Would computers accelerated to high speeds compute \"faster\" from our point of view?...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:20:45 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:34:27 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 12:01:05 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

Also from Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Common sense would dictate that, if the passage of time has slowed for a moving object, said object would observe the external world\'s time to be correspondingly sped up. Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts the opposite. When two observers are in motion relative to each other, each will measure the other\'s clock slowing down, in concordance with them being in motion relative to the observer\'s frame of reference.

So what point are you trying to make?

That there is experimental evidence that if you send an atomic clock around the earth in the same direction that the earth is spinning, it runs slower than one that has been sent around the earth in the opposite direction..Of course they both run a bit faster than the third atomic clock that stayed at home on the ground and was thus more red-shifted by the influence of the earth\'s gravitational field (which is weaker when you are up in an aircraft).

Clearly both moving clocks were subjected to much the same accelerations every time their plane took off and landed - that won\'t be affected by the direction in which they flew around the world.

The effects are separable. Looking up what \"reciprocity\" means seems to be a less useful exercise.

Ok, so you are talking about something different from the rest of us. Fine, glad we got that straight.

The Hafele-Keating experiment is pretty close to what the question that started this thread, Admittedly atomic clocks are more stable than the average computer clock, but both are supposed to run at the same frequency all the time (at least from a local perspective).

You seem to have decided to go off on a semantic exercise that doesn\'t have any practical point at all. I don\'t think that you can claim to be \"the rest of us\".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
\"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek
for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual
acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative,
but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as
illustrated in the twin paradox.

From Wikipedia

Reciprocity Given a certain frame of reference, and the \"stationary\"
observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the
\"moving\" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other\'s
clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to
them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion
relative to their own stationary frame of reference.

It is possible to derive the classic SR Lorentz transformations by very
careful consideration of the mutual events of two metre rules as
measured in their respective rest frames passing each other at a speed v
enough for relativistic corrections to apply by invoking reciprocity.

> So what point are you trying to make?

I think it is more appropriate to ask you that question.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
\"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek
for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
as absolute velocity.

2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
the other doesn\'t? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences
in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

torsdag den 5. maj 2022 kl. 16.15.09 UTC+2 skrev Clive Arthur:

On 04/05/2022 08:59, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger than
the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop space
vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to set off
will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also return first).
The really difficult problem is how to calculate the astronaut\'s pay
when they return.

just depend on agreeing whether you get paid for the hours worked,
or you get paid for the hours you couldn\'t do something else

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
as absolute velocity.

Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

It\'s a proxy for the \"fixed stars\" which is now the retreating galaxies.

2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
the other doesn\'t? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

> A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

Probably not. If you are silly enough to ask the question, you are probably too silly to understand the answer.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
\"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek
for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.
There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

You can\'t even state the problem correctly. Our frame of reference is no more stationary than the muon. This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.

Please analyze the muon reaching the ground with the observer moving with the muon rather than on the ground.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual
acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative,
but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as
illustrated in the twin paradox.

From Wikipedia

Reciprocity Given a certain frame of reference, and the \"stationary\"
observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the
\"moving\" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other\'s
clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to
them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion
relative to their own stationary frame of reference.
It is possible to derive the classic SR Lorentz transformations by very
careful consideration of the mutual events of two metre rules as
measured in their respective rest frames passing each other at a speed v
enough for relativistic corrections to apply by invoking reciprocity.
So what point are you trying to make?
I think it is more appropriate to ask you that question.

I was discussing a topic. Was there something I said that you found unclear?

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co..uk> wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
snip
The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth..

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
as absolute velocity.
Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

I\'m pretty sure that\'s a fallacy. Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe expanding away from that point, including the microwave background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe if you are referring to the extent of the red-shift. What do you mean exactly by \"it looks essentially uniform\"? Uniform in what aspect?

It\'s a proxy for the \"fixed stars\" which is now the retreating galaxies.
2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
the other doesn\'t? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?
Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.
A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

That\'s hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy, that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as well.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:17:48 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
snip
The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity..

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
as absolute velocity.

Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

I\'m pretty sure that\'s a fallacy.

It isn\'t.

> Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe expanding away from that point, including the microwave background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe if you are referring to the extent of the red-shift. What do you mean exactly by \"it looks essentially uniform\"? Uniform in what aspect?

As soon as you start moving with respect to the rest of the universe the segment of the microwave background you are moving towards is Doppler shifted to a shorter wavelength, and the segment you are moving away from is Doppler-shifted to a longer wavelength.

It\'s a proxy for the \"fixed stars\" which is now the retreating galaxies..
2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
the other doesn\'t? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

That\'s hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy, that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as well.

If you are in the business of getting and staying confused, you can find a lot of stuff to get confused about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:09:39 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
\"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek
for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.
There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

You can\'t even state the problem correctly. Our frame of reference is no more stationary than the muon.

Our rest frame is stationary with respect the visible universe (give or take our orbital velocity around out galactic centre, and the fact that our galaxy is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy, both at rather small fractions of the speed of light).

> This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions.. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.

Except that the \"fixed stars\", now called the cosmic microwave background, is just such a stationary frame of reference. Hubble recession means that it isn\'t exactly stationary, but it does serve the purpose.

> Please analyze the muon reaching the ground with the observer moving with the muon rather than on the ground.

The observer moving with the muon got converted to an extremely warm plasma as soon as it reached the outskirts of the atmosphere.

They won\'t be interested in hearing about your analysis.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:07:29 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:17:48 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux....@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
snip
The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
as absolute velocity.

Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

I\'m pretty sure that\'s a fallacy.
It isn\'t.

Oh, but it is.

Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe expanding away from that point, including the microwave background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe if you are referring to the extent of the red-shift. What do you mean exactly by \"it looks essentially uniform\"? Uniform in what aspect?
As soon as you start moving with respect to the rest of the universe the segment of the microwave background you are moving towards is Doppler shifted to a shorter wavelength, and the segment you are moving away from is Doppler-shifted to a longer wavelength.

So I can measure my speed through the ether? Wow! Too bad Michelson and Morley didn\'t know about this. Who has measured out speed through the microwave background? What is our speed relative to the universe?

Wow! What if the Universe is itself moving? Maybe the Universe is moving at some huge factor of the speed of light? That would be trippy!

It\'s a proxy for the \"fixed stars\" which is now the retreating galaxies.
2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
the other doesn\'t? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

That\'s hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy, that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as well.
If you are in the business of getting and staying confused, you can find a lot of stuff to get confused about.

Yeah, let us know how it works out for you.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:19:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:09:39 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
\"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek
for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion..
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.
There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

You can\'t even state the problem correctly. Our frame of reference is no more stationary than the muon.
Our rest frame is stationary with respect the visible universe (give or take our orbital velocity around out galactic centre, and the fact that our galaxy is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy, both at rather small fractions of the speed of light).

Why? That definition is a bit circular. The part of the universe is defined by our rest frame. The muon doesn\'t care about any of that, does it?

This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.
Except that the \"fixed stars\", now called the cosmic microwave background, is just such a stationary frame of reference. Hubble recession means that it isn\'t exactly stationary, but it does serve the purpose.

The purpose of what? What we can observe, will be defined by our rest frame. Saying our rest frame is defined by what we see is meaningless.

What if we were accelerated to 0.99 c relative to our previous rest frame by passing by a star or black hole? Would that make our rest frame different? Would it change the view of the universe? Would it change the microwave background?

Please analyze the muon reaching the ground with the observer moving with the muon rather than on the ground.
The observer moving with the muon got converted to an extremely warm plasma as soon as it reached the outskirts of the atmosphere.

Yeah, that\'s what I figured. This stuff is beyond you these days. Sorry about that.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:07:14 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:19:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:09:39 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

<snip>

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

You can\'t even state the problem correctly. Our frame of reference is no more stationary than the muon.

Our rest frame is stationary with respect the visible universe (give or take our orbital velocity around out galactic centre, and the fact that our galaxy is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy, both at rather small fractions of the speed of light).

