Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #604035 > unrolled thread

Contradiction or my math/physics error?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Contradiction or my math/physics error? "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-14 15:15 -0700
    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-03-14 18:08 -0700
      Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "sepp623@yahoo.com" <sepp623@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-16 08:05 -0700
        Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-03-16 12:03 -0700
          Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-16 13:03 -0700
            Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-28 20:04 +1100
              Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 03:46 -0700
                Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-13 12:50 +0200
                  Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 10:15 -0700
                Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Python <python@invalid.org> - 2023-04-13 12:50 +0200
                  Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "gehan.am...@gmail.com" <gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 04:11 -0700
                    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-13 06:20 -0700
                      Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 10:20 -0700
                        Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-13 11:37 -0700
                      Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-04-15 14:52 -0500
                    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-04-13 06:28 -0700
                    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-04-15 14:35 -0500
                Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Jane <Jane@home.com> - 2023-05-03 08:46 +0000
                  Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-05-03 02:16 -0700
                  Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-05-03 09:25 -0500
            Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:34 -0700
              Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:36 -0700
          Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-28 20:02 +1100
            Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2023-04-13 10:31 -0700
          Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-28 10:32 -0700
      Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2023-03-28 01:57 +0200
        Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-03-27 17:23 -0700
          Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2023-04-12 21:29 +0200
            Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Trevor Lange <trevorlange97@gmail.com> - 2023-04-12 22:28 -0700
    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-03-28 12:00 +1100
    Re: Contradiction or my math/physics error? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-27 20:22 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#604035 — Contradiction or my math/physics error?

Can anyone point out my physics or math error? I get contradictory results in this simple relativity scenario.

There are two inertial reference frames F0 and F1 with relative velocity |V| = c*sqrt(3)/2 along the x-axis.  Two points at x=A and x=B are a distance L = 2/3*sqrt(3) light-seconds apart as measured in F0.  Observers in F0 observe an event at A one second earlier than an event at B.  Using the Lorentz transform:
    t' = gamma *(t-V*L/c**2)
    t' = 2*(1 second - (c*sqrt(3)/2 * 2/3 * sqrt(3)/c**2))
    Therefore t' = 0 so these events that are one second apart in F0 are simultaneous events in F1

There is an inertial reference frame F0.  There are two identical objects in that frame that accelerate at a constant rate of 3 meters per second squared as measured in F0 as long as their velocity is less than 0.95*c relative to F0. Now using c = 3*10**8 meters/second and expressing the distance L above in meters, L = 2/3*sqrt(3) * 3*10**8) gives
    L = 346,410,161.5 meters
If the two objects start with a velocity -0.95c relative to F0 and accelerate at a constant rate of 3 meters/second until they reach a velocity of 0.95 relative to F0, those two objects can accelerate for 1.9 * 10**8 seconds without exceeding the speed of light.  If these two objects start their accelerations 1 second apart as observed in F0, then one object starts approaching the other object.
      Using the standard formula for distance traveled by a constant accelerating object we have:
     d = 1/2*a*t**2
So the separation if these two objects start accelerating 1 second apart and they each had an initial velocity of |V| = 0.95 c with respect to F0, the distance between the two objects during this journey decreases by
   1/2*a*t**2 - (1/2*a*(t-1)*(t-1)) = 1/2*a*(2*t -1)
For a = 3 meters/second squared we get
    distance between the two objects decreases by 3*(t-1/2). So if t = 1.9*10**8 seconds,
    distance between the two objects decreases by 569,999,998.5 meters.
Since the distance between the two objects was originally L = 346,410,161.5 meters, the two objects will crash into each other if they travel along the same line, or if they are on lines parallel to the x-axis, one object will pass the other during this acceleration.
      In frame F1, both objects start their identical accelerations simultaneously so the distance between the two objects never changes.  Please explain the error.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#604052

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Please explain the error. 

The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously.  

Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2.  Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV).  There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604307

On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > Please explain the error. 
> 
> The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously. 
> 
> Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV). There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation.

