Is there a relativist in the crowd

@dalehileman,

As a person.

Men. Take everything the wrong way.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Yes of course. I'm try trying to prove anything

That is to say, I'm not. You've got to forgive a2k for shutting us off at 14 minutes

0 Replies

@anonymously99stwin,

I think I like you.

Why thank you 99

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
..the three person view are so convoluted and inconsistent as to be meaningless.
To the contrary Ros they're consistent exactly with the basis for the discussion of time-at-a distance

What are your qualifications to pontificate on this subject? You're acting like an expert on a subject you know nothing about, telling people who do understand it that they fail to understand your great insights. How about if I give you a high school physics problem on some topic far more mundane than relativity and we see if you can arrive at the correct answer? You don't know what you're talking about. You're pontificating on a subject you've obviously never studied in school. Guess what? One actually can't do physics beyond the level of baby talk without a degree, any more than you can perform medicine on sick people without a degree.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

What are your qualifications to pontificate on this subject?

Somewhat nonexistant

Quote:

You're acting like an expert on a subject you know nothing about,

Why thank you Bran

Quote:

How about if I give you a high school physics problem on some topic far more mundane than relativity and we see if you can arrive at the correct answer?

I'd rather not

Quote:

You don't know what you're talking about.

I often wonder

Quote:

You're pontificating on a subject you've obviously never studied in school.

Yes, no, they didn't think much about that sort of stuff back then

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Dalehileman is hiding.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
..the three person view are so convoluted and inconsistent as to be meaningless.
To the contrary Ros they're consistent exactly with the basis for the discussion of time-at-a distance

To you apparently. But to everyone else they are incomprehensible gibberish. We've tried. If you can't construct a meaningful paragraph then it's unlikely you understand what you are talking about.

0 Replies

There are a numbers of issues here, which seem to do with the tension between a naive, "the world is as it seems" viewpoint, and the findings of relativity and special relativity. Also a great deal of confusion between "time" (as a dimension of spacetime) and what is displayed by clocks. I can see a failure to let go of the Newtonian idea of a "universal time" which is the same everywhere.

2 Replies

@contrex,

Quote:

I can see a failure to let go of the Newtonian idea of a "universal time" which is the same everywhere.

Yea Con that does seem to be one of the main problems

I also wonder about the effect of Universal expansion on the notion of time-at-a-distance

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

...a naive, "the world is as it seems" viewpoint...

Reviewing the first few pages in the tome referenced in my posting #…..186 I was astounded Con to be reminded that the entire subject of the clock paradox, time-at-a-distance, time dilation, differential aging, etc, was still controversial as late as 1971. Why, at my age that's day before yesterday

"The literature on this subject is prodigious," says Marder

To them who doubt I ever read anything, in my own defense I found a bookmark at the opening of Chapter 6 which seems to suggests here's where I had stopped, "The Clock Paradox in General Relativity," intending in my old age eventually to resume at that juncture

If I encounter anything conclusive and convincing, or puzzling beyond comprehension, I'll of course reopen the discussion if indeed it's presently closed

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

I also wonder about the effect of Universal expansion on the notion of time-at-a-distance

You still need to define time-at-a-distance. We still don't have a clear idea of what you think this is.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

You still need to define time-at-a-distance. We still don't have a clear idea of what you think this is.

It's a concept regarding the supposed simultaneity of events at a distance and since it's apparently still very controversial I can only refer you to Marder's book in my posting above #…..186

Otherwise I have only this vague, inadequate concept of it as now plus or minus t=d/c as discussed above

That's supposedly based on Einstein but I can't defend it against onslaught by Dingle or Cullwick. For golly sake Ros, millions, may be even billions of words have been exchanged on the subject

Incidentally any comments immediately above based not on my crazy view regarding the speed of light but on what I understand as the classical approach which I discuss only as an introduction

But Ros, in the event that you're baiting me for for the gain of a snicker or two I have to admit that for the longest time now you've appeared entirely serious and so yes I was deceived, but even so I'm the forgiving sort

Yet maybe you're suggesting that my interpretation of the classical Einstein perspective is dead wrong in every way. Okay perhaps so, but thanks for your persistence

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

But Ros, in the event that you're baiting me for for the gain of a snicker or two I have to admit that for the longest time now you've appeared entirely serious and so yes I was deceived, but even so I'm the forgiving sort

No Dale, I'm not baiting you. I like to give crackpots enough rope to hang themselves with, but in your case you seem genuinely confused so I have been seriously trying to help. However, your inability to clearly describe what appear to be fairly simple thought experiments is frustrating my ability to understand what the hell you are talking about.

