The Final Straw

[Motor Daddy]

The standards are defined under specific conditions. People who realize the timing standards have to account for their altitude when comparing signals, for example, because of the gravitational time dilation effects.

 

If your watch runs faster or slower somewhere else in the universe, or under different conditions, how do you tell who is right?

 

A duration is a duration. You can't say that just because we both walk to the mailbox that the duration of the event is the same.

 

Fine, I understand you also do mailbox runs, but what is the duration of your event compared to mine? Mine is 1 MR, so if your event duration is greater or less than 1 MR, than say so, but don't call it 1 MR of duration, because it isn't.

[swansont]

A duration is a duration. You can't say that just because we both walk to the mailbox that the duration of the event is the same.

 

Fine, I understand you also do mailbox runs, but what is the duration of your event compared to mine? Mine is 1 MR, so if your event duration is greater or less than 1 MR, than say so, but don't call it 1 MR of duration, because it isn't.

 

I said a faithfully-realized standard. When we compare them in the same frame, they match exactly.

[Motor Daddy]

We do have a good standard of time. Light also travels at the same speed in all reference frames, so it doesn't really matter if time dilation is occurring.

 

And again, you are referring to the standard second when you say "speed", correct? Or what is the duration of your d/T

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, I am.

[Motor Daddy]

Yes, I am.

 

Do you ASSUME a STANDARD SECOND?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What do you mean by "assume"?

[Motor Daddy]

What do you mean by "assume"?

 

I mean, does your duration of a second change depending on where in the universe you are?

[iNow]

Do you ASSUME a STANDARD SECOND?

 

And why use the term "standard?" You are ignoring the idea of frame relevance.

 

 

 

I mean, does your duration of a second change depending on where in the universe you are?

 

Since a time interval is a relative term, yes. However, to you, it will seem the same.

Edited June 25, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Motor Daddy]

And why use the term "standard?" You are ignoring the idea of frame relevance..

 

The speed of light depends on a STANDARD second, correct? Change the duration of a second and the speed must also change, correct?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yeah. But I never changed the duration of a second.

[Motor Daddy]

Yeah. But I never changed the duration of a second.

 

So regardless of where you are in the universe, your speed of light is dependent on the STANDARD second?

[Mr Skeptic]

Motor Daddy, here is one of the fundamental principles of relativity. If you are in a room without windows, you cannot tell how fast the room is moving. There is no experiment you could do within that room to tell how fast you are going. If you look outside, you can tell how fast you are going compared to something else. Because the speed of light is derived from Maxwell's Equations as a constant, you will measure it to be constant. Since someone moving at a different velocity to you will also measure it as constant, that means that you both have different units of length and time.

 

In any case, it turns out that time for you truly runs slower if you are moving faster. It doesn't matter if you measure it with a watch, atomic clock, the length of time it takes a dead cat to decay, or any other way you might measure time.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So regardless of where you are in the universe, your speed of light is dependent on the STANDARD second?

 

When I measure the speed of light (presumably by timing how long it takes to travel a certain distance), my measurement does depend on the standard second my atomic clock gives me.

[Motor Daddy]

When I measure the speed of light (presumably by timing how long it takes to travel a certain distance), my measurement does depend on the standard second my atomic clock gives me.

 

I didn't mention a clock, I am talking about the standard DURATION of a second.

 

Does the standard duration change?

[Klaynos]

No because the definition of the second relies on it being defined in the rest frame in which the measurement is taken.

[Motor Daddy]

No because the definition of the second relies on it being defined in the rest frame in which the measurement is taken.

 

I rest my case.

[Klaynos]

A quick example, without the maths, but with the conclusions.

 

My friend and I both have a meter stick.

We also each have a space ship.

We park our spaceships next to each other and compare out sticks they're the same length.

 

I now fly my space ship at 0.9c compared to him. I

measure his meter stick, I notice that it is shorter than mine, any experiment I can possibly do will ALWAYS show his stick as shorter.

My friend also measure my meter stick, and he measures that mine is shorter than his, the same applies.

 

We are both correct.

 

I rest my case.

 

I think it'd be dismissed...

[nstansbury]

Really? So if I drive 10 miles in 10 minutes when the transmission is in "D" (drive), and then I put it in "R" (reverse) and go back to where I came from when I first started traveling in "D", I actually traveled zero miles, and the "time" is the same as when I first started traveling the 10 miles in "D?"

 

Absolutely, and your velocity (not speed) is 0m/s

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Your average velocity, to be specific.

[nstansbury]

A duration is a duration. You can't say that just because we both walk to the mailbox that the duration of the event is the same.

 

Fine, I understand you also do mailbox runs, but what is the duration of your event compared to mine? Mine is 1 MR, so if your event duration is greater or less than 1 MR, than say so, but don't call it 1 MR of duration, because it isn't.

 

And if: [math]v=\frac{d}{t}[/math] then: [math]v=\frac{T^L}{M^R}[/math]

 

The equation is the same, the units involved are only applicable when you add dimensions to them.

