Edtharan Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 A wise Jedi once said: "You must unlearn what you have learned." Actually jokes aside, You have grown up and existed in a world where the effects of relativity are so small that we don't notice them. What we call "classical mechanics" (and what you have learned) is actually only an approximation that exist when you don't have extreme environments (like near light speeds and intensely strong gravity). So what you have learned is actually wrong (and that has been proven by experiment). You have to unlearn this incorrect knowledge. First up, you seem to be having a great difficulty with scalars and vectors. I did try to explain, but may be it was not explained from first principles. Remember, forget everything you have learned, or think you have learned about these subjects,as they are likely to be wrong (which is likely why you are having so much trouble with them). First up, Scalars: You are probably familiar with numbers like 1, 2 or 100. These are scalars. They can be of something, like apples. You can have 10 apples. With scalars there is only a single component that describes the number. That is the number itself. Now there are other types of scalar, and they are usually used for a measurement. So you can have 10 degrees Celsius, or 10 metres, or 15 seconds, or 90 degrees of rotation. However, notice that none of these contain a direction. Even that rotation does not have a direction. Is it clockwise, or anticlockwise? Neither, it is not stated and therefore does not have a direction. Now ther eis a type of number that has a direction, and it is called a vector. A vector is made up of at least 2 scalars (see you need to know what a scalar is to understand vectors). An examples of a vector is 20m to the East. In this East is a compass bearing and defined as 90 degrees of rotation clockwise from the direction indicated by a compass as being north and 20m is defined as 20 time the length of the standard (well get to standards in a bit) meter object. Notice that you need both numbers to make sense of the vector. Although people sometimes us the term "Direction" when talking about a compass bearing, this is not strictly correct (for those of a linguistic pedantry nature). The correct term is "Orientation". However, in most conversations, including technical ones, you can get away with the direction because it is understood that if you didn't then give the other part of the vector then you were only talking about the orientation scalar. The reason that we can get away with things like this is because we assume that we are talking to a human that has a mastery of language and can understand the content of a communication despite inconsistencies, short cuts and other techniques. A computer on the other hand can't do this (yet). But this is not a post about communication and computer/human failings. So to summarise, scalars are single numbers that describe a quantity or magnitude. You are familiar with this as in 10 apples describes the quantity of apples. Vectors are made up of two or more numbers (which can be scalars or vectors). One which describes a magnitude (size of the vector) and the other the orientation (direction) of the scalar's value. Let me give an example: Take the vector 20m/s east. Break it up a bit: 20m 1s East There are 3 scalars here. 20m is a scalar of length 1s is a scalar of time East is a scalar compass bearing. Now a vector is a 2 or more scalars. So 20m east give a compass bearing and a distance. This is a vector. It is called a Displacment Vector as it is a vector that indicates the distance and direction that something is displaced. But there is another scalar that is being used: 1 Second. We include this 3rd scalar into the vector and we get 20m east for every second. This is called Velocity. We can also combine the distance (20m) scalar with the time scalar and get 20m/s. Now we get into Dimensions. A dimension is describes as: a direction of measurement perpendicular to all other dimensions. You will be familiar with the first 3: Up/Down, Left/Right and Forwards/Backwards. Up/Down is a single dimension (down is not another dimension, but a direction along the dimension as up is one direction along it). Left/Right is another dimension as it lies perpendicular (at right angles to) Up/Down. You might be familiar with the term 2 dimensional? What this means is that that any point within that space can be described using just 2 numbers (the up/down number and the left/right number). Lastly we have the Forwards/Backwards dimension. This is a dimension as it is perpendicular to both the Up/Down and Left/Right dimensions. You are familiar with 3 dimensional space as this is the space we live in. Any point within 3 Dimensional space can be plotted using a set of 3 numbers. Now, in the descriptions above, I have used familiar directions (up/down, left/right and forwards/backwards), but they don't have to be those exact directions. In fact the directions can change. As an example, what dimension is "Up/Down" for you when on the equator is different for a person at the north pole. Your "Up/Down" could be their "Left/Right", "Forwards/Backwards" or even somewhere in between them. Now onto standards: A standard is a commonly agreed upon object that determines the agreed upon unit. So, a Metre is actually a specific object (kept under very tight security) that all other measuring devices that use the Metre unit