Groups > sci.physics > #577709 > unrolled thread

Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Started by	xxein1@att.net
First post	2016-05-13 12:17 -0700
Last post	2016-05-16 13:20 +0200
Articles	18 on this page of 278 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]

#579205

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-20 20:16 +1000
Message-ID	<dq86feFa5v9U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#579006

On 20/05/2016 5:47 AM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:11:58 AM UTC-7, jay moseley wrote:
>> Sylvia..
>>> What apparent contradictions?
>>
>> Why dont you answer his questions instead of asking more irrelevent
>> questions. Heres one of his...
>>
>>>> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different
>>>> rates?
> Sun having 99% of the mass of the solar system makes it easy to say
> it has the slowest time. Jupiter time could be much slower at the
> equator due to its very fast spin. Its gravitational core makes time
> very slow there.TreBert
>

The spin makes the planet bulge at the equator. I think you'll find that 
being higher up in the gravitational field exactly compensates for the 
effect of the faster motion.

Sylvia.

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

#579152

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-20 13:15 +1000
Message-ID	<dq7dq5F5j61U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#578930

On 19/05/2016 10:11 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia..
>> What apparent contradictions?
>
> Why dont you answer his questions instead of asking more
> irrelevent questions.
> Heres one of his...
>
>>> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?

There are three possible scenarios:

A) The clocks run at the same rate, and relativity is wrong.

B) The clocks seem to run at different rates, as predicted by relativity.

C) The clocks seem to run at different rates, but in a way not predicted 
by relativity, and relativity is wrong.

Of these, A and C cannot be inferred from thought experiments. Actual 
experiments would have to be performed.

Which only leaves B.

Relativity describes the situation in terms of space-time and the twins 
take different routes through space-time.

xxein1 wants to take the predictions of relativity to construct a 
thought experiment, but then wants to deny the existence of space-time, 
and ask how relativity can explain the results without it. Going back to 
the scenario where the twins drive cars, it's analogous to denying the 
existence of different routes through space, and then demanding an 
explanation of the different trip-meter readings.

Essentially, he's seeking to assume that relativity is wrong, and then 
use that assumption to show that it's wrong. The circularity is obvious. 
If he wants to use the non-existence of space-time as part of his 
argument, then he has to demonstrate that non-existence somehow, not 
just assume it.

Sylvia.

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

#579163

From	benj <nobodyxx@gmail>
Date	2016-05-20 00:08 -0400
Message-ID	<573e8dba$0$31383$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#579152

On 05/19/2016 11:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 19/05/2016 10:11 PM, jay moseley wrote:
>> Sylvia..
>>> What apparent contradictions?
>>
>> Why dont you answer his questions instead of asking more
>> irrelevent questions.
>> Heres one of his...
>>
>>>> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?
>
> There are three possible scenarios:
>
> A) The clocks run at the same rate, and relativity is wrong.
>
> B) The clocks seem to run at different rates, as predicted by relativity.
>
> C) The clocks seem to run at different rates, but in a way not predicted
> by relativity, and relativity is wrong.
>
> Of these, A and C cannot be inferred from thought experiments. Actual
> experiments would have to be performed.
>
> Which only leaves B.

Nice argument! Did your client get off?
Too bad it has no connection with reality.

Truth is that thought experiments are possible (Einstein was very much 
into these). Both for A and C. One can imagine various configurations of 
electromagnetic "clocks" And then perform transforms on them to 
represent the different frames between clock and observer

If one does this, on quickly finds that A is not true. But B and C are 
true. Namely that SOME clocks run at rates as predicted by relativity 
and other "clocks" run at different rates but at rates NOT predicted by 
relativity. And the up shot of that is that B cannot be a universal truth!

> Relativity describes the situation in terms of space-time and the twins
> take different routes through space-time.
>
> xxein1 wants to take the predictions of relativity to construct a
> thought experiment, but then wants to deny the existence of space-time,
> and ask how relativity can explain the results without it. Going back to
> the scenario where the twins drive cars, it's analogous to denying the
> existence of different routes through space, and then demanding an
> explanation of the different trip-meter readings.
>
> Essentially, he's seeking to assume that relativity is wrong, and then
> use that assumption to show that it's wrong. The circularity is obvious.
> If he wants to use the non-existence of space-time as part of his
> argument, then he has to demonstrate that non-existence somehow, not
> just assume it.
>
> Sylvia.

Of course time-space does not exist. It's just a mathematical fantasy no 
matter what Hawking says on PBS. It's like trying prove that "climate 
change" is real by saying it's caused by warps in "temperature-space". 
Talk about tail chasing.

