Who Truly Experiences Slower Time in the Paradox of Time Dilation?

[atyy]

No. I fully accept both statements. I made them. I don't accept sylas’s claim that - “Whether you are in motion or stationary is relative”.

Oh, I see. I believe sylas's claim is simply the traditional short hand for those two statements.

 

[swerdna]

Oh, I see. I believe sylas's claim is simply the traditional short hand for those two statements.

Doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[atyy]

Doesn't make it any less wrong.

I thought you accepted the 2 statements? Or are you saying that it is not acceptable short hand for the 2 statements?

 

[swerdna]

I thought you accepted the 2 statements? Or are you saying that it is not acceptable short hand for the 2 statements?

What are you drinking? Doesn’t make Sylas’s statement - “Whether you are in motion or stationary is relative” any less wrong. Nothing to do with the statements I made. Sylas made that statement before I made mine.

 

[atyy]

What are you drinking? Doesn’t make Sylas’s statement - “Whether you are in motion or stationary is relative” any less wrong. Nothing to do with the statements I made. Sylas made his/her statement before I made mine.

Well, if sylas's statements have the same meaning as statements you consider correct, how can you consider them wrong?

 

[swerdna]

Well, if sylas's statements have the same meaning as statements you consider correct, how can you consider them wrong?

“Whether you are in motion or stationary is relative” (sylas) and “When you are accelerating you are absolutely in motion (no relativeness required)” (me) are NOT the “same meaning“. Please read at least some of the thread before commenting on it.

 

[atyy]

“Whether you are in motion or stationary is relative” (sylas) and “When you are accelerating you are absolutely in motion (no relativeness required)” (me) are NOT the “same meaning“. Please read at least some of the thread before commenting on it.

So you disagree with the traditional shorthand, which is fair enough. That means you have no problem with special relativity?

 

[swerdna]

So you disagree with the traditional shorthand, which is fair enough. That means you have no problem with special relativity?

How can sylas’s statement be a shorthand response to my statement when his statement was made first Is he psychic?

Whatever it is that you are drinking I think you really have had more than enough.

 

[swerdna]

Stationary can only exist in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.

Motion can exist in a relative sense and also in an absolute sense in the form of acceleration.

 

[atyy]

Stationary can only exist in a relative sense and not an absolute sense.

Motion can exist in a relative sense and also in an absolute sense in the form of acceleration.

Sure, that's understandable short hand for the 2 statements. So you accept special relativity?

 

[swerdna]

Sure, that's understandable short hand for the 2 statements. So you accept special relativity?

You’re just pulling my leg aren’t you. Very funny.

 

[atyy]

You’re just pulling my leg aren’t you. Very funny.

So which part of special relativity don't you accept?

 

[swerdna]

So which part of special relativity don't you accept?

If you are actually interested read the thread.

 

[atyy]

If you are actually interested read the thread.

Which post? I can only tell you think you disagree with special relativity. I can't tell that you disagree with special relativity.

 

[atyy]

Written in layman-speak . . .

An inertial frame is defined by non-accelerating things that don’t move relative to each other.

Sure. Better: an inertial frame is defined as a frame in which the laws of physics look "pretty", eg. in which Maxwell's equations have their "standard" form. The reason this is better is that you have used "non-accelerating" without specifying whether it is non-accelerating relative to an inertial or a non-inertial frame. Your statement is true if "non-accelerating" is defined relative to an inertial frame. But then you would have used "inertial frame" in the definition of "inertial frame".

No inertial frame can be stationary relative to any other inertial frame. It follows therefore that all inertial fames move relative to all other inertial frames.

Yes.

There is absolutely no evidence that anything can ever be absolutely stationary. It follows therefore that no inertial frame can be absolutely stationary.

Yes, provided "absolutely" means "relative to all inertial frames".

In other words inertial frames are always relatively and absolutely in motion.

Anything wrong with any of this?

This is wrong, if "absolutely" means "relative to all inertial frames", since each inertial frame is not in motion relative to itself, so it is not in motion relative to all inertial frames.

 

[swerdna]

Is the term “a thing is stationary relative to itself” really valid? Relative is one thing compared to another thing. For a thing to be relative to itself wouldn't it have to have multiple existence? How can a thing be relative to itself? A thing is itself. Stationary only exists as a relative situation so how can it be attributed to a situation that isn’t relative? A thing is in motion when it’s accelerating but acceleration isn’t a relative situation. I know I’ve used this term many times myself, but on reflection I thinks it’s nothing more than a nonsense

 

[atyy]

Is the term “a thing is stationary relative to itself” really valid? Relative is one thing compared to another thing. For a thing to be relative to itself wouldn't it have to have multiple existence? How can a thing be relative to itself? A thing is itself. Stationary only exists as a relative situation so how can it be attributed to a situation that isn’t relative? A thing is in motion when it’s accelerating but acceleration isn’t a relative situation. I know I’ve used this term many times myself, but on reflection I thinks it’s nothing more than a nonsense

I think it's ok.

