Silly Einstein

[saul]

What could be more convenient that just realizing that light has the latency of one foot per nanosecond (in any direction)?

Indeed. This is the fundamental postulate of special relativity you have restated.

I have pointed out many times that it is the location of an observer, regardless of motion and "reference frame," in relation to the distances from various "events" that determine the order of events witnessed by said observer. The order of "events" radiated by any source, anywhere, are fixed by the order in which they are radiated. They will never change no matter who, when, or where they are observed.

Unfortunately your statement here is in contradiction to your earlier statement that light always has the same speed in any reference frame. Please forgive me while I entertain a simple gedanken experiment to explain.

An observer (Alice) is midway between two light sources (A and B) in a line (lets call it the X axis). She is at rest with respect to both light sources. She can verify her position and that each source is the same distance away by e.g. sending out some light in each direction and then watching these pulses return from each side at the same time.

Now the light sources are each activated at some time. Each emits some pulse of light. We would like to say which emission event took place first, or order them temporally. Alice observes the light from each source arriving at her location simultaneously. What does she conclude? She concludes that the emission events at A and B were simultaneous. With me so far?

Now along comes Bob, who happens to be in a hurtling in from stage left along the X axis. His arrival is timed so that as he passes the exact position of Alice she is just receiving the two signals from the emission events that we are concerned with.

Of course, as he is co-located with Alice his detectors also observe the flashes of light to arrive at his location simultaneously. Now what does Bob conclude?

Bob also is able to verify that at the moment of this detection the two sources are equidistant from him. However, this means that the two light sources were NOT equidistant from him at any earlier time (nor will they be equidistant at any time in the future, as he is moving with respect to them at speed V. Of course Bob also knows as you do that light takes some time to travel and so he knows that any moment of emission took place prior to when arrived at Alices position, prior to when the sources were equidistant from him, i.e. when the sources were not equidistant from him.

Lets review: Bob accepts your postulate to call the speed of light a constant, and thus knows that the light was travelling the same speed from each source. He also knows the light from each source arrived at his midpoint location simultaneously. The only conclusion that Bob can draw is that the times of emission of light were not simultaneous! As Bob approaches Alices center position the clock behind him is closer to him than the clock in front of him. Then when he arrives at the center the pulses arrive at his position simultaneously. In Bob's reference frame, the event which is the emission of light from the forward clock must have been AFTER the event which is the emission of light from the clock to his rear.

[sjw40364]

What could be more convenient that just realizing that light has the latency of one foot per nanosecond (in any direction)?

Indeed. This is the fundamental postulate of special relativity you have restated.

I have pointed out many times that it is the location of an observer, regardless of motion and "reference frame," in relation to the distances from various "events" that determine the order of events witnessed by said observer. The order of "events" radiated by any source, anywhere, are fixed by the order in which they are radiated. They will never change no matter who, when, or where they are observed.

Unfortunately your statement here is in contradiction to your earlier statement that light always has the same speed in any reference frame. Please forgive me while I entertain a simple gedanken experiment to explain.

An observer (Alice) is midway between two light sources (A and B) in a line (lets call it the X axis). She is at rest with respect to both light sources. She can verify her position and that each source is the same distance away by e.g. sending out some light in each direction and then watching these pulses return from each side at the same time.

Now the light sources are each activated at some time. Each emits some pulse of light. We would like to say which emission event took place first, or order them temporally. Alice observes the light from each source arriving at her location simultaneously. What does she conclude? She concludes that the emission events at A and B were simultaneous. With me so far?

Now along comes Bob, who happens to be in a hurtling in from stage left along the X axis. His arrival is timed so that as he passes the exact position of Alice she is just receiving the two signals from the emission events that we are concerned with.

Of course, as he is co-located with Alice his detectors also observe the flashes of light to arrive at his location simultaneously. Now what does Bob conclude?