Thanks, I see that I didn't include the one second distance change in the separation.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604350

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:05:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > > Please explain the error. 
> > 
> > The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously. 
> > 
> > Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV). There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation.
> Thanks, I see that I didn't include the one second distance change in the separation. 
> David Seppala 
> Bastrop TX

Two clocks each going slower than the other is the Twin paradox contradiction...
where contradictions exist their theory is proved not real.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#604358

On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 16, 2023 at 8:05:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-5, Trevor Lange wrote: 
> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 3:15:14 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: 
> > > > Please explain the error. 
> > > 
> > > The numerous errors (plural) in your "reasoning" were fully explained to you previously. 
> > > 
> > > Again, use units with c=1, and let v be the speed of S1 in terms of S0, and let V denote the initial speeds of the objects in the negative x direction when they respectively begin accelerating, and put the origin at the initial acceleration event of the object at lower x, so its equation of motion is x = -Vt + (1/2)at^2. Let x0,t0 denote the initial acceleration event of the object at higher x, which was at x=L at t=0, and begins accelerating simultaneously with the other object in terms of S1, its equation of motion is (x-x0) = -V(t-t0) + (1/2)a(t-t0)^2. Of course we have x0=L/(1+vV) and t0=vL/(1+vV). There is obviously no contradiction here, and your confusion isn't due to special relativity, because you can simply stipulate x0,t0 and this is a purely Galilean calculation. 
> > Thanks, I see that I didn't include the one second distance change in the separation. 
> > David Seppala 
> > Bastrop TX
> Two clocks each going slower than the other is the Twin paradox contradiction... 
> where contradictions exist their theory is proved not real. 
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
I agree that the theory of relativity is disproven by showing the flaws in logic because illogical theories do not make predictions. Dingle disproved special relativity by asking, "which clock time dilates?" Relativity is not paradoxical. It is self-contradictory nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#605480

On 17-Mar-23 7:03 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> I agree that the theory of relativity is disproven by showing the
> flaws in logic because illogical theories do not make predictions.
> Dingle disproved special relativity by asking, "which clock time
> dilates?" Relativity is not paradoxical. It is self-contradictory
> nonsense.

What this shows is that neither you, nor Dingle, understand what special 
relativity actually says, but instead base you opinion on the popular 
science notion of time dilation, which is a very imprecise description 
of what the theory says.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607069

On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:04:34 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 17-Mar-23 7:03 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > I agree that the theory of relativity is disproven by showing the 
> > flaws in logic because illogical theories do not make predictions. 
> > Dingle disproved special relativity by asking, "which clock time 
> > dilates?" Relativity is not paradoxical. It is self-contradictory 
> > nonsense.
> What this shows is that neither you, nor Dingle, understand what special 
> relativity actually says, but instead base you opinion on the popular 
> science notion of time dilation, which is a very imprecise description 
> of what the theory says. 
> 
> Sylvia.

Could you give us a proper website with proper worked examples which illustrate what the theory actually says?
As you know there are accusations flying around at near the speed of light that twin paradox solutions are wrong.

If the answer to "which clock time dilates?" is available we would like to see it.

Also, a note about Professor Herbert Dingle: 

"Dingle was the author of "Modern Astrophysics" (1924) and "Practical Applications of Spectrum Analysis" (1950). He also wrote the essay "Relativity for All" (1922)[2] and the monograph The Special Theory of Relativity (1940). "

"However, Dingle then came to realize and acknowledge that his understanding of the problem had been mistaken. He then began to argue that special relativity was empirically wrong in its predictions, although experimental evidence showed he was mistaken about this.[10]"

The problem is this: regardless whether he was right or wrong,  he was totally convinced the theory was right,  so much so that he wrote a book about it (presumably in support of it).  Then he changed his mind.  What exactly happened and could this thing happen to anyone?
That is the more troubling question: no-one cannot ensure the permanence of their beliefs, despite facts and reason.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607070

gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:04:34 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17-Mar-23 7:03 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> I agree that the theory of relativity is disproven by showing the
>>> flaws in logic because illogical theories do not make predictions.
>>> Dingle disproved special relativity by asking, "which clock time
>>> dilates?" Relativity is not paradoxical. It is self-contradictory
>>> nonsense.
>> What this shows is that neither you, nor Dingle, understand what special
>> relativity actually says, but instead base you opinion on the popular
>> science notion of time dilation, which is a very imprecise description
>> of what the theory says.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Could you give us a proper website with proper worked examples which illustrate what the theory actually says?
> As you know there are accusations flying around at near the speed of light that twin paradox solutions are wrong.

