What was wrong with Dingle?

The issues of Special Relativity and General Relativity are different. The rate of ticking clocks depend on motion within Special Relativity, and the rate of ticking clocks depend on gravitation potential within General Relativity. If the Lorentzian Relativity replaces Special Relativity, it shouldn't be too difficult to speak of clocks affected by motion without speaking of the same clocks affected by gravitation potential.

Given that the Lorentian Relativity regards the contraction of length to be of physical origin, then Lorentz Relativity ignores "proper length" as defined within Special Relativity.

For example, let's look at "proper length" within a rocket ship as given in the form of a thought experiment. First, by Special Relativity, the length of a rod on the rocket ship is always the same as observed from within the rocket ship, regardless of the rod's orientation to the rocket ship's motion. However, by Lorentzian Relativity, when the rod is perpendicular to the rocket ship's motion, the length of the rod is still invariant as observed from within the rocket ship; but, when the rod is parallel to the rocket ship's motion, the length of the rod is physically contracted as observed from within the rocket ship. Moreover, then, an observer on the rocket ship would be able to witness an actual change in the aspect ratio of length to width within the rocket ship as the rocket ship's velocity approached the speed of light.

Therefore, Lorentzian Relativity violates the Galileo's Principle of Relativity: that, being, a person cannot tell his or her own velocity within a vessel without looking out beyond the vessel for a third point of reference. At least, given "proper length", Special Relativity doesn't violate Galileo's Principle of Relativity. However, Lorentzian Relativity disregard for "proper length" violates Galileo's Principle of Relativity.

<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 that the Lorentian Relativity regards the contraction of length to be of physical origin, then Lorentz Relativity ignores "proper length" as defined within Special Relativity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, this mixes concepts. I concluded in a 2003 MRB article that there is no physical length contraction in LR. What we have instead is a kind of illusory length contraction that occurs only if we assume the speed of light is constant. Then the length of a rod measured with a light beam traveling its length using two normal clocks is one thing, and the unchanged length of the same rod measured with slowed clocks will be a different thing. Even though nothing changed about the rod, our measurements will show a difference depending on the motion and/or potential of the clocks used.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Therefore, Lorentzian Relativity violates the Galileo's Principle of Relativity: that, being, a person cannot tell his or her own velocity within a vessel without looking out beyond the vessel for a third point of reference.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Certainly, LR does violate the principle because it has a preferred frame: the local gravitational potential field. But there is no universal reference frame in LR, so there is still no absolute motion.

LR takes a bit of getting used to after dealing with SR; but its explanation of phenomena is actually much simpler than SR's. -|Tom|-

I'm a little unclear when and where "normal" clocks and "slowed" clocks are used to show illusionary contraction within Lorentzian Relativity. Questioning Lorentzian Relativity, look at "proper time" and "improper time" within Special Relativity.

Along the Y-axis of graph paper, let light-travel time be at the scale of 1"=300,000 meters. Along the X-axis of graph paper, let a rocket ship's-travel time be at the scale of 1/2"=150,000 meters. Then, for every 1/2" interval of the rocket ship's flight, time is given as a sequence of integers: 1st 1/2" interval, 2nd 1/2" interval, 3rd 1/2" interval, etc. etc. Now, "proper time" within a fixed frame is graphed with a slope of m=2, and "improper time" within the rocket ship frame is graphed with a slope of m=2/g=1.72 (whereby g is gamma at 1.16). Moreover, light-travel time of 300,000 meters per second as a mechanism for a clock's tick interval is invariant between the fixed frame and rocket ship frame because light-travel is perpendicular to the rocket ship's motion. Therefore, time dilation is not actually caused by the mechanism of a clock's tick slowing down within the rocket ship frame. Graphically, within the rocket ship frame, time dilation occurs because the body of a clock passes through space intervals quicker as the velocity of rocket ship approaches the speed of light.

However, does the illusion of contraction within Lorentzian Relativity depend on the mechanisms of clock ticks actually slowing down? Mechanisms of clock ticks actual slowing down would constitute suspended animation? Suspended animation is an invalid principle of relativity? I do not think that is what you are saying.

<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 />I'm a little unclear when and where "normal" clocks and "slowed" clocks are used to show illusionary contraction within Lorentzian Relativity. Questioning Lorentzian Relativity, look at "proper time" and "improper time" within Special Relativity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is certainly challenging trying to follow your examples. It appears to me that you don't yet understand special relativity (SR), let alone Lorentzian relativity (LR). The link I gave at the beginning of this topic deals with SR, LR, twins, and GPS. If you can read that with understanding, most of your questions will be answered.