Bob also is able to verify that at the moment of this detection the two sources are equidistant from him. However, this means that the two light sources were NOT equidistant from him at any earlier time (nor will they be equidistant at any time in the future, as he is moving with respect to them at speed V. Of course Bob also knows as you do that light takes some time to travel and so he knows that any moment of emission took place prior to when arrived at Alices position, prior to when the sources were equidistant from him, i.e. when the sources were not equidistant from him.

Lets review: Bob accepts your postulate to call the speed of light a constant, and thus knows that the light was travelling the same speed from each source. He also knows the light from each source arrived at his midpoint location simultaneously. The only conclusion that Bob can draw is that the times of emission of light were not simultaneous! As Bob approaches Alices center position the clock behind him is closer to him than the clock in front of him. Then when he arrives at the center the pulses arrive at his position simultaneously. In Bob's reference frame, the event which is the emission of light from the forward clock must have been AFTER the event which is the emission of light from the clock to his rear.

This discrepency of time occurs because Einstein has fooled most people. He has convinced them that it has nothing to do with the technical nature of the clocks or the time of propagation of any signal.

It IS due to the technical nature of the clocks which GPS has proven beyond a doubt. Clocks (i.e. atoms) occilate at different rates depending on thier nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or thier acceleration. Clocks in orbit do not tick the same rate because the atoms are not ocillating at the same rate. If you are present it appears the clock has not changed because every atom in your body is also occilating at a different rate than before (consistent with the clock near you, but different than a clock situated on earth). Does anyone actually believe that the atoms in our bodies do not occilate differently depending on surounding conditions? This affects your senses (sight, etc). Clocks A and B do not agree because they are occilating at different rates. if you are near A the atoms in your body are occilating at the same change as A and so it appears to be correct while B is incorrect. If near B the opposite.

People need to stop trying to bend space and just accept the simple fact that atoms occilate at different rates depending on how they are situated with respect to others. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSTANT ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE!

[Sparky]

This affects your senses (sight, etc). Clocks A and B do not agree because they are occilating at different rates. if you are near A the atoms in your body are occilating at the same change as A

This sounds very "New Age"....Vibrations of a higher or lower level..

[Goldminer]

What could be more convenient that just realizing that light has the latency of one foot per nanosecond (in any direction)?

Indeed. This is the fundamental postulate of special relativity you have restated.

Primarily, one foot per nanosecond in the "at rest with the source frame." This is the reference frame where all Earthly bound sources are measured.

I have pointed out many times that it is the location of an observer, regardless of motion and "reference frame," in relation to the distances from various "events" that determine the order of events witnessed by said observer. The order of "events" radiated by any source, anywhere, are fixed by the order in which they are radiated. They will never change no matter who, when, or where they are observed.

Unfortunately your statement here is in contradiction to your earlier statement that light always has the same speed in any reference frame.

Sorry my friend, you didn't follow my logic. The light emanating from some object carries the information that makes the picture that we see. For an example we are watching (from a nearby location) the face of a clock which includes a calendar. The series of events emanating from the clock will always show the passage of time in the order that it did, regardless of who observes it over time, where they are located, or how fast they are going.

However, another identical clock regulated identically and set to the exact same epoch, emitting the same series of passage of time events; but located far from the observer in this same reference frame (i.e. when the two clocks are reunited a the same location they indicate the exact same time and date) will be seen to be giving the time as lagging the local clock, by the latency of the light signal over said distance. The order of the passage of time does not get out of order for either clock. The synchronicity of the indicated time does vary, and moving the distant clock closer will have the effect of making it's passage of time appear to pass faster that the local clock, merely because of the decrease in latency of the signal.

Please forgive me while I entertain a simple gedanken experiment to explain.

An observer (Alice) is midway between two light sources (A and B) in a line (lets call it the X axis). She is at rest with respect to both light sources. She can verify her position and that each source is the same distance away by e.g. sending out some light in each direction and then watching these pulses return from each side at the same time.

