Questioning Einstein

[cube]

Einstein clearly states in his theory of relativity of how aging is slowed down the closer one travels to the speed of light. I fully understand the reason why everything seems slower the faster you go but what effect would speed have on physical aging. Light is merly .........well light. It only illuminates matter, how could the speed of matter determine its physical aging rate???:confused:

[spacer1]

cube,

I think it's because as you approach the speed of light, time becomes relatively slowed. If time moves by more slowly, then you should age more slowly, compared to those travelling at lesser speeds.

[nermal]

Think of the speed of light 'c', not as the speed of light, but as the speed of electromagnetic radiation.
Remember, it's called relativity because everything is relative. Right now you are moving at a near 'c' velocity relative to something somewhere in the universe.

Ed

[Bob K]

When organisms or machines are accelerated, their inertial masses increase; when organisms/machines are decelerated, their inertial masses decrease.

With an increase in inertial mass caused by an increase in acceleration and therefore velocity, an organism or a machine has a decreased rate of functioning/rate of operation, thus an organism does not age as fast as a non-accelerated organism and a machine such as a clock does not operate as quickly as a similar non-accelerated machine, and, in the case of a clock, an accelerated clock does not count/does not measure the same number of time-intervals as does a non-accelerated similar clock, and, thus, the lower face-reading/count/time-measurement of an accelerated clock appears to prove that time is dilatable and that, therefore, time has been dilated--slowed.

NOTE: A similar change of inertial mass occurs when an organism/machine experiences a change of gravity--a change of gravitational density, with a denser gravity causing an increase of inertial mass and a decrease in the rate of operation/functioning.

If you believe that a clock whose rate of operation/functioning is affected by acceleration/a change of velocity defines time, as did Einstein [p. 99 of his book, Relativity], then you are free to believe that the lower face-reading/time-interval count/measurement of an accelerated clock will appear to prove that time is dilatable/dilated by acceleration, and, thus, that a clock accelerated to speeds aproaching the speed of light will begin to slow down its rate of operation/functioning until the speed of light, SOL, limits its rate of operation/functioning to zero at the SOL, at which 'time' time itself is stopped.

Thus, the connection between time and light is the limit of a clock's/machine's/organism's rate of operation/functioning as the clock/machine/organism's velocity approaches the speed of light.

NOTE: If you do not accept premise that a clock whose rate of operation/functioning is affected by changes of velocity/gravity defines time, then you are free to conclude that the time-dilation claimed by Einstein and SR/GR fans is an illusion.

[Lobstrosity]

Originally posted by nermal
Think of the speed of light 'c', not as the speed of light, but as the speed of electromagnetic radiation.
Even better than this, think of the speed of light 'c' as the speed of massless particles. Such particles must in theory move this speed in all inertial frames of reference. Right now it's just light, but gravitons, if truly massless as theory predicts, would travel at this speed as well in all inertial frames.

[nermal]

Originally posted by Bob K

NOTE: If you do not accept premise that a clock whose rate of operation/functioning is affected by changes of velocity/gravity defines time, then you are free to conclude that the time-dilation claimed by Einstein and SR/GR fans is an illusion. [/B]

You are also free to conclude at any time that Santa Clause magically exceeds 'c' every year to get his work done.
The fact that GR effects must be accounted for when calculating the precise orbit of satellites, and has been verified using simultaneous clocks in fast moving vehicles means that you cannot, however, rationally conclude that time dilation is an illusion.

Ed

[Bob K]

nermal

BobK:NOTE: If you do not accept premise that a clock whose rate of operation/functioning is affected by changes of velocity/gravity defines time, then you are free to conclude that the time-dilation claimed by Einstein and SR/GR fans is an illusion.

nermal:You are also free to conclude at any time that Santa Clause magically exceeds 'c' every year to get his work done.

The fact that GR effects must be accounted for when calculating the precise orbit of satellites, and has been verified using simultaneous clocks in fast moving vehicles means that you cannot, however, rationally conclude that time dilation is an illusion.