 

So:

 

The table is 2 paces

There are 10 paces to the mailbox

and you take 3 breathes per pace

 

Your speed - measured in tables per mailbox is:

 

[math]\frac{1 Table}{2 Paces}[/math] [math]\frac{10 Paces}{1 Mailbox}[/math] Thus your speed is: [math]\frac{ 1 x 10}{2 x 1} = 5 T^L /M^R[/math] or 5 tables/mailbox

 

 

Your speed to the mailbox in breathes per table is:

 

[math]\frac{2 Paces}{1 Table}[/math] [math]\frac{3 Breathes}{1 Pace}[/math] thus: [math]\frac{ 2 x 3}{1 x 1}= 6 B^r/T^L[/math]

 

 

..and we already know your table can shrink because of the Lorenz Contraction, so lets say the table is now only 1.5 paces, therefore:

 

[math]\frac{1.5 Paces}{1 Table}[/math] [math]\frac{3 Breathes}{1 Pace}[/math] thus: [math]\frac{ 1.5 x 3}{1 x 1}= 4.5 B^r/T^L[/math]

 

Time has still slowed down and no seconds were involved.

Edited June 26, 2008 by nstansbury

[swansont]

The speed of light depends on a STANDARD second, correct? Change the duration of a second and the speed must also change, correct?

 

Length also changes, and these effects cancel. The change is the duration of the second in different frames, as measured by a person in the other frame, is experimentally verified. If it wasn't true, GPS wouldn't work.

[Motor Daddy]

And if: [math]v=\frac{d}{t}[/math] then: [math]v=\frac{T^L}{M^R}[/math]

 

The equation is the same, the units involved are only applicable when you add dimensions to them.

 

So:

 

The table is 2 paces

There are 10 paces to the mailbox

and you take 3 breathes per pace

 

Your speed - measured in tables per mailbox is:

 

[math]\frac{1 Table}{2 Paces}[/math] [math]\frac{10 Paces}{1 Mailbox}[/math] Thus your speed is: [math]\frac{ 1 x 10}{2 x 1} = 5 T^L /M^R[/math] or 5 tables/mailbox

 

 

Your speed to the mailbox in breathes per table is:

 

[math]\frac{2 Paces}{1 Table}[/math] [math]\frac{3 Breathes}{1 Pace}[/math] thus: [math]\frac{ 2 x 3}{1 x 1}= 6 B^r/T^L[/math]

 

 

..and we already know your table can shrink because of the Lorenz Contraction, so lets say the table is now only 1.5 paces, therefore:

 

[math]\frac{1.5 Paces}{1 Table}[/math] [math]\frac{3 Breathes}{1 Pace}[/math] thus: [math]\frac{ 1.5 x 3}{1 x 1}= 4.5 B^r/T^L[/math]

 

Time has still slowed down and no seconds were involved.

 

What is the duration of the event?

 

What is the duration of 3 breathes?

 

Do you breath 3 breathes in the same duration as I do?

 

What is the distance of a pace?

 

Is my pace distance and your pace distance the same?

 

That was the whole point of me making a new unit of measure for each, you have NO IDEA of the DISTANCE of my table, or the DURATION of the mailbox run.

 

Length also changes, and these effects cancel. The change is the duration of the second in different frames, as measured by a person in the other frame, is experimentally verified. If it wasn't true, GPS wouldn't work.

 

So I actually shrink because you go fast? How do you know, you are blind.

 

If you change the duration you just changed the speed of light.

 

Absolutely, and your velocity (not speed) is 0m/s

 

Really?

 

So what is my velocity now, and now, and now, and now, and now?

 

About those lottery numbers for next weeks drawing...call me.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Motor Daddy
multiple post merged

[doG]

No, I am having extreme difficulty with SR, as it goes against everything I know to be true,....

 

It looks like you are determined not to learn anything about it either since you are more determined to point out things as wrong because you don't understand them instead of listening to why they seem to go against the things you think you know.

[Motor Daddy]

It looks like you are determined not to learn anything about it either since you are more determined to point out things as wrong because you don't understand them instead of listening to why they seem to go against the things you think you know.

 

Could we stick to the task at hand?

 

If everyone learned the same things, repeated the same way, where did all this information come from, when nobody ever learned anything new??

 

I once looked and thought about this stuff and broke it down in such a small way that all I envisioned was distance and ideas, like a party of a lot of people talking in different groups, but with no mass, just energy. The groups built popularity and the groups remained as long as they remained popular. Different groups continuously kept forming, and changing with time. The popular ones gained power.

 

Idea's were like small groups of energy that grew in population. The universe is nothing more than distance and idea's that continue to move along with time.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Motor Daddy

[Klaynos]

A quick example, without the maths, but with the conclusions.

 

My friend and I both have a meter stick.

We also each have a space ship.

We park our spaceships next to each other and compare out sticks they're the same length.

 

I now fly my space ship at 0.9c compared to him. I

measure his meter stick, I notice that it is shorter than mine, any experiment I can possibly do will ALWAYS show his stick as shorter.

My friend also measure my meter stick, and he measures that mine is shorter than his, the same applies.

 

We are both correct.

 

You've ignored me... I don't like that, it makes me feel even more you don't want to learn anything...

 

I once looked and thought about this stuff and broke it down in such a small way that all I envisioned was distance and ideas, like a party of a lot of people talking in different groups, but with no mass, just energy. The groups built popularity and the groups remained as long as they remained popular. Different groups continuously kept forming, and changing with time. The popular ones gained power.

 

Idea's were like small groups of energy that grew in population. The universe is nothing more than distance and idea's that continue to move along with time.

 

But the thing is you don't seem to get the basics about classical relativity.