How many times does the train pass?

[swansont]

We were talking about frames in uniform relative motion.

 

 

Can't have a round trip under those conditions.

[androstan]

The result of that experiment is the same. However, f=ma no longer holds, so you'll have to redefine what you're measuring (since that is the definition of force).

 

Justification?

 

Can't have a round trip under those conditions.

 

 

Well, the person can't. But we can just as well switch things around and talk about photon round trips. We could also talk about portions of a one-way trip for the person.

Edited October 1, 2010 by androstan

[Sisyphus]

Justification?

 

Acceleration is distance per time per time. You change time, you change acceleration.

 

e.g.: Say that under relativistic time compression, the observer on the train experiences 1/10th the amount of time as the observer on the platform. A spring on the train, stretched and released, will oscillate 1/10th as many times per trip as a spring stretched with the same force and released on the platform.

 

In androstanian physics, however, we have declared that both observers actually experience the same amount of time, and it just all "clocks" that are distorted. Hence the spring on the train, stretched to the same amount, undergoes 1/10th the acceleration. So you either have to say that f=ma is not true, or say that fundamental forces change in magnitude.

[androstan]

Acceleration is distance per time per time. You change time, you change acceleration.

 

e.g.: Say that under relativistic time compression, the observer on the train experiences 1/10th the amount of time as the observer on the platform. A spring on the train, stretched and released, will oscillate 1/10th as many times per trip as a spring stretched with the same force and released on the platform.

 

In androstanian physics, however, we have declared that both observers actually experience the same amount of time, and it just all "clocks" that are distorted. Hence the spring on the train, stretched to the same amount, undergoes 1/10th the acceleration. So you either have to say that f=ma is not true, or say that fundamental forces change in magnitude.

 

Away from earth the spring displacement is measured when the train is accelerating to get the acceleration-dependent component of force.

 

Back on earth the spring-displacement is measured outside the train to get the vertical component of force.

 

Now, on the moving train, the string and spring hang at an angle. The measured resultant spring-displacement squared equals the sum of the squares of the two measured components, assuming Euclidean axioms. If the train accelerates more or less, the angle changes and the vertical component decreases or increases respectively to compensate. The resultant force (spring displacement) is always the same.

 

But you're not asking about such a "static" situation (before I thought you were), but rather about a dynamic situation. A situation wherein the spring oscillates. Your claim is that one person will leave the station, go to the wall (or around the world), and upon arrival he will tell his stationary friend that his spring oscillated fewer times. The stationary friend will agree and say his spring oscillated more times than the moving person. Is this an experiment you did or are you referencing someone else's experimental results?

 

Edited October 1, 2010 by androstan

[Sisyphus]

Is this an experiment you did or are you referencing someone else's experimental results?

 

 

The latter, of course. You disagree that relativity is experimentally well-supported?

[swansont]

 

Well, the person can't. But we can just as well switch things around and talk about photon round trips. We could also talk about portions of a one-way trip for the person.

 

Photon round trips are the same as clocks. And one-way trips or trip segments require communication, and synchronization, and all of the relativistic effects come into play.

[androstan]

The latter, of course. You disagree that relativity is experimentally well-supported?

 

We're talking about taking a spring on a relativistic journey and counting oscillations. I have not heard of anyone performing this experiment.

 

Photon round trips are the same as clocks. And one-way trips or trip segments require communication, and synchronization, and all of the relativistic effects come into play.

 

When the photon hits the wall and comes back it is reflected downward on a photosensitive plate. The distance between the plate and the reflector is tiny wrt the distance to the wall. Or the person could just count each photon reception. Moving a certain distance at a certain speed only a specific number of photons could go there and back. This is a different kind of clock than i.e. a Cs clock (or an Al/Mg clock).

Edited October 4, 2010 by androstan

[Sisyphus]

Obviously not that particular experiment, no, but it's a straightforward consequence of special relativity, which has a great deal of experimental support.

 

At first, it seemed like you weren't disagreeing with the physical reality of the situation, just saying that another description was equally valid. Was I mistaken, and are you in fact claiming that SR is wrong?

[swansont]

 

When the photon hits the wall and comes back it is reflected downward on a photosensitive plate. The distance between the plate and the reflector is tiny wrt the distance to the wall. Or the person could just count each photon reception. Moving a certain distance at a certain speed only a specific number of photons could go there and back. This is a different kind of clock than i.e. a Cs clock (or an Al/Mg clock).

 

You still have the problem of a stationary clock and moving clock not counting photons at the same rate. Whose device is correct?

[androstan]

Obviously not that particular experiment, no, but it's a straightforward consequence of special relativity, which has a great deal of experimental support.

 

At first, it seemed like you weren't disagreeing with the physical reality of the situation, just saying that another description was equally valid. Was I mistaken, and are you in fact claiming that SR is wrong?

 

You can't cite the results of an experiment that has never been done, that's all I'm saying.

 

You still have the problem of a stationary clock and moving clock not counting photons at the same rate. Whose device is correct?

 

I don't think the term "correct" really applies here. Nobody is challenging the empirical result that one Cs atom oscillated fewer times than the other. Objectively that's what happened. If one piece of steel rusted more than another and you heard someone asking which hunk of metal was "correct" you'd wonder what they were talking about. Similarly, I don't really know what it means for one Cs atom to be "correct". I think what's more important is to explain why one hunk of metal rusted more, and why one Cs atom oscillated less.

 

I ventured an explanation for why this phenomenon occurs earlier. Additionally, I am proposing an alternative method of measuring time wherein "time dilation" doesn't occur.