Are time-dilation and the changes of rates of operation/functioning of organisms/machines the same?

What is time?

What is the essence of time?

For what purposes do we need/use time?

How do we measure/count time?

Is time independent of organisms/machines?

Do rates of functioning/operation of organisms/machines determine/define time?

[nermal]

Originally posted by Bob K

Are time-dilation and the changes of rates of operation/functioning of organisms/machines the same?

No. Change of rates of operation is an effect of time dilation, not vice versa.

What is time?

It is a dimension in the four dimensional space-time that composes the universe. It is as real as space.

What is the essence of time?

?.

For what purposes do we need/use time?

We move through time, just as we move through space. Time does not "serve" an anthropic purpose in the sense I believe you imply.

How do we measure/count time?

Arbitrarily.

Is time independent of organisms/machines?

Yes.


Do rates of functioning/operation of organisms/machines determine/define time?

No.

[Bob K]

nermal

Bob K:Are time-dilation and the changes of rates of operation/functioning of organisms/machines the same?

nermal:No. Change of rates of operation is an effect of time dilation, not vice versa.

Time dilation causes--is the cause of--is the force which causes a change of the inertial state--of time?

Is there a cause of time-dilation?

If so, what is it?

Bob K:What is time?

nermal:It is a dimension in the four dimensional space-time that composes the universe. It is as real as space.

Time is a dimension? Time is space-time? Time is a four-dimensional space-time?

When we ‘do time,’ do we/do we not measure the occurrences of events?

Bob K:What is the essence of time?

nermal:?.

Is/is not the essence of any measurement the unit of measurement? Without a unit of measurement can measurement occur?

Do we/do we not use a time-interval to measure the occurrences of events?

Is/is not the essence of time the time-interval--the unit of time-measurement?

Bob K:For what purposes do we need/use time?

nermal:We move through time, just as we move through space. Time does not "serve" an anthropic purpose in the sense I believe you imply.

What do we do with the concept of time? In what ways is the concept of time useful?

Bob K:How do we measure/count time?

nermal:Arbitrarily.

Do we/do we not measure/count time/the occurrences of events by counting time-intervals?

Is/is not the choice of time-intervals arbitrary?

Once chosen, is/is not a time-interval independent of whoever chose it and thus objective?

Bob K:Is time independent of organisms/machines?

nermal:Yes.

I agree.

But why is time independent of organisms/machines?

If time is independent of organisms/machines, then why is the slowing of the rates of operation/functioning of organisms/machines linked to time-dilation/proof of time-dilation?

Bob K:Do rates of functioning/operation of organisms/machines determine/define time?

nermal:No.

I agree, in accord with the principle that time is independent of organisms/machines.

Is time independent of space?

Can we measure when--the occurrence in time--without the requirement to specify where--the location in space of the occurrence?

I.E., is it possible to focus upon when events A and B occurred without additionally being required to focus upon where A and B occurred?

How could we focus/by what process could we focus upon the when/time of A and B without focusing upon the where/location in space of A and B?

What causes a change of inertial state?

A force?

If a force causes a change of inertial state, what force causes the change of inertial state of accelerated organisms/machines?

If time-dilation is a change of inertial state, what force causes time-dilation?

[Majestyk]

Bob K,

Concerning your question on the essence of time, wouldn't that be the same as asking; What is the essence of, length?

Is, force, the appropiate term as used in your reference to time dilation or would, state, be better suited?

Just trying to understand your premise.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by cube
Einstein clearly states in his theory of relativity of how aging is slowed down the closer one travels to the speed of light. I fully understand the reason why everything seems slower the faster you go but what effect would speed have on physical aging. Light is merly .........well light. It only illuminates matter, how could the speed of matter determine its physical aging rate???:confused:

Check out this thread, where a similar question was discussed:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51841

Here was my answer to the question:

The cosmic speed limit c should really be thought of as a property of the (Lorentzian (http://www.math.umd.edu/~caj/EaGLe/lorentz.html)) geometry of spacetime, it isn't solely associated with light (there are other massless particles besides photons, and all such particles travel at c) and it is even conceivable that photons could have some tiny rest mass, and that they only travel very close to c--this would not force us to throw out the theory of relativity, it would just force us to stop referring to c as "the speed of light", although I think such a finding would force us to get rid of (or at least modify) our current theory of electromagnetism, and probably areas of quantum field theory as well.

