Jump to content

Einstein -does he stopped the clock


spunnery
 Share

Recommended Posts

Time Dilation

As far as I am concerned I believe laws as simple as of Sir Isaac Newton’s should govern the universe. So is there anything wrong in reviewing the immediate output of special relativity’- time dilation’, which requires a complex mathematics to establish a fourth dimension.

So let us begin with the popular moving clocks. Let us consider first about a standing(not moving)clock, which use light rays to measure the time. The rays will start from a source and in a time ‘t’ it hits a mirror just opposite and then in another ‘t’seconds it hits back the source. Let the mirrors are placed at a distance ‘h’ apart. Let the light travel at a constant speed of 299793 km/sec. Here the distance traveled by light between two mirrors is ‘h’ meter.

Now consider the clock is moving at a small velocity. Between mirrors, the light has to travel the hypotenuse of the triangle with velocity of clock multiplied by time taken for light to travel a distance ‘h’ (distance clock moved in that time ‘t’) as base and ‘h’ as altitude. Since the velocity of clock is negligible compared to that of light, the base of triangle will be negligible. In other words, we can say the time taken by the light to travel ‘h’ meters is a very very small fraction. This small fraction if multiplied with the small velocity of clock will give a small fraction, which can be considered as negligible. This indirectly means that altitude and hypotenuse are same which is equal to ‘h’, and the clock will show same time.

 

What if clock is moving @ a speed nearer to that of light. The small fraction of time mentioned above, multiplied with the high velocity of clock will give a considerable amount, which means the base of triangle becomes bigger. Hence the hypotenuse also will be considerably bigger than the altitude ‘h’. So in the given time ‘t’, with its constant velocity, the light ray will not reach the opposite mirror. This doesn’t mean that the clock is running slower, but it has to be calibrated to tick at correct time. i.e. The ‘h’ of faster moving clocks(velocity nearer to that of light) has to be set to ‘h1’,which in turn will give a hypotenuse distance ‘h’, and will give right time compared to that of a standing clock.

Any confusion? Draw a sketch and see!

If time dilation is flawed, is there anything to backup the so-called space warps and geodesic deviations? Do you think we have to discuss anything about special relativity?

Now with all the respect given to a genius of the century (in imagination-not in mathematics), Shall I call him ‘the man who stopped the clock of science for a century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time Dilation

As far as I am concerned I believe laws as simple as of Sir Isaac Newton’s should govern the universe. So is there anything wrong in reviewing the immediate output of special relativity’- time dilation’, which requires a complex mathematics to establish a fourth dimension.

So let us begin with the popular moving clocks. Let us consider first about a standing(not moving)clock, which use light rays to measure the time. The rays will start from a source and in a time ‘t’ it hits a mirror just opposite and then in another ‘t’seconds it hits back the source. Let the mirrors are placed at a distance ‘h’ apart. Let the light travel at a constant speed of 299793 km/sec. Here the distance traveled by light between two mirrors is ‘h’ meter.

Now consider the clock is moving at a small velocity. Between mirrors, the light has to travel the hypotenuse of the triangle with velocity of clock multiplied by time taken for light to travel a distance ‘h’ (distance clock moved in that time ‘t’) as base and ‘h’ as altitude. Since the velocity of clock is negligible compared to that of light, the base of triangle will be negligible. In other words, we can say the time taken by the light to travel ‘h’ meters is a very very small fraction. This small fraction if multiplied with the small velocity of clock will give a small fraction, which can be considered as negligible. This indirectly means that altitude and hypotenuse are same which is equal to ‘h’, and the clock will show same time.

 

What if clock is moving @ a speed nearer to that of light. The small fraction of time mentioned above, multiplied with the high velocity of clock will give a considerable amount, which means the base of triangle becomes bigger. Hence the hypotenuse also will be considerably bigger than the altitude ‘h’. So in the given time ‘t’, with its constant velocity, the light ray will not reach the opposite mirror. This doesn’t mean that the clock is running slower, but it has to be calibrated to tick at correct time. i.e. The ‘h’ of faster moving clocks(velocity nearer to that of light) has to be set to ‘h1’,which in turn will give a hypotenuse distance ‘h’, and will give right time compared to that of a standing clock.

