Subject: Re: The Concept of Time
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 21 Nov 1996 17:59:26 GMT
Lou Verdon wrote in article
...
>
> In article <32938C27.49BF@hia.no>, you wrote:
> >Ken H. Seto wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:18:22 +0100, "Paul B.Andersen"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Ken H. Seto wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The invariance of the speed of light---does this mean that all
> >> >> observers (in different frames) measure and get the same
> >> >>300,000
> >> >> km/sec?
> >> >
> >> >Yes.
>
> Since the speed of light is invariable and everything else is
> relative, why do we not use this as a benchmark and set the speed
> of light as instantaneous in calculations. It makes much more
> sense and reflects reality. I realize that we, as special
> observers, can measure a sensible speed because of our special
> position, but the speed of light can and is described as
> instantaneous by rigourous mathematics when you consider the event
> horizon along the light path. Let's call a spade a spade.
Essentially this is how Newtonian physics handles such things as the
calculation of orbits. Newtonian calculations don't handle the precession
of Mercury, something that a finite value of c does quite precisely.
>
> >> >
> >> >> Do you mean that the duration of the second is the same in all
> >> >> the frames?
> >> >
> >> >Yes.
>
> Then this means that the sensible effect of forces such as
> static charges would be modulated by virtue of the different
> number of seconds that the forces act. A very good mechanism for
> the sensible forces of gravity and inertia in response to the
> relative slowing of time when the path is through massive objects
> and the relative slowing of time upon acceleration. The universe
> will move in response to the time dilation created by mass or
> acceleration, and we will sense gravity and inertia in response
> as we are moved by the universe. I would like to know if anyone
> can eliminate static charges as the mediator of these movements
> or propose another.
>
> Lou
> --
>
> Can you measure our ground potential?
>
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Keith Stein
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:00:19 +0000
David L Evens writes
> Two observers in different frames will NOT see each other
>as having seconds of the correct length.
The finite velocity of light,
and consequent Doppler Shifts,
will,of course, give APPARENT
" discrepancies "
,in both the absolute time.
, and rate of flow of time,
BUT NEVERTHELESS:-
"Any discrepancy between previouly syncronised clocks, which can
be fully accounted for by the finite velocity of light, must disappear
whenever the clocks are bought to a common location." Stein's Principle!
Surely this is self evident ?
--
keith stein
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: Klaus Kassner
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:24:04 +0100
Edward Green wrote:
>
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> >In quantum mechanics, there is an operational consequence of "being
> >different" without possibility to observe the difference. We cannot
> >see the color of the quark, but we know that there are three different
> >ones.
>
> Now, if I did *not* a priori agree with you about this, I am not
> sure I would be swayed by your several examples of "unobservable"
> things that nonetheless have "observable" consequences. I would argue
> that this is the rule rather than the exception. Nothing is
> "observable" except immediate sensory input, and only the incredible
> reliability and richness of certain common hypotheses... like
> "material objects" leads us to ignore this, and at the same time
> worry ourselves over whether less intuitive constructs are "real" or
> "merely constructs". Phish.
Hi! Good to hear of you again!
I agree whole-heartedly with what you say above.
In my opinion, the fact that the three quark colors *do* have observable
consequences *means* they are observable... Of course, one would like to
have something more direct, but we have come to rely on more and more
indirect ways to get access to the interior workings of physics far
away from everyday experience (and we had to, I guess). Anyway, if
there seems no possibiltity to escape the conclusion of the existence
of "something" from experimental evidence, we have observed the
"something",
even if we need some intervening theory to arrive at the observation.
We just should be aware of the amount of theory that went into it.
If then somebody comes up with a theory that explains the evidence
without the mentioned "something", well, then we might simply call
it a wrong observation... If we look at the sun through a red filter
without being aware of it, we may observe the sun to be reddish; and
we'll
find out that this was a wrong observation, once the filter is removed.
> I really and truly, literally, rhetoric free, no double entendres,
> was reacting to the semantics. If one says "there exists an absolute
> rest frame" I honest to god have no idea what either a value of
> "true" or "false" would mean! Even if the Lorentz symmetry is broken
> I see no reason to label some frame which happens to be kind of
> centrally located w.r.t. the local effects of velocity an "absolute"
> rest frame... this is in fact quite distinct from any considerations
> of relativity. If there were a locally preferred frame with repect to
> which any motion over 1 m/s would make objects turn blue and emit the
> noise "weeeee...!!!" I would *still* say this frame evidently is
> coupled to some local property of space, and as far as "absolute
> rest", uh uh, no savvy. But then you see, it becomes semantics.
Right again. All that "absolute space" really can mean, is that such an
overwhelming advantage is gained from describing things in terms of
this space, that virtually everybody would agree on this picture as
being right. Newton's space was absolute with respect to rotations in
this sense, because before general relativity there seemed to be no
way to explain a parabolic shape of an apparently resting water surface
in a bucket other than by rotation of this bucket (wrt to absolute
space)