[Bob K]

Majestyk: Concerning your question on the essence of time, wouldn't that be the same as asking; What is the essence of, length?

Is, force, the appropriate term as used in your reference to time dilation or would, state, be better suited?

Just trying to understand your premise.

What is the essence of anything?

Is it not the practical reality, the way things are, the way things work, what makes things as they are, what makes things work as they do, etc.?

What is the essence of time? What IS time? What is important to us concerning time?

Is/Is not time the measurement of the occurrences of events? So we could determine if events happened at the same timepoint (at the same time/simultaneously)/not at the same timepoint/time, and if not simultaneously by how much difference of time-measurement units the events were non-simultaneous? Or so we could predict the occurrences of events? Or so we could coordinate events?

If so, then what is the essence of measurement?

Is/Is not the essence of measurement the unit of measurement?

If so, then what is the unit of measurement of time?

Is/Is not the unit of measurement of time the time-interval?

What is a time-interval?

Is/Is not a time-interval a duration that is short enough to be useful, which could be modeled after a natural periodic motion/regularly recurring cycle/etc., but which could also be an arbitrarily selected duration, consisting of a beginning, a midpoint, and an ending, just as in music there is the beat, which is the unit of musical time, which is a duration consisting of a beginning (the end of the initial downbeat/downstroke of a conductor’s baton), a midpoint (the end of the upbeat of the conductor’s baton, and an ending (the end of the downbeat of the conductor’s baton?

If you disagree that the unit of measurement of time is the time-interval, then could you tell us what is the unit of measurement of time?

If time is defined as that which is measured by mechanical clocks, which are things/objects comprised of matter/energy and therefore have inertial states--of rest or of motion, and if time-dilation either is the change of inertial state of mechanical clocks or otherwise causes changes of inertial states of mechanical clocks, and if the only known causes of changes of inertial states are forces of some kind, then is it not true that there must be a force which causes the change of inertial state which either is or otherwise causes time-dilation?

If so, then what is the force which is/which causes time-dilation?

If you believe/know that there is something other than a force which can cause changes of inertial states, then please let us know what it is.

Otherwise, time-dilation is change of inertia caused by a force of some kind and is therefore not a state of being.

[nermal]

Originally posted by Bob K
[B]Majestyk: [i]Concerning your question on the essence of time, wouldn't that be the same as asking; What is the essence of, length?


Is/Is not time the measurement of the occurrences of events? So we could determine if events happened at the same timepoint (at the same time/simultaneously)/not at the same timepoint/time, and if not simultaneously by how much difference of time-measurement units the events were non-simultaneous? Or so we could predict the occurrences of events? Or so we could coordinate events?

Um, yeah. Events which occur simultaneously in one reference frame do not occur simultaneously in another. The classic blinking light/rail car example comes to mind.
It's really not so difficult, and delving into metaphysics isn't necessary regardless how fun. No matter what your frame of reference, the measured speed of light is constant. That's where time dilation comes in.


Originally posted by Bob K
If so, then what is the unit of measurement of time?

Is/Is not the unit of measurement of time the time-interval?


Yes. Just like the unit of measure of length is the length interval. Both dilate, by the way.

I'm not sure everyone is speaking on the same wavelength, (ha). Length itself, and time itself, dilate, not just the measurement of objects in the near 'c' frame of reference.

The whole frame of reference becomes different, in order that the measured speed of light is the same as in every other frame of reference. Get it?

Ed

[Bob K]

nermal

Majestyk: Concerning your question on the essence of time, wouldn't that be the same as asking; What is the essence of, length?


