Notices
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 401 to 472 of 472
Like Tree88Likes

Thread: Can General Relativity model causation of time dilation?

  1. #401  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    SR says that all inertial frames are equal, therefor there is no preferred frame, so how can any asymmetric time dilation happen in SR?
    Asymmetric time dilation happens if one or both of the frames are non-inertial, i.e. if an accelerometer placed into one such frames shows a non-zero reading.
    it would seem that time dilation would only happen in "accelerating" frames and not "accelerated" frames.
    Nope. Take a break from posting crank ideas mixed with outright nonsense.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; February 9th, 2014 at 06:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #402  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Perhaps you are mixing two different things: (1) time dilation that happens (symmetrically) between two inertial frames of reference and (2) the difference in time experienced between two events depending on differences in acceleration and/or gravity experienced by different observers.
    I was trying to understand how each one works.
    It seems there there is misunderstanding of these 2 effects and how they work,
    so I came up with some example where the 2 effects could be identified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #403  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Perhaps you are mixing two different things: (1) time dilation that happens (symmetrically) between two inertial frames of reference and (2) the difference in time experienced between two events depending on differences in acceleration and/or gravity experienced by different observers.
    I was trying to understand how each one works.
    You are being dishonest, what you have been trying (and failing, miserably) is to show that relativity is inconsistent, incorrect, self-contradictory, etc. The trademarks of a crackpot.

    It seems there there is misunderstanding of these 2 effects and how they work,
    In your mind? Certainly.

    so I came up with some example where the 2 effects could be identified.
    Nonsense. Until a few minutes ago, you weren't even able to distinguish between the two effects.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #404  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    what are you doing xyzt, trying to do physics with debating skills?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #405  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    what are you doing xyzt, trying to do physics with debating skills?
    I explained the physics part and I exposed you for what you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #406  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    So you think that an accelerated frame is non-inertial?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #407  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    So you think that an accelerated frame is non-inertial?
    An accelerated frame IS non-inertial. Why do you keep playing stupid games?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #408  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    ok, so an accelerated object that then stops accelerating is at rest in an accelerated frame?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #409  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    So you think that an accelerated frame is non-inertial?
    Just to head off any misinterpretation:

    If you mean a frame that is actively accelerating, then it is a non- inertial frame.

    If you mean the rest frame of something that has undergone an acceleration but is no longer accelerating, then yes, it is an inertial frame. It is just a different inertial frame than it was at rest in prior to accelerating.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #410  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    ok, so an accelerated object that then stops accelerating is at rest in an accelerated frame?
    Stop posing ineptitudes. Stop trolling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #411  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    ok, so an accelerated object that then stops accelerating is at rest in an accelerated frame?
    There is is no such thing as an accelerated frame in this way. There are inertial frames ( no acceleration) and non-inertial frames (accelerating). An objects past acceleration history has no effect on whether it is in an inertial frame or not.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #412  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    ok, so an object that is accelerated for 1 second, travels for 100 years, accelerates back for 2 second, travels another 100 years and then accelerates for 1 second to come to rest where it started would not be more than 4 seconds younger than its surroundings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #413  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    ok, so an object that is accelerated for 1 second, travels for 100 years, accelerates back for 2 second, travels another 100 years and then accelerates for 1 second to come to rest where it started would not be more than 4 seconds younger than its surroundings.
    What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #414  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    ok, so an object that is accelerated for 1 second, travels for 100 years, accelerates back for 2 second, travels another 100 years and then accelerates for 1 second to come to rest where it started would not be more than 4 seconds younger than its surroundings.
    NO, NO and NO.

    The time difference would depend on how fast it was moving relative to his initial starting point during the non-accelerated periods.

    For instance, if he accelerated to 0.6c, for both out bound and return legs, 200 years pass for him while 250 years passed for someone who stayed at his starting position.

    You are fixating too much on just time dilation. There is also length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity to take into account.

    As far as the stay at home person is concerned, the object travels to distance of 75 light years at a speed of 0.6 taking 125 yrs to do so and then take the same time while returning. Meanwhile, due to time dilation, time for the object runs at a rate of 0.8 and a total of 200 years pass for it.

