What was wrong with Dingle?

Quickly, the Lorentz equation x=(L/g)+vt (g as in gamma) gives the distance a rod moves as observed within a fixed frame. How then is variable t measured in the equation? The variable t is measured by y/c not x/c because events perpendicular to motion are simultaneous between fixed frame and moving frame. If y is invariant and c is constant between fixed frame and moving frame, then a clock having components y and c within a fixed frame is synchronized with a clock having components y and c in a moving frame. Time taken for a rocket ship to travel through space interval is by x/c, but time of a clock's tick through the same space is by y/c. Time dilation is based on comparing clocks (y/c) in a fixed frame to a clock (y/c) in a moving frame.

Also, given a typical rocket ship "thought experiment", there is no reason to place working clocks along side the path of the rocket ship within the fixed frame. It is a "thought experiment", so just place flags instead. If the rocket ship is traveling at .5 the speed of light, then the 1st flag is placed 180,000 meters away from the origin of the fixed frame, the 2nd flag 300,000 meters away, the 3rd flag 480,000 meters away, the 4th flag 600,000 meters away, etc., etc, etc,. What, then, should the clock in then fixed frame read when the rocket ship reaches the 10th flag? Answer: 20 seconds. And what does the clock on the rocket ship say at the 10th flag? Answer: less the 20 seconds according to Special Relativity. Two clocks are all that is needed; one in the fixed frame and the other in the moving frame. A GPS clock is really unnecessary; just compare what the clocks should read as the clock in the moving frame passes any particular flag.

Last, is not the concept of "proper time" and "improper time " better indexed by a standard graph of simultaneous events then the MInkowski diagram of non-simultaneous events? If we said the mechanism of clocks are give by y/c, and y is invarient and c is constant between frames, Wouldn't the slope of time indexed be greater for "poper time" in the fixed frame (say 20 seconds), then a slope for "improper time" in the moving frame (say 16 seconds)?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ebg</i>
<br />given a typical rocket ship "thought experiment", there is no reason to place working clocks along side the path of the rocket ship within the fixed frame.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I mean no insult, but you have now confirmed that you do not understand special relativity at all. Yes, there is a reason because each frame makes a different judgment about remote time in any other frame. For example, you and I will not agree what time it is right now in Tokyo if the two of us have a relative motion with respect to each other. There is no such thing as distant simultaneity in SR.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is a "thought experiment", so just place flags instead. If the rocket ship is traveling at .5 the speed of light, then the 1st flag is placed 180,000 meters away from the origin of the fixed frame,...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is no such thing as an absolute distance in SR. Only one frame will agree that the distance is 180,000 meters.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And what does the clock on the rocket ship say at the 10th flag? Answer: less the 20 seconds according to Special Relativity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The rocket frame does not agree that the clocks in the "fixed" frame were ever synchronized with his own clocks, so the rocket frame concludes that less than 20 seconds elapsed in the "fixed" frame. SR has perfect symmetry between frames.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Last, is not the concept of "proper time" and "improper time" better indexed by a standard graph of simultaneous events then the MInkowski diagram of non-simultaneous events?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The key to understanding SR is to realize that there is no such thing as distant simultaneity. The article I sent you to describes this effect as "time slippage". You are ignoring it, which leads you to paradoxes. -|Tom|-

Well, It seems your answers always circumnavigate back to the "Twin Paradox". Sorry, but the established theory of Special Relativity does allow for a fixed frame and a moving frame, as Lorentzian Relativity does not. Also, as a Lorentzian Relativity supporter, you avoided the question of "where and when normal clocks are used" in establishing the "illusion" of length contraction.

Additionally, because a length of 1 meter in the rocket ship's frame never changes, and a length of one meter in the fixed frame never changes, a flag placed 10 light years away from an origin of a fixed frame is also observed to be 10 light years away from the origin to an observer within a rocket ship passing the flag. "Proper length" within the rocket frame measures the flag at 10 light years away from the origin, and "improper length" within the fixed frame measures the flag at 10 light years away from the origin. It is only length {like the length of a rod}and not distance {like light years}, that is observed contracted between reference frames within Special Relativity {as in the fixed frame's observation of a rod in the moving frame: [x=L'/g +vt], not [x= L'/g +(vt)/g]...and, as in moving frame's observation of a rod in the fixed frame: [x'=L/g -vt'], not [x'=L/g -(vt')/g], whereby g is gamma}.

Last, is not the motion of light across a length of y within a moving frame simultaneous to the motion of light across the same invariant length of y within a fixed frame, particularly when c is constant between reference frames? I know that question is contrary to Special Relativity. I also know what explanation a Special Relativity supporter would give, but explain the proper difference as a Lorentzian Relativity supporter. Yes, Yes, I am ignorant, but I would like to hear the explanation of a Lorentzian Relativity supporter on invariants perpendicular to motion, and to light's motion across invariants lengths within two different reference frames.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ebg</i>
<br />Sorry, but the established theory of Special Relativity does allow for a fixed frame and a moving frame, as Lorentzian Relativity does not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What a curious thing to say. LR has a preferred frame, relative to which all other frames are in motion.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, as a Lorentzian Relativity supporter, you avoided the question of "where and when normal clocks are used" in establishing the "illusion" of length contraction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In LR, there is only a single universal time, and all clocks read it. And there is only a single standard of length as well. But the speed of light varies in a Galilean way. So if we used the speed of light to measure lengths, the lengths would appear to vary also.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Additionally, because a length of 1 meter in the rocket ship's frame never changes, and a length of one meter in the fixed frame never changes, a flag placed 10 light years away from an origin of a fixed frame is also observed to be 10 light years away from the origin to an observer within a rocket ship passing the flag.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then you are not talking about SR. In SR, an observer near Earth traveling at a speed corresponding to gamme = 48 will see Alpha Centauri (4 light years away in our frame) only one light month away.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">explain the proper difference as a Lorentzian Relativity supporter. ... I would like to hear the explanation of a Lorentzian Relativity supporter on invariants perpendicular to motion, and to light's motion across invariants lengths within two different reference frames.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In LR, space and time resume their original role as invariant dimensions. Clocks can be affected by motion or potential, but that can be compensated, just as for any clock that tends to run fast or slow. Once the clock rates are fixed, everything else becomes classical. The speed of light is c +/- v in the direction of motion, and c in perpendicular directions. -|Tom|-

Sincerly, I thank you for that information. How are the clocks compensated? What differs Lorenzian Relativity from an emission theory? Is Lorenzian Relativity an attempt to salvage "ether drag"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by ebg</i>
<br />How are the clocks compensated?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">By rate adjustments. For example, if we expect a GPS satellite to speed up by 40,000 nanoseconds/day when it reaches its destination orbit, we slow it down by 40,000 ns/day before launch. Then after launch, the orbiting clock runs at the same rate as a ground clock.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What differs Lorenzian Relativity from an emission theory?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't know what you mean by "an emission theory".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is Lorenzian Relativity an attempt to salvage "ether drag"?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">LR is based on the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) of 1904, which was a complete relativity theory for the aether. Einstein's SR was published the following year, in 1905, and tried to accomplish the same thing as Lorentz but without an aether.

LR differs from LET by identifying the specific preferred frame -- the local gravity field. The reason for aether entrainment is simple: Gravity makes aether denser near masses, just as large masses can hold an atmosphere. -|Tom|-