WIKI and Time Dilation: The Possible Error in Relative Velocity

[darkhorror]

Using light aberration as the WIKI article, calculate the time intervals in he different frames. Assume the clock is the frame you are calculating from.

So your asking both 1 and 2?

 

[inflector]

Or maybe it was chinglu's other thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread...-frame-in-SR-why-SR-make-thoughts-about-light

that reminds me of this one.

 

[darkhorror]

There are many methods of measuring time. However, since this is an abstract physics problem I don't see why time can't be defined in a more abstract manner e.g. as one of the consitituent dimensions of space-time that can be given a more or less arbitrary unit duration (just like the spatial dimensions can be given arbitrary units of length).Yes, this is the conclusion of the calculation in the wikipedia article as well. If you have two light clocks, one at