Why? That definition is a bit circular. The part of the universe is defined by our rest frame. The muon doesn\'t care about any of that, does it?

Clearly it does, otherwise it would decay a lot faster.

This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.

Except that the \"fixed stars\", now called the cosmic microwave background, is just such a stationary frame of reference. Hubble recession means that it isn\'t exactly stationary, but it does serve the purpose.

The purpose of what? What we can observe, will be defined by our rest frame. Saying our rest frame is defined by what we see is meaningless.

If we couldn\'t see it, how could we call it a rest frame?

> What if we were accelerated to 0.99 c relative to our previous rest frame by passing by a star or black hole? Would that make our rest frame different? Would it change the view of the universe? Would it change the microwave background?

Quite obviously it would. Our view of the universe would be distorted by Lorenz contraction, for a start, and the cosmic ray background would look at lot hotter in the direction we were heading and a lot cooler in the direction we were leaving behind.

We\'d probably get mashed by tidal forces in the process

https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/gravity/neutron-star-tides-physics-of-a-larry-niven-short-story/

Please analyze the muon reaching the ground with the observer moving with the muon rather than on the ground.

The observer moving with the muon got converted to an extremely warm plasma as soon as it reached the outskirts of the atmosphere.

Yeah, that\'s what I figured. This stuff is beyond you these days. Sorry about that.

It looks more as if it is beyond you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 3:56:37 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:07:29 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:17:48 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux....@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
snip
The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
as absolute velocity.

Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

I\'m pretty sure that\'s a fallacy.
It isn\'t.
Oh, but it is.
Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe expanding away from that point, including the microwave background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe if you are referring to the extent of the red-shift. What do you mean exactly by \"it looks essentially uniform\"? Uniform in what aspect?
As soon as you start moving with respect to the rest of the universe the segment of the microwave background you are moving towards is Doppler shifted to a shorter wavelength, and the segment you are moving away from is Doppler-shifted to a longer wavelength.

So I can measure my speed through the ether? Wow! Too bad Michelson and Morley didn\'t know about this. Who has measured out speed through the microwave background? What is our speed relative to the universe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

talks about the Planck Surveyor mission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)

which did it\'s work from the L2 Earth-Sun Lagrangian point. Michelson and Morley would have had a hard time getting there, and wouldn\'t have been able to take along enough liquid helium for the detectors that they would have needed

\"a dipole anisotropy from the Doppler shift of the background radiation. The latter is caused by the peculiar velocity of the Sun relative to the co-moving cosmic rest frame as it moves at some 369.82 ± 0.11 km/s towards the constellation Leo (galactic longitude 264.021 ± 0.011, galactic latitude 48.253 ± 0.005).[11] The CMB dipole and aberration at higher multipoles have been measured, consistent with galactic motion.[12]

[11] The Planck Collaboration (2020), \"Planck 2018 results. I. Overview, and the cosmological legacy of Planck\", Astronomy and Astrophysics, 641: A1, arXiv:1807.06205, Bibcode:2020A&A...641A...1P, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880, S2CID 119185252

[12] The Planck Collaboration (2014), \"Planck 2013 results. XXVII. Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove\", Astronomy, 571 (27): A27, arXiv:1303.5087, Bibcode:2014A&A...571A..27P, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321556, S2CID 5398329

It wasn\'t looking at the ether (which doesn\'t seem to exist) but the microwave backgrounds photons flying around, which do.

> Wow! What if the Universe is itself moving? Maybe the Universe is moving at some huge factor of the speed of light? That would be trippy!

The Sun is moving at about 0.123%of the speed of light in the direction of the constellation Leo. Most of that is probably its orbital velocity around the centre of our galaxy - I haven\'t checked that recently but 0.123% of c seems to be in the right ballpark.

It\'s a proxy for the \"fixed stars\" which is now the retreating galaxies.

2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
the other doesn\'t? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

That\'s hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy, that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as well.

If you are in the business of getting and staying confused, you can find a lot of stuff to get confused about.

Yeah, let us know how it works out for you.