must match. A Standard is no way fundamental to the universe at all. It is a human construct, nothing more. However, you can compare one standard with another and work out a conversion factor. This means that we can compare an Inch with a Meter and work out a value that allows us to compare one with the other. But, for this conversion factor to be arrived at, both objects must be in the same frame of reference. That is, they must be stationary with one another and they must also be in the same strength of gravitational field. With the crude methods of measuring that we use and the fact that we don't commonly experience strong relativistic effects, it means that all we really need to do is to place one along side the other to make the comparison. This is where you will have to unlearn things. A standard is not a Chunk of the universe that is somehow separated form it, but it is an object that resides within the universe and is subject to all the laws that govern objects within the universe. This has been proven with clocks. Atomic clocks (the most accurate standard we have for time) will only be out around 0.00000001 of a second each day. They stuck one atomic clock at the bottom of a hill and the other at the top. They left them for a year and compared how far out they were. They were expected to be out by 0.00000365 due only to their error rate, but relativity indicated that they should be out a lot more. What they found was that the clocks were out the exact amount that relativity stated it should. This means that the atomic clocks must have had a different rate of time depending how far up the hill it was. The physics of an atomic clock means it can not be slowed or sped up (if its operating environment is kept stable - as it was). It relies on a specific frequency of microwaves in its operation. These can be checked to make sure that the correct frequency is being used and the atoms them selves can only absorb/radiate that particular frequency in the environment that the clock is put in (temperature). The only conclusion is that time really does run slower if you are closer to a gravitating body than not. This means that a "Standard Second" can only be calibrated when the two "standard objects" are in the same frame of reference. If you change the frame of reference, then that standard is also changed (but only while in that different frame of reference). They have also done this experiment with atomic clocks and planes. they have flown an atomic clock on a plane around the world while leaving another one at the airport. The one that was flying in the plane ran slower, and like the hill experiment, it was what was predicted by relativity. Classical mechanics did not actually predict any change in time. Classical Mechanics stated that the clocks would not loose time. As these experiments showed, classical mechanics is wrong and Relativity is far more accurate. Here is a good bet: If reality is different from what makes sense, place you money on reality. 1
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) You've ignored me... I don't like that, it makes me feel even more you don't want to learn anything... Should I point out the NUMEROUS things I've said in this thread that were ignored? Was there a question, or did you expect a reply to that post? But the thing is you don't seem to get the basics about classical relativity. I get it, and I don't agree, that's why we are having this discussion, and why this thread is in the topic area that it is. Edited June 26, 2008 by Motor Daddy
Klaynos Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Should I point out the NUMEROUS things I've said in this thread that were ignored? Was there a question, or did you expect a reply to that post? I get it, and I don't agree, that's why we are having this discussion, and why this thread is in the topic area that it is. Then why do you keep asking things like "What's -20m/s mean?" if you get it? Well unfortunately ALL the experimental evidence for the past 300 years says you're wrong. Sorry, that's the way it is, reality don't give a flying f**k what you're views on it are or what common sense has to say about it. Everything would be much easier if things worked how you expected them too, but for that you need fiction I'd recommend the disc world novels...
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 Edtharan, there are numerous problems with your reply, and I am going to point them out, but can you please keep the replies to a 1 hour read? In order to reply to so long of a post I have to make my post even longer. I'm not willing to do that. Keep it short and sweet, please?
Klaynos Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Edtharan, there are numerous problems with your reply, and I am going to point them out, but can you please keep the replies to a 1 hour read? In order to reply to so long of a post I have to make my post even longer. I'm not willing to do that. Keep it short and sweet, please? Science is hard sometime the explanations need to be long especially when dealing with someone who likes asking lots of little questions after something is explained, and then ignores the explanation after they've been explained.
swansont Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 If you change the duration you just changed the speed of light. I've got a bunch of experimental data that shows that this is not true. And nature cares not a whit that you refuse to accept it.