Now the light sources are each activated at some time.[Goldminer- activated simultaneously, and still in Alice's reference frame, I presume] Each emits some pulse of light. We would like to say which emission event took place first, or order them temporally. Alice observes the light from each source arriving at her location simultaneously. What does she conclude? She concludes that the emission events at A and B were simultaneous. With me so far?

Now along comes Bob, who happens to be in a hurtling in from stage left along the X axis. His arrival is timed so that as he passes the exact position of Alice she is just receiving the two signals from the emission events that we are concerned with.

Allow me to interrupt here a moment, Saul; If we assume that A is on the left and B is on the right, with dear Alice in between, Bob just went by A in order to get to Alice, right? Let's, just for my point, assume that Bob arrived a A just as it emitted the light pulse. He would see the pulse just as it was emitted, without any latency, right? (He will experience Doppler shift, right? Blue shift to be exact.) Now, if there was another Bob, Bob Jr. in front of Bob, spaced far enough out in front of Bob to arrive at Alice, just as the light pulse from A overtakes him and Alice, Bob JR. would see the light pulse A arrive with red shift, just as Alice sees it without the Doppler shift, right, Saul?

The oncoming light pulse from B reaches Bob Jr. and Alice at the same time as the pulse from A, but Bob Jr. sees this pulse blue shifted, right, Saul? Bob will also see the B pulse blue shifted, but he sees it before he gets to Alice's position.

Of course, as he is co-located with Alice his detectors also observe the flashes of light to arrive at his location simultaneously. Now what does Bob conclude?

Bob also is able to verify that at the moment of this detection the two sources are equidistant from him. However, this means that the two light sources were NOT equidistant from him at any earlier time (nor will they be equidistant at any time in the future, as he is moving with respect to them at speed V. Of course Bob also knows as you do that light takes some time to travel and so he knows that any moment of emission took place prior to when arrived at Alice's position, prior to when the sources were equidistant from him, i.e. when the sources were not equidistant from him.

Lets review: Bob accepts your postulate to call the speed of light a constant, and thus knows that the light was traveling the same speed from each source. He also knows the light from each source arrived at his midpoint location simultaneously. The only conclusion that Bob can draw is that the times of emission of light were not simultaneous! As Bob approaches Alice's center position the clock behind him is closer to him than the clock in front of him. Then when he arrives at the center the pulses arrive at his position simultaneously. In Bob's reference frame, the event which is the emission of light from the forward clock must have been AFTER the event which is the emission of light from the clock to his rear.

What ever the two Bobs think is irrelevant. The position of the emission of B's pulse can be determined in Bob's reference frame by stipulating another Bob (the third) who is out in front of Bob Jr, just enough to be at B when the pulse there is emitted. The three Bobs can determine their distances apart in their own reference frame without the aid of clocks. The facts are that the speed of light in Alice's frame is known to be c. We can follow the path of each pulse, and the two or three Bobs in Alice's reference frame. Bob sees A's pulse blue shifted, and B's pulse blue shifted. Bob Jr. sees A's pulse red shifted, and B's pulse blue shifted. Bob the Third also sees A's pulse red shifted, and B's pulse blue shifted. Once the two pulses are detected by the parties, none of them will ever see those pulses again.

But you have missed the order of events problem in the "at rest with the sources" reference frame, where sources and observers are all at rest with each other. As I am trying to desperately point out, the order of events from sources distant from each other in the at rest frame will be ordered differently by observers placed in different locations at rest with this reference frame.

[sjw40364]

This is for all those who believe clocks are constant. The only way for the clocks to be separated then brought back together reading the same time is if both are in motion at the same acceleration, deceleration, external effects, etc. If only one moves and comes back they will never show the same time. We know this from clocks sent in planes and also on rockets. Even geostationary satellites must be adjusted daily for orbital distance, velocity, etc, while if it was merely light propagation delays then the clocks would need adjusting just once to account for that delay time of light propagation. They must be constantly adjusted because they do NOT tick at the same rate because one is further from an EM source. Even clocks on the equator at sea level tick differently than clocks at the poles. You can never move just one clock, or change its distance from an EM source without it affecting the rate at which atoms oscillate. Yes, this means every atom, not just caesium-133 atoms.