I just did.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Martin Brown]

On 08/05/2022 22:39, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
\"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek
for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
as absolute velocity.

It comes back to two fairly simple axioms.

1. The laws of physics are identical for any observer in an inertial
frame of reference (ie in constant linear motion - not accelerating).

2. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant of nature.

Everything else in special relativity follows from that.

2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

And that is clearly verified experimentally!

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
the other doesn\'t? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences
in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

The thing that matters is that you can only compare times between mutual
events that are defined at fixed coordinates in spacetime. Events where
the twins are colocated however briefly (though preferably in the same
frame of reference) have a well defined spacetime distance between them.

Once they are spatially separated you can choose other reference frames
to alter their spacetime coordinates within certain limits determined by
the light cone of causality. The consequences of an event cannot ever
stray outside the causally connected zone defined by the speed of light.

The only way the twin who travels can ever get back to where he started
is to accelerate in some fashion. Either to go around in a big circle
like the particles in a CERN particle accelerator or for a spaceship by
firing a huge booster rocket when they get a suitable distance away from
the Earth. It will be a long while before we see anything macroscopic
travelling at an appreciable fraction of c.

The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and a
stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
moving clock spends time higher in the Earth\'s gravitational potential
as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

On 09/05/2022 06:56, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:07:29 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:17:48 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary
clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately. Since
constant motion is purely relative, each clock is
*observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time
frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one
clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change
in time elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that
would disagree with your perverse and confused
interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf



Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have
a half life of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them
to reach the ground even at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that
they *DO* last much longer in our almost stationary
observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about
40x.
I think the problem here is the conflict between two
oft-heard statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single
fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be
such a thing a as absolute velocity.

Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero
velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in
every direction.

I\'m pretty sure that\'s a fallacy.
It isn\'t.

Oh, but it is.

It has been measured as the cosmic microwave background anisotropy
pretty much ever since the first relatively low resolution COBE probe.
There is a roughly 7% difference in intensity at the survey wavelength
in opposing directions caused by our relative motion with respect to the
original frame of reference of the Big Bang.

It shows up as a ~2.5 sigma detection in the latest data. This isn\'t a
bad introduction to current state of the art see Figure 2 COBE data.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.04288.pdf

It represents about 3.35mK deviation on a background radiation
temperature of about 2.7K and is about 2.5 sigma detection. The whole
thing is complicated by local galactic plane emissions and foreground
galaxy cluster gas interactions altering the incoming radiation.

The Earth is moving with a very modest velocity relative to the original
Big Bang spacetime coordinate (0,0,0,0). It is mostly dominated by the
motion of our galactic cluster towards the great attractor with minor
corrections for attraction to Andromeda galaxy (collision due in 4.5B
years), suns orbit around our galaxy and Earth\'s orbit around the sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe
expanding away from that point, including the microwave
background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe
if you are referring to the extent of the red-shift. What do you
mean exactly by \"it looks essentially uniform\"? Uniform in what
aspect?
As soon as you start moving with respect to the rest of the
universe the segment of the microwave background you are moving
towards is Doppler shifted to a shorter wavelength, and the segment
you are moving away from is Doppler-shifted to a longer
wavelength.

So I can measure my speed through the ether? Wow! Too bad Michelson
and Morley didn\'t know about this. Who has measured out speed
through the microwave background? What is our speed relative to the
universe?

Wow! What if the Universe is itself moving? Maybe the Universe is
moving at some huge factor of the speed of light? That would be
trippy!

Go far enough in any direction and there is a good chance that some of
it is already moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

The so called particle horizon that is forever inaccessible to us even
if we set off now at the speed of light. Infinity is *BIG*.

It\'s a proxy for the \"fixed stars\" which is now the retreating
galaxies.
2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship)
passes slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one
ought to be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is
stationary, and ship 1 is traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa.
So, how is it that one ages but the other doesn\'t? By
symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the
differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships?
How?

Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

That\'s hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy,
that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on
the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as
well.

If you are in the business of getting and staying confused, you can
find a lot of stuff to get confused about.