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607100

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 3:50:13 AM UTC-7, Python wrote:
> gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:04:34 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> >> On 17-Mar-23 7:03 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> >>> I agree that the theory of relativity is disproven by showing the 
> >>> flaws in logic because illogical theories do not make predictions. 
> >>> Dingle disproved special relativity by asking, "which clock time 
> >>> dilates?" Relativity is not paradoxical. It is self-contradictory 
> >>> nonsense. 
> >> What this shows is that neither you, nor Dingle, understand what special 
> >> relativity actually says, but instead base you opinion on the popular 
> >> science notion of time dilation, which is a very imprecise description 
> >> of what the theory says. 
> >> 
> >> Sylvia. 
> > 
> > Could you give us a proper website with proper worked examples which illustrate what the theory actually says? 
> > As you know there are accusations flying around at near the speed of light that twin paradox solutions are wrong.
> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

This is bizarre, such an elementary mistake. Dingle either never understood
the theory (not very likely) or just got senile. It's just like those people who
study relativity for 50 years and conclude that "it's contradictory to have
two clocks with one slower than the other". There must be a name for that
sort of mental problem.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607071

gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:04:34 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 17-Mar-23 7:03 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>> I agree that the theory of relativity is disproven by showing the
>>> flaws in logic because illogical theories do not make predictions.
>>> Dingle disproved special relativity by asking, "which clock time
>>> dilates?" Relativity is not paradoxical. It is self-contradictory
>>> nonsense.
>> What this shows is that neither you, nor Dingle, understand what special
>> relativity actually says, but instead base you opinion on the popular
>> science notion of time dilation, which is a very imprecise description
>> of what the theory says.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Could you give us a proper website with proper worked examples which illustrate what the theory actually says?
> As you know there are accusations flying around at near the speed of light that twin paradox solutions are wrong.

https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Dingle/DinglesTrivialFumble.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607072

As far as I  know, Dingles question was, if two clocks A and B are moving apart at velocity v,  does the observer moving with A see B's clock slowing and vice versa? Is time dilation mutual?

What is the answer to this question? 

If it is a question that cannot be asked, then say so, and why it cannot be asked.

If it can be asked, can it be answered?

If it can be answered what is the answer, is time dilation mutual as described in the above case?

Where is the fumble?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607077

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:11:40 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> As far as I know, Dingles question was, if two clocks A and B are moving apart at velocity v, does the observer moving with A see B's clock slowing and vice versa? Is time dilation mutual? 
> 
> What is the answer to this question? 
> 
> If it is a question that cannot be asked, then say so, and why it cannot be asked. 
> 
> If it can be asked, can it be answered? 
> 
> If it can be answered what is the answer, is time dilation mutual as described in the above case? 
> 
> Where is the fumble?
Sylvia's reply was plainly vacuous. Time dilation is, according to special relativity, caused by relative motion. That involves the motion of both clocks, so both are time dilated. That is contradictory and not paradoxical. It is nonsense. Since relative motion per se cannot cause time dilation, Einstein (already in his 1905 article) switched surreptitiously to absolute motion, meaning one clock moves and the other does not. That is why they speak of an astronaut to define one clock as moving.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607101

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:20:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:11:40 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > As far as I know, Dingles question was, if two clocks A and B are moving apart at velocity v, does the observer moving with A see B's clock slowing and vice versa? Is time dilation mutual? 
> > 
> > What is the answer to this question? 
> > 
> > If it is a question that cannot be asked, then say so, and why it cannot be asked. 
> > 
> > If it can be asked, can it be answered? 
> > 
> > If it can be answered what is the answer, is time dilation mutual as described in the above case? 
> > 
> > Where is the fumble?
> 
> Sylvia's reply was plainly vacuous. Time dilation is, according to special relativity, caused by relative motion.

