Talk-Polywell.org

It is true that time dilation is difficult to measure directly between two frames with uniform velocity. However even in this case it is the (real) difference in time on the moving clock for a given fixed clock time in the stationary frame. It cannot be the REAL difference in time (delta)ts on the ...

Wrong again. Do the full calculation. On the outwards journey the two light sources move away from one another and the light will be red-shifted but this does not affect the number of pulses. Similarly on the return journey the light will be blue shifted, but this will also not affect the number of...

so I knew Johan was wrong because his claims were contrary to experiment Which experiment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation Why are you dishonest? I am NOt talking about experiments measuring time dilation of a moving clock within a refrence frame relative to whi...

You are right that English is very misleading. I have always had a mathematical view of what is going on, which throughout this thread has got sharper - there is nothing like continual argument to encourage better understanding. The words I use here are just different attempts to make this understa...

I told you what you have to do: The two twins synchronise their clocks when they depart at a a relative speed v. Every second on each of their clocks each twin sends out a light pulse to the other twin and when these light pulses arrive at the other twin respectivly they are recorded. You will find...

When I started this debate I had only a very fuzzy idea about all these issues, You are now even more fuzzy than you were in the beginning. so I knew Johan was wrong because his claims were contrary to experiment Which experiment? and some of the things he was saying did not make sense, Like what? ...

You are right that English is very misleading. I have always had a mathematical view of what is going on, which throughout this thread has got sharper - there is nothing like continual argument to encourage better understanding. The words I use here are just different attempts to make this understa...

I don't think anything you've said implies that. You present the generally accepted position that the proper time that elapses along different paths through spacetime is different. I know this standard interpretation and as I have stated time and again, to my shame I have taught this to my students...

So to argue that according to SR two twins will age at different rates while their clocks are keeping the exact same time on the outward (away from one another) as well as the inward (towards one another) journeys is obviously WRONG. And as I have pointed out time and again, if they have different ...

Well if you admit that time rate within each inertial reference frame is the same, and you admit that time rate does not change with position, then you must admit that you do not have a space-time manifold within which you can generate infinitessimal space-time connections ds=dx-d(ict). Not at all....

I am trying to see where I say these things above. I don't. You are I think deducing (incorrectly) that what I say implies these things. If you give your reasons I can tell you why they are wrong. Flat assertions that I say something I do not will not help matters. That applies to anyone else on th...

In summary, Johan's statements here lay out his thinking more completely than before, but it contains gaps and conceptual errors. I've indicated above what I believe these to be. Johan's conclusions are also in violation of many different experiments. If it was just a different interpretation i wou...

Looking at the argument, I would say that: (1) Relativistic space-time is different from Newtonian space-time: there is no priviledged time axis. I don't think Tom and Johan are really disagreeing here. This strikes me as more of a difference in semantics and limitations of language... Johan uses p...

Personally I have my favorite, but, as always, would like an experiment to decide. I agree that this should be the final arbiter. It does not matter how logical we think we are, physics has the mean nature to suddenly jump up and bite you. That is why it is so important not to become a religious be...

When Tom posts sloppy mathematics like this: Sure: The LT says it all. For simplicity set c = 1, so v < 1. gamma = sqrt[1- (v^2)]^-0.5 x = gamma x' +vt t = gamma t' + gamma v x' Then I lose interest. Except for setting a physically real parameter equal to unity so that it drops out of the equations,...