Misconceptions in Relativity

Smooth Operator writes:

quote:

---

Couldn't gravity actually be effecting the clock's mechanism?

---

Well, yes. That's the entire point. However, it is not happening the way you think.That is, in a mechanical clock, gravity can have an effect as it pulls on the physical mechanisms, causing certains gears to press harder against each other than they would in an environment with less gravity.But that isn't how relativistic effects are measured. No mechanical or moving parts are involved. Under the international standard, the second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." This is not affected by frame of reference. If you are in the same motion, experiencing the same acceleration and gravitic field, the amount of time is always constant for that transition.So the experiment is take one atomic clock and keep it down here on the ground while you take another atomic clock and send it up in the air so that it is moving and experiences a different gravitic field.When it comes back down, they are out of sync. But the difference cannot be accounted for by the motion of the clocks alone. Instead, the gravitational field is in play.Gravity does affect the clock but not by changing the way the clock functions. It affects it by changing the way time flows.One of the great paradoxes of relativity is that while you are in the changing gravitic field, you don't experience time any differently. That is, one second still seems to take just as much time as it did before. The difference is only in how time flows with respect to other frames of reference. That's why when you are moving with respect to another frame of reference, you can actually watch them moving faster.

quote:

---

Again, maybe the particels themselves are slowed down, and not the time. How do you know it's time itslef?

---

Because the methods used to calculate time at the atomic level are not so crude as to rely on motion. Instead, it uses an atomic method that is invariant under gravity.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

That's not so much paradox as tautology, unless I'm missing what you mean. There is no paradox in the fact that you will never see your watch's second hand move more quickly or slowly - or at least if you do, it's the last thing you will ever see

you really are so out of your depth here. Why do you keep trying to make yourself look more and more idiotic with each post? The sagnac effect is just a consequence of a rotating frame. It is trivial. And obviously GPS has to take it into account. It's like saying that we have to take into account coriolos in undestanding the Earth's weather - true, but so fucking trivial.GPS takes into account effects from both Special Relativity and General Relativity. Saying it doesn't just makes you an idiot, not correct.You still haven't answered my question regarding the LHC. That is the Large Hadron Collider. It is just the latest of a long line of particle accelerators. These are designed by taking Special Relativity into account. If they do not, they do not work. Particles will not go round the accelerator. Simple. And given that the LHC'c cost is in the BILLIONS, you try to make damn well sure you design it with the right fucking mathematics.Son Goku mentions the most obvious example of time dilation, and you answer by saying maybe the particles are slowing down What the hell is that supposed to explain? Relativistic muons live many times longer than non-relativistic muons (confirmed by muons generated by cosmic ray collisons in the atmosphere, and by muons generated in accelerators.) What is your aether doing that makes them live so long? Utter bullshit. Show me where Einstein said an aether was required...

quote:

---

... with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether.

---

This is not aether - the writer (not Einstein) is refering to a field. And there are many of them. And the Dirac sea you mention was one of the first hints at these fields. You do understand what two theories were combined to discover these fields, don't you? Quantum Mechanics and SPECIAL RELATIVITY. Dirac postulated his "sea" on the back of his RELATIVISTIC EQUATION for the electron, what we call the Dirac Equation. Yes, fields are reminiscent of the aether, but they do not form a frame of rest in any way... except one The two central theories in all fundemental physics are General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, both of which are 100% based upon Special Relativity. These also happen to be the two most successful theories ever developed by mankind.But hey, let's follow you and throw out Special Relativity. Now, what's your prediction for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron, and can you show me your working. Using Special Relativity, we get an answer that agrees with experiment to 12 decimal places of accuracy. Can you do better? you dare to call others here the nutcase You are not only an idiot, but you are so pathetic that you think that jokes about my mother and incest are funny and appropriate in a discussion here. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Just a brief caution that we do use the word 'quintessence' in a modern sense in the context of the cosmological constant, vacuum energy, and "dark energy".The problem is that we often describe both the metric field and the quantum fields as modern-day aethers, but we make the ridiculous assumption that when we do, we are not talking to idiots. It's the same problem with teaching by analogy: the idiots always come back to argue the analogy; or in this case to claim that we accept that there is an aether. What do you do?

