| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Two clocks; one moving past the other at high speed... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Nick |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3297
|
If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen as
the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around
it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This
contradiction is dumb science.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| nuny at (no spam) bid.nes... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 10:08 am, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen as
the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around
it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This
contradiction is dumb science.
[/quote]
Let us suppose that at some time in the future, Africa gets its
political poop in a group and begins massive economic development.
Let us further suppose that a descendant of the current TGV train is
built to connect Libreville (in Gabon) and Nairobi (in Kenya). We
shall suppose it was found economical to resculpt a couple of
inconvenient landforms to accomplish this.
Let us consider a train on this rail line traveling west (against
the direction the Earth is rotating) at 1000 mph. There is another
train sitting still on a siding right next to the main line. Each of
the trains has onboard clocks which were synchronized when both trains
were last idle.
The westbound train passes by the idle train. According to your
reasoning above, which train's clock runs slow?
Mark L. Fergerson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"BURT" <macromitch at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba at (no spam) x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen as
the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around
it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This
contradiction is dumb science.
[/quote]
So speaks the dumb non-scientist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:44 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3297
|
On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"BURT" <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba at (no spam) x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen as
the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around
it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This
contradiction is dumb science.
So speaks the dumb non-scientist.
[/quote]
If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that
clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any
other way.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| xxein... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"BURT" <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba at (no spam) x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen as
the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around
it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This
contradiction is dumb science.
So speaks the dumb non-scientist.
If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that
clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any
other way.
Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
xxein: If you are stupid, it can only be seen that you are stupid for
every case. It can't be any other way. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:29 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3297
|
On Nov 4, 8:54 pm, xxein <xx... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"BURT" <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba at (no spam) x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com....
If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen as
the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around
it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This
contradiction is dumb science.
So speaks the dumb non-scientist.
If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that
clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any
other way.
Mitch Raemsch
xxein: If you are stupid, it can only be seen that you are stupid for
every case. It can't be any other way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
I see you are talking about yourself.
I am an aether scientist. Even Einstein brought back the aether after
he developed General Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| nuny at (no spam) bid.nes... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 9:29 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 8:54 pm, xxein <xx... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
On Nov 4, 2:44 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 2:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"BURT" <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0d4fefb0-ed41-45e3-b67f-694d1fab63ba at (no spam) x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be seen as
the only one going slow. The train will see fast clocks passing around
it. What is not seen is each going slower than the other. This
contradiction is dumb science.
So speaks the dumb non-scientist.
If only one clock is the one going slow it can only be seen that that
clock is running slower than the other in every frame. It can't be any
other way.
Mitch Raemsch
xxein: If you are stupid, it can only be seen that you are stupid for
every case. It can't be any other way.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I see you are talking about yourself.
I am an aether scientist. Even Einstein brought back the aether after
he developed General Relativity.
[/quote]
Answer my question, Mitch. One train is stationary with respect to
the Earth, but the Earth is rotating with an equatorial velocity of
~1000 mph eastward. The other train is traveling westward at 1000 mph,
cancelling the Earth's rotation velocity.
Which train's clock runs slow?
Mark L. Fergerson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rotchm... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Einstein brought back the aether
[/quote]
Einstein NEVER "discarded" the ether. Find an official reference where
Einstein said that the etherer does not exist. Post 1905 scientits
claimed that Einstein claimed that, but without reference.
[quote]If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be
seen as the only one going slow.
[/quote]
But SR does not say that the clocks go slow, nor does it say that an
observer will "see" clokcs go slow. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:09 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3297
|
On Nov 5, 7:36 am, rotchm <rot... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote] Einstein brought back the aether
Einstein NEVER "discarded" the ether. Find an official reference where
Einstein said that the etherer does not exist. Post 1905 scientits
claimed that Einstein claimed that, but without reference.
If the trains clock is the only one going slow then it will be
seen as the only one going slow.
But SR does not say that the clocks go slow, nor does it say that an
observer will "see" clokcs go slow.
[/quote]
Eiisntein said that by his SR theory no aether was necesary for
calculation. This people believed was the disproof of its existence.
Later he brought it back.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rotchm... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Eiisntein said that by his SR theory no aether was necesary for
calculation.
[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]This people believed was the disproof of its existence.
[/quote]
People believe what they want. The "ether" was never proven to
unexist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3297
|
On Nov 5, 9:20 am, rotchm <rot... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Eiisntein said that by his SR theory no aether was necesary for
calculation.
Exactly.
This people believed was the disproof of its existence.
People believe what they want. The "ether" was never proven to
unexist.
[/quote]
Einstein was a good scientist because he did not reject the aether. It
is most important in physics.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rotchm... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Einstein was a good scientist because he did not reject the aether. It
is most important in physics.
Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful".
It has its advantages. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:08 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3297
|
On Nov 5, 10:32 am, rotchm <rot... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Einstein was a good scientist because he did not reject the aether. It
is most important in physics.
Mitch Raemsch
I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful".
It has its advantages.
[/quote]
No. There can be no doubt rot. It is the most important.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rotchm... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful".
It has its advantages.
No. There can be no doubt rot. It is the most important.
Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
No, it cannot be the "most" important: How do you define or quantify
"most important" ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:36 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3297
|
On Nov 5, 11:21 am, rotchm <rot... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I agree, but I would replace the "most important" to "quite useful".
It has its advantages.
No. There can be no doubt rot. It is the most important.
Mitch Raemsch
No, it cannot be the "most" important: How do you define or quantify
"most important" ?
[/quote]
Through my intuition. And it is never wrong.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
