parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 01:09 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Yes Para, right, 10 min, but that's by our watch not theirs. By theirs they they arrive almost instantly, still reading 11:50

Wrong. By theirs it takes 1o minutes to get here. The speed of c is constant and they are 10 light minutes away.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 01:33 pm
@parados,
Quote:
But remember, Marty can't possibly confirm…...until she's actually here….coming toward us at the same velocity (nearly) c that our image at 12:00 is traveling toward her, then she has almost arrived before she encounters it

Quote:
This is what you get wrong. Marty doesn't see himself going at the velocity of c.
Okay then. We're dangerously close to encountering the famous stationary ref, but what you're saying is that the 10 light minutes is illusory and instead yes the real distance from us to Mars is three feet seven inches

Quote:
He sees earth hurtling toward him at c.
Yes Para, (very nearly) c, covering the distance of 3 ft 7 in. in maybe a millimicronanosecond

Quote:
He can see each minute that transpires on earth
That's assuming of course that he's very quick, that watching out the front window his brain is capable of taking on all visible events that occur during that period. As a matter of practical fact however, at the moment he leaves his home planet Mars sees through the front window time on earth as 12:00; then looking back through the rear window the same reading, stuck there indefinitely as the gap begins to widen

You're invited to review my OP and several subsequent postings

Quote:
because for him he is motionless in comparison to the speed of light
Yes Paras but again we're rejecting the notion of a "real" stationary ref, at the instant she fires her rocket she comes to a standstill, suddenly realizing Earth wasn't "really" 10 light minutes distant but instead right in her back yard, accounting for the fact that she sees our (very thin) watch (almost) instantly reading 12:00
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 01:47 pm
@parados,
Quote:
….so that we are really 32 inches from Mars, that our 10 light min is what's illusory" ????
Quote:
Again, you assume that light travels at a different speed in a different reference point. It does not.
Of course not. For instance if you have two wavefronts passing one an other in opposite directions we might think their relative velocity 2c but of course if instead we were aboard a ship within one of those wavefronts we'd see the other passing us not at 2c but at c. I have no quarrel with this

Quote:
If the earth is traveling at nearly c compared to another reference point the earth would still be 10 light minutes from Mars on our reference simply because that is our reference point


Forgive me Para but that's 'way too vague for Your Average Clod (me) to follow. If your "another reference point" is Marty herself at her takeoff she wouldn't find herself 10 light minutes from Mars but, eg, just a few light millimicronanopicoseconds and that's why to her she makes the trip so quick
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 02:11 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Let me get this straight, Dale. You're saying that Mars is really 32 inches from Earth?

Oh no, no, no Con, not at all. If you review all my postings above (probably by now requiring all day) you'll find many places where I deny that I'm proposing a stationary ref, so vehemently denied also by the relativist. Repeating my position for the nth time, the proponent of a stationary ref might suppose that clock over there moving at (almost) c reading noon and returning from the opposite direction after circumnavigating the Universe, our great-great-------great-great-grandson noting it still reads 12:00, he might adopt the position that indeed, it's he who is really stationary and that it's the clock really moving at c

Thus if we and our presently visible area turns out to be moving at (near) c with resp to the rest of a much bigger Universe and Marty when she launches comes to rest with respect to the latter, then if by chance she's one of 'em, then she's equally entitled as my g-g-g-ggggson (not me now reemember) to conclude that the distance between Earth and Mars is not two light minutes but indeed 3.8 millimeters

Con it's just an aside and doesn't figure prominently into Marty's trip

…..tho gettin woozy
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 02:28 pm
Dale, I am getting seriously worried about you. To put it bluntly, some of the things you have been posting seem like the ramblings of a senile person. have you got anyone around who looks out for you?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 02:29 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Yes Para, right, 10 min, but that's by our watch not theirs. By theirs they they arrive almost instantly, still reading 11:50

Quote:
Wrong. By theirs it takes 1o minutes to get here. The speed of c is constant and they are 10 light minutes away.
Sorry Para but now I gotta disagree most vehemently. At the instant she launches the 11:50 reading on her watch (to us) freezes. If we could live long enough, after she's passed us and circumnavigated the Universe (returning from the other direction?) it still reads 11:50; her mouth still agape in that yawn