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 Well unfortunately ALL the experimental evidence for the past 300 years says you're wrong. Sorry, that's the way it is, reality don't give a flying f**k what you're views on it are or what common sense has to say about it. Everything would be much easier if things worked how you expected them too, but for that you need fiction I'd recommend the disc world novels... 300 years of experiment says the speed of light depends on the duration of a second, PERIOD!
Klaynos Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 No that's just selecting one tiny little bit of science and going for it. 1
swansont Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 I get it, and I don't agree, that's why we are having this discussion, and why this thread is in the topic area that it is. Not agreeing is one thing, but your "reason" for not agreeing is apparently that you don't like it, not that you have presented any empirical or even theoretical reason for doing so. 300 years of experiment says the speed of light depends on the duration of a second, PERIOD! And that conveniently ignores the salient point, that nobody doing these experiments was comparing their second to anyone else's. So you've managed to present a statement that is true and misses the point entirely. 1
nstansbury Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) Given: [math]Time == M^R[/math] and [math]Distance == T^R[/math] What is the duration of the event? [math]2 M^R[/math] What is the duration of 3 breathes? Given: [math]\frac{10 Paces}{1 Mailbox}[/math] [math]\frac{3 Breathes}{1 Pace}[/math] then: [math]\frac{10 x 3}{1 x 1} = \frac{30 B^R}{1 M^R} = \frac{1M^R}{30 B^R}3B^R = 0.1 M^R[/math] Do you breath 3 breathes in the same duration as I do? Is your table the same length as mine? What is the distance of a pace? Given: [math]\frac{1 Table}{2 Paces}[/math] then: [math]\frac{1}{2} T^r[/math] Is my pace distance and your pace distance the same? Only if our tables are. 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. ..and that's why its' called "Relativity" - because "stuff" is only ever relative to what YOU know. Seriously MD, re-read the maths above - because I have every idea of the DISTANCE of my table, and the DURATION of my mailbox run. Edited June 26, 2008 by nstansbury
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 Seriously MD, re-read the maths above - because I have every idea of the DISTANCE of my table, and the DURATION of my mailbox run. Your table isn't the standard, mine is. Science uses MY table for calculations, not yours!
DrP Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 MD - why don't you go and discuss it with your school teacher - they might be able to help you understand it.
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 MD - why don't you go and discuss it with your school teacher - they might be able to help you understand it. The teacher doesn't have time for me to debate him on his information, nor does he care for me to disrupt the classroom.
DrP Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 What year are you in out of interest? If you are really interested they might have time to speak to you after class (if you can be bothered to stay behind that is?) I've got some equations in my old university physics book which might be of interest. I'll rake them out later. They might not be too different to Klaynos's one though. Strange things happen when you get close to the speed of light!! Space and time sort of 'warps' and 'distorts'. It's difficault to get your head around. 1
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 What year are you in out of interest? If you are really interested they might have time to speak to you after class (if you can be bothered to stay behind that is?) I've got some equations in my old university physics book which might be of interest. I'll rake them out later. They might not be too different to Klaynos's one though. Strange things happen when you get close to the speed of light!! Space and time sort of 'warps' and 'distorts'. It's difficault to get your head around. I'm not in school. I am a retired U.S. Army Motor Sergeant (Motor Daddy). I was a certified instructor.
nstansbury Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Your table isn't the standard, mine is. Science uses MY table for calculations, not yours! NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!! Science uses A table for it's calculations - your table definition is no more right or wrong than mine. A table is a table whether it is 2 paces long or 3 paces long - IT IS STILL A TABLE!