    For the object things are different. After it reaches a speed relative to its original frame of 0.6c, it will measure, it will notice the effects of time dilation, length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity affecting it's original frame (which now has a relative speed of 0.6c wrt it.) Thus it will measure the distance measured as 75 light years in that frame as being 60 light years. And by his clock, it will take 100 yrs to cross 60 light years.

    He will also note that he no longer agrees with his original frame as to simultaneity. For instance, if there was a clock at the turn around point that was synchronized with the "home" clock in the original frame, it will no longer be in sync according to him. It will actually be ahead of the home clock by 45 yrs.

    During the outbound trip he will also note that both the home clock and turn around clock will under time dilation and run at a rate 0.8 of his own and advance by 80 years during the outbound leg. Thus if the clocks both read 0 in the original frame when he left home, The home clock will read 80 years and the turnaround clock will read 45+80= 125 years upon his arrival at the turnaround.

    He now accelerates back towards home. Afterwards he has changed to yet another inertial frame, moving in the opposite direction than he was before with respect to the home frame. The time dilation rate and length contraction he measures for the home frame frame doesn't change, however the relativity of simultaneity does. Now the it will be the home clock that will be ahead of the turn around clock by 45 years. So, by his reckoning, upon leaving the turnaround clock, it will still read 125 yrs and the Home clock now reads 170 yrs. It will again take 100 yrs to cross 60 light years by his clock to return home while both the turn around and Home clocks undergo time dilation and advance 80 years.

    Upon arriving home, the home clock will read 250 years, the turn around clock will read 205 yrs and his clock will read 200 yrs. Once he accelerates one last time and returns to his original frame, the Turnaround clock will once more be synced with the Home clock and will read 250 yrs.

    Now you might be asking whether or not the Home frame would not also see length contraction and relativity of simultaneity affecting the object. The answer is yes, but they don't come into play. There is no extended distance in the object frames that the Home frame needs to be concerned about nor are there any separated clocks to deal with in either of the frames.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #415  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
    logic.

    If there is only symmetric time dilation between 2 inertial frames, then all things that are not accelerating will have the same rate of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #416  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
    logic.

    If there is only symmetric time dilation between 2 inertial frames, then all things that are not accelerating will have the same rate of time.
    False, you still don't get it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #417  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    NO, NO and NO.
    The time difference would depend on how fast it was moving relative to his initial starting point during the non-accelerated periods.
    That would mean that the inertial frames are not equal, that is a contradiction of the postulates of SR.
    It would mean that clocks of exactly the same structure would behave differently in different inertial frames.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #418  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
    logic.
    If there is only symmetric time dilation between 2 inertial frames, then all things that are not accelerating will have the same rate of time.
    False, you still don't get it.
    so there is a preferred frame?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #419  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    What gives you this bright idea? (Hint: it is not correct).
    logic.
    If there is only symmetric time dilation between 2 inertial frames, then all things that are not accelerating will have the same rate of time.
    False, you still don't get it.
    so there is a preferred frame?
    Only in your brain, only in your brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #420  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    NO, NO and NO.
    The time difference would depend on how fast it was moving relative to his initial starting point during the non-accelerated periods.
    That would mean that the inertial frames are not equal, that is a contradiction of the postulates of SR.
    It would mean that clocks of exactly the same structure would behave differently in different inertial frames.
    No it doesn't. I'm sorry, but your arguments arise from a fundamental misconception. You are just not grasping what it means to say that space and time measurements are frame dependent. You are trying to hold on to a paradigm of "time" which is not valid.

    People have been trying to get this across to you, but you are not listening.