She incidentally finds her trip around the Universe (almost) instantaneous so (to her) she passes this same point 33,740 times per second, as if watching a movie, with Earth eaten up by the sun and repeatedly replaced by another body of some sort which if it remains still, then instantly vaporizes

Sort of kidding of course since she'd be destroyed in a nanosecond (her time again remember) running into an asteroid; but if not, in a minute or two she'd be destroyed when the Big Crunch reduces everything to a black dot of infinite mass and zero diameter….
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 02:35 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
have you got anyone around who looks out for you?
Oh yes, my Better Half to whom I'm most grateful

And I'd be first to agree that a typical account of relativistic happenings sounds most incredible to the novice

On the other hand of course I readily concede I'm dead wrong about everything. But so far nobody has shown me where

Come on Con, I thought that nearly everybody here, at least the fellas, know that the reading of our clock accelerating to (near) c comes to a stop and (for all practical purposes) stays at that reading indefinitely

Where pray have I gone wrong
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 02:40 pm
@dalehileman,
Guys I might hafta pull out pretty soon, for a while at least, as yardwork's gonta hell

Yet if anyone has a specific single point to address, I'll sure try….

As for Para's case, and Para forgive, no offense, it's apparent he's totally misled regarding the apparent effect of motion on a clock. But the rest of you fellas, can you challenge a specific assertion that you find puzzling
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 03:21 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
But remember, Marty can't possibly confirm…...until she's actually here….coming toward us at the same velocity (nearly) c that our image at 12:00 is traveling toward her, then she has almost arrived before she encounters it

Not true at all. You keep repeating this and I keep telling you that you are wrong but you keep at it.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 03:23 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Okay then. We're dangerously close to encountering the famous stationary ref, but what you're saying is that the 10 light minutes is illusory and instead yes the real distance from us to Mars is three feet seven inches

No. Marty's frame of reference is different but the speed of light for Marty is c. What is illusory is your argument that you keep making. It's crap. It violates the theory of relativity because you keep trying to thrust Newtonian physics into it.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 03:27 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Yes Para, (very nearly) c, covering the distance of 3 ft 7 in. in maybe a millimicronanosecond

No, to Marty the time to travel to earth is a little over 10 minutes. Since the speed of light is exactly the same the distance light travels in 1o minutes is what he has to travel.

Quote:
That's assuming of course that he's very quick,
It assumes nothing. It is simply using the speed of light in his reference to calculate how much time it takes him to travel. He sees earth 10 light minutes away. He has to travel that distance in a reference where light travels the same distance per minute as in earth's reference.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 03:29 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Yes Paras but again we're rejecting the notion of a "real" stationary ref, at the instant she fires her rocket she comes to a standstill, suddenly realizing Earth wasn't "really" 10 light minutes distant but instead right in her back yard, accounting for the fact that she sees our (very thin) watch (almost) instantly reading 12:00

There is no way to tell what is stationary because all references can only compare themselves to other moving objects. You continue to make the same mistake over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Go read the links 12 more times before you post again. Clearly you aren't understanding the basic principles.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 03:30 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Yes Para, right, 10 min, but that's by our watch not theirs. By theirs they they arrive almost instantly, still reading 11:50

WRONG!!!!!! You keep posting this same **** and you don't seem to get it.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 03:54 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I keep telling you that you are wrong
But how
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 04:00 pm
@parados,
Quote:
No. Marty's frame of reference is different but the speed of light for Marty is c.
I never said it wasn't. Subsequently everything she passes appear to her to be passing at (near) c

Quote:
What is illusory is your argument that you keep making. It's crap.
What, exactly, where, how

Quote:
It violates the theory of relativity because you keep trying to thrust Newtonian physics into it.
How
Everything I've said here conforms to my understanding of Albert's Special Rel

Perhaps our difficulty is impassible and we should quit. However it's been a pleasure chatting with you Para
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 04:05 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Yes Para, right, 10 min, but that's by our watch not theirs. By theirs they they arrive almost instantly, still reading 11:50

Quote:
WRONG!!!!!! You keep posting this same **** and you don't seem to get it
Would somebody else please chime in here, explaining the apparent effect upon a moving object of its high velocity

But Para you seem to becoming angry, please relax. You don't even need to respond, you can quit entirely, I won't be offended in the least

But thanks again for persisting as It's given me an opportunity to review everything I thought I had learned about relativity
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2015 09:29 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Yes Para, right, 10 min, but that's by our watch not theirs. By theirs they they arrive almost instantly, still reading 11:50


You are continuing to miss the most important part of relativity. Both viewers see their time as normal and the other one as slowing down.


