On Monday, October 21, 2024 at 7:57:04 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2024 at 6:37:09 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, October 20, 2024 at 12:07:47 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2024 at 11:13:22 PM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Friday, October 18, 2024 at 11:05:40 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote:
Each time you post you introduce more new confusions until I despair of
unraveling them. Go take a class or hire a tutor.
Brent
I helped you understand that the observable universe is finite. Goodbye and
good luck. AG
Yes, that's a good suggestion. I'd like to have a tutor, and I'm even
willing to pay for it. Unfortunately, and not to be negative, I don't think
you qualify. Firstly, the tutor must be really knowledgeable of physics,
and you failed that test when your replied ("bullshit") to my statement
that the observable universe is finite in spatial extent. Seriously, this
is pretty simple and well established, as evidenced by the fact that it's
been measured as having a radius of 46 BLY (a unit of distance!). That's 46
BLY in all directions, from any location in the observable universe,
applying the Cosmological Principle. You *should *know that that's as far
as we can observe. Beyond that distance is the unobservable universe with
space expanding faster than the SoL, c. After I corrected your
misstatement, you never gave me a cordial handshake, acknowledging your
error. Maybe it was your pride or vanity or laziness which prevented you
from doing so. But the kind of tutor I might employ, would a
straight-shooter, not reluctant to admit an error.
Further, about all those "new confusions" you allege which prompted your
despair; they are essentially false inference than the reality of my pov,
although I acknowledge a lack of clarity on some issues in my latest
discussion of the Clock Paradox in SR. It probably appears that I was in
denial of the Principle of Relativity when I cited the train station as
some special reference frame for determining the slowing clock rates for
moving frames/clocks. I am *not* denying the* Principle of Relativity in SR*--
that are no preferred frames, that the laws of physics have the same *form*
in all inertial frames, and all inertial frames are equivalent. This was
established by the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1881 (repeated several
times thereafter) which yielded a null result for an EM ether, presumably
at rest, as the medium for the transmission of EM waves. The alleged
preferred frame would be at rest with respect to this ether if it existed,
but since it does not, there is no preferred frame in SR. In my recent
discussion of the alleged preferred frame of the train station, I was
thinking out loud, or shall we say, trying to think "out of the box", not
seriously affirming that frame as a preferred frame. For that confusion I
take full responsibility, although I note that many discussions of the
issue of the Clock Paradox in SR usually compare a moving frame with a
fixed or stationary one which seems unmovable like the train station. Some
treatments, definitely in the minority, compare a moving clock with an
*abstract* stationary frame with no further constraints.
The thing I was most concerned with in my previous discussion was whether,
and if, the role of the possible* breakdown of simultaneity* played in the
slower clock rate for moving frame, and I thought that the clocks in both
frames could by synchronized if the frames were treated identically. Right
now I am not convinced of this conclusion. In any event, instead of
starting with two frames, one moving and one at rest, I wanted to first
discuss how those frames could be constructed, starting with two frames
initially at rest. So I considered using the round trip light from one
fixed location to a second fixed location, to assure that the distance
between them was fixed. If you recall, this is the method for determining
the moon's recession from its orbit around the Earth. Astronauts left a
mirror on the Moon's surface and radar signals were bounced back to Earth,
presumably multiple times, and it was determined the Moon is receding from
Earth orbit at slightly less the 4 cm annually. So there was nothing
inherently wrong with using this method to guarantee the two points in my
model were initially fixed, But to get them both moving at a fixed velocity
toward each other, I postulated the same short impulse, F*deltaT, applied
to both frames. Although this procedure was, strictly speaking, not
necessary, it isn't wrong, though it likely contributed to your confusion.
Since my intention is to compare clock readings when the frame clocks are
juxtaposed, I am studying a YouTube video by a physicist at Fermilab,
entitled, "Relativity: how people get time dilation wrong",
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwWKi9sSAA. I plan to view it again,
several times, but so far I tend to believe that *breakdown of simultaneity*
is* not* an issue in calculating the slowing clock rate for a moving frame.
In fact, it's never mentioned! Moreover, and mildly shocking, is that while
the author initially acknowledges that a time dilation paradox would exist,
if each observer viewed the other frame's clock as running slower, he
*never* makes the comparison, AFAICT! You might want to view this video
yourself and see if you agree with my conclusion. In effect, after
correctly stating what a time dilation paradox would consist of, he never
addresses it.
In conclusion, I see no way to resolve this apparent paradox, since the
Principle of Relativity allows us to symmetrically switch frames of
reference which keeps the apparent paradox alive and well. Also, with
regard to worldlines, you stated recently that it demonstrates slowing
clock rates for a moving frame, but did not, as I conjectured, apply
breakdown of simultaneity as the solution to the apparent paradox.
AG
I conjecture that the clocks in the two frames used to test for a clock
paradox in SR can be synchronized when they are juxtaposed. Then the
comparison can be done at any other point in those frames where another
pair are juxtaposed. I could be mistaken, but it sure seems that there's
real clock paradox in SR. Does anyone see a problem with this method of
sychronization? AG
If the clocks can be sychronized as indicated above, and if they remain
synchronized, then the clock comparisons will show same values when they
are juxtaposed the second time. Hence, no time dilation indicated in this
scenario. So it seems that time dilation only occurs when one frame is
considered at rest. Have to admit; this situation seems more peculiar the
more I look into it. AG
In other words*, IF* the clocks in both moving frames can be sychronized
with each other, and one then compares the time elapsed between the two
juxtaposed positions mentioned above, there is no relativistic time
dilation. AG
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1e700efe-5b8f-4aec-bcf1-9bb44086cd54n%40googlegroups.com.