Bob K: Is/Is not time the measurement of the occurrences of events? So we could determine if events happened at the same timepoint (at the same time/simultaneously)/not at the same timepoint/time, and if not simultaneously by how much difference of time-measurement units the events were non-simultaneous? Or so we could predict the occurrences of events? Or so we could coordinate events?

nermal: Um, yeah. Events which occur simultaneously in one reference frame do not occur simultaneously in another. The classic blinking light/rail car example comes to mind.
It's really not so difficult, and delving into metaphysics isn't necessary regardless how fun. No matter what your frame of reference, the measured speed of light is constant. That's where time dilation comes in.

Bob K: If so, then what is the unit of measurement of time?

Is/Is not the unit of measurement of time the time-interval?

nermal: Yes. Just like the unit of measure of length is the length interval. Both dilate, by the way.

I'm not sure everyone is speaking on the same wavelength, (ha). Length itself, and time itself, dilate, not just the measurement of objects in the near 'c' frame of reference.

The whole frame of reference becomes different, in order that the measured speed of light is the same as in every other frame of reference. Get it?

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the theory of invariable time-intervals.

When invariable time-intervals, ITIs, are used in ITICs, t in each and every reference frame becomes the same: t in K1 = t in K2 = t in K3, etc. When ITIs are used in ITICs, there is no time-dilation. There is no possibility of time-dilation whenever ITIs are used in ITICs.

What is your problem with understanding and accepting the fact that there are two types of time-intervals, TIs--the variable time-interval, the VTI, and the invariable time-interval, the ITI? Einstein chose the VTI for SR/GR--he said so in his book, Relativity, on page 99.

VTIs occur when clocks are constructed which do not detect changes of velocity/gravity and self-adjust, or otherwise are not synchronized by radio signals from master clocks. Such clocks are called variable time-interval clocks, or VTICs.

ITIs occur when clocks are constructed which detect changes of velocity/gravity and self-adjust, or otherwise are synchronized by radio signals from master clocks. Such clocks are called ITICs.

Further, is the speed of light, SOL, really the same for any and all reference frames?

Gedankenexperiment:

Lightsource<------------------------------------->Target

Lightray A: -------------------------------------> Target

Lightray B: -------Spaceship---------------------> Target

Lightray A is emitted from Lightsource simultaneously with and parallel to Lightray B towards a single Target.

If Lightray A and Lightray B are emitted simultaneously and parallel to each other from Lightsource, then they should strike Target simultaneously.

Lightray B passes through a rear window of Spaceship and out a front window.

Spaceship is traveling towards Target parallel to Lightray A. [Spaceship could be traveling away from Target towards Lightsource.]

Assume there are no physical reasons why Lightray B should be obstructed or otherwise impeded within Spaceship.

Assume also that the SOL is measured when it ‘goes past’ the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship to eliminate theoretical relativistic length-contraction problems.

Spaceship is one reference frame and the Lightsource<->Target continuum is another reference frame.

NOTE: This is a Special Relativity condition wherein two reference frames are traveling at a uniform/constant velocity/motion relative to each other. The conclusions of this gedankenexperiment are the same for General Relativity conditions wherein one reference frame is accelerating and/or rotating and thus not traveling in uniform/constant velocity/motion relative to another reference frame (providing that Lightray B enters a rear window of Spaceship and exits a front window).

The SOL is supposed to be the same for all reference frames.

If the SOL is the same for all reference frames, Lightray B should exit Spaceship’s front window ahead of/in advance of Lightray A, because it would have had to have been speeded up--a theoretical impossibility--by traversing the reference frame of Spaceship/going past the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship at SOL while Lightray A is merely traversing the Lightsource<->Target reference frame, thus Lightray B should strike Target ahead of/in advance of Lightray A.

Question: When does Lightray B strike Target?

If simultaneous with Lightray A, then the SOL inside the reference frame of Spaceship is not the same as the SOL outside the reference frame of Spaceship--the SOL going past the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship is slower than the SOL of the Lightsource<->Target reference frame--a theoretical impossibility according to relativity.