Not caused, correlated. The cause (if any) is unknown and relativity does not talk about it.

> That involves the motion of both clocks, so both are time dilated.

You must define your term "both are time dilated" precisely. You'll
end up running in circles otherwise.

> That is contradictory and not paradoxical. It is nonsense.

No, but it's a subtle issue, that's why it took a formidable intellect to
come up with it in 1905. Many people don't understand it ~120 years later.

> Since relative motion per se cannot cause time dilation, Einstein (already in his 1905 article) switched surreptitiously to absolute motion, meaning one clock moves and the other does not. That is why they speak of an astronaut to define one clock as moving.

No. This is not how it works.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607114

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 10:20:49 AM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:20:42 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:11:40 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > > As far as I know, Dingles question was, if two clocks A and B are moving apart at velocity v, does the observer moving with A see B's clock slowing and vice versa? Is time dilation mutual? 
> > > 
> > > What is the answer to this question? 
> > > 
> > > If it is a question that cannot be asked, then say so, and why it cannot be asked. 
> > > 
> > > If it can be asked, can it be answered? 
> > > 
> > > If it can be answered what is the answer, is time dilation mutual as described in the above case? 
> > > 
> > > Where is the fumble? 
> > 
> > Sylvia's reply was plainly vacuous. Time dilation is, according to special relativity, caused by relative motion.
> Not caused, correlated. The cause (if any) is unknown and relativity does not talk about it.
> > That involves the motion of both clocks, so both are time dilated.
> You must define your term "both are time dilated" precisely. You'll 
> end up running in circles otherwise.
> > That is contradictory and not paradoxical. It is nonsense.
> No, but it's a subtle issue, that's why it took a formidable intellect to 
> come up with it in 1905. Many people don't understand it ~120 years later.
> > Since relative motion per se cannot cause time dilation, Einstein (already in his 1905 article) switched surreptitiously to absolute motion, meaning one clock moves and the other does not. That is why they speak of an astronaut to define one clock as moving.
> No. This is not how it works. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan
As usual, you have nothing to contribute other than mistakes. Einstein said in 1905 that it was specifically relative motion that is the cause of time dilation in special relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607358

On 4/13/23 8:20 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> Time dilation is, according to special relativity, caused by relative
> motion.

Not true. "Time dilation" is not "causation", it is merely a
relationship between certain measurements made in different inertial frames.

     If I say that the tree is on my left, and you say it
     is on your right, there is no causality involved, this
     is just different perspectives. (if you claim that
     our different perspectives "caused" this, then you
     are using a PUN on "cause" -- don't do that!)

IOW: both "time dilation" and my example are simply geometry, not
physical processes. Causality is always physical.

> That involves the motion of both clocks, so both are time dilated.

You CLEARLY do not understand what "time dilation" actually means. Nor
do you understand what "relative motion" means. You need to learn the
basic vocabulary before you can think sensibly about this, much less
write sensibly about it.

> That is contradictory and not paradoxical.

Nope. The contradiction is YOURS, because you do not know what the words
you use mean, nor what SR actually predicts.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607078

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 4:11:40 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> As far as I know, Dingles question was, if two clocks A and B are moving apart at velocity v, does the observer moving with A see B's clock slowing and vice versa? Is time dilation mutual? 
> 
> What is the answer to this question? 
> 
> If it is a question that cannot be asked, then say so, and why it cannot be asked. 
> 
> If it can be asked, can it be answered? 
> 
> If it can be answered what is the answer, is time dilation mutual as described in the above case? 
> 
> Where is the fumble?
Sylvia's reply is like saying real socialism works, it just never has yet after tens of millions of people have been killed trying. Utopia means "nowhere."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607357

On 4/13/23 6:11 AM, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> As far as I  know, Dingles question was, if two clocks A and B are 
> moving apart at velocity v,  does the observer moving with A see B's 
> clock slowing and vice versa? Is time dilation mutual? What is the 
> answer to this question?

The question is ill-posed and cannot be answered as is, because the
writer does not define what they mean by "see". I presume v is constant
and both observers are moving inertially.