    You are like the people who used to ask: "If the world is round, what keeps the people on the underside from falling off?" To them, their logic was just as unassailable as you feel your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame" is. But both arguments are just as misbegotten and based on a false paradigm.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #421  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
    you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #422  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    "If the world is round, what keeps the people on the underside from falling off?"
    I live in Australia, and we have to wear magnetic shoes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #423  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    "If the world is round, what keeps the people on the underside from falling off?"
    I live in Australia, and we have to wear magnetic shoes.
    ...and tinfoil hats
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #424  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    ...and tinfoil hats
    nice conclusion jumping.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #425  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
    you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
    Same difference. You are wrong, and are still trying to apply "Flat Earth" rules to a "Round Earth" Universe.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #426  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
    you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
    Same difference. You are wrong, and are still trying to apply "Flat Earth" rules to a "Round Earth" Universe.
    "Flat Earth" rules?
    "Round Earth" Universe?
    Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #427  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?
    You did not pay attention to an earlier post I made; there are in a fact two physically distinct forms of time dilation :

    1. Relative time dilation - this depends purely and solely on relative velocity at a given moment in time. It does not depend on the past history of the observers.
    2. Gravitational time dilation - this is a function of differences in gravitational potential, and affects accumulated proper time of an observer. It therefore depends explicitly on the clock's past history throughout the experiment. Bear in mind that the presence of acceleration changes a frame's gravitational potential.

    Whether or not a frame is inertial can be told simply by placing an accelerometer into that frame - if that accelerometer reads zero at a given instant, it is an inertial frame, otherwise it is non-inertial. If you accelerate first, and then cruise uniformly afterwards, then your are first non-inertial, and then become inertial as soon as acceleration stops.

    Also - there are no paradoxes in SR, in fact it can be explicitly proven that there cannot be any paradoxes : General Proof that Special Relativity is Self-Consistent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #428  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
    you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
    Same difference. You are wrong, and are still trying to apply "Flat Earth" rules to a "Round Earth" Universe.
    "Flat Earth" rules?
    "Round Earth" Universe?
    Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?
    No, you're supposed to pay attention to the lessons that have been generously offered to you. Instead of routinely jumping to the conclusion that you've brilliantly and uniquely uncovered a paradox that has evaded identification by brilliant minds for nearly a century, you should routinely assume that the problem lies between your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #429  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?
    No, you are supposed to learn what the rules are, rather than pretending that they must be wrong because you don't understand them.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #430  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    I have been told the rules,

    1) there is no preferred frame
    2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
    3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations

    But people still insist that the rate of time in 2 separate inertial frames would be different if an object accelerated from one to the other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #431  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I have been told the rules,

    1) there is no preferred frame
    2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
    3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations

    But people still insist that the rate of time in 2 separate inertial frames would be different if an object accelerated from one to the other.
    Time dilation (the "rate of time") between two inertial frames is determined purely by their relative velocity. And is symmetrical.

    The total time elapsed between two frames will vary, dependent on non-inertial effects (acceleration, gravity) they experience.

    This is well understood and quite well explained in various sources such as the Wikipedia page on the "Twin Paradox".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #432  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Ok, I looked at that page and there are heaps of completely different explanations.
    I am unsure that anyone actually knows which is the right one if any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #433  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Another thing I just thought of is if you accelerated constantly, why would you need more and more energy to keep accelerating as you approach the speed of light?
    At any instant, the speed difference between you and c would be c, you would never approach the speed of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #434  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,676
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    At any instant, the speed difference between you and c would be c, you would never approach the speed of light.
    Some confusion on your part is evident here.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #435  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Another thing I just thought of is if you accelerated constantly, why would you need more and more energy to keep accelerating as you approach the speed of light?
    If you accelerate at a constant rate, you will use a constant amount of energy.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #436  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Another thing I just thought of is if you accelerated constantly, why would you need more and more energy to keep accelerating as you approach the speed of light?
    If you accelerate at a constant rate, you will use a constant amount of energy.
    This except from a lecture called Conserving Momentum the Relativistic Mass Increase by Michael Fowler, UVa Physics, 12/1/07 should cover that.
    Einstein Rescues Momentum Conservation

    Einstein was so sure that momentum conservation must always hold that he rescued it with a bold hypothesis: the mass of an object must depend on its speed! In fact, the mass must increase with speed in just such a way as to cancel out the lower y-direction velocity resulting from time dilation. That is to say, if an object at rest has a mass M, moving at a speed v it will have a mass . Note that this is an undetectably small effect at ordinary speeds, but as an object approaches the speed of light, the mass increases without limit!
    Mass Really Does Increase with Speed

