Comments on Maison Fleury: Musing about Physics: Feynman and time dilation

Are you this kenhughes? http://www.amazon.co.uk/T...

2011-06-15T11:58:52.054-07:00

Are you this kenhughes?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Dilation-Reality-Independant-Relativity/dp/0956800203

Further thoughts on the HK experiment. SR really has nothing to say but "both clocks are slow compared to each other" which is non-sensical once you bring the clocks back together (twin class experiments) but again this assumes non-inertial movement as there must be acceleration and then all bets are off with respect to SR. I have learned to 'embrace' SR for the silly thing that it is, there is no contradiction in the Lorentz special group, you can draw all the silly diagrams.

In reviewing SR it is really the first postulate that is problematic that every inertial OBSERVER would see C. But HK/ MMX type experiments are very disturbing. If you do not accept SR 1st postulate then you are left with a preferred frame of reference. I have no problem with a preferred frame of reference conceptually but still struggling.

I am focusing on MMX at the moment. I think, unfortunately, time dilation is not enough, you do need length contraction. Which means you have half the lorentz transform (from stationary to moving). It is the reciprocity of the lorentz transform that is problematic (for me) at a conceptual level and leads to a funky definition of time and space.

As an aside, not sure what you meant by "unidirectionality of time". Yes, there is unidirectionality but that is not part of SR, you have "contraction" not reversal (at this stage).

Ken, thanks for your thoughts on this. I did stu...

2011-06-15T11:49:18.100-07:00

Ken, thanks for your thoughts on this.

I did study briefly the Hafele-Keating experiment you refer to. It has SR and GR components. But really it is a GR thing since the clocks have acceleration. If you have an experiment in mind to test please do share.

'Very ineresting account and also, completely ...

2011-06-15T05:51:50.371-07:00

'Very ineresting account and also, completely accurate. I can't help but take this seriously, sorry, I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to relativity.
SR makes one fundamental error and that is to ignore the unidirectionality (asymmetry) of time as compared to the bi-directionality (symmetry) of physical dimensions. It draws silly little diagrams of ships passing each other to prove that time dilation is reciprocal, (looks the same between ships), but in doing so, it ignores this fundamental difference.
In 1971, they flew an atomic clock around the world in both directions and left another behind. In accordance with SR, the moving one had lost time by the end of the journey. This proves the moving clock ran slower during its travels. This is also in contradiction with SR since there must be a redshift observed from the Earth clock but a blue shift observed from the moving one due to the different relative time rates.
As you rightly point out, no one has yet taken the position of the muon, or indeed of any moving entity which has a significant enough time dilation to be observable. I predict this red/blue shift non reciprocality and encourage an experiment to test this hypothesis. Any takers?

ya, i just had the idea that 'time' was no...

2011-05-29T14:42:08.445-07:00

ya, i just had the idea that 'time' was nothing other than the relation of objects to each other -- for example, the moving of objects back to the same exact relation to each other is a kind of timelessness or time loop. and had never seen it presented so simply before. then, you were saying something similar. i was surprised.

plus the point about scale is fascinating.

i havent read it in a while. like four years ago. dont have it handy. not available in kindle form either.

i need to take some time and re-think some things from about 15 years ago and send you a note.

so then, you'll know i'm totally insane.

or way ahead of my time. er.

well, you know what i mean.

Pcleddy, browsed teh first pages of the book. Soun...

2011-05-28T02:39:05.540-07:00

Pcleddy, browsed teh first pages of the book. Sounds interesting, but not sure what the 'theory' is. Time in this view looses its "special dimension" status, it is just an 'index" on events. The way the index evolves is dependent on speed.

while i'm asking you to "take a look"...

2011-05-27T15:37:14.944-07:00

while i'm asking you to "take a look", what do you think of the first 40 pages of this?

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Ecology-Spirituality-Spirit-Evolution/dp/1570627444

i've got some strange ideas about trying to explain existence from a devolution/evolution perspective. or, at least, i used to think about these things. now, i learn german.

what do you think about the first ten pages of thi...

2011-05-27T15:32:57.373-07:00

what do you think about the first ten pages of this book? does it relate? (ahem)

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Matter-Missing-Planets-Comets/dp/1556432682

glad i'm not crazy, always claiming there is "no time", so no "time travel".

the question is, can we drop time out of all equations then? have a new physic so simply?