If one assumes "see" means literally with an eyeball looking at the
other clock (perhaps through a telescope), then the answer is clearly
that both observers "see" the other clock ticking more slowly than their
own. This is indeed mutual. But this is NOT what "time dilation" means
in relativity; this is Doppler shift. In particular, if the clocks and
observers were instead moving toward each other, the observers would
"see" the other clock ticking faster than their own, because this is
Doppler shift, not "time dilation".

	[Moreover, this Doppler shift is first order in v/c,
	 while "time dilation" is second order.]

To actually discuss "time dilation" requires a more complicated setup:
each observer must construct inertial coordinates in which they are at
rest and which are valid at the location of the other clock [#]. Each
observer must make two measurements of the other clock, noting its time
at each, along with the coordinate time at each. "Time dilation" implies
that the other clock will have experienced fewer ticks between
measurements than the coordinate clocks. This is also mutual.

	[#] Need I point out how very difficult this is?

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609452

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 03:46:46 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:04:34 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
 
> "Dingle was the author of "Modern Astrophysics" (1924) and "Practical
> Applications of Spectrum Analysis" (1950). He also wrote the essay
> "Relativity for All" (1922)[2] and the monograph The Special Theory of
> Relativity (1940). "
> 
> "However, Dingle then came to realize and acknowledge that his
> understanding of the problem had been mistaken. He then began to argue
> that special relativity was empirically wrong in its predictions,
> although experimental evidence showed he was mistaken about this.[10]"
> 
> The problem is this: regardless whether he was right or wrong,  he was
> totally convinced the theory was right,  so much so that he wrote a book
> about it (presumably in support of it).  Then he changed his mind.  What
> exactly happened and could this thing happen to anyone?
> That is the more troubling question: no-one cannot ensure the permanence
> of their beliefs, despite facts and reason.

True scientists do not have beliefs. 







-- 
-- lover of truth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609454

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 10:46:35 UTC+2, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 03:46:46 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:04:34 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote: 
> 
> > "Dingle was the author of "Modern Astrophysics" (1924) and "Practical 
> > Applications of Spectrum Analysis" (1950). He also wrote the essay 
> > "Relativity for All" (1922)[2] and the monograph The Special Theory of 
> > Relativity (1940). " 
> > 
> > "However, Dingle then came to realize and acknowledge that his 
> > understanding of the problem had been mistaken. He then began to argue 
> > that special relativity was empirically wrong in its predictions, 
> > although experimental evidence showed he was mistaken about this.[10]" 
> > 
> > The problem is this: regardless whether he was right or wrong, he was 
> > totally convinced the theory was right, so much so that he wrote a book 
> > about it (presumably in support of it). Then he changed his mind. What 
> > exactly happened and could this thing happen to anyone? 
> > That is the more troubling question: no-one cannot ensure the permanence 
> > of their beliefs, despite facts and reason.
> True scientists do not have beliefs. 

Sure, they are all demigods free of the weaknesses
of ordinary mortal worms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609470

On 5/3/2023 3:46 AM, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 03:46:46 -0700, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 2:04:34 PM UTC+5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>   
>> "Dingle was the author of "Modern Astrophysics" (1924) and "Practical
>> Applications of Spectrum Analysis" (1950). He also wrote the essay
>> "Relativity for All" (1922)[2] and the monograph The Special Theory of
>> Relativity (1940). "
>>
>> "However, Dingle then came to realize and acknowledge that his
>> understanding of the problem had been mistaken. He then began to argue
>> that special relativity was empirically wrong in its predictions,
>> although experimental evidence showed he was mistaken about this.[10]"
>>
>> The problem is this: regardless whether he was right or wrong,  he was
>> totally convinced the theory was right,  so much so that he wrote a book
>> about it (presumably in support of it).  Then he changed his mind.  What
>> exactly happened and could this thing happen to anyone?
>> That is the more troubling question: no-one cannot ensure the permanence
>> of their beliefs, despite facts and reason.
> 
> True scientists do not have beliefs.

I've seen successful compartmentalization.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web