There is no twin paradox because if only one is in motion with respect to the other then they will have aged differently because the atoms in their bodies will have oscillated at different rates. Likewise someone in space or on the moon would age differently than someone on Earth.

[Sparky]

- they will have aged differently because the atoms in their bodies will have oscillated at different rates.-

Still can't buy that "new age" theory..

As we move about, we are constantly being exposed to differing EMF, and this is the only way that I know of to possibly affect atom's vibration rates.
Are you suggesting that a change in the atom's vibration rate will change the molecular resonance or dna structure? Are you familiar with Rife's work?
ireallydonno

[sjw40364]

- they will have aged differently because the atoms in their bodies will have oscillated at different rates.-

Still can't buy that "new age" theory..

As we move about, we are constantly being exposed to differing EMF, and this is the only way that I know of to possibly affect atom's vibration rates.
Are you suggesting that a change in the atom's vibration rate will change the molecular resonance or dna structure? Are you familiar with Rife's work?
ireallydonno

I am saying that atoms and the particles that make them up resonate not only internally within one atomic structure, but that every other atom in the vicinity changes this vibration or oscillation rate. Depending on energy input, i.e. more matter = more conductors = more energy, atoms can decay faster or slower. Five hydrogen atoms will behave differently than 4 or 3 or 2 or even one by itself. They will also decay differently. The cells in your body will age (decay) slower or faster depending on your location in respect to other matter, i.e. amount of energy present.

Easily proven: As observed from earth do clocks in orbit run slower or faster before adjustment? So nearness to mass changes its decay rate. Do clocks under acceleration run slower or faster? So total energy of the system changes its decay rate. Yet when you measure from the same system (orbit or under acceleration) every other atom around you that shares your reference distance or velocity has changed vibration rate as well and so it now appears the other frame has the clock that has changed. The only way two clocks can read different times to one observer, yet read correctly to two other observers is if each observer and all instruments (all atoms sharing a common reference) have also changed vibration rates. To one on earth, one in orbit, and one under acceleration all clocks would read differently, yet each would swear his is correct. Because they are all correct but only in the frame of reference from each observer. When all clocks are brought back together, the clocks will all tick at the same rate again, but will still read different times from the different rates of decay they experienced.

[webolife]

SJW, you forgot to mention that in the frame of a clock B moving rapidly away from another "at rest" clock A, clock A is the one moving away. Goldminer I think has this part right, at least in the logic of the gedanken. In the gedanken , both observers think the other's clock is moving slower, so once again there cannot be a twin's paradox -- when the age mates reconvene, they are indeed both still the same age. However, I have suggested numerous times the hourglass egg timer experiment:
1. Tie a string to the full end of the timer.
2. Swing the timer rapidly around you for, say, a minute and a half or so...
3. The timer has emptied, the egg is undone, and so is Einstein's paradox.

[sjw40364]

SJW, you forgot to mention that in the frame of a clock B moving rapidly away from another "at rest" clock A, clock A is the one moving away. Goldminer I think has this part right, at least in the logic of the gedanken. In the gedanken , both observers think the other's clock is moving slower, so once again there cannot be a twin's paradox -- when the age mates reconvene, they are indeed both still the same age. However, I have suggested numerous times the hourglass egg timer experiment:
1. Tie a string to the full end of the timer.
2. Swing the timer rapidly around you for, say, a minute and a half or so...
3. The timer has emptied, the egg is undone, and so is Einstein's paradox.

I disagree, they will not be the same age when the one returns. It does not matter who appears to be moving, it matters who IS moving in the real world, not the world of dreams. The only reason it appears A is moving to B and B is moving to A is there are no non-moving reference points. In reality the person B on the rocket ship IS moving away no matter that it may appear to B to be the opposite. B's clock has changed in respect to A's and when he returns his clock will NEVER read the same time as A.