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

#579178

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-20 15:33 +1000
Message-ID	<dq7lu4F70bbU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#579163

On 20/05/2016 2:08 PM, benj wrote:
> On 05/19/2016 11:15 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 19/05/2016 10:11 PM, jay moseley wrote:
>>> Sylvia..
>>>> What apparent contradictions?
>>>
>>> Why dont you answer his questions instead of asking more
>>> irrelevent questions.
>>> Heres one of his...
>>>
>>>>> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?
>>
>> There are three possible scenarios:
>>
>> A) The clocks run at the same rate, and relativity is wrong.
>>
>> B) The clocks seem to run at different rates, as predicted by relativity.
>>
>> C) The clocks seem to run at different rates, but in a way not predicted
>> by relativity, and relativity is wrong.
>>
>> Of these, A and C cannot be inferred from thought experiments. Actual
>> experiments would have to be performed.
>>
>> Which only leaves B.
>
> Nice argument! Did your client get off?
> Too bad it has no connection with reality.
>
> Truth is that thought experiments are possible (Einstein was very much
> into these). Both for A and C. One can imagine various configurations of
> electromagnetic "clocks" And then perform transforms on them to
> represent the different frames between clock and observer

For any thought experiment, one needs a theory on which to base the 
expected outcomes of the experiment. Since both A and C involve 
relativity being wrong, it cannot be used as the basis for the thought 
experiments. Some other theory would be needed, and absent some 
experimental justification for it, it would be nothing more than wild 
speculation.

Sylvia.

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

#579200

From	Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be>
Date	2016-05-20 02:41 -0700
Message-ID	<30903d75-0b65-4ee1-9e77-ba43c8b7e022@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579163

Op vrijdag 20 mei 2016 06:08:29 UTC+2 schreef benj:

> >>>> Why did velocity cause their clocks to beat at different rates?
> >
> > There are three possible scenarios:
> >
> > A) The clocks run at the same rate, and relativity is wrong.
> >
> > B) The clocks seem to run at different rates, as predicted by relativity.
> >
> > C) The clocks seem to run at different rates, but in a way not predicted
> > by relativity, and relativity is wrong.
> >
> > Of these, A and C cannot be inferred from thought experiments. Actual
> > experiments would have to be performed.
> >
> > Which only leaves B.
> 
> Truth is that thought experiments are possible (Einstein was very much 
> into these). Both for A and C. One can imagine various configurations of 
> electromagnetic "clocks" And then perform transforms on them to 
> represent the different frames between clock and observer
> 

The problem is that thought experiments are extremely tricky.
(You can not use a thought experiment by using your mind that the
speed of light is always the same: constant) 

What we are discussing is the behaviour of clocks.
The working of a clock is a physical process.
To get an idea read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_timekeeping_devices
specific the section about Chronometer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_timekeeping_devices#Chronometer
The problem comes when clocks are moved, than they loose accuracy
The challenge is to define accurate clocks.

The only way to test that finally is by experiments.

Ofcourse you can have a physical model (or theory) to describe your clock.
The results of the experiments can be used to test your model. 

When the innerworkings of clocks use light than your model (part of it)
is based on (the speed of) light.
The physical cause (when you move such a clock) that the clockrate 
is not constant is a result of the speed of the photons.

This whole issue is also important when you use Newton's Law.

A whole different issue is the concept of time.
Newton's Law assumes that the description of the whole physical process 
can be studied by using only one (fixed) clock.
For SR that is a different story.

Nicolaas Vroom

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

#579189

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-20 00:16 -0700
Message-ID	<0ec63dc8-3a4c-4c11-8d92-a335e9db752a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579152

Sylvia wrote...
> Essentially, he's seeking to assume that relativity is wrong, and then use that 
>assumption to show that it's wrong. The circularity is obvious. If he wants to 
>use the non-existence of space-time as part of his argument, 
>then he has to demonstrate that non-existence somehow, not just assume it.

Ill let xxein discuss that part with you. But your argument seems to
suffer from circularity too. You seem to assume space time is 
a proven and that allows you to rule out any other possibilities.
I think the church did that  centuries ago. 
Anyways you forgot another option. Resonance. Does relativity
deny atoms are resonant systems? Does relativity deny that resonant
systems are observed to change resonant frequency when subject
to a directional force? ? Have relativists even attempted to
to model the effects of resonance on atomic clocks?

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

#579198

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-20 19:08 +1000
Message-ID	<dq82g9F9er8U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#579189

On 20/05/2016 5:16 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia wrote...
>> Essentially, he's seeking to assume that relativity is wrong, and then use that
>> assumption to show that it's wrong. The circularity is obvious. If he wants to
>> use the non-existence of space-time as part of his argument,
>> then he has to demonstrate that non-existence somehow, not just assume it.
>
> Ill let xxein discuss that part with you. But your argument seems to
> suffer from circularity too. You seem to assume space time is
> a proven and that allows you to rule out any other possibilities.