Any confusion? Draw a sketch and see!

If time dilation is flawed, is there anything to backup the so-called space warps and geodesic deviations? Do you think we have to discuss anything about special relativity?

Now with all the respect given to a genius of the century (in imagination-not in mathematics), Shall I call him ‘the man who stopped the clock of science for a century.

 

People expect Einstein basically to have unlocked the truth of nature/reality. I think that’s a bit unfair and I think Einstein himself would attest to this.

 

No, humanity in general, this includes physics, does not know everything yet. I mean if we did I doubt for humanity to be as it is now, or even for physics to be a college option. The reality is we cant do a great many experiments that we need to do, or really have no found a way to do them yet. Imagine what it would be like possibly to conduct a bose-einsteain condensate experiment on a body the size of the earth, what would happen? Do you think it might reveal something that could go into the various areas of understanding we currently hold?

 

To the point, we really cant get right up next to all the various subatomic particles in the known universe and chart there existence or what they do, we can do this only to a certain extent. To me though a big fallacy is to simply sit on a blackboard and attempt to explain the universe that way, or natural laws or what composes physics. Experimentation has to be done with reality, and it has to be done in a way that can reveal data that we can record, we cant do this for everything currently, and I doubt we have even mapped everything that can be studied physically. I mean we say at some point subatomic particle decay no longer occurs, really now, and how can we know that for sure when we really cant even study directly at that level the way we can study a sentence of words. Math can do a lot of things, but math is not reality so to speak.

 

Another point, going from conservation laws, what does that say about gravity? I mean does gravity always run constantly, where does all that energy come from? Is gravity energy, well if it is where does it come from, I mean to play my cd player I have to have an energy source right, and energy cant be created or destroyed but only change forms right?

 

Einstein like everyone else previously to him was able to take our understanding at the time in a different direction and unlock truths about the reality around us, he of course did not fully master the universe in terms of fact, and is even quoted as saying science is our most important tool, and its also at a primitive level.

 

I am sure the reality of it is we know close to nothing about a whole lot, and its not going to all be discovered tomorrow.

 

Take biological evolution for example. The myriad of ways to study it, what implications it holds for a whole lot of issues in life. Now people know scientifically, objectively, factually that evolution has taken place, and still is taking place, but the reality of it is not everything is known about evolution. Yet we still have people arguing with Darwin:confused: who like Einstein is dead.

 

I mean to me we have reality or nature. Yet we have all this separation when it comes to studying it, I hate this personally, I think it sets us behind a great deal as I am sure physics could learn a lot from biology and vice versa in regards to simply understanding reality scientifically.

 

Einstein broke the mold in many different ways and aided humanity in a better direction, it was not easy for him and again I don’t really think what Einstein did is going to be the end all for questions and answers. Its the same with Darwin, out of how many people we have two people that have held such a profound effect on the world simply through science and of course truth about reality, but the simple reality is they did not explain everything because they did not know everything. I mean we lump CMB radiation with the big bang, yet we have not left the earth and look at things with various telescopes or have recently still found subatomic particles. Hey, what’s wrong with saying movement is time travel LoL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time Dilation

As far as I am concerned I believe laws as simple as of Sir Isaac Newton’s should govern the universe.

 

Nature is under no mandate to behave as you want it to.

 

 

What if clock is moving @ a speed nearer to that of light. The small fraction of time mentioned above, multiplied with the high velocity of clock will give a considerable amount, which means the base of triangle becomes bigger. Hence the hypotenuse also will be considerably bigger than the altitude ‘h’. So in the given time ‘t’, with its constant velocity, the light ray will not reach the opposite mirror. This doesn’t mean that the clock is running slower, but it has to be calibrated to tick at correct time. i.e. The ‘h’ of faster moving clocks(velocity nearer to that of light) has to be set to ‘h1’,which in turn will give a hypotenuse distance ‘h’, and will give right time compared to that of a standing clock.