Yeah, let us know how it works out for you.

He is basically right although it is more of a philosophical point and
it makes no difference whatsoever to the twin paradox. Which isn\'t a
paradox at all - it just confuses people who don\'t understand SR.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 08/05/2022 22:41, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

torsdag den 5. maj 2022 kl. 16.15.09 UTC+2 skrev Clive Arthur:
On 04/05/2022 08:59, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger than
the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop space
vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to set off
will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also return first).
The really difficult problem is how to calculate the astronaut\'s pay
when they return.

just depend on agreeing whether you get paid for the hours worked,
or you get paid for the hours you couldn\'t do something else

Trouble is, he\'s worked for say a few months and comes back to find his
mortgage is a few years in arrears. Mind you with enough dilation, he
could inherit plenty from his children.

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Clive Arthur]

On 09/05/2022 09:48, Martin Brown wrote:

<snip>

The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and a
stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
moving clock spends time higher in the Earth\'s gravitational potential
as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

What happens to a clock in orbit, ie in freefall?

--
Cheers
Clive

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:19:11 PM UTC+10, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 09/05/2022 09:48, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and a
stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
moving clock spends time higher in the Earth\'s gravitational potential
as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

What happens to a clock in orbit, ie in freefall?

Look up the relativistic corrections for the Global Positioning System satellites. The corrections involved are quite big enough that the system wouldn\'t without them.

<https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2.pdf>

There\'s 56 pages of stuff there, and it\'s not written to be easy to read.

This may be easier to read, but I can\'t access the full text.

Physics Today 55, 5, 41 (2002); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1485583

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 9 May 2022 09:48:09 +0100, Martin Brown
<\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/05/2022 22:39, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

Let\'s imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
send the results to a central computer automatically.



From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

Would we be able to pick up A\'s broadcast?

Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
\"compress time\" on a machine like the LHC?

I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
I\'m sure someone has asked it, but I\'m not sure where to seek
for the answer—I\'m new to all things physics.

The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
both.
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
You didn\'t read the problem statement. \"the A computer being
accelerated to 0.5c\" is the part you missed or ignored.
It isn\'t even technically correct. Special relativity points out
that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
It\'s just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
elapsing.

There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
of about 2.2us which isn\'t long enough for them to reach the ground even
at nearly the speed of light.

It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
statements:

1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
as absolute velocity.

It comes back to two fairly simple axioms.

1. The laws of physics are identical for any observer in an inertial
frame of reference (ie in constant linear motion - not accelerating).

2. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant of nature.

Everything else in special relativity follows from that.

Yes.

2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

And that is clearly verified experimentally!

Yes. Always a good thing.

So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
the other doesn\'t? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences
in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

The thing that matters is that you can only compare times between mutual
events that are defined at fixed coordinates in spacetime. Events where
the twins are colocated however briefly (though preferably in the same
frame of reference) have a well defined spacetime distance between them.

Once they are spatially separated you can choose other reference frames
to alter their spacetime coordinates within certain limits determined by
the light cone of causality. The consequences of an event cannot ever
stray outside the causally connected zone defined by the speed of light.

The only way the twin who travels can ever get back to where he started
is to accelerate in some fashion. Either to go around in a big circle
like the particles in a CERN particle accelerator or for a spaceship by
firing a huge booster rocket when they get a suitable distance away from
the Earth. It will be a long while before we see anything macroscopic
travelling at an appreciable fraction of c.

True, but all this is hard for non-physicists in the audience to
follow or really understand.

The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and a
stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
moving clock spends time higher in the Earth\'s gravitational potential
as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

Yes.

The problem is that the above assumes too much background.

Now, Einstein did not start with all that math, he started with a
collection of gedanken experiments. I suspect that Einstein has a few
relevant examples, which would be very useful if stated (or linked)
here.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 9/5/22 11:19 pm, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 09/05/2022 09:48, Martin Brown wrote:

snip

The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and
a stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
moving clock spends time higher in the Earth\'s gravitational potential
as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

What happens to a clock in orbit, ie in freefall?

The pendulum stops swinging