooh.
>: >>>--
>: >>>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
>: >>>               throopw@cisco.com
>: >>
>: >>Sad and irrelevant attempt at being humorous.
>: >>And what's really scarey is a clock that reads hyperbolic time!
>: >>
>: >Your use of absolute above would truly be hyperbolic time in the sense that 
>: >events at the same absolute time from the origin would occupy a hyperboloid,
>: >rather than a plane.  I will let you reconsider this one.
>: But there's no proper time reading by a real clock.
>No, the proper time is given by a clock carried by the observer or system 
>you want the proper time of.
>--
>---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
>Ring around the neutron,   |  "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
>A pocket full of positrons,|   But he certainly took us by surprise!"
>A fission, a fusion,       +--------------------------------------------------
>We all fall down!          |  "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
>---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
>"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
>"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut 
>down all the laws?"
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions 
>on content.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant that no real clock could travel between the events -- so there
could be no real proper time recorded.
     §§ ßJ §§
bjon @ ix. netcom. com

devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote [in part]:

>: >>Anyway, if light has no real (or absolute) motion, then how does it
>: >>get to here from the stars? And what type of light motion is source
>: >>independent, absolute or relative?  It makes no sense to say relative
>: >>because "Relative to what?" cannot be answered.  But let's go on to
>: >I will answer it.  Relative to any observer whatsoever. That was easy!
>: And meaningless.  (What does "Light's speed relative to any observer
>: whatsoever is independent of the light source" mean?)
>Actually, the meaning is quite simple:  All observers, regardless of 
>inertial motions, observe that all light from all sources moves at 
>precisely the same speed.
The lightspeed as measured by the observer has nothing to do with
how light leaves its source.
>: >>more meaty proofs of light's absolute motion existence. In 1977, Ken
>: >>Brecher studied binary star x-rays to see if the stars' _absolute)_
>: >>motion (the only kind that _could_ have a real effect upon anything)
>: >The issue was variation of the star's motion relative to the Earth.
>: No.  It was the star's speed being source affected or not, and the
>: only type of light speed that  can possibly be affected by a light
>: source is the absolute or actual light speed.
>Light moves at the same speed for everyone.
See above.
>: >>had any affect upon the emitted light's _absolute_ speed (the only
>: >>type of speed that could be affected by a source's motion). He said in
>: >>his paper that there would be a definite pattern if light's speed were
>: >>source-affected (or source dependent), and this pattern would be
>: >>readily observable from earth.  (The light would get "mixed up" as it
>: >>was emitted from stars moving rapidly in opposite directions).
>: >>However, no such telltale pattern was ever observed, meaning that the
>: >>light's actual speed thru space (or its absolute speed) was in no way
>: >>affected by the source's movement thru space, or the stars' absolute
>: >>movements. Note that the earth observer in no way measures any light
>: >>speed (either round-trip or one-way)in this case.  This is purely a
>: >The experiment was based on the fact that the travel time would vary if the
>: >speed varied.  (D/c+v <> D/c-v).  The equality of the times is a proof that  
>: >the speeds are the same.  
>: No clocks were involved, therefore no times.
>Light itself can be used as a clock, and was in this case.  What would 
>have been observed if there had been a speed difference was a set of 
>interference fringes that depended upon the direction of the light beams 
>in the instrument.  This didn't happen.
No instrument and no fringes, just a view of the two stars.
>: >>matter of absolute speeds, both of the light sources and of the light
>: >>leaving the sources.  All that was looked for was a particular
>: >>pattern, a pattern whose origins were light-years away, and in no way
>: >>affected by us on earth. Since no observer measured any speed at all,
>: >>the speed of the light in this is simply an absolute speed.
>: >Absolute's got nothing to do with it.  The experiment showed that the light
>: >traveled at the same speed, relative to the Earth, no matter what the relative
>: >speed of the source.
>: Dead wrong.  Call  Mr. Brecher.
>Why should he call someone you claim is wrong?
What?
>: >>And if light has an absolute speed, so does everything else.
>: >>
>: >>However, this does not mean that we can determine any object's
>: >>absolute speed. Mechanical methods fail due to inertia, and optical
>: >>attempts have failed due to various reasons.  Right now, the earth's
>: >>absolute speed could be anything from zero to nearly lightspeed (using
>: >>c as light's absolute speed), but we have no way (yet -- but some
>: >>think the CBR supplies us with an absolute frame) of determining the
>: >>actual value of this absolute earth speed. (We could so it if we could
>: >>find a way to start two clocks at the same time, but this, too, has
>: >>eluded us).
>: >This was one of Poincare's objection's to Lorentz's theories.  The same 
>: >principle (PR) is explained by various hypotheses, depending on the experiment.
>: >So, one explanation is given for mechanical tests, another for first order 
>: >optical, still another for second order optical.  Lorentz was able to combine
>: >the optical results with his 'corresponding states' and offset time definition.
>: >Einstein answers all PR questions by showing that Lorentz' time indicates the
>: >need for a new kinematics.
>: Of course there must be different physical explanations for optical vs
>: mechanical.  These are totally unalike because light's speed (UNlike
>: any inertial object's) is source independent.
>Indeed it is.  It is also OBSERVER independent.
What?
>: And Einstein's View explains nothing at all.
>Except for most of the universe.
What?
     §§ ßJ §§
bjon @ ix. netcom. com

throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote [in part]:
>: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian D. Jones)
>: This is quite funny considering the fact that none of my questions in
>: this regard have been answered by the relativists here. 
>Gee, I coulda swore I'd answered these sorts of questions from bjon
>about a bazillion times, only to have bjon ignore it.  Oh, well, deja vu
>all over again:
>: Such as why two SRT observers obtain different 
>: time intervals for two events. 
>Because their coordinate axes are not parallel in spacetime.  This is
>the same phenomenon as obtaining different delta-x for two points on a
>plane; because the coordinate systems have their x-axis pointed in
>different directions. 
>: Once this has been answered, one can see that absolute clock readings
>: cause this,
>Gee, that's funny.  I coulda swore relative coordinate axes cause it.
Silly boy -- WHAT causes the "relative coord. axes"?
>: and that the clocks were set out-of-true in direct proportion to each
>: observer's absolute speed. 
>How does bjon know this?  Has he measured the absolute speed to check?
>Are city blocks also shortened in direct proportion to the each city's
>absolute orientation?  If not, how do the cases significantly differ?
Because I have seen how Einstein sets his clocks.
And you have never given me a single legit clk reading for my example.
>: There are many such absolutes in SRT, behind the scenes. 
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't like to say so, since spelling flames are so declasse,
>but bjon has misspelt "in bjon's fevered imagination" here.
>Multiple posters have shown multiple times that "absolute velocity" in
>SR is exactly as justifiable, philosophically and logically, as
>"absolute direction" is in geometry.  They fill exactly analogous
>mathematical and physical roles.  
>Bjon simply refuses to acknowledge this.
>--
>Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
>               throopw@cisco.com
Wonder why?
     §§ ßJ §§
bjon @ ix. netcom. com