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!! Science uses A table for it's calculations - your table definition is no more right or wrong than mine. So, without using seconds and meters as a reference, what is your speed of light? NO IT DOESN'T!!!!!!!!! Science uses A table for it's calculations - your table definition is no more right or wrong than mine. A table is a table whether it is 2 paces long or 3 paces long - IT IS STILL A TABLE! What is a pace?
nstansbury Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) So, without using seconds and meters as a reference, what is your speed of light? I've already given it to you: [math]v=\frac{T^L}{M^R}[/math] Find out how many ([math]n[/math]) tables light travels per mailbox and [math]c[/math] will be: [math]c = \frac{nT^R}{M^R}[/math] Instead of light being measured in [math]m/s[/math] it will be measured in [math]T^R/M^R[/math] What is a pace? An arbitrary point of measurement - in other words what ever you want it to be! We, on earth in our frame of reference have defined it as 3 paces - but that doesn't mean 2 paces isn't a table, any more that a round table is any less of a table than a square one. Look, a second isn't some magical mystical number cosmically defined by God or the big bang - it's something humans have made up to give us a standard to measure against. Remember, our notion of a Year, a Day, an Hour, a Second are defined by how quickly we rotate around the Sun, if we rotated faster our years, days, seconds would be different, so how can a second be absolute? Edited June 26, 2008 by nstansbury
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 I've already given it to you: [math]v=\frac{T^L}{M^R}[/math] Find out how many ([math]n[/math]) tables light travels per mailbox and [math]c[/math] will be: [math]c = \frac{nT^R}{M^R}[/math] Instead of light being measured in [math]m/s[/math] it will be measured in [math]T^R/M^R[/math] So your light travels at 2,040,567,465,876.9843582 TL/MR? I have no idea of how fast that is, because I have no idea of the distance of your TL and the duration of your MR. My light travels at 753.039 TL/MR
nstansbury Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) So your light travels at 2,040,567,465,876.9843582 TL/MR? I have no idea of how fast that is, because I have no idea of the distance of your TL and the duration of your MR. My light travels at 753.039 TL/MR Well unless you've just done an experiment to prove that - no, it doesn't But..... if you and I are in the same frame of reference you don't need to know the distance of my TL and the duration of my MR - because they are the same as yours! (Though bear in mind the speed of light is the exception - and is the same in ALL frames of reference, whether we measure in [math]T^R/M^R[/math] or [math]m/s[/math] MD - look at this animation - how does your/my "year" compare to a Martian "year": http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mars/mars_orbit.html Edited June 26, 2008 by nstansbury
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 Well unless you've just done an experiment to prove that - no, it doesn't I did the experiment. I called my table length a TL, and the mailbox run duration (time) of MR. Are you saying my table is not the distance that it is? Are you saying the duration of my MR is not that duration? What's the matter, can't relate to me? But..... if you and I are in the same frame of reference you don't need to know the distance of my TL and the duration of my MR - because they are the same as yours! You are sitting in your house, and I am in mine. We are both looking at our own tables. Is yours the same as mine?
nstansbury Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 I did the experiment. I called my table length a TL, and the mailbox run duration (time) of MR. Are you saying my table is not the distance that it is? Are you saying the duration of my MR is not that duration? What's the matter, can't relate to me? You are sitting in your house, and I am in mine. We are both looking at our own tables. Is yours the same as mine? Are you just trying to really really really hard to be obtuse???? I've already said - we are in the same frame of reference - we have agreed on the size of a table in our frame of reference Make an effort and look at that link I sent you!!! A year is NOT a year absolutely - it is arbitrary based on how quickly we go round the sun.
Motor Daddy Posted June 26, 2008 Author Posted June 26, 2008 (edited) MD - look at this animation - how does your/my "year" compare to a Martian "year": http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/mars/mars_orbit.html It talks about meters and seconds. I don't know what that is. I use TL and MR to measure distance and time. Are you just trying to really really really hard to be obtuse???? Nope, just making a point about "relativity." I've already said - we are in the same frame of reference - we have agreed on the size of a table in our frame of reference[/size] You agreed that you have a table and I have a table. That was all that was agreed, that we both have tables. Edited June 26, 2008 by Motor Daddy multiple post merged
nstansbury Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 It talks about meters and seconds. I don't know what that is. I use TL and MR for distance and time. Oh for christ's sake - convert them then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at the graphic forget the numbers - Mars goes around SLOWER than the Earth - a Martian year is LONGER than an earth year. Therefore 1 Martian Year / 365 will be different to an Earth Year / 365 Therefore a Martian second cannot be the same as an Earth second! 1
iNow Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 3 or 4 minutes between each post implies that the responses are not being taken in, and the links not reviewed.
Recommended Posts