Doubt that, launch a clock into orbit (DO NOT ADJUST IT) and leave its twin at home, return it in 6 months, let me know what the two clocks read, but I guarantee they will not read the same time when brought back together.

[Sparky]

Doubt that, launch a clock into orbit (DO NOT ADJUST IT) and leave its twin at home, return it in 6 months, let me know what the two clocks read, but I guarantee they will not read the same time when brought back together.

Not a logical argument, even though it contains elements of fact.

I agree that time pieces will react differently when moved from their localities. What I question is why?

You say the atom's vibration rate changes. Why, what energy input does that?

Everything is moving, relative to something, Earth spin, orbit, etc., yet we believe that some master time piece somewhere maintains a constant rate.

You seem to make a good argument for Einstein's time dilation.

EDIT: I seem to remember that data, from flying clocks around the world, was adjusted to get the desired results..

[sjw40364]

Doubt that, launch a clock into orbit (DO NOT ADJUST IT) and leave its twin at home, return it in 6 months, let me know what the two clocks read, but I guarantee they will not read the same time when brought back together.

Not a logical argument, even though it contains elements of fact.

I agree that time pieces will react differently when moved from their localities. What I question is why?

You say the atom's vibration rate changes. Why, what energy input does that?

Everything is moving, relative to something, Earth spin, orbit, etc., yet we believe that some master time piece somewhere maintains a constant rate.

You seem to make a good argument for Einstein's time dilation.

EDIT: I seem to remember that data, from flying clocks around the world, was adjusted to get the desired results..

I dont believe there is some master timepiece, except the natural oscillation rate of an individual atom. Yet each additional atom changes the equation. Merely moving an atom, or it being in the vicinity of another changes this rate.

Atoms are constantly changing energy between them or they would never form compound elements and magnets would not function. Add energy to a system, what happens. The atoms vibrate faster. Move it further from an energy source and they will vibrate slower. Hence clocks on GPS satellites must be adjusted for velocity and distance from the earth. Why? If it was merely propagation delay you would not have to physically adjust the clock in orbit, merely subtract a few nanoseconds for that delay.

They are adjusted before launch and then on a daily basis. If the clocks are not physically changing why not just subtract time of light propagation? I believe in time dilation, just not as relativity describes it.

Time dilation is an actuall atomic vibration change due to surrounding energy sources. The clock does change rates and people do age slower or faster depending on energy input. Close to the earth you share it's total energy field. Further away you receive less energy and hence clocks slow. Also why a hammer and feather fall at the same rate, they share the entire energy field and are already part of the larger object, their own attractive force no longer matters.

The earth and every body emits energy constantly, energy generated from its motion through a magnetic field.

[Sparky]

I dont believe there is some master timepiece, except the natural oscillation rate of an individual atom. Yet each additional atom changes the equation. Merely moving an atom, or it being in the vicinity of another changes this rate.

Do you have any evidence that an atom's frequency can change without becoming a different atom? There are electron level jumps that emit photons, and an electron can throw off different frequency photons; is that what you are talking about.?

MJV said that electrons are continually absorbing and emitting quantum photons. That is energy being transferred. Lasers can excite atoms, but I am not so sure that that will produce a higher atomic frequency for any particular atom. There will be radiation produced at different frequencies.

[webolife]

SJW,
What I was trying to discuss was the "logic" of the gedanken. I don't really trust the scenario myself as I believe in an absolute reference frame from which all motion makes "relative" sense. In the relativistic view though, you don't know whether Object B is expending energy to maintain a "rest" position as Object A is being "dragged" away under the influence of its planet's gravity; B simply appears to be moving away from A, and vice versa. I think this is a lousy way to make sense of motion, so I simply stick with "Galiliean" relativity, and recognize that objects appear to be in motion with respect to other objects, and measurements are made thus. The science and math of ephemerides is extremely complex... there just is no simply view on motion and position.

But have you tried the egg-timer?
Here the moving clock "ticks" faster under the influence of local centropic force [the swinging string].

