|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 5, 2019 14:07:55 GMT
phludowin
You do not know Harold? He's THEE dude. SHEESH.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 5, 2019 19:32:46 GMT
phludowin You do not know Harold? He's THEE dude. SHEESH. There are plenty of Harolds. In real life and fictional.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 5, 2019 21:05:50 GMT
phludowin You do not know Harold? He's THEE dude. SHEESH. There are plenty of Harolds. In real life and fictional. I was playfully teasing.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 5, 2019 22:32:32 GMT
Is there a correct answer, or is this just a brainteaser? Shadrack appears to have nailed it. The question is meaningless while A and B are just meandering apart. However when one accelerates (as they must if they are moving apart) reciprocal movement disappears and the time difference appears. It gets resolved when one or both send messages to each other (which take time to return) or to a third observer, who may be moving relative to either or both. What was your major?
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Jul 5, 2019 23:06:50 GMT
Shadrack appears to have nailed it. The question is meaningless while A and B are just meandering apart. However when one accelerates (as they must if they are moving apart) reciprocal movement disappears and the time difference appears. It gets resolved when one or both send messages to each other (which take time to return) or to a third observer, who may be moving relative to either or both. What was your major? The World. But apart from learning all about sex, drugs and rock n roll at University (something the Professors thought less worthy of high marks than I did), I have had a lifelong passion for science. Relativity is fiendishly complex with hellish paradoxes, that I suspect only those who immerse themselves in the subject for years (for example theoretical physics majors) can fully understand. A basic understanding of mathematics helps. Having studied it 50 years ago and relativity not being a strong interest for me, the above is as far as I remember it now. Wikipedia and other web resources are good but require some background and time to think about.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2019 23:07:44 GMT
Shadrack appears to have nailed it. The question is meaningless while A and B are just meandering apart. However when one accelerates (as they must if they are moving apart) reciprocal movement disappears and the time difference appears. It gets resolved when one or both send messages to each other (which take time to return) or to a third observer, who may be moving relative to either or both. What was your major? It was actually Captain, Darling!
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 6, 2019 20:48:22 GMT
I don't know and I don't care. If I ever get into a situation where I or someone else moves with speed of light, I guess I will have different things on my mind than Harold's age, whoever Harold is. Have you an opinion on the Michelson Morely experiment? I don't believe it was designed well enough to establish an absolute frame of reference or not. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first of many such tests conducted over the years, with ever increasing refinement and sensistivity. More recent tests have made use of lasers, masers, and other techniques. All of them have failed to produced any positive result, just as the original experiments done in the 1880s.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 15:21:14 GMT
Have you an opinion on the Michelson Morely experiment? I don't believe it was designed well enough to establish an absolute frame of reference or not. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first of many such tests conducted over the years, with ever increasing refinement and sensistivity. More recent tests have made use of lasers, masers, and other techniques. All of them have failed to produced any positive result, just as the original experiments done in the 1880s. The problem with table top sized apparatus is that the time interval for the beam to return is too short, and the problem with bouncing beams off mirrors mountain tops apart is aligning them with the suspected direction of the proposed ether, or rather finding the perpendicular to it. Then there is the necessity of examining the z axis.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 7, 2019 17:54:26 GMT
The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first of many such tests conducted over the years, with ever increasing refinement and sensistivity. More recent tests have made use of lasers, masers, and other techniques. All of them have failed to produced any positive result, just as the original experiments done in the 1880s. The problem with table top sized apparatus is that the time interval for the beam to return is too short, and the problem with bouncing beams off mirrors mountain tops apart is aligning them with the suspected direction of the proposed ether, or rather finding the perpendicular to it. Then there is the necessity of examining the z axis. The Earth revolves around its own axis and revolves around the sun, both in circular motions that constantly change the "axes" with velocities measured in km/s. Yet the time of day nor the month of the year make no difference: the motion of the earth remains undetectable at all times.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 7, 2019 17:59:09 GMT
Shadrack appears to have nailed it. The question is meaningless while A and B are just meandering apart. However when one accelerates (as they must if they are moving apart) reciprocal movement disappears and the time difference appears. It gets resolved when one or both send messages to each other (which take time to return) or to a third observer, who may be moving relative to either or both. What was your major? Physics & Chemistry
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 18:08:58 GMT
The problem with table top sized apparatus is that the time interval for the beam to return is too short, and the problem with bouncing beams off mirrors mountain tops apart is aligning them with the suspected direction of the proposed ether, or rather finding the perpendicular to it. Then there is the necessity of examining the z axis. The Earth revolves around its own axis and revolves around the sun, both in circular motions that constantly change the "axes" with velocities measured in km/s. Yet the time of day nor the month of the year make no difference: the motion of the earth remains undetectable at all times. I don't believe there is a luminiferous ether, not that what I believe matters. I believe each field as it collapses generates the next expanding one. An electric field generates a magnetic one at a right angle which then generates an electric field at another right angle (180 degrees to the previous electric field) and so on. Proofs are really difficult though, that's all I'm saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 18:30:12 GMT
Here's the answer to the apparent paradox if anyone's interested
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 7, 2019 19:53:39 GMT
Here's the answer to the apparent paradox if anyone's interested < video on Lorentz Transformation > I expect interest in that sort of thing is going to fall off rapidly.
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Jul 8, 2019 11:18:05 GMT
The stationary person ages faster than the in-motion person.. right?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 8, 2019 15:02:26 GMT
The stationary person ages faster than the in-motion person.. right? The video didn't emphasize the salient point that breaks the symmetry in the twins paradox: acceleration. Whichever twin undergoes the most acceleration will be younger if they separate and reunite.
|
|