1
   

Tesla's take on relativity

 
 
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2015 04:29 pm
https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11207293_10206110403710848_5042862297301445170_n.jpg?oh=3301cd0a57d72238b5b56071501736aa&oe=56180AE9
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,717 • Replies: 21

 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2015 04:42 pm
@gungasnake,
Paraaphrqsing Mencken
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, easily understood, and dead wrong."
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2015 04:48 pm
@farmerman,
True, but there still are a number of issues out there with respect to general relativity and the apparent accelerating expansion of the observable universe. A bit over my head but I know just enough to spot a dispute or a bump in the road.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2015 05:18 pm
@georgeob1,
I always liked Dirac's interweaving of quntum thory and Einsteinian (limit to c) by usingi. He won a Nobel prize on that but his thinking was bsed upon some good physics. Im not sure that I understand TEsl's view of a variable c and why?

His was never really a "theory", but the germ of an idea.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2015 10:50 am
@gungasnake,
Gung theres something about Al's take on the mutuality of relativistic changes in the moving object that has always bothered me. Supposedly if two objects move past one another, because there's no "stationary ref," each oughta see the same changes in the other

But he shrugs off the fact that they don't. Circumnavigating the Universe, the traveler (at or near c) arrives back home presumably from the opposite direction not having aged at all; yet you and I are long gone

I'm revisiting, yes, but nobody had offered an explanation
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2015 04:41 pm
@farmerman,
I have some physicist friends who share concerns about the constancy of c, but to the degree that I understand it, this appears to involve perceptions and reference points more than the physical laws themselves. Whether that has any commonality with Tesla's concerns is something I don't know. I do know that Dirack's ideas are indeed related.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2015 02:52 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Gung theres something about Al's take on the mutuality of relativistic changes in the moving object that has always bothered me. Supposedly if two objects move past one another, because there's no "stationary ref," each oughta see the same changes in the other

But he shrugs off the fact that they don't. Circumnavigating the Universe, the traveler (at or near c) arrives back home presumably from the opposite direction not having aged at all; yet you and I are long gone

I'm revisiting, yes, but nobody had offered an explanation

Really? After all this time, you haven't grasped page 1? If two objects move past one another, they do see the same changes in each other. Each sees the other contracted in length and with a clock that's running slowly.

By the way, the thesis of this post is what's called the "argument from authority" and is logically worthless.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2015 11:15 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
...they do see the same changes in each other. Each sees the other contracted in length and with a clock that's running slowly.
Well Bran, yes and no. True, when I look back at you, your clock is apparently stopped just as you see mine. But then upon reaching Planet Poop, where one of the Poopies advises me that you're 10 years older than when I left, the instant I fire my reverse thruster, you suddenly appear to age another 10 years, while I'm only 2 seconds older

Thus when I encounter you once more, you've aged 20 years; me, only four seconds. Ergo, what happened to"mutuality"

You'll claim the diff was hastened by the acceleration. But suppose I don't return in that manner but instead circumnavigate the Universe without the slightest acceleration in any direction. Upon my return from the other direction I'm maybe a minute older but you've been gone for billions of years. So what happened to that "mutuality"
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2015 08:49 am
@dalehileman,
You are the only one of us who accelerated. Therefore, the relationship is not mutual. You have failed on the scale of years to understand ideas that people all over the world have understood for 110 years. Just read a book on relativity and stop bugging everyone with fancied inconsistencies.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2015 09:14 am
@Brandon9000,
Yea Bran, I vaguely recall that from a previous thread, long gone now I suppose. As I recall there were two or three of us who asked exactly how acceleration can make that diff, stop one's clock

I apologize Bran for your feeling bugged
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2015 09:39 am
@Brandon9000,
I had explained the mystery of the apparent effect of acceleration here:

http://able2know.org/topic/187876-1

Nobody was able to address it so maybe it's valid
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2015 11:04 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
I had explained the mystery of the apparent effect of acceleration here:

http://able2know.org/topic/187876-1

Nobody was able to address it so maybe it's valid

By "nobody," I take it you mean the guy who posted in your thread. Why don't you just read a book on relativity? Wouldn't that make more sense than asking these misguided questions year after year?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 09:30 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Why don't you just read a book on relativity?
Oh I have done so, I assure you Bran

Quote:
Wouldn't that make more sense than asking these misguided questions year after year?
No Bran, not at all. Like certain other of us I had read the effect of acceleration but never grasped in "mind's eye" the causation; maybe because I'm just not smart enough

Thus I had hoped someone hereabout might establish that connection to my satisfaction. So, Bran....
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 10:10 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Why don't you just read a book on relativity?
Oh I have done so, I assure you Bran

Quote:
Wouldn't that make more sense than asking these misguided questions year after year?
No Bran, not at all. Like certain other of us I had read the effect of acceleration but never grasped in "mind's eye" the causation; maybe because I'm just not smart enough

Thus I had hoped someone hereabout might establish that connection to my satisfaction. So, Bran....