[sjw40364]

I dont believe there is some master timepiece, except the natural oscillation rate of an individual atom. Yet each additional atom changes the equation. Merely moving an atom, or it being in the vicinity of another changes this rate.

Do you have any evidence that an atom's frequency can change without becoming a different atom? There are electron level jumps that emit photons, and an electron can throw off different frequency photons; is that what you are talking about.?

MJV said that electrons are continually absorbing and emitting quantum photons. That is energy being transferred. Lasers can excite atoms, but I am not so sure that that will produce a higher atomic frequency for any particular atom. There will be radiation produced at different frequencies.

Vibration rates of atoms can vary quite a bit. Only when you add enough energy or take away enough energy will the atom gain or loose an electron. But first it must gain or loose enough energy to equal the total charge of one electron plus one proton. Foe example: Without the equal amount of positive charge also being lost, if an atom lost an electron, another would be gained immediately. Then most vibrational energy is re-emitted immediately, which our devices and senses interpret as photons across the many frequencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration

Vibrational excitation can occur in conjunction with electronic excitation (vibronic transition), giving vibrational fine structure to electronic transitions, particularly with molecules in the gas state.

http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/jim ... Theory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibronic_transition

Most processes leading to the absorption and emission of visible light, are due to vibronic transitions

In most cases the absorption and emission happens simultaneously, causing the wavelike fluctuation of the electron's (a collection of particles, not one) orbit. An electron cannot be pinned down because it is more like the rings of Saturn, not like the moon.

I can also pretty much bet that our clocks today do not tick at the rate they did a year ago. The sun goes in 11 year cycles. The electrical input and output of our entire solar system fluctuates. You do not notice this because the atoms that make up you and all our devices also fluctuates with this rhythm. But you notice it in everything else not associated with this system. You call it quantization of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibronic_transition

This may be contrasted to pure electronic transitions which occur in atoms and lead to sharp monochromatic lines (e.g. in a sodium vapor lamp) or pure vibrational transitions which only absorb or emit infrared light.

Most confuse the vibrational aspect of atoms with electronic emissions that cause absorption lines.

[sjw40364]

SJW,
What I was trying to discuss was the "logic" of the gedanken. I don't really trust the scenario myself as I believe in an absolute reference frame from which all motion makes "relative" sense. In the relativistic view though, you don't know whether Object B is expending energy to maintain a "rest" position as Object A is being "dragged" away under the influence of its planet's gravity; B simply appears to be moving away from A, and vice versa. I think this is a lousy way to make sense of motion, so I simply stick with "Galiliean" relativity, and recognize that objects appear to be in motion with respect to other objects, and measurements are made thus. The science and math of ephemerides is extremely complex... there just is no simply view on motion and position.

But have you tried the egg-timer?
Here the moving clock "ticks" faster under the influence of local centropic force [the swinging string].

I disagree with an absolute reference frame except that which you currently inhabit. But I also totally agree that any frame from which there is an observer is an absolute reference frame for that individual observer. This frame may or may not match with another frame. Without adjustment, GPS clocks and every clock situated differently by distance or velocity, will read different times and also verifies light is not isotropic, hence not constant except in this frame. Only AFTER you adjust GPS clocks do they agree that light is constant in our location or frame of reference. Yet without adjustment they will agree that light is constant in their frame of reference, but not ours. Because all measuring devices located with those clocks also resonate differently, and so each frame not only appears to do so, but in actuality does.

The egg timer "ticks" faster because it is under acceleration, hence its energy is increased. Likewise an atomic clock in orbit ticks faster due to increased velocity, but it also ticks slower due to its increased distance from earth (i.e. receives less energy). With a set amount of force your egg timers "ticks" would vary simply by increasing or decreasing the length of the string, or by increasing the orbital velocity. A poor collation as one is due to energy from velocity, and the other contains that aspect, but distance from the surface of the earth as well. One equal an opposite reaction, one vibrational from less energy input overall.