In SR, all frames are equivalent, and all clocks keep "proper time". In general relativity (GR), the concept of proper time is introduced for clocks whose ticking rate is altered (up or down) by gravitational potential and/or velocity relative to the local gravitational potential field. Time for unaltered clocks is called "coordinate time".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Along the Y-axis of graph paper, let light-travel time be at the scale of 1"=300,000 meters. Along the X-axis of graph paper, let a rocket ship's-travel time be at the scale of 1/2"=150,000 meters. Then, for every 1/2" interval of the rocket ship's flight, time is given as a sequence of integers: 1st 1/2" interval, 2nd 1/2" interval, 3rd 1/2" interval, etc. etc. Now, "proper time" within a fixed frame is graphed with a slope of m=2, and "improper time" within the rocket ship frame is graphed with a slope of m=2/g=1.72 (whereby g is gamma at 1.16).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Good grief. That makes several unstated assumptions. In SR, time diltion and length contraction go together. If one is changed by gamma, so is the other. You must decide if your axes represent time or space, or if you intended a Minkowski diagram where the Y-axis represents time and the x-axis represents space. If the last was intended, then you will need two Minkowski diagrams, one for a vertical proper time axis and the other for a vertical coordinate time axis.

As your description stands, I must ask why gamma decreased the slope. If time slows for the rocket frame, then it would have a larger slope, not a smaller one, assuming space contraction is being ignored.

But there is way too much confusion here to offer sensible answers.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Moreover, light-travel time of 300,000 meters per second as a mechanism for a clock's tick interval is invariant between the fixed frame and rocket ship frame because light-travel is perpendicular to the rocket ship's motion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">?? What about light travel in the direction of the rocket's motion? You still appear to be mixing space and time in a way I can't sort out.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Therefore, [in SR] time dilation is not actually caused by the mechanism of a clock's tick slowing down within the rocket ship frame. ... However, does the illusion of contraction within Lorentzian Relativity depend on the mechanisms of clock ticks actually slowing down?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Overlooking the reason you gave, it is true that no clock is actually slowed in SR. But every clock in other frames appears slowed to an observer in any frame.

By contrast, in LR, all clocks moving relative to the local gravitational potential field really have slowed ticking. The GPS system demonstrates this effect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Mechanisms of clock ticks actual slowing down would constitute suspended animation?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Depending on definitions, I would agree with this. The traveling twin returns younger because he experiences a relativistic type of "suspended animation", not "time dilation". -|Tom|-

[ebg] "Mechanisms of clock ticks actual slowing down would constitute suspended animation?"

[tvf]" Depending on definitions, I would agree with this. The traveling twin returns younger because he experiences a relativistic type of "suspended animation", not "time dilation"."


And just to really warp your mind, I have a different opinion. I believe that biological clocks are not changed in any way by velocity or gravitational potential. Why would a cell age faster or slower just because the atoms it is built from have electrons that orbit faster or slower?

Speed does not change time, it only changes the tick rate of certain types of clocks. At least according to LR.

The traveling twin will return no older or younger in the biological sense, but his (atomic) clocks will be way off. This could be tested by sending a multi-generation fruit fly (one generation = one week) or bacteria (one generation = one day or so) experiment on a high speed ride around the solar system. Each generation would be a "tick of the biological clock". Controlling for radiation would be difficult.

Hmmm. Plants might work better than animals, since it would be easier to create a long duration closed envirnoment.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Why would a cell age faster or slower just because the atoms it is built from have electrons that orbit faster or slower?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Aging is a form of change, and change cannot happen without motion. So this is a question of whether there can be atomic motions that are not controlled and limited by the elysium sea the atoms are immersed in. Certainly, I think you would agree that, if all motions in atoms are retarded the way the electron orbitals are, then aging must be slowed as well.

OTOH, if motion independent of elysium is possible on the atomic level, I would agree with you that aging would not be retarded. For example, if all aging is a function of exposure to external radiation, then an interstellar traveler might expect accelerated aging.

So it's an interesting question, and one that must ultimately be decided by experiment -- at least until such time as we understand the essence of biology as well as we now think we understand the essence of gravity. -|Tom|-