I can't spend too much time on this because we're not making any progress, but I don't mind throwing in some questions from time to time on the off chance that some bit of clarity might shine briefly through the cloud of extraneous elements that permeate your scenarios.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

...but I don't mind throwing in some questions from time to time...

Please do Ros, and if I can I will really try

Though if you could be more specific I might better clarify

Quote:

...your inability to clearly describe what appear to be fairly simple thought experiments...

So if you could but give me an example or two….

Incidentally for what it's worth, it seems the original idea of taad was Newton's: "According to Newton, time is 'absolute'; there is but one time for all observers"

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
...a naive, "the world is as it seems" viewpoint...
Reviewing the first few pages in the tome referenced in my posting #…..186 I was astounded Con to be reminded that the entire subject of the clock paradox, time-at-a-distance, time dilation, differential aging, etc, was still controversial as late as 1971. Why, at my age that's day before yesterday

Nothing about Special Relativity has been controversial since about 1910.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

So if you could but give me an example or two….

Ok, for example...
* Clocks should be synchronized at 0, not at 11:55
* Each clock/observer should be identified by some simple notation like C1, not Isaac or Fred or Martha
* The starting point for each clock/observer should be defined, C1 on Mars, C2 on Earth, etc
* Then each event should be identified one at a time: C1 moves from Mars to Earth. Stop. C1 = 0, C2 = 5 minutes.
* After you've elucidated all of that, then state your question related to the conditions you have described.

dalehileman wrote:

"According to Newton, time is 'absolute'; there is but one time for all observers"

What does he mean by that? Surely Newton was more detailed in his statement. I don't know the context of that quote. Newton didn't know about relativity, so was he just saying that if it's noon in Paris that it's also noon in Rome?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Ok, for example...
* Clocks should be synchronized at 0, not at 11:55

A quick perusal of postings well above will show the synchronization would have to have been performed much earlier, at some time well before Marty's 11:55 departure

Quote:

* Each clock/observer should be identified by some simple notation like C1, not Isaac or Fred or Martha

My apologies. But who is Fred

Quote:

* The starting point for each clock/observer should be defined, C1 on Mars, C2 on Earth, etc

My apologies again though I'm not quite sure what you mean by "starting point" as you've already defined these abbreviations as applying to an event, not to a locality

Quote:

* Then each event should be identified one at a time: C1 moves from Mars to Earth. Stop. C1 = 0, C2 = 5 minutes.

As judged by Al I presume C1 is Marty's takeoff (11:55) but not sure what's meant by C2 since "5 minutes" is a duration, not an event. But then what became of C0

Aha! Now I'm perhaps beginning to understand where your confusion arises. By

Quote:

3. Two clocks (one on Earth and the other on Mars) switch position at approximately the speed of light.

, according to your posting #……..442, which had left me somewhat in the dark, you're under the mistaken impression that Isaac and Marty take off at the same Newtonian instant; whereas if you'll review my earlier postings you'll see Marty takes off 5 minutes earlier, arriving at Earth the moment Isaac fires his rockets, that is noon Al's time. Hence "3 clocks" and the ref to taad as noon plus 5 minutes

But please forgive the pun

Quote:

* After you've elucidated all of that, then state your question related to the conditions you have described.

I'm somewhat hesitant to attempt such unless I can be assured that my assumption in the foregoing para is accurate. But regarding Newton,

Quote:

……..so was he just saying that if it's noon in Paris that it's also noon in Rome

I suppose some confusion could come from one's definition of "noon;" but assuming Al's and Romeo's clocks (and perhaps Marty's and Martha's) had much earlier been synchronized, then yes Romeo's also reads 12:00 (and Marty's too)

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Nothing about Special Relativity has been controversial since about 1910.

"…yet some of its most startling predictions….are still in dispute"

"In …..1967…, Dingle wrote:

'Five hears ago, I gave….a simple proof that the special relativity theory was untenable…'

Many other researchers have been uneasy over the question of time, in relativity theory, as evident from the hundreds of papers…."---Marder 1971

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

….taad as noon plus 5 minutes….

S/b "plus or minus five minutes." My apologies but in my own defense a2k, bless 'em, gives one only 14 minutes

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Ahhh, I see now, you're the one pulling my chain. Either that or your mind just isn't working well enough to attempt this type of subject. In either case, have fun.

2 Replies

Is there a relativist in the crowd

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know