No, although these effects are fundamentally different to how relativistic time dilation occurs. Particularly for special relativistic time dilation where the body isn't really interacting with anything. Hopefully the examples below will help. I think Rrhain dealt with this quite well, so I'll instead concentrate on the next statement. Well first of all, the particles are actually moving extremely fast with respect to us, so they aren't slowed down. The point is that particles moving at huge velocities live longer from our point of view.
Now you could say maybe high speeds has a physical effect on the decay rate of a particle, however this is easy to refute using Galilean relativity, which I will assume you accept. Galilean relativity says that if you are moving inertially then you can't tell you are moving. So these incredibly fast particles in their own reference frame are stationary. Since any physical effect on their decay rate would have to be real in all frames, well then the slowing down of their decay rate would be true in their own rest frame. So what about the particles which aren't moving fast with respect to us? Well they are at rest in our frame, so from the above analysis they should also have their decay rate slowed down.
However they don't, only particles moving fast with respect to us have their clocks slowed down. This refutes the possibility that the decay rate is being affected by a speed based mechanism.

I guess I was trying to make the case that 'quintessence' and 'aether' were terms used frequently in pre-relativitic science. My assumption is that Dirac was using the term 'aether' to help describe his concept of the 'Dirac sea' in an allegorical way to scientists who were still familiar with the outmoded term 'aether' used previous to the 21st century. I guess I didn't explain it to well. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : correct grammer

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

quote:

---

If there are no relativistic effect why do we only get the right answers when we pretend they do? Do the system operators refer to a mathacaid pay schedule and see that they will make more money if they make Lorentz transformations?

---

Nope, since they don't use it.

quote:

---

Where is the T axis?

---

Obviously doesn't need one!

quote:

---

You really need to stop googling and wiking shit that you have no clue what you are talking about.

---

Oh, we'll soon enough see who knows what he's talking about. I promise you that.

quote:

---

The ECEF is the frame of reference used to determine x, y, z positioning. In fact, ECEF relies on taking into effect relativistic time-dilation in order for the satellites to determine precise positioning data as shown here

---

That is not mentioned anywhere.

quote:

---

The Sagnac effect has an important influence on the system. Since most GPS users are at rest or nearly so on earth's surface, it would be highly desirable to synchronize clocks in a rotating frame fixed to the earth (an Earth-Fixed, Earth-Centered Frame or ECEF Frame).

---

This is what I got from your first link. I didn't bother to check the other ones because this first one already proves me right. They are uing the Sagnac effect, and not relativistic effects. And SR can not account for the Sagnac effect.

quote:

---

BTW, the Sagnac effect does not negate relativistic time-dilation but rather is predicted by SR as shown below:

---

The Sagnac effect has nothing to do with dime dilation. Yet SR still can't account for it.

quote:

---

Hence no description of a Sagnac device in terms of any system of inertial coordinates can possibly entail non-isotropic light speed, nor can any such description yield physically observable results different from those derived above (which are known to agree with experiment).

---

You are wrong. It's is clear to me, you've never even heard of the Sagnac effect. Because that is exactly what it does. It gives you non-isotropic light speed.

quote:

---

Using that apparatus, you can measure the time it takes for light to make a complete turn around the Earth when light moves from West to East. Now, if you repeat the same experiment, with the same mirrors, (or even do it simultaneously), using light moving from East to West, you find that the time taken by light to move from East to West is shorter than the time taken for light to complete the revolution in the opposite direction.

---

The experiment shows that the speed of light depends on it's direction. Something that should not happen in SR.F.A.Q about Experimental Tests Invalidating Einstein's Relativity

quote:

---

To dispute General and Special Relativity is to go against the likes of Stephen Hawking, Einstein and the rest of the scientific community.

---

They are meaningless nobodies.

quote:

---

SR has been proven not just by direct observation and experimentation but by application and not just by GPS but by other scientific applications such as the Gravity Probe A satellite launched in 1976 and the Hafele-Keating experiment, which used atomic clocks in circumnavigating aircraft to test general relativity and special relativity together

---

Umm... no. Those are just your false interpretations.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Actually Paul Dirac said this not Einstein.

---

Not the point who actually said this particular statement. The point is that he agreed with him, and he knew that he need aether for SR to have any chance.

quote:

---

Dirac was referring to a sea of virtual quantum particles not a true 'aether' or 'quintessence' as defined by the Greeks and later naturalists and scientists.