 

But in the frame of the clock, the distance is unchanged, i.e. the length of time measured by the clock is dependent on your frame of reference. (And it doesn't matter what kind of clock it is). So there is no calibration you can do to make multiple observers (in different frames) agree on what the clock is reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nature is under no mandate to behave as you want it to.

boss it is only a humble beleief

 

 

 

 

But in the frame of the clock, the distance is unchanged, i.e. the length of time measured by the clock is dependent on your frame of reference. (And it doesn't matter what kind of clock it is). So there is no calibration you can do to make multiple observers (in different frames) agree on what the clock is reading.

 

dont confuse things.every units of measurement in earth have been callibrated with our existing inertial frame based with the movement of earth. but this frame changes if u are moving with respect to earth. So if u r in a movinfg frame either u have to caliberate measurement or add additional terms to the formulas which are meant to measure the unit at an inertial frame with no movement with respect to earth.

 

For example ;

A car is moving at a velocity "v". "A" and "B" are sitting on both side of the car and passing a ball .An observer "C" is watching the whole sequence from outside the car. A and B in their frame will observe that ball is travelling the width of car ,each time they pass the ball.But C in his inertial frame is seeing the ball is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle,drawn with velocity of car as altittude and width of car as base.

But what is actual path of ball?

it is neither what A&B or C have observed. it is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle drawn with velocity of earth as altitude & width of car as base, for an observer D who is isolated from earth.Is it the actual path?

No. Again an observer outside solar system will observe, the ball is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle with velocity of sun as altitude and width of car as base.

What about an observer outside milkyway and so on ?

Nobody knows the actual path or velocity of the ball.

So we are setting a standard with respect to the inertial frame of earth.

if u want to measure it from any other frame, U have to add ,minus or caliberate ur instruments as required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dont confuse things.every units of measurement in earth have been callibrated with our existing inertial frame based with the movement of earth. but this frame changes if u are moving with respect to earth. So if u r in a movinfg frame either u have to caliberate measurement or add additional terms to the formulas which are meant to measure the unit at an inertial frame with no movement with respect to earth.

 

Please, if you expect people to respond, have the courtesy to not use text-message shorthand.

 

————

 

I'm afraid that experience demonstrates that this is an inherently confusing topic.

 

The earth is not an inertial frame of reference. There are conditions under which this has a material effect on results, meaning you have to pay attention to these effects and how big they are.

 

You can choose a frame and calibrate to that frame, but this is by convenience. There is nothing in the physics that makes one frame preferred over another.

 

 

For example ;

A car is moving at a velocity "v". "A" and "B" are sitting on both side of the car and passing a ball .An observer "C" is watching the whole sequence from outside the car. A and B in their frame will observe that ball is travelling the width of car ,each time they pass the ball.But C in his inertial frame is seeing the ball is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle,drawn with velocity of car as altittude and width of car as base.

But what is actual path of ball?

it is neither what A&B or C have observed. it is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle drawn with velocity of earth as altitude & width of car as base, for an observer D who is isolated from earth.Is it the actual path?

No. Again an observer outside solar system will observe, the ball is travelling through the hypotenuse of a triangle with velocity of sun as altitude and width of car as base.

What about an observer outside milkyway and so on ?

Nobody knows the actual path or velocity of the ball.

So we are setting a standard with respect to the inertial frame of earth.

if u want to measure it from any other frame, U have to add ,minus or caliberate ur instruments as required.

 

 

Again, you have chosen a frame. The physics will still work in any other frame. There is no test that will prove that any one inertial frame is actually at rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, if you expect people to respond, have the courtesy to not use text-message shorthand.

 

————

 

I'm afraid that experience demonstrates that this is an inherently confusing topic.

 

The earth is not an inertial frame of reference. There are conditions under which this has a material effect on results, meaning you have to pay attention to these effects and how big they are.

 

You can choose a frame and calibrate to that frame, but this is by convenience. There is nothing in the physics that makes one frame preferred over another.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, you have chosen a frame. The physics will still work in any other frame. There is no test that will prove that any one inertial frame is actually at rest.

