9
   

Faster Than light

 
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2016 06:23 pm
@farmerman,
only if you're going the Wright speed.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 12:57 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Actually your thinking is based on the assumption that at my takeoff, it's also noon on Mars. But I'm perfectly justified in assuming my trip to be instantaneous; that is, that I'm equally justified in the idea that it's 12:05 there


A necessary conclusion for anyone who subscribes to the extremely dubious proposition that simultaneity is relative, eh, Dale?
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:17 am
@layman,
Yea Lay, exactly. However, I wonder if you'd defend that simultaneity
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:19 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Yea Lay, exactly. However, I wonder if you'd defend that simultaneity


Defend relative simultaneity?

Not a chance in hell, eh?
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:23 am
@layman,
What I meant was, Lay, defend the viewpoint that it's dubious

At that moment suppose Marty just happens to be passing. To him it's 11:45 back home, to me supposedly it's noon to you 12:05. Thus the relativity of simultaneity is very appealing
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:24 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

What I meant was, Lay, defend the viewpoint that it's dubious


Oh, I see. Well, I've done that many times here already, ya know?
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:31 am
@layman,
Quote:
already, ya know?
Forgive an old-timer, Lay, but no I don't. If it's no trouble, wonder if you could provide a link, at least to the one you suppose would be most convincing
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:36 am
@dalehileman,
Well, Dale, I can't think of one particular link, but I can assure you that many respectable physicists share that view.

You yourself suggested one simple "test," to wit: Special relativity can only "resolve" the so-called "twin paradox" by abandoning relative simultaneity and adopting absolute simultaneity as the premise.

No one claims that each twin REALLY does age less than the other--unless they're plumb wack.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 11:49 am
@dalehileman,
Briefly:

If A and B are each travelling inertially (i.e., not accelerating) and are moving with respect to each other, then special relativity requires:

1. A must assert that he is motionless and that B is the one moving, and, at the same damn time,

2. B must assert that he is motionless and that A is the one moving

It is impossible, as a matter of simple logic, for both to be right (they could both be wrong).

If they were both motionless, then they couldn't be moving with respect to each other.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 02:16 pm
@layman,
Quote:
You yourself suggested....Special relativity can only "resolve" the so-called "twin paradox" by abandoning relative simultaneity and adopting absolute....
Forgive me Lay if you misread my assertion. I see relative simultaneity as the only way to resolve

Thus here are the three of us: me sitting here, you at takeoff, and Marty just happening by. I say it's noon on Mars, you say it's 12:05, and Marty says 11:55. But Albert's relativity has a hidden assumption, that I'm right and both of you are wrong; precisely why there's a Twin Paradox. However if we assume instead that you're just as right as me, poof the paradox--as well as other effects of relativity supposedly at speed c--vanish

Quote:
...--unless they're plumb wack
Lay forgive, but I don't know what you mean by that. I must be wack because I had read--about conventional relativity--from many different reliable sources--that your clock does indeed stop--that's it's been proven conclusively
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 02:24 pm
@layman,
.... special relativity requires:

Quote:
1. A must assert that he is motionless and that B is the one moving...
I'd say "may" instead of "must"

Quote:
2. B must assert that he is motionless and that A is the one moving
I'd say, "However, B can..."

Quote:
It is impossible, as a matter of simple logic, for both to be right (they could both be wrong).
No it isn't Lay. Right and wrong don't even apply here

Quote:
If they were both motionless, then they couldn't be moving with respect to each other.
Sorry Lay and no offense, but that statement doesn't make much sense either. Supposedly there's no such thing as motionlessness
layman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 03:44 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

.... special relativity requires:

Quote:
1. A must assert that he is motionless and that B is the one moving...
I'd say "may" instead of "must" Well, you would be wrong. For SR to work out it is MANDATORY, not permissive

Quote:
2. B must assert that he is motionless and that A is the one moving
I'd say, "However, B can..." Same here

Quote:
It is impossible, as a matter of simple logic, for both to be right (they could both be wrong).
No it isn't Lay. Right and wrong don't even apply here

Heh, then the theory is neither right nor wrong. It's not even a theory. Which is right?

1.Each twin is younger than the other OR
2. The travelling twin is younger? THERE IS ONLY ONE RIGHT ANSWER HERE.

Quote:
If they were both motionless, then they couldn't be moving with respect to each other
Sorry Lay and no offense, but that statement doesn't make much sense either. Supposedly there's no such thing as motionlessness
Tell it to Al, then. every single "observer" is the ether in his theory. Doesn't make sense? Of course not. But that's what the theory requires.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 03:54 pm
@layman,
I can see Lay some mutual misunderstandings here doubtless based on linguistics

Third-party untangling invited herewith
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2016 04:03 pm
@dalehileman,
Sorry, Dale, but I've been through this too many times to want to do it all over again.

Just think about it. According to SR if you see an object moving wrt to you, IT is moving, you are not. Same with 10 objects. Or 100. Or 100 million. THEY are all moving, you are not. Anything that moving wrt to you is moving. You are motionless with respect to every other object in the universe, per SR. You are, in effect, the motionless ether.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2016 11:33 am
@layman,
I do understand what you're saying, Lay. Problem is with wording. I'd be more inclined to say that relativity maintains you're entitled to consider yourself at rest

To change the subject slightly however, I'm still confused about the Twin Paradox, and after reading somewhere that even Albert seems somewhat uncomfortable about it I'd like somebody to explain it in short sentences of common words arranged in usual order
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. » Faster Than light
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/20/2021 at 02:29:02