Okay, well, here goes. I don't know what happens during the period of acceleration to produce this exact result because my knowledge of General Relativity is next to nothing and this is a General, not Special, Relativity question. The explanation I have seen in terms of Special Relativity is this. At some point after the rocket launches and gets up to speed, both the Earth bound observer watching the space ship and the space ship observer watching the Earth say, "I see you moving slowly exactly as predicted by the equations of Special Relativity because I am in an inertial reference frame." However, at some point the observer in the space ship decelerates and accelerates back toward the Earth. While this is going on, the Earth bound observer will see the events in the space ship happening slowly according to the Special Relativity equations because he is in an inertial reference frame (except for minor accelerations of the Earth) and all of the laws of Special Relativity apply to what he sees. The observations of the Earth by the observer in the space ship will not be consistent with Special Relativity, the equation for time dilation, etc., because he has been in an accelerated reference frame. Therefore, when the space ship returns to Earth and the astronaut emerges, the Earth bound observer can expect the astronaut to have experienced less time in accordance with his observations that the clocks in the space ship were running slowly, but the astronaut, while in accelerated motion, will not have seen the clocks on Earth running more slowly as Special Relativity predicts, because Special Relativity doesn't govern what he saw.

If you want something better than that, you will have to study General Relativity, which, I assure you, is not easy. Your first step would probably have to be the study of tensor calculus.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 02:20 pm
@Brandon9000,
to simplify things, Brna, we often assume my ship and I are immune to the effects of acceleration and my engines are so powerful that they can instantaneously accelerate to (near) c. At risk of some repetition, and as I understand it, Bran, at takeoff I see your clock "doubly" stopped first because of (1) the relativistic effect--the actual (to me) stopping of your clock and (2) the fact that I'm keeping up with your image so that only a few cycles elapse during my outward journey to, say, Mars.

But then a few milliseconds later later by my watch (5 minutes by yours) when I reach Marty's kingdom and fire my retros...
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 03:04 pm
@dalehileman,
Sorry Bran but please don't read my response 'til I'm done with it. The a2k software keeps cutting me off in the middle of a sentence

To simplify things, we often assume my ship and I are immune to the effects of acceleration and my engines are so powerful that they can instantaneously accelerate to (near) c. At risk of some repetition, and as I understand it, Bran, at takeoff I see your clock "doubly" stopped first because of (1) the relativistic effect--the actual (to me) stopping of your clock at 11:50--and (2) the fact that I'm keeping up with your image so that only a few cycles elapse during my outward journey to, say, Mars (at the moment in mid orbit)

By "cycles," I make ref to the light having bounced off your clock at 11:50, and of course we're ignoring any relative interplanetary motion; and naturally it goes without saying that I can see electromagnetic radiation of extremely low frequency

But then a few seconds later later by my watch (10 minutes by yours) when I reach Marty's kingdom and fire my retros (that's noon your time) your clock actually jumps ahead 20 minutes (to me), its image necessarily also jumping ahead 20 minutes. In other words, at that instant my de-ac-celeration aged you actually (to me) 20 minutes

(Yes, that "actually" is highly controversial, subject for another thread; and I've studiously ignored at this point happenings at the instant of reversal because it tends to complicate things, while its duration is zero)

I say "jump" of course meaning in the few seconds (to me) required to return home. Incidentally when you finally see me coming back and at the same time I note, sure enough, your clock is actually (or still?) reading 12:10; suppose I don't fire my retros to stay for dinner but zip on past, and here's where it gets interesting as I peer out the rear window ...

Something wrong with a2k software....I get a message refusing me permission to edit but then when I click on leftarrow

Bran, if there's another interruption it's because I had to eat lunch

....your clock appears to suddenly stop at 12:10. Well of course, It must, it's because I'm keeping up with that wavefront. (But a number of additional q's now arise: For instance, what was the effect of reversing my course. For instance can I now claim that your clock is no longer actually stopped....