---

Um... duh!!!! Did I ever say anything about the Greek aether? No! So stop assuming. The point remains that there is a medium for electromagnetic waves that fills all space. And Dirac and Einstein knew it. And if you wan't Einstein's exact words, than here...

quote:

---

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

---

404 | TYPO3 Doku TUHH

quote:

---

In this respect, yes and no, in the fact that the fabric of the universe consists of a sea of quantum particles (matter) popping into and out of existence but is it a real tangible elemental substance as described by earlier theorists, no.

---

Wrong. It's not popping in and out of existance. It's a clear violation of 1st and 2nd law of TD. And no, it doesn't matter how small amount is supposed to be created, it's still a violation. It has never been observed, only assumed here. So the fact remains, the medium exists. Just as I said at the beginning.

quote:

---

Well, yes. That's the entire point. However, it is not happening the way you think.

​

That is, in a mechanical clock, gravity can have an effect as it pulls on the physical mechanisms, causing certains gears to press harder against each other than they would in an environment with less gravity.

​

But that isn't how relativistic effects are measured. No mechanical or moving parts are involved. Under the international standard, the second is defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." This is not affected by frame of reference. If you are in the same motion, experiencing the same acceleration and gravitic field, the amount of time is always constant for that transition.

---

Please look at the atomis clock. It has more mechanical parts than than the regular one. Ofcourse it can be slowed down due to aether and gravity.http://www.marcdatabase.com/...photo-1200-scale-1024x878.jpg

quote:

---

So the experiment is take one atomic clock and keep it down here on the ground while you take another atomic clock and send it up in the air so that it is moving and experiences a different gravitic field.

​

When it comes back down, they are out of sync. But the difference cannot be accounted for by the motion of the clocks alone. Instead, the gravitational field is in play.

---

Yes, and that field has been acting on the clock's mechanism.

quote:

---

Gravity does affect the clock but not by changing the way the clock functions. It affects it by changing the way time flows.

---

How exactly do you know that?

quote:

---

One of the great paradoxes of relativity is that while you are in the changing gravitic field, you don't experience time any differently.

---

Maybe because it doesn't happen?

quote:

---

That is, one second still seems to take just as much time as it did before. The difference is only in how time flows with respect to other frames of reference. That's why when you are moving with respect to another frame of reference, you can actually watch them moving faster.

---

Or it is the effect of gravity and the aether?

quote:

---

Because the methods used to calculate time at the atomic level are not so crude as to rely on motion. Instead, it uses an atomic method that is invariant under gravity.

---

If you have seen an atomic clock, you'd see it's pretty crude.

quote:

---

you really are so out of your depth here. Why do you keep trying to make yourself look more and more idiotic with each post?

---

And why do you try to make yourself look like filthy scum every post you make?

quote:

---

The sagnac effect is just a consequence of a rotating frame. It is trivial. And obviously GPS has to take it into account. It's like saying that we have to take into account coriolos in undestanding the Earth's weather - true, but so fucking trivial.

---

The point is that that is what a GPS uses. And not some relativistic effects. And no, the Sagnac effect is not a erlativistic effect. SR can't account for it.

quote:

---

GPS takes into account effects from both Special Relativity and General Relativity. Saying it doesn't just makes you an idiot, not correct.

---

Saying that it does without any evidence makes you a pretty big moron I think.

quote:

---

You still haven't answered my question regarding the LHC. That is the Large Hadron Collider. It is just the latest of a long line of particle accelerators. These are designed by taking Special Relativity into account. If they do not, they do not work. Particles will not go round the accelerator. Simple. And given that the LHC'c cost is in the BILLIONS, you try to make damn well sure you design it with the right fucking mathematics.

---

That's because you're an idiot. LHC takes into account quantum calculations.

quote:

---

Son Goku mentions the most obvious example of time dilation, and you answer by saying maybe the particles are slowing down What the hell is that supposed to explain?

---

If you can't read plain English than get the hell out.

quote:

---

Relativistic muons live many times longer than non-relativistic muons (confirmed by muons generated by cosmic ray collisons in the atmosphere, and by muons generated in accelerators.) What is your aether doing that makes them live so long?

---

Muons have not been proven to decay at rest.http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0508071

quote:

---

Utter bullshit. Show me where Einstein said an aether was required...

---

Dirac said it, Einstein agreed with him.

quote:

---

This is not aether

---

Yes, imbecile, it is. It is a medium that fills all of space.

quote:

---

the writer (not Einstein) is refering to a field. And there are many of them. And the Dirac sea you mention was one of the first hints at these fields. You do understand what two theories were combined to discover these fields, don't you? Quantum Mechanics and SPECIAL RELATIVITY.