If non-simultaneous with Lightray A, but in advance of Lightray A, then the SOL inside the reference frame of Spaceship is SOL relative to the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship but faster than the SOL of the reference frame of Lightsource<->Target, which is theoretically impossible according to relativity.

So, place your bets--when does Lightray B strike Target?

Yes, I have an answer, and part of the answer involves a statement which is true: The speed of light is the same for all observers.

More later.

[nermal]

Originally posted by Bob K

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the theory of invariable time-intervals.

Not only do I not understand it, I've never heard of it. I may be stepping in it here, but it sounds like something you might learn of on the old Art Bell show.

Originally posted by Bob K
When invariable time-intervals, ITIs, are used in ITICs, t in each and every reference frame becomes the same: t in K1 = t in K2 = t in K3, etc. When ITIs are used in ITICs, there is no time-dilation. There is no possibility of time-dilation whenever ITIs are used in ITICs.

What is your problem with understanding and accepting the fact that there are two types of time-intervals, TIs--the variable time-interval, the VTI, and the invariable time-interval, the ITI? Einstein chose the VTI for SR/GR--he said so in his book, Relativity, on page 99.

VTIs occur when clocks are constructed which do not detect changes of velocity/gravity and self-adjust, or otherwise are not synchronized by radio signals from master clocks. Such clocks are called variable time-interval clocks, or VTICs.

ITIs occur when clocks are constructed which detect changes of velocity/gravity and self-adjust, or otherwise are synchronized by radio signals from master clocks. Such clocks are called ITICs.

When you stop to consider that at this very instant, you are traveling at a near c speed relative to something, a lesser fraction of c relative to something else etc. etc., how exactly do you adjust your clock so that your time is synchronized with all frames of reference?
Additionally, I have a cheap watch. It runs slow as we speak. Does that mean I'm in a different relativistic frame of reference right now, relative to you, even if we are in fixed positions relative to each other? If I can change time dilation by simply calibrating my clock, then how can you explain that my slow watch doesn't mean time moves differently for me? Will I live longer than you, just because my watch runs slower?
Originally posted by Bob K
Further, is the speed of light, SOL, really the same for any and all reference frames?
Yes. We've already covered that.

Originally posted by Bob K

Lightsource<------------------------------------->Target

Lightray A: -------------------------------------> Target

Lightray B: -------Spaceship---------------------> Target

Lightray A is emitted from Lightsource simultaneously with and parallel to Lightray B towards a single Target.

If Lightray A and Lightray B are emitted simultaneously and parallel to each other from Lightsource, then they should strike Target simultaneously.

Lightray B passes through a rear window of Spaceship and out a front window.

Spaceship is traveling towards Target parallel to Lightray A. [Spaceship could be traveling away from Target towards Lightsource.]

Assume there are no physical reasons why Lightray B should be obstructed or otherwise impeded within Spaceship.

Assume also that the SOL is measured when it ‘goes past’ the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship to eliminate theoretical relativistic length-contraction problems.

Spaceship is one reference frame and the Lightsource<->Target continuum is another reference frame.

NOTE: This is a Special Relativity condition wherein two reference frames are traveling at a uniform/constant velocity/motion relative to each other. The conclusions of this gedankenexperiment are the same for General Relativity conditions wherein one reference frame is accelerating and/or rotating and thus not traveling in uniform/constant velocity/motion relative to another reference frame (providing that Lightray B enters a rear window of Spaceship and exits a front window).

The SOL is supposed to be the same for all reference frames.

If the SOL is the same for all reference frames, Lightray B should exit Spaceship’s front window ahead of/in advance of Lightray A, because it would have had to have been speeded up--a theoretical impossibility--by traversing the reference frame of Spaceship/going past the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship at SOL while Lightray A is merely traversing the Lightsource<->Target reference frame, thus Lightray B should strike Target ahead of/in advance of Lightray A.

Question: When does Lightray B strike Target?

If simultaneous with Lightray A, then the SOL inside the reference frame of Spaceship is not the same as the SOL outside the reference frame of Spaceship--the SOL going past the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship is slower than the SOL of the Lightsource<->Target reference frame--a theoretical impossibility according to relativity.