I appologise for using shorthand text message.

 

Agree this is a confusing topic.

Now let us come back to the discussion.like what i said in the earlier example,Nobody knows the path of ball,but every body is coming to a conclusion with respect to their own inertial frame.

Put this in the case of the famous "twin paradox'.(i hope it is not necessary to explain the full story)The twin who travelled around is making a conclusion of what he observed from his inertial frame.So when he was somewhere in the solar system ,away from earth,he concludes that the velocity of the ball (in previous example)as "V1" which will be more than the velocity 'V2",which was calculated by his brother at earth(both actually are viewing one and same incident and coming to a conclusion from their perspective).Similarly the travelling twin come to a conclusion that his clock is correct,but moving slow compared to that of the earth.When he come back after his long journey and meet his twin back at earth,he is back in the earths inertial frame.Now everything will be same (his age will be same of that of his twin brother),exept his clock is showing a time in past.But the real time elapsed while he was travelling is one and same (but measured and recorded with different perspectives)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appologise for using shorthand text message.

 

Agree this is a confusing topic.

Now let us come back to the discussion.like what i said in the earlier example,Nobody knows the path of ball,but every body is coming to a conclusion with respect to their own inertial frame.

Put this in the case of the famous "twin paradox'.(i hope it is not necessary to explain the full story)The twin who travelled around is making a conclusion of what he observed from his inertial frame.So when he was somewhere in the solar system ,away from earth,he concludes that the velocity of the ball (in previous example)as "V1" which will be more than the velocity 'V2",which was calculated by his brother at earth(both actually are viewing one and same incident and coming to a conclusion from their perspective).Similarly the travelling twin come to a conclusion that his clock is correct,but moving slow compared to that of the earth.When he come back after his long journey and meet his twin back at earth,he is back in the earths inertial frame.Now everything will be same (his age will be same of that of his twin brother),exept his clock is showing a time in past.But the real time elapsed while he was travelling is one and same (but measured and recorded with different perspectives)

 

 

No, the twins won't be the same age, The twin that underwent an acceleration changed from one inertial frame to the other. That breaks the symmetry. Since acceleration is not relative you can tell, between the two, whose clock is correct.

 

This is explained in some detail at many places on the 'net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the twins won't be the same age, The twin that underwent an acceleration changed from one inertial frame to the other. That breaks the symmetry. Since acceleration is not relative you can tell, between the two, whose clock is correct.

 

This is explained in some detail at many places on the 'net.

Sorry i was late on the subject.Here i am twisting little and i would like to ask you to explain some mathematics about the travelling train.

 

The same old experiment(tired?).Consider a train moving with a uniform velocity 'V' and you are standing inside the train.Now you are dropping a ball of mass 'm' from a height 'h'.You will see the ball dropping vertically down to the floor of train .

The same result will happen if you do it on the platform also.

I would like to hear from you ,why this is happening so?I am looking for some mathematical explanation rather than the terms Inertia ,parabolic path etc,etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gravity, however the person standing on the platform wil see the ball on the train falling slower.

 

also the basic results of special relativity are very simple mathematically and only involve some basi algebra. the laws are also very simple, for instance momentum in special relativity is given by (gamma)mv which is a very simple law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gravity, however the person standing on the platform wil see the ball on the train falling slower.

 

.

Gravity of course!.The person standing on the platform will see th ball on the train falling slower? Never .He will see a different path for the ball ,instead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no he will actually see the ball fall slower, and this has been experimentally verified.

 

if you look at the velocity transformation laws of special relativiy you will see that the velocity in the y direction will change and become slower, this is a direct consequence of the speed of light being constant (which from your posts I assume you still think is correct, correct?)

 

just imagine a laser that fires a pulse out into space in the y direction of some coordinate plane with the laser at the origin, a rocket travels along the x direction towards the laser at .9c.

 

in the rockets frame how fast does the light move in the y direction as measured by some observer in the rocket ship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.