Let me repeat that....

Both viewers see their time as normal and the other one as slowing down.





Let me repeat that once more...

Both viewers see their time as normal and the other one as slowing down.




Marty's watch would show it as 10 minutes. Viewers on earth would see Marty's watch as slower than that. Earth would see their watch as showing 10 minutes. Marty would see earth's time as slowing down.




Let me quote from the article you don't seem to be able to understand...
Quote:
When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.


You have now been told this several times. If you still don't get it then there is nothing I can do to help you. You keep insisting Marty sees himself as being there instantly. That is nonsense.

Let me tell you one more time.....

the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2015 04:35 am
You guys are just feeding a troll. When he starts threads like this, just ignore him.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jan, 2015 01:08 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Both viewers see their time as normal
Para, I never said they didn't

Quote:
Marty's watch would show it as 10 minutes.
Show what, Para

Quote:
Viewers on earth would see Marty's watch as slower than that.
Than what

Quote:
Earth would see their watch as showing 10 minutes.
Who are they

If you've sneaked into her ship another passenger, let me assure you it's entirely unnecessary, only contributing to the complexity of our exchange

Quote:
Marty would see earth's time as slowing down
Yes, at risk of repetition, once more, again, however, at first she gets the illusion that our watch is not slower but faster since she's passing through two ten-minute passels of photons in just an instant. After she passes however, yes that's when she sees our time as stopped

Quote:
the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock.
Yes that's the way it usually works, and in fact with your train passengers the same reasoning would apply; but not so dramatically since in the article you provided, they're both traveling so very slow, relatively, so during their approach the effect of one's acceleration over the other is too small to be measured

Quote:
... there is nothing I can do to help you
Apparently not

Quote:
the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock
Yes but again, once more, anew, repeatedly, one more time Para, initially the participant who has accelerated will see the other's time as running just a bit faster than otherwise. He hasta since he's encountering more of the other's photons. Once they've passed however, yes, each sees the other's clock running at the same slower rate. It's all elementary special relativity

Nevertheless I believe I do see from whence our apparent impasse arises. Before they meet, let's suppose Marty looks out her side window. As she passes successive clocks that we've placed on intermediate asteroids, she indeed notes a rapidly advancing reading; and if she doesn't understand Al she might conclude that she's seeing the other's clock run faster also, just as you infer

However, and again you other a2k'ers, and yes I've already said this several times, forgive me for the constant repetition, such an inference is an illusion brought about by Marty's incredible acceleration, which she can confirm not by continuing to watch us out her front window but instead peering straight our that side window , choosing one of those clocks, watching it most carefully as she's passing it (She's capable of flicking her eyeballs pretty darn fast). She'll find that in fact, according to classical relativistic theory, that yes she's seeing it (nearly) stopped, running at the very same minuscule rate that we back on earth see hers

…coming perhaps to the very sudden realization as she passes by and looks out her rear window when our movements apparently come to a sudden halt. "Oh yes," she recalls, "Now I remember Al and that bit about the effect of acceleration"

Para my gratitude revisited for this interesting chat, but now I've just gotta do some yardwork

Accounting also for any remaining typos

But come on now, somebody except the feisty fella above who resents us abbreviating his agnomen, amongst some 100,000 potential respondents, there must be one or two who understands Al better than the rest of us
0 Replies
 
Joebro13243
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2015 01:12 pm
@dalehileman,
I think that the proportion of a triangle is able to be multiplied by the square root of a papaya. Nuff said
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Marty's voyage
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 04:16:22