---

I know, they were trying to account for aether in SR. But they uterlly failed.

quote:

---

Dirac postulated his "sea" on the back of his RELATIVISTIC EQUATION for the electron, what we call the Dirac Equation. Yes, fields are reminiscent of the aether, but they do not form a frame of rest in any way... except one

---

Again, I know, they were trying to make the aether conform with SR. Yet they failed, since the Sagnac effect shows that if you pass the light through the aether you will get non-isotropic light speed. It will always be faster in one side, than the other.

quote:

---

The two central theories in all fundemental physics are General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, both of which are 100% based upon Special Relativity. These also happen to be the two most successful theories ever developed by mankind.

---

If that were true you would give me some evidence. Which you do not have. And if they were both compatible, which they are not, we would already have a unified field equation for both, which we do not. So you are wrong.

quote:

---

But hey, let's follow you and throw out Special Relativity. Now, what's your prediction for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron, and can you show me your working. Using Special Relativity, we get an answer that agrees with experiment to 12 decimal places of accuracy. Can you do better?

---

Math alone proves nothing.

quote:

---

you dare to call others here the nutcase

---

Why shouldn't I? Youre a nutcase too.

quote:

---

You are not only an idiot, but you are so pathetic that you think that jokes about my mother and incest are funny and appropriate in a discussion here.

---

Well you should have thought about that before you insulted me. You inbred moron.

quote:

---

No, although these effects are fundamentally different to how relativistic time dilation occurs. Particularly for special relativistic time dilation where the body isn't really interacting with anything. Hopefully the examples below will help.

---

Oh but it is. It is interacting with gravity and the aether.

quote:

---

Well first of all, the particles are actually moving extremely fast with respect to us, so they aren't slowed down.

---

Just because they are moving really fast, doesn't mean they didn't slow down.

quote:

---

The point is that particles moving at huge velocities live longer from our point of view.
Now you could say maybe high speeds has a physical effect on the decay rate of a particle, however this is easy to refute using Galilean relativity, which I will assume you accept. Galilean relativity says that if you are moving inertially then you can't tell you are moving. So these incredibly fast particles in their own reference frame are stationary.

---

I do not accept any kind of relativity.

quote:

---

Since any physical effect on their decay rate would have to be real in all frames, well then the slowing down of their decay rate would be true in their own rest frame. So what about the particles which aren't moving fast with respect to us? Well they are at rest in our frame, so from the above analysis they should also have their decay rate slowed down.
However they don't, only particles moving fast with respect to us have their clocks slowed down. This refutes the possibility that the decay rate is being affected by a speed based mechanism.

---

But it doesn't show that time itslef is either slowing down or going faster.

It's a little hard to reject Galilean relativity, since you can prove it by stepping on to a boat. Are you saying that there is some way to tell when an inertial body is moving?
This is very odd, since even in normal intuition people are aware that you don't "feel" motion if it is "steady".
Rejecting Galilean relativity is a bit silly. If you do reject it, then by what method do you detect inertial motion? Let us make this very simple, if special relativity is wrong how come it agrees with every experiment that has tested it?
(Yes, there have been countless tests of relativity.)In your response to cavediver: It must be said that it also takes into account relativistic calculations.

It is my understanding that ECEF is a stagnant reference frame. Accurately getting onto that RF from the real world requires relativity. Please correct me if I'm wrong*.*Warning: This is a sincere request for information.
Due to the sarcastic nature of the inquisitor this warning is required by law to minimize potential offense following the request "Please correct me if I'm wrong.". If this warning is not present, and you have reason to believe the claimant is not dissing you, you may have legal recourse under M.G.L. Title XVII c. 119, s. 58.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

quote:

---

It's a little hard to reject Galilean relativity, since you can prove it by stepping on to a boat. Are you saying that there is some way to tell when an inertial body is moving?
This is very odd, since even in normal intuition people are aware that you don't "feel" motion if it is "steady".
Rejecting Galilean relativity is a bit silly. If you do reject it, then by what method do you detect inertial motion?

---

It's one thing if you feel it, and another if it is actually happening.We obviously have the aether which we can use as a frame of reference to know if we are moving or not. The sagnac experiment has shown that speed of light in one direction is slower than in another one.

quote:

---

It must be said that it also takes into account relativistic calculations.

---

For what?Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.