But suppose it's not, that would still not make an inertial frame in motion relative to itself, so an inertial frame would not be in motion relative to all inertial frames, so it would not be in "absolute" motion, where "absolute" means "relative to all inertial frames".

Also, "acceleration is not relative" or "acceleration is absolute" is the traditional short hand for "acceleration is the same relative to all inertial frames".

 

[p764rds]

If I designed a 3D space (a big one) in a computer, then would relativity apply there to the objects I placed in it?
I was trying to work it out in my mind the other night, but got confused. Let's say I designed in a velocity of light (information) too. Probably no takers.. it was just a thought.

 

[atyy]

Is the term “a thing is stationary relative to itself” really valid? Relative is one thing compared to another thing. For a thing to be relative to itself wouldn't it have to have multiple existence? How can a thing be relative to itself? A thing is itself. Stationary only exists as a relative situation so how can it be attributed to a situation that isn’t relative? A thing is in motion when it’s accelerating but acceleration isn’t a relative situation. I know I’ve used this term many times myself, but on reflection I thinks it’s nothing more than a nonsense

BTW, I can't resist - have you heard of the man and his Ba? I think he tells his Ba not to leave him. Naively I understand a man's Ba to be himself, so the man is telling himself not to leave himself - how can that be?

 

[diazona]

If I designed a 3D space (a big one) in a computer, then would relativity apply there to the objects I placed in it?
I was trying to work it out in my mind the other night, but got confused. Let's say I designed in a velocity of light (information) too. Probably no takers.. it was just a thought.

What, you mean like a simulation? Not necessarily... the appeal of simulating things on the computer is that you can program in any physical laws you want. You could make your virtual world follow the laws of relativity if you want, or you could make it follow the laws of nonrelativistic mechanics (but then you'd run into trouble with Maxwell's equations, if EM fields existed in your virtual world).

 

[swerdna]

I think it's ok.

But suppose it's not, that would still not make an inertial frame in motion relative to itself, so an inertial frame would not be in motion relative to all inertial frames, so it would not be in "absolute" motion, where "absolute" means "relative to all inertial frames".

That made me laugh - thanks. You say suppose it's not okay to use the term then you immediately use the term!

Also, "acceleration is not relative" or "acceleration is absolute" is the traditional short hand for "acceleration is the same relative to all inertial frames".

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[swerdna]

BTW, I can't resist - have you heard of the man and his Ba? I think he tells his Ba not to leave him. Naively I understand a man's Ba to be himself, so the man is telling himself not to leave himself - how can that be?

As I walked upon a stair I saw a man that wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. I wish that man would go away.

ETA - If you leave me can I come too?

 

[atyy]

As I walked upon a stair I saw a man that wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. I wish that man would go away.

ETA - If you leave me can I come too?

 

[swerdna]

But seriously . . . The important thing (to me at least) about it not being valid to say “a thing is stationary to itself” is that you then can’t use a single thing as a definition of stationary.

ETA - This means a non-accelerating thing is always moving in a relative sense.

 

[atyy]

But seriously . . . The important thing (to me at least) about it not being valid to say “a thing is stationary to itself” is that you then can’t use a single thing as a definition of stationary.

But whether or not an inertial frame has 0 or undefined velocity relative to itself, that doesn't make it true that an inertial frame has a defined non-zero velocity relative to all inertial frames, since it would have either 0 or undefined velocity relative to itself.

 

[atyy]

ETA - This means a non-accelerating thing is always moving in a relative sense.

Sure, if relative means "relative to at least one inertial frame, but not relative to all inertial frames".

 

[swerdna]

I understand your laughter but not your confusion.

“have you heard of the man and his Ba? I think he tells his Ba not to leave him. Naively I understand a man's Ba to be himself, so the man is telling himself not to leave himself”

“As I walked upon a stair I saw a man that wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. I wish that man would go away.”

“If you leave me can I come too?”

These are all a nonsense. I’m suggesting that “a thing is stationary relative to itself” is no less a nonsense

 

[swerdna]

Sure, if relative means "relative to at least one inertial frame, but not relative to all inertial frames".

If one inertial frame is not moving relative to another inertial frame then they are the same inertial frame.

 

[swerdna]

But whether or not an inertial frame has 0 or undefined velocity relative to itself, that doesn't make it true that an inertial frame has a defined non-zero velocity relative to all inertial frames, since it would have either 0 or undefined velocity relative to itself.

If "a thing is stationary relative to itself" is not a valid statement you can't use it. How can a thing be relative to itself?

 

[atyy]

BTW, there is a very pedantic construction. We don't start by assuming frames to be either stationary or in motion relative to each other. A frame is just a coordinate system for space and time. An inertial frame is a coordinate system in which eg. Maxwell's equations take their standard form. Then one only talks about whether things (like a car, but not a whole frame) are stationary or moving relative to a frame. Consider a thing P that is stationary in inertial frame X, but moving in inertial frame Y. We can assign a velocity to frame X relative to frame Y by saying that it is the velocity of P in frame Y, where P is any thing that is stationary in frame X. In this way, we can define the velocity of a frame X relative to itself by saying that it is the velocity of P in frame X, where P is any thing that is stationary in frame X.