    Deciding that masses of objects must depend on speed like this seems a heavy price to pay to rescue conservation of momentum! However, it is a prediction that is not difficult to check by experiment. The first confirmation came in 1908, measuring the mass of fast electrons in a vacuum tube. In fact, the electrons in an old style color TV tube are about half a percent heavier than electrons at rest, and this must be allowed for in calculating the magnetic fields used to guide them to the screen.
    Much more dramatically, in modern particle accelerators very powerful electric fields are used to accelerate electrons, protons and other particles. It is found in practice that these particles become heavier and heavier as the speed of light is approached, and hence need greater and greater forces for further acceleration. Consequently, the speed of light is a natural absolute speed limit. Particles are accelerated to speeds where their mass is thousands of times greater than their mass measured at rest, usually called the “rest mass”.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #437  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    ok, but at any instant, you are in a inertial frame right? and the speed of light in that reference frame is c.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #438  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    ok, but at any instant, you are in a inertial frame right?
    Only if you are not accelerating (or in a gravitational field).

    But I think you have been told that before ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #439  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    ok then, to make it easier on you, you accelerate for 1 second then coast for 1 second and repeat, during the coasting (no acceleration) you are in an inertial frame.
    in this inertial frame, the speed you are doing is 0, and the speed of light is c.
    you would not notice you mass increase right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #440  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    in this inertial frame, the speed you are doing is 0
    0 relative to what? Yourself? Well, obviously yes. And that is why ...

    you would not notice you mass increase right?
    You never notice your mass increase (or your length contraction, or time dilation). These are all relative effects between frames of reference.

    Don't you think it would be worth you spending a little bit of time to make an effort understand the theory? Instead you seem to be coming up with an endless stream of, "I haven't understood this, so it must be wrong."
    dan hunter likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #441  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    I am spending a bit of time understanding the theory, and learning about what people think is the resolution to my skepticism about certain points. It is valuable information to see when different people have different understandings, and their basis for their disagreements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #442  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    In regards to you accelerating, does your mass increase in all inertial frames?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #443  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Ok, I looked at that page and there are heaps of completely different explanations.
    Not really.

    I am unsure that anyone actually knows which is the right one if any.
    They are all correct (because they are all equivalent).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #444  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    In regards to you accelerating, does your mass increase in all inertial frames?
    This, again, has nothing to do with acceleration, but relative velocity. You will appear to have greater mass from frames of reference which are in motion relative to yours.

    (Nut note that the idea of relativistic mass increase is generally disfavoured nowadays as being too likely to lead to misunderstandings. The last thing you need.)
    dan hunter likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #445  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    1) there is no preferred frame
    True.

    2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
    True.

    3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations
    That depends what you mean by "memory". Total accumulated proper time of a clock between two fixed events in space-time does indeed depend on the entire world line of that clock between those events.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #446  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    This, again, has nothing to do with acceleration, but relative velocity. You will appear to have greater mass from frames of reference which are in motion relative to yours.
    (Nut note that the idea of relativistic mass increase is generally disfavoured nowadays as being too likely to lead to misunderstandings. The last thing you need.)
    so you would appear to get lighter to an inertial frame that you are catching up to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #447  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That depends what you mean by "memory". Total accumulated proper time of a clock between two fixed events in space-time does indeed depend on the entire world line of that clock between those events.
    I am not sure how these world lines turn symmetric time dilation into asymmetric time dilation, I should look into it a bit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #448  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Ok, I looked at that page and there are heaps of completely different explanations.
    Not really.
    Have you read it?
    Some explanations say that asymmetric time dilation is caused by acceleration, and some say it is caused by gravity, or that there is 2 frames compared to one.
    I think that I could come up with a scenario that would bypass all of those explanations.

    Something like:
    there are 3 spaceships (S1, S2 and S3). S1 and S2 are 1 lightyear apart in inertial frame I1 and S3 is in another inertial frame.
    S3 passes S1 and they record each others clock. S3 passes S2 and they record each others clock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #449  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    so you would appear to get lighter to an inertial frame that you are catching up to?
    Your mass would appear to increase from another frame of reference.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #450  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I think that I could come up with a scenario that would bypass all of those explanations.
    I doubt it. Particularly as you don't seem to have a clue about how the theory of relativity works.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #451  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I am not sure how these world lines turn symmetric time dilation into asymmetric time dilation, I should look into it a bit.
    There is no such thing as "asymmetric time dilation".

