Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

Quote:

Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.


That is NOT what SR predicts. It does not predict that motion in two different directions will produce difference clock rates in vehicles going away from the starting point at the same speed.

You are wrong Layman.

You define 'Physics" as the stuff that you think makes sense to you from reading random pages on the Internet...

I could send you a another link that explains the twin paradox according to SR

SR (as taught in a college physics course) made a prediction. The experiment showed the results as predicted by SR. Further studies did the same with more accuracy.

And, as you finally conceded after your initial vehement denials, LR makes the exact same prediction. Has LR been proven now?

No. And now that I have answered your question..

This experiment ends up being measured in the Earth's frame of reference (which is as valid as any).

How is LR different than SR?

You are just making stuff up. There was an actual clock that was attached to the surface of the earth that was used in the experiment.

Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, a clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, had a greater velocity (resulting in a relative time loss) than one that remained on the ground, while a clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, had a lower velocity than one on the ground.

The Lorentz transforms (LT) say that a moving clock will run slower than a stationary one. Both special relativity (SR) and Lorentzian relativity (LR) use the LT. So what's the difference?

Well, start with two "observers" who are moving with respect to each other, call them A and B.

In SR, A will say that he is stationary, so B is the one moving, so therefore B's clock is running slow. At the same time...

B will say that he is stationary, so A is the one moving, so therefore A's clock is running slow.

Then SR says they are both right. Each clock "really does" run slower than the other. See if you can figure that one out, eh?

LR will say that, as between the two, there can be only one "moving" clock. This could simply mean that one is moving "faster" than the other, because the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. Neither A nor B has to be seen as "absolutely motionless" as in SR. They could both be moving.

In LR, if it is A that is moving faster, then A's clock is slower than B's and, needless to say, B's clock is running FASTER than A's (not slower).

Which one makes more sense, I ask ya?

With respect to the original assertions being made, LR would say it's impossible to go 14 billion light years in just 23 years WITHOUT exceeding the speed of light.

SR? Sure, you can do that, in "theory" at least. How (why) is that possible? Well, because in SR you can never go the speed of light in YOUR frame of reference. Nor can you go 1 mile an hour for that matter. In SR your speed is always ZERO, no matter how much you may have accelerated.

Do you understand that basic difference at all, Max?

This could simply mean that one is moving "faster" than the other, because the faster you go, the more time slows down for you.

What you are saying is in this case only one is truly stationary.

Am I correct?

This doesn't make any sense. What does "time slows down for you" mean?

I head down to Cape Canaveral to watch a rocket get blasted into space. I see the ignition and the ship starts heading toward the moon.

Or does it? SR would say no, it doesn't, from it's "frame of reference." What evidently happens is that, when ignited, the fuel in the spaceship pushed the earth away from it, while it remains motionless. At that same instant, the moon starts moving toward the spaceship.

Wanna believe that? Help yourself.

I do think you have conceded that my act of "positing" that a spaceship is motionless does not make it STOP as a matter of physical reality.

Of course, according to the astronaut on the rocked, at that same time, the clocks slowed down on the earth and on the moon. And here I always thought that astronauts had at least a modicum of intelligence. Go figure.

Being the dumbass that I am, if I was that astronaut. I would stupidly say: "Hey, I'm moving. That means MY clock has slowed down, not those on earth." Einstein would certainly not recruit me to use the Lorentz transformations "properly," eh?

Suppose I'm that astronaut and I stupidly think that because I'm the one moving, MY clock has slowed down. Now I start to wonder how much my clock has slowed down. How could I know that?

Easy: Use the Lorentz transforms to calculate it.

Do you even begin to see the point, Max? You have totally missed it for years now, so I expect the answer is "no."

It not the math formula that's in question here. That is exactly the same in either SR or LR. It's how it's APPLIED that is in question.

The LT ONLY tells you that it is the MOVING clock which slows down. Being nothing more than a stupid math formula it doesn't, and can't, tell you which one is moving. You have to figure that out for yourself. Once you figure that out, the LT will tell you the degree to which the moving clock has slowed down. That's ALL it does.

The LT doesn't MAKE anything move faster or slower. It doesn't have that power. It is not a "force." It's a stupid-ass math formula, that's all.

Needless to say, a "frame of reference" is not a force either. A frame of reference does not, and can not, MAKE anything move faster or slower. Defining a "frame of reference" as "that which determines the motion of an external object" is a serious error. But that's what has been done when one says:

"It is possible to traverse 14 billion light years in just 23 years WITHOUT ever exceeding the speed of light."

I aint buying what you're trying to sell, sorry.