If non-simultaneous with Lightray A, but in advance of Lightray A, then the SOL inside the reference frame of Spaceship is SOL relative to the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship but faster than the SOL of the reference frame of Lightsource<->Target, which is theoretically impossible according to relativity.

So, place your bets--when does Lightray B strike Target?

Yes, I have an answer, and part of the answer involves a statement which is true: The speed of light is the same for all observers.

More later. [/B]

Clarifier: 1. The source and target are in a fixed frame of reference, relative to each other.

Here your conceptual misunderstanding of relativity is made clear. The light rays both strike the target at the same time as observed by the person at the source emitter, or a person at the target. An observer on the space ship would not see the same thing.

Consider: Ray A, and ray B are both traveling at c. Everyone measures the same speed. The person aboard the ship, however, measures the wavelengths of the rays differently than the other observers. The fact that ray B travels through his ship makes no difference; he measures the speeds and wavelengths of A and B as the same, assuming their wavelengths are the same at the source, and he is travelling exactly the same vector as B.
His measured wavelength of the light rays is different because he is in a different frame of reference than the other observers, therefore he observes time, and length differently. Get it now?

Ed

[Jesse]

Originally posted by nermal
Here your conceptual misunderstanding of relativity is made clear. The light rays both strike the target at the same time as observed by the person at the source emitter, or a person at the target. An observer on the space ship would not see the same thing.

In general this is a good point, but I think in Bob's scenario the plane of the target is orthogonal to the relative velocity vectors between the two reference frames, so if the beams strike the plane simultaneously in one frame they should also strike simultaneously in the other one.

[nermal]

Originally posted by Jesse
In general this is a good point, but I think in Bob's scenario the plane of the target is orthogonal to the relative velocity vectors between the two reference frames, so if the beams strike the plane simultaneously in one frame they should also strike simultaneously in the other one.

True, but that's not the whole picture. The beams must strike the target, reflect off, and be registered by the observer. The observers at the emitter and target are (assumed) about centered between the beams. The ship, however, is specifically stated to be on the path of beam B, therefore it is closer to the point at which beam B strikes the target than it is to the beam A point. Therefore, an observer on the ship would see the beam B register as a strike before beam A, the time lag being dependent on the distance between the parallel beams.
Ed

[Jesse]

Originally posted by nermal
True, but that's not the whole picture. The beams must strike the target, reflect off, and be registered by the observer. The observers at the emitter and target are (assumed) about centered between the beams. The ship, however, is specifically stated to be on the path of beam B, therefore it is closer to the point at which beam B strikes the target than it is to the beam A point. Therefore, an observer on the ship would see the beam B register as a strike before beam A, the time lag being dependent on the distance between the parallel beams.
Ed

But the notion of the "simultaneity" of two events in a particular reference frame is not equivalent to seeing signals from both events at the same time. It depends on looking at the time you recieved the signal from each event according to clocks in your frame, then looking at the distance to each event according to rulers in your frame, and figuring out what time the event "really" happened in your frame by calculating how long it would take a light signal to traverse that distance and subtracting that from the time you recieved the signal.

For example, suppose that according to clocks and measurements in my frame, a supernova I see in 1900 AD took place 100 light years away, and another supernova I see in 2000 AD took place 200 light years away. In this case, I can say that both explosions took place "simultaneously" in 1800 AD, relative to my reference frame.

[nermal]

Originally posted by Jesse
But the notion of the "simultaneity" of two events in a particular reference frame is not equivalent to seeing signals from both events at the same time.

You're right. I was only speaking of the observer measuring both events as uncorrected simultaneous, that is, seeing both targets light up simultaneously. Corrected for the difference in difference, the observer on the ship could certainly conclude that both targets illuminated simultaneously.

Ed

[Bob K]

In the gedankenexperiment Target is singular--there is only one Target, and it is perpendicular to the pathways of Lightrays A and B. The distance traveled by Lightray A from Lightsource to Target is the same distance traveled by Lightray B from Lightsource to Target.