    How many more times....
    dan hunter likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #452  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    so you would appear to get lighter to an inertial frame that you are catching up to?
    Your mass would appear to increase from another frame of reference.
    wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #453  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Your mass would appear to increase from another frame of reference.
    wrong.
    On what basis do you say that? (See post #436, for example. Or Relativistic mass )
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #454  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    8
    Shit, I now realize that the merry go-round youth park I invested in isn't going to work. Now I have to cheat everyone or I go belly-up. It's a suicide rap. A constant 1-g merry-go round potential well just won't integrate up to much - it's about as good as sitting on the earth - part in 10 billion type stuff.
    Last edited by Fascinated23ByTheMind23; February 10th, 2014 at 11:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #455  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    so you would appear to get lighter to an inertial frame that you are catching up to?
    Your mass would appear to increase from another frame of reference.
    wrong.
    On what basis do you say that? (See post #436, for example. Or Relativistic mass )
    because if your mass appeared to increase as it sped up and also as it slowed down doing a yo-yo would be dangerous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #456  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I am not sure how these world lines turn symmetric time dilation into asymmetric time dilation, I should look into it a bit.
    Proper time is quite simply the length of an observer's world line between events; if you compare observers, you compare the length of their world lines. Inertial observers trace out straight world lines in space-time, whereas non-inertial ones trace out world lines with more complicated geometries. In both cases, the times they record on their wrist watches is the lengths of their world lines.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #457  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    because if your mass appeared to increase as it sped up and also as it slowed down doing a yo-yo would be dangerous.
    Relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. If something moves relative to you it will appear to have more mass. If it moves faster it will have more mass. If it moves slower it will have less mass. If it is not moving at all it will have just its rest mass.

    Why would this be dangerous?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #458  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. If something moves relative to you it will appear to have more mass. If it moves faster it will have more mass. If it moves slower it will have less mass. If it is not moving at all it will have just its rest mass.

    Why would this be dangerous?
    It should be noted that "relativistic mass" isn't really mass in the classical sense at all, but merely a measure of total energy. All that increases with speed is total energy, which is really quite obvious. "Mass", in all modern textbooks, specifically refers to rest mass, which is invariant for all observers, regardless of their states of relative motion.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #459  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    because if your mass appeared to increase as it sped up and also as it slowed down doing a yo-yo would be dangerous.
    Relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. If something moves relative to you it will appear to have more mass. If it moves faster it will have more mass. If it moves slower it will have less mass. If it is not moving at all it will have just its rest mass.

    Why would this be dangerous?
    because if gained mass as it sped up and also gained mass as it slowed down it would get heavier and heavier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #460  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    because if your mass appeared to increase as it sped up and also as it slowed down doing a yo-yo would be dangerous.
    Relativistic mass is dependent on velocity. If something moves relative to you it will appear to have more mass. If it moves faster it will have more mass. If it moves slower it will have less mass. If it is not moving at all it will have just its rest mass.

    Why would this be dangerous?
    because if gained mass as it sped up and also gained mass as it slowed down it would get heavier and heavier.
    Make sure you don't take off your tinfoil hat. "They" might be beaming thoughts in your brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #461  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Make sure you don't take off your tinfoil hat. "They" might be beaming thoughts in your brain.
    You seem a bit crazy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #462  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It should be noted that "relativistic mass" isn't really mass in the classical sense at all, but merely a measure of total energy. All that increases with speed is total energy, which is really quite obvious. "Mass", in all modern textbooks, specifically refers to rest mass, which is invariant for all observers, regardless of their states of relative motion.
    so relativistic mass doesn't cause more gravity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #463  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    because if gained mass as it sped up and also gained mass as it slowed down it would get heavier and heavier.
    Well, it is a good job that isn't what happens then.