But let's get back to that original thrust when I launched from your pad for a visit with Marty, the acceleration you claim put me into a different boat; an issue we haven't even approached so far in all this reminiscing. In the original thread your viewpoint on the effect of that sudden jerk (no pun intended) was first questioned not by me but by another interested party who shared my doubts and confusion over its effect, the apparent difference between our clocks. What he asserted was, that it can't have been the acceleration accounting for my clock's stopping but yours not, since its effect persisted throughout my entire trip

...suggesting for instance that it's not the acceleration at all doing the dirty work, only inasmuch as it was necessary to get me going, that the subsequent difference in aging owes to the cumulative effect of all the rest of the solid matter in the visible Universe (stationary inertial reference frame?)

[Incidentally I mention in passing that I have an even simpler explanation (sorry fellas for all this repetition) for the diff, one which appeals to the intuition and the six senses, having do do with a subliminal misconception regarding time-at-a-distance; one which I'd be most glad to discuss]


Bran you'll have to forgive any remaining typos as my day has elapsed. Happy to discuss further--oh, and now I'm done--for now
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2015 08:14 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
to simplify things, Brna, we often assume my ship and I are immune to the effects of acceleration and my engines are so powerful that they can instantaneously accelerate to (near) c. At risk of some repetition, and as I understand it, Bran, at takeoff I see your clock "doubly" stopped first because of (1) the relativistic effect--the actual (to me) stopping of your clock and (2) the fact that I'm keeping up with your image so that only a few cycles elapse during my outward journey to, say, Mars.

But then a few milliseconds later later by my watch (5 minutes by yours) when I reach Marty's kingdom and fire my retros...


I don't know what these relativity texts are that you're reading, but you don't observe my clock stopped at all. You observe it moving at a different speed. You really are hopeless. If you lived long enough, you'd be here in a hundred years misunderstanding points that your average first year Physics college student has no trouble with.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2015 12:19 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
.......but you don't observe my clock stopped at all.
You gotta excuse an old guy Bran, guess I wasn't clear. But if I'm launching at very nearly c, and if I could still see your image in spite of its lower frequency, you'd appear almost stock still if for no other reason 'cause I'm keeping up with your image at my instant of takeoff

As for apparent slowing as a result of relative velocity, I'll have to agree I'm not at all clear on this issue; and I even understand that Al is seen to shuck it off, with a sort of "Oh, well..."

Quote:
You observe it moving at a different speed.
I thought I had made it clear--but at 84 maybe not--that I realize I could perceive movement if my velocity were enough less than c

Quote:
You really are hopeless.
Guess so

Quote:
If you lived long enough....... misunderstanding...... first year Physics college student has no trouble with.
Perhaps I could clear up any misunderstanding if you were to detail your objection, with some detail outlining exactly what you suppose I had said

I've noted with many postings, my own and others', that no matter how clearly the participant attempts his assertion, at least one other a2k'er will object most vociferously
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2015 12:39 pm
@Brandon9000,
Recently someone bequeathed me Our Universe by Roy A. Gallant, and I'm hoping he discusses relativity. But meantime I've fetched off my bookshelf Al's Relativity, the Special and General Theory, and, Bran, promise faithfully to plow into it once more

....hoping I come up with something pertinent before diseases of old age take their full toll...

....as I have been reading only during the commercials....

....so guess I'll have to forego some of my yardwork in favor of just-read


Edited to remark that a quick flip from index suggests Gallant doesn't. Hey, Bran, incidentally, I'd like to look into what we've been calling "mutuality," but to save me some flipping I wonder if you could provide me a better word for it
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2015 01:14 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
...Edited to remark that a quick flip from index suggests Gallant doesn't. Hey, Bran, incidentally, I'd like to look into what we've been calling "mutuality," but to save me some flipping I wonder if you could provide me a better word for it

I don't dislike you, but you're hopeless and I just don't want to play anymore. Learn from books. Not from a forum. If you have a question, look in a few books. Anyone else who was as interested as you are would have figured this stuff out years ago. Thousands of thought experiments haven't helped you a bit. Relativity is amply documented. Get some books and read them.
 

Related Topics

Relativistic mechanics - Discussion by Granpa
Cesium clocks??? - Question by gungasnake
Why c, revisited still again - Question by dalehileman
Is there a relativist in the crowd - Question by dalehileman
relativity - Question by alexjlaonnae
Does light have Mass? - Question by peter jeffrey cobb
simple relativity question - Question by ralphiep
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Tesla's take on relativity
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2019 at 12:41:52