Time Dilation

[Tormod]

Assuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand. :lol:

 

EWright, I also think you are being unclear. You need to break down you counterargument a bit...

 

Like Erasmus00 writes, first explains the old views, then he explains relativity, then he explains the implications of relativity. The passage you quoted is about simultaneity and whether v is added to w or not has no implications on anything in that passage. The chapter simply builds up the idea that one event will not be simultaneous for an observer on the train and an observer on the embankment.

 

He states (on p. 31) that the duration it takes for the man to traverse w relative to the carriage in one second (there is your missing addition: v+w), will appear to be different as seen from the embankment.

[Tormod]

Give me a break! Either his argument is flawed or he's sloppy, and I don't believe he is sloppy in his ideas or his expressions of them. Thus, I feel his logic is flawed. I chose this point because you asked for one and it was the most blatant that came to mind. But the fact is, that one flawed argument after another got him to this point in the first place. How many times does he use the argument that *IF* you accept this, than this... or *IF* you dismissed (the perfectly acceptable) notion that this, than we have this... ? I could *IF* my way into a whole bunch of theories *IF* you chose to believe the initial premise I set up and make the results dependant on your acceptance of them.

 

This is actually the way scientific papers are written..."Consider X. Now, if Y, then bla bla". So when Einstein wrote the "Relativity" *book*, he head learned a bit more about scientific publishing than he had when he published his original papers on special relativity 11 years before.

 

Don't forget that the book you're reading is supposed to present the theory to laypeople. It has to be simple and clear (which I admit it isn't), but the *if*'s are not something which should trouble you.

 

At any rate, what you have pointed out in your previous post does not constitute a counterargument to me. You have pointed out something you think is an inconsistency, but I fail to see that inconsistency.

[EWright]

Thank you for your input Tormod. I will sleep on this, as my mind is very weary from being stretched with trying to relate my ideas to these all day. The passage still feels like an inconsistancy to me, but I am tired and will examine it further tomorrow. This is not at the heart of my theory, it is simply a POV that doesn't seem to fit with my thinking, and I need to read it again to see if I see the context that you mentioned. But trying to relate the main idea of my theory to what he is saying is very mind-bending at times :) . Obviously I realize I have to account for any of the situations he might suggest within a working framework of my own, and that will prove challenging (if possible at all). Try to be around throughout the day tomorrow guys; I eagerly await your inputs! (ie, cancel all plans, dates, callin in sick, stay up all night if ur in Norway, etc. :lol: )

 

To be continued...

[Tormod]

At no point does the man traverse the same distance per second relative to the ground AND the carraige

 

Yes he does. Because he is on the train, W=v+w, as Einstein points out. The motion of the man is actually not the important thing. What is important is that in galilean physics the velocities are added without regard to any limits. Thus, in galilean physics, If the man had been walking on the ground, his distance covered would be the same distance minus the distance covered by the train. In chapter six this is what is being covered.

 

... or "the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time"... relative to the embankment you have to add v

 

I think you are missing the point here. Since the walker is on the train, his motion is seen differently from inside the train (which moves at v), and from the embankment.

 

So if he covers stretch A-B in one second, it will look differently from the embankment. And this is where special relativity differs from galilean relativity.

 

... so per second he is covering different distances relative to each.... not the same distance per unit of time. He does PROPEL himself at the same speed relative to each, but he[re?] his propolsion is added to by the velocity of the train, relative to the embankment.

 

The walker's speed is never added relative to the embankment, it is added relative to the train he moves in. The sum of this is perceived similarly from inside the train and from the embankment according to galilean physics, and differently according to relativity.

 

Assuming there is something fundamentally wrong with my perception of this, please help me to understand. :lol:

 

I think you are just hung up on the wrong issues, EWright. There is nothing wrong in Section six.

 

Keep posting as you read, though. However, be careful to falsify things without evidence, and especially when things are taken out of context! (I spent 60 minutes trying to figure out what you were talking about). :)

[xersan]

I think you are confusing the term "axioms" with "theories".

 

Einstein had neglected to examine some axioms. For materials the first coordinate system is a reference system in classic relativity (This is an axiom for us on the earth). If the light's motion is not effected by the speed of its source (This knowledge is an mother foundation for special relativity.) the source is never be first coordinate system (or reference system). I have an article "Essential reference system for light kinematics" in procedure of endorsement.

 

Einstein had neglected to scrutiny the opposite directional light according to its source. In theory SR the source and the light go always to the same direction. If, analzing of the opposite directional light can give "time dilation" the theory would be consistent by itself (But it gives "time contraction").

 

We don't require to think about local axioms. But universal axioms are different and they are required our efforts.

[EWright]

I'm starting a new thread to deal specifically with the argument(s) pertaining to Einstein's book. See Arguing Einstein in this forum momentarilly.

[xersan]

The most of this forum have a paradigm like Einstein. But, after 100 years new scientific developments are useful to perceive the paradoxes of SR. Because new paradigm about light makes transparent the reasons of logical defects.

[Southtown]

Well, I've decided to take up study of the deal. (No, I don't have a good library for 50 miles, so... $$)

 

What I read at Wiki is that time dilation always happens to the "other" clock. But what I don't understand is how both observers can observe their own clock normally and both also see the "other" clock dilated. Off to Amazon I go, they know me well. :lol:

[EWright]

I'm glad to see the discussion has prompted at least one person to THINK, rather than taking canned answers from relativity or defending it as though its a sacred text... perhaps science has a religion of its own and with it, its own deity and their own way to ensure that he reigns for eternity.

[xersan]

Theories are innovator for science; and paradoxes give signals for inappropriateness. The special theory of relativity has paradoxes and they are taken place in literature. But this paradoxes had not effected for SR at the meaning of negative. Mystical thinking had been dominant and mystics preserve and defend the theory.

 

Theory takes the point of the source at the moment of T1 in procedure. This is a wrong by child's logic like in primary school. I wonder how is this theory alive for 100 years. The wrong is not complex it is very simple.

 

You can perceive the nuans, if you desire to perceive.