    Is your repeated invention of new aspects of the Theory of Bogo-Relativity some sort of performance art thing? Or is it a hilarious joke? Either way, it isn't really working.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #464  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    Wait... mass increases with speed.....
    Spin up a wheel and move it, spin it down and move it back, Bam, anti-gravity machine. (or just a yo-yo)

    off you go xyzt, go teach "them" a lesson.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #465  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Wait... mass increases with speed.....
    Spin up a wheel and move it, spin it down and move it back, Bam, anti-gravity machine. (or just a yo-yo)

    off you go xyzt, go teach "them" a lesson.
    Keep your tinfoil hat on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #466  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,639
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I have been told the rules,

    1) there is no preferred frame
    2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
    3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations

    But people still insist that the rate of time in 2 separate inertial frames would be different if an object accelerated from one to the other.
    No. Again, you seem to be determined not to understand the clear explanations given to you. Either you aren't listening, or you are refusing to consider the answers (perhaps because you are an anti-relativity crackpot, many of whom display behavioral characteristics very similar to yours). In any case, re-read Markus' post 456. The key point is a correct interpretation of 3) above. No one is saying, let alone insisting, that the "rate of time" in 2 separate inertial frames differs. What they have been saying, and that you keep ignoring, is that the proper time reported by, say, the twins in the famous twins "paradox" does certainly depend on their histories. The "asymmetry" that you keep obsessing about is due to the accelerations that one -- and only one -- of the twins undergoes.

    There is no paradox. There is no logical inconsistency. If you think there is, the correct response should be for you to assume that the problem, again, lies between your ears. Fix that, rather than jumping to the erroneous conclusion that you've uncovered a previously undiscovered problem with relativity.
    Strange and Howard Roark like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #467  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,070
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus View Post
    your argument of "Either there is no time dilation between inertial frames, or there is a prefer frame"
    you misunderstand, I am saying that according to the rules of SR, there is no asymmetric time dilation between inertial frames.
    Same difference. You are wrong, and are still trying to apply "Flat Earth" rules to a "Round Earth" Universe.
    "Flat Earth" rules?
    "Round Earth" Universe?
    Am I supposed to change the rules whenever I hit a paradox?

    No, you are supposed quit trying to reinterpret the rules of a "Round Earth" universe to fit into your "Flat Earth" mindset.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #468  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I have been told the rules,

    1) there is no preferred frame
    2) there is no asymmetrical time dilation between inertial frames
    3) an object has no memory of previous accelerations

    But people still insist that the rate of time in 2 separate inertial frames would be different if an object accelerated from one to the other.
    Perhaps you should listen and try to understood those rules before entering another physics conversation.

    When you get back please don't get into aggressive tit-for-tats that leave the impression you are an ignorant troller. One week off.
    --

    Howard Roark likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #469  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    I am trying to understand how relativity works, but I still don't understand how there can be asymmetrical time dilation and there be no preferred frame.
    for example if you have 2 syncronised clocks 1 lightyear apart in an inertial frame and a 3rd clock is in an inertial frame that passes by both clocks, would it show any slowing effect between those to clocks.
    In SR there should be no slowing effect since there is no preferred frame.
    In LET there 'might' be a slowing either way depending on both inertial frames' velocity compared to a preferred frame.
    I believe that for any proper evaluation of any effects would have to take this into consideration, for incomplete understanding of the theory being used would lead to mistakes in any conclusions.
    I realise that I am being labeled as an ignorant troller, but I was just trying to be scientific, and when scientists don't understand something, shouldn't they admit it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #470  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by 514void View Post
    I realise that I am being labeled as an ignorant troller, but I was just trying to be scientific, and when scientists don't understand something, shouldn't they admit it?
    You are the farthest thing from a scientist, you use these questions to disguise your anti-mainstream spirit, you think you are being very clever about it. You are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #471  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    162
    If GPS doesn't adjust the speed of clocks then mainstream science works great.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #472  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    You are doing exactly what you were warned not to do. One week off wasn't enough. Maybe two weeks will work this time.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. General Relativity
    By JamesTuffnell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 8th, 2012, 03:48 PM
  2. General Relativity
    By Faldo_Elrith in forum Physics
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: July 29th, 2008, 01:43 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 4th, 2008, 05:50 PM
  4. General Relativity
    By Vroomfondel in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 10:33 AM
  5. Help with general relativity?
    By Trogdor in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 14th, 2007, 02:52 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •