4

# Is there a relativist in the crowd

Zarathustra

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 01:56 pm
@rosborne979,
Finally you realize these guys are pulling YOUR chain. Congratulations! But it was humorous while it lasted.
dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 02:27 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Either that or your mind just isn't working well enough
Alas at 83 with incipient Alz's….

I don't like C very well because some might mistake it for c the speed of light. Also I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be a time, an event, or a location; so with your permission Ros, I herewith sub "t" (naturally in terms of the Newtonian view of Al's clock)

t = -2

Everyone synchronizes their respective clocks. Might have taken place earlier in the morning by Al's reckoning

t = -1

Marty takes off from Mars 11:55. Reason for the minuses: The most important moment under consideration is the upcoming t = 0 as you will see

t = 0

Noon Al and Isaac's time, with his takeoff the latter's clock now stuck at the same reading

We can't divine Marty's motives but let's assume at this moment he's swishing past without stopping to visit. Al quickly notes Marty's clock stuck at 11:55

It's from this jumping off in describing taad that I deviate. But first we have to agree on the foregoing

t = 1

Quote:
The fact that Marsha is there or whether someone stopped to visit anyone else doesn't matter.
Yes quite true; I'm sure Ros that we'd both agree t = 0 was IT (perhaps your t = 1 or t = 2, at your discretion, depending upon where and when you consider the action to have in initiated and your convention regarding "t's"spaced at other than 5 minutes, eg, my -2, maybe just a few minutes after the two Martians' arousal but before breakfast)

God knows about Marty, he's on his own, but at Al's 12:05--and remember again now, this is all Newtonian (except of course for those two stuck clocks), Isaac, whose clock still reads 12:00, now arrives with welcome greeting from Martha, whose clock is of course reading 12:05

That's about as simply as I can describe using "t" to identify certain instances and as far as I know (though you'd disagree I'm sure) it's in agreement with Einstein

If any egregious error however you must understand it's 'cuz I'm getting woozy Ros but again thanks for the chat

contrex

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 02:30 pm
Why is Al's clock "stuck"?
dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 02:33 pm
@Zarathustra,
Quote:
@rosborne979,
Finally you realize these guys are pulling YOUR chain.

No, really, Zara, except for an occasional pun everything I've written is perfectly serious

To me anyhow

I'm not sure but I think Ros' confusion arose from his misunderstanding, thinking that both ravelers' trips were simultaneous (Newtonwise)
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 02:36 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Why is Al's clock "stuck"?
Sorry Con but if you'll review that posting you'll see it's Isaac's clock that's stuck
dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 02:55 pm
@Zarathustra,
Quote:
That's about as simply as I can describe using "t" to identify certain instances...
Aha, as I said, it's partly because I'm getting woozy--literally--when I use "t" to represent a clock reading as above when earlier I had used it to represent travel time t = d/c that's five minutes

So Ros if you're still around again my most profuse apologies
0 Replies

rosborne979

2
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 02:59 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Yes quite true; I'm sure Ros that we'd both agree t = 0 was IT (perhaps your t = 1 or t = 2, at your discretion, depending upon where and when you consider the action to have in initiated and your convention regarding "t's"spaced at other than 5 minutes, eg, my -2, maybe just a few minutes after the two Martians' arousal but before breakfast)

You were having lunch with Abbott and Costello right before they came up with the "Who's on First" skit weren't you?
contrex

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 03:05 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Why is Al's clock "stuck"?
Sorry Con but if you'll review that posting you'll see it's Isaac's clock that's stuck

Why is anybody's clock "stuck"?
dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 03:40 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Why is anybody's clock "stuck"?
Oops sorry Con but I'd imagined that nearly everybody was familiar with it, the slowing of a clock with motion. Of course it's a relativistic effect, each of two observers supposing the other's clock is slower. No traveler can reach c of course but we might suppose if he could achieve a velocity of say within 0.00000000…..000000001 mph of c then for all practical purposes everyone else in the Universe would doubtless consider his clock to be stopped even if it isn't

Thus to Al from 11:55 to 12:05, again Marty's (assuming he doesn't stop to visit) and Isaac's clocks are "stuck"
contrex

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 03:46 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Why is anybody's clock "stuck"?
Oops sorry Con but I'd imagined that nearly everybody was familiar with it, the slowing of a clock with motion.

I am familiar with it. But nobody can see the clock to know it is "stuck", and to approach the speed of light that closely would require a ridiculous amount of energy, and to accelerate to that speed, travel to Mars and decelerate again would kill the traveller and destroy the clock. So it doesn't matter.
dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 03:49 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
You were having lunch with Abbott and Costello...
Ros my most sincere apologies, sometimes the temptation is just irresistible

…Although if you have the time and inclination and read it really carefully you will see it makes perfect sense in all respects but if you will specify anything apparently to the contrary I'd be glad to clarify
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 03:57 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
I am familiar with it. But nobody can see the clock to know it is "stuck",
Perhaps again Con you misunderstand. Observers on Earth like Al and on any other nearby planet as Martha on Mars, having a telescope, will agree that during their trip Marty's and Isaac's clocks seem to be stopped, with no evidence of motion on the travelers' part

Called "time dilation"

Not my idea, Con honestly, it's Einstein's

Quote:
and to approach the speed of light that closely would require a ridiculous amount of energy…..
Of course it would. The assumption their velocity nears c only simplifies the discussion. However as you probably know, such slowing of clocks has been observed in the departure and return of rockets
dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 04:20 pm
@dalehileman,
Forgive me fellas but in spite of your repeated reassurances I continually get the feeling I'm being led on, baited, in a cacophony of snickering--but pretty soon I've gotta simply pull out, with yardwork calling so desperately
0 Replies

contrex

3
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 04:42 pm
dahileman, nobody is "snickering" at you. Unfortunately, I feel that you are embarrassing yourself. You keep spouting nonsnense, and then accusing others of "not understanding". You say Alzheimers in approaching (how do you know?) - I think it has already arrived, and it saddens me to say so.

dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 05:45 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
You keep spouting nonsnense,
Alas Con can you give me a typical example or two, I'll try really hard to clarify
anonymously99stwin

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 06:20 pm
@dalehileman,
Dalehileman is up to something.
dalehileman

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 07:01 pm
@anonymously99stwin,
Hi Twin but I assure you I'm not. I'm just totally baffled
Brandon9000

1
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 08:22 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
In …..1967…, Dingle wrote:

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

Just because you can find one nutcase, doesn't mean anything. Special relativity is accepted by 99.99% of physicists. It is taught in physics in every college. You are not educated in this subject. How dare you presume to lecture on a technical subject based on looking at a few popular treatments? You're not qualified to have an opinion.
anonymously99stwin

0
Tue 11 Feb, 2014 10:45 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Hi Twin but I assure you I'm not. I'm just totally baffled

I think you're flirting with me.
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Wed 12 Feb, 2014 12:38 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Just because you can find one nutcase, doesn't mean anything……. You're not qualified to have an opinion.
Okay Bran but specifically what aspect of "my opinion" do you refer

Dingle to be sure was wrong, but Marder writes, "…the paradox of the twins or the clock paradox…have led more than one eminent scientist…to express doubts…" (emphasis mine). As late as 1957 Cullwick (erroneously) while agreeing that receding clocks fun slow, argued approaching clocks run fast

You might find interesting Marder's Chapter 4, "The Doubters" I'm not maintaining they weren't wrong, just that doubts have lingered until just recently, especially with details such as taad, McCrea as late as 1968

..its details still troubling a few, not all "nut cases"

…in which Marder concludes, "And although physicists generally are convinced that the special theory is consistent and valid, these exchanges will no doubt continue"

I'll be first to agree that my original assertion that would legitimize the view of light speed as infinite, sounds really nutty, is attacked by all, and to be sure might be shown absolutely wrong. However my later postings above aren't trying to prove anything at all, they're merely attempting to describe special relativity as its basis

So what's got me so puzzled is all the resistance I get regarding issues I had assumed long ago resolved, yet without specifics I might clarify