No, I'm not assuming that, but this is about thought experiments. 
Thought experiments relating to relativity have to take space-time as 
read, or they're not thought experiments relating to relativity.

Conclusions from thought experiments set in a different theoretical 
context will not say anything about relativity.

> I think the church did that  centuries ago.
> Anyways you forgot another option. Resonance. Does relativity
> deny atoms are resonant systems? Does relativity deny that resonant
> systems are observed to change resonant frequency when subject
> to a directional force? ? Have relativists even attempted to
> to model the effects of resonance on atomic clocks?
>

Hardly relevant to this discussion.

Sylvia.

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

#579397

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-21 01:49 -0700
Message-ID	<ea6d9b72-9d42-49c5-9fff-3de87c68bc88@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579198

Sylvia wrote
>>Have relativists ever attempted to model the effects of resonance on atomic clocks? 

>Hardly relevant to this discussion.

Hmm... A discussion about scientific explanations of observed 
variations in resonant frequencies of resonants systems like
atomic clocks. Should not take into account any already 
documented effects known to cause variations in resonant 
frequencies of resonant systems like atomic clocks.

Not very scientific Sylvia. 
Good approach for a relativist though. 
Get rid of any verified effects that conflict with predictions made
by your preferred theory.

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

#579490

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-22 13:20 +1000
Message-ID	<dqcmr1F72tfU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#579397

On 21/05/2016 6:49 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia wrote
>>> Have relativists ever attempted to model the effects of resonance on atomic clocks?
>
>> Hardly relevant to this discussion.
>
> Hmm... A discussion about scientific explanations of observed
> variations in resonant frequencies of resonants systems like
> atomic clocks. Should not take into account any already
> documented effects known to cause variations in resonant
> frequencies of resonant systems like atomic clocks.

There are no documented examples of such affects on atomic clocks beyond 
those expected from relativity, which makes the same predictions for all 
clocks. Consequently, there's nothing special about resonance.

Sylvia.

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

#579505

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-22 02:09 -0700
Message-ID	<48d1dd15-0d28-452e-885c-2536307da741@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579490

Sylvia Else
>> > > Hmm... A discussion about scientific explanations of observed 
>> variations in resonant frequencies of resonants systems like 
>> atomic clocks. Should not take into account any already 
>> documented effects known to cause variations in resonant
>> frequencies of resonant systems like atomic clocks.

>There are no documented examples of such affects on atomic clocks beyond those 
>expected from relativity, which makes the same predictions for all clocks. 
>Consequently, there's nothing special about resonance.

There are many documented examples of  'resonant' effects such 
as GPS, Pound Rebka, etc. Truth is, resonance, resonant systems and 
variable resonant frequencies due to external forces have been 
well understood and documented  years before Einstein et al co-opted it

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

#579648

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-05-23 11:18 +1000
Message-ID	<dqf42iFltkkU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#579505

On 22/05/2016 7:09 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Sylvia Else
>>>>> Hmm... A discussion about scientific explanations of observed
>>> variations in resonant frequencies of resonants systems like
>>> atomic clocks. Should not take into account any already
>>> documented effects known to cause variations in resonant
>>> frequencies of resonant systems like atomic clocks.
>
>> There are no documented examples of such affects on atomic clocks beyond those
>> expected from relativity, which makes the same predictions for all clocks.
>> Consequently, there's nothing special about resonance.
>
> There are many documented examples of  'resonant' effects such
> as GPS, Pound Rebka, etc. Truth is, resonance, resonant systems and
> variable resonant frequencies due to external forces have been
> well understood and documented  years before Einstein et al co-opted it
>

Just because resonance has been used to test general relativity doesn't 
mean that the effects observed are caused by the resonance.

I don't think you even understand this stuff.

Sylvia.

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

#579709

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-22 23:48 -0700
Message-ID	<899c5a67-0431-4e51-bf0f-77a85b27743f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#579648

Sylvia
> Just because resonance has been used to test general relativity doesn't mean that the effects observed are caused by the resonance.

So resonance isnt caused by resonance?
Interesting argument.

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

#579812

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-23 11:36 -0500
Message-ID	<nhvbht$cl6$7@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#579709

On 5/23/2016 1:48 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> So resonance isnt caused by resonance?
> Interesting argument.

LOL, Jay you are a hoot. What a marooon.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#578948

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 08:51 -0500
Message-ID	<urCdnXj2juNUWaDKnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578927

On 5/19/16 6:25 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Not what I read into his post. He seems only to be asking
> you to explain an apparent contradiction in YOUR spacetime
> theory.

   Please articulate what you mean by contradiction. What possible
   contradiction are you referring to?

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#578999

From	jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com>
Date	2016-05-19 12:34 -0700
Message-ID	<47b16784-0faa-41c0-8581-0d7b558eb210@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#578948

Sam...
>Please articulate what you mean by contradiction. What possible contradiction are you referring to?