The pathways of Lightrays A and B are stipulated to be perfectly parallel to each other and so close together that light travel-distance problems between them are negligible and their pathways are perfect straight lines to eliminate any potential spacetime curvature confusions which might cause extraneous time differences of their strikes upon Target.

There is a gedankenexperiment-privilege stipulation [a stipulation/premise allowable by the nature of a thought-experiment--Einstein required them to require focus upon a concept or principle in his gedankenexperiments, so why would similar requirements not be possible/permitted for anyone else?] that there is no bending or retardation of either Lightray A or B due to physical effects such as the gravitational fields generated by any mass involved herein--the masses of Lightsource, Target and Spaceship do not generate gravitational fields which could bend the pathways of the Lightrays; likewise, there is a stipulation that there is no electromagnetic phenomena-caused deviations/retardations of the parallel/straight-line pathways of the Lightrays; by these stipulations, and any others not presently imagined but otherwise potentially required, arbitrary though they may be, the Lightrays are perfectly parallel to each other and travel in perfect straight lines and space curvature confusions are thereby eliminated.

Simultaneity of Lightray A striking Target with Lightray B can be established by placing upon Target (A) cameras which take time-stamped photographs of the strikes so close to the strikepoints that light-distance problems are eliminated or (B) electronic strike-sensors whose sensations can be time-stamped and whose engineering is such that light-distance problems are eliminated.

The time-stamping for the stipulated photographs/sensor-reports is to be done by a single clock located midway between the lightray strikepoints whose time-intervals--ITIs--are stipulated to be invariable--ITIs, the clock itself thereby to be an ITIC, to eliminated potential concerns/issues/claims of differences of rates of operation which could be made if two time-stamping clocks were used, and, worse, if their time-intervals were variable, VTIs, and, thus, the clocks were VTICs.

Further, there is another stipulation that there are no gravitational/electromagnetic/etc. physical effects which could potentially change the rate of operation of the time-stamping clock.

These time-stamped photographs/sensor reports eliminate any possible reference frame differences of observation of reflected light from the strikepoints upon Target. The photographs/reports can be examined and analyzed by a scientist upon any reference frame (including the Lightsource<->Target reference frame and the Spaceship reference frame as well any other third reference frame) at any timepoint after they are taken and they are organized and presented to the scientist, thus establishing and focusing upon When? and eliminating potential relativistic confusions of time/When? as well as space/Where?

Any other phenomena not currently imagined but which could potentially distort the perfection of the proposed/stipulated parameters of the gedankenexperiment are to be provided with stipulative restrictions which eliminate their potential for distortions.

[Lobstrosity]

You know, it might be beneficial to keep all discussions on this in a single thread...

[nermal]

Bob: Nothing is changed by your "clarification." (loosely termed.)
As observed at either the emitter, or the target, both light rays strike the target simultaneously.

Now, would you please elaborate on the point? Let's drop the geschpookensperiments and metaphysical musings, and either demonstrate why I should drop the whole idea of time dilation, or admit that time dilation is not an illusion. That way we can get on to more controversial subjects like the faked apollo moon landing.

:p :banghead:

Ed

[wiploc]

Originally posted by cube
Einstein clearly states in his theory of relativity of how aging is slowed down the closer one travels to the speed of light. I fully understand the reason why everything seems slower the faster you go but what effect would speed have on physical aging. Light is merly .........well light. It only illuminates matter, how could the speed of matter determine its physical aging rate???:confused:

To yourself, you always seem to age at the normal rate. To things moveing at other speeds, you seem to age more slowly. The more different the speed of the other observer, the more slowly you seem to age.

But, since you are always stopped relative to yourself, there is no way that your speed can affect the rate at which you age.

The twin paradox: You run off to alpha centari, and then come back to discover that your twin sister Sara is twenty years older than you. Your perception is that you have aged at a normal rate, and she has aged with anomolous rapidity. Her perception is that she has aged normally, and you have aged with strange slowness. The "truth" is that you have both aged at the normal rate, but not as much time passed for you. You left a frame of reference, and rejoined it later, without having passed thru all the time that it did.

crc

[jfryejr]

Originally posted by Bob K
[quote]
Simultaneity of Lightray A striking Target with Lightray B can be established by placing upon Target (A) cameras which take time-stamped photographs of the strikes so close to the strikepoints that light-distance problems are eliminated or (B) electronic strike-sensors whose sensations can be time-stamped and whose engineering is such that light-distance problems are eliminated.

The time-stamping for the stipulated photographs/sensor-reports is to be done by a single clock located midway between the lightray strikepoints whose time-intervals--ITIs--are stipulated to be invariable--ITIs, the clock itself thereby to be an ITIC, to eliminated potential concerns/issues/claims of differences of rates of operation which could be made if two time-stamping clocks were used, and, worse, if their time-intervals were variable, VTIs, and, thus, the clocks were VTICs.
Once again, relativity is correct...in order to accout for it, we're going to adjust the time on the clocks the same way we have to now.

Further, there is another stipulation that there are no gravitational/electromagnetic/etc. physical effects which could potentially change the rate of operation of the time-stamping clock.

These time-stamped photographs/sensor reports eliminate any possible reference frame differences of observation of reflected light from the strikepoints upon Target. The photographs/reports can be examined and analyzed by a scientist upon any reference frame (including the Lightsource<->Target reference frame and the Spaceship reference frame as well any other third reference frame) at any timepoint after they are taken and they are organized and presented to the scientist, thus establishing and focusing upon When? and eliminating potential relativistic confusions of time/When? as well as space/Where?
Stating that we can correct our clocks to account for relativity does not disprove relativity, it merely accounts for it.

Any other phenomena not currently imagined but which could potentially distort the perfection of the proposed/stipulated parameters of the gedankenexperiment are to be provided with stipulative restrictions which eliminate their potential for distortions. Note:If anything would interfere with this experiment to disprove it, we will disqualify it from the experiment.

When invariable time-intervals, ITIs, are used in ITICs, t in each and every reference frame becomes the same: t in K1 = t in K2 = t in K3, etc. When ITIs are used in ITICs, there is no time-dilation. There is no possibility of time-dilation whenever ITIs are used in ITICs.

All you're doing is stating that we can correct our clocks for relativity. This says nothing about accounting for differences in physical age. So what if the people going near c see their clocks moving very quickly...according to Earth time? There still has to be a reference frame for the ITI. It still doesn't eliminate time dilation, it merely accounts for it.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the theory of invariable time-intervals.I don't think you understand relativity.

[Corona688]

Originally posted by Bob K
You have demonstrated that you do not understand the theory of invariable time-intervals. That's only because there is no such thing! The idea of a universal reference got thrown out with the ether theory. If you want people to toss out Einstein's relativity in favor of your own theories, you're going to have to offer some damn compelling evidence.

[jfryejr]

Bob K wrote:[/b]If the SOL is the same for all reference frames, Lightray B should exit Spaceship’s front window ahead of/in advance of Lightray A, because it would have had to have been speeded up--a theoretical impossibility--by traversing the reference frame of Spaceship/going past the center of mass/inertia of Spaceship at SOL while Lightray A is merely traversing the Lightsource<->Target reference frame, thus Lightray B should strike Target ahead of/in advance of Lightray A.[/b]Why would the light have to speed up to exit through the space ship? If the velocity of light (in a vaccum, which the spaceship is not) is constant for all frames, there is no addition of velocities to account for...

Bob K wrote
The conclusions of this gedankenexperiment are the same for General Relativity conditions wherein one reference frame is accelerating and/or rotating and thus not traveling in uniform/constant velocity/motion relative to another reference frame (providing that Lightray B enters a rear window of Spaceship and exits a front window).If you considered General Theory before posting this, you would have considered red shift with an accelerating reference frame...indicating different wavelengths being measured from the ship. GT agrees with time dilation and c as a constant.