Cant answer his question either? Xxein asked Sylvia for 
an answer.  She couldnt reply so she, like yourself or Odd does 
when faced with difficult questions ,.. changed the subject.

Anyways how about answering my question Ive asked repeatedly.
Where is the reference/ evidence for the same muon
being measured twice in atmospheric tests? Cant answer?
Thats because contrary to your erroneous claims, they never
were measured twice. And your imaginary " measured"
speed proving relativistic effects is exposed 
as a sham, as usual. My advice for you Sam is, change
the subject. That way you dont have to admit that relativity
is a massive failure.

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

#578141

From	"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 11:06 -0700
Message-ID	<ae7c35da-44a0-40fa-9de0-cd5d8396c27e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#577709

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 12:17:39 PM UTC-7, xxe...@att.net wrote:
> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and LC?  We all know the math, so skip that.  What is it about velocity that becomes a cause?  What about gravity as a cause?  How are they a cause?  Stick to principles of cause and effect or start your own thread for all else.
> 
>  Btw.  Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question of how it affects.

Gravity controls the flow of time.Gravity creates inertia,and acceleration thus effects time. By stopping motion in the quantum realm so time is stopped.BH is in effect 100% gravity and at its strongest level. At 186,282 MPS time is also stopped.When the universe expansion gets to c its will have no spacetime.It will have become a black hole and nothing will get out.It will thus relate to nothing.Or maybe its gravity will reach out to its twin universe and their mutual gravity will nnkeep them in orbit and their orbit will keep getting smaller till they merge into the final black hole,and it is in reality the white hole the ultimate beginning of spacetime. Treb helped me with this far out thinking.  TreBert

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

#578147

From	Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date	2016-05-15 13:21 -0500
Message-ID	<teidnZm0AqKDI6XKnZ2dnUU7-b8AAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to	#578141

On 5/15/16 1:06 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Gravity controls the flow of time

   For some observers. Time is not absolute.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#578273

From	c r <info.ronse@skynet.be>
Date	2016-05-16 13:20 +0200
Message-ID	<nhca6f$1vd$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#577709

On 05/13/16 21:17, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> Can we have a discussion about the root physical cause of TD and LC? We all know the math, so skip that. What is it about velocity that becomes a cause? What about gravity as a cause? How are they a cause? Stick to principles of cause and effect or start your own thread for all else.
>
> Btw. Just because 'we measure' doesn't answer the question of how it affects.
>

You ask about an interpretation or understanding, no mathematics?

Mine is a sain and simple high school level thinking: haven't
we all learned then that breaching of light rays has everything to do
with the refractive index, which itself depends upon the speed of light?
Light speed is not constant. Heavy bodies (eg the sun) slow it down.
Very similar to sound waves: sound speed depends upon the
elasticity/specific mass ratio. Hooke's law is not strictly linear,
but elasticity decreases as the load increases ... even up to a point
where a test slab breaks down. So sound speed will depend upon
the load (which can be the sound wave itself).
Extremely loud sound will travel slower because of the lower
elasticity at the high load imposed by the sound.
Why should electromagnetism be different?
Gravity is nothing else but the slowing down of light speed on high
load = mass. We all know that mass equals energy. It is nothing else
than standing wave light. Or eigenfunctions if you like the language
of QM. And light/masswaves is bent towards higher refractive
indices = gravity.

To continue, in this view aether does exist.
Light is an aether wave. Matter is aether wave.
Everything is.
And for sure, there must be non-linear effects.
In a linear world, if you want to calculate the behaviour of
two waves wave A + B, then you might just as well calculate the
behaviour of wave A without the presence of wave B. Then calculate
the behaviour of wave B with A present and add up both results.
In other words, wave A does not feel the presence of B.
Wave A cannot maesure B. Unless something is not linear.
So one should not be surprised that in QM the probality is the square
of the magnitude wave function. A wave can only be measured/seen by the
presence of it's "foam head" if you would like to make the comparison
to sea waves.

And aether wind might be real. But MMX does not measure it.
MMX uses a split light beam that travels in two perpendicular directions
and is made to interfere when it returns = standing wave.
Why should this standing light wave behave any different than the
mass/matter standing wave of the supporting arms some cm away?
It does not. As experiment clearly shows.

What is more: the above is not in conflict with mainstream physics.
It only seems so. It is merely an interpretation and does not add
much either. But for yet another view angle and way of thinking...

Charles

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]

csiph-web

Does anyone really know the physical cause for time dilation and length contraction?

Contents

#579205

#579152

#579163

#579178

#579200

#579189

#579198

#579397

#579490

#579505

#579648

#579709

#579812

#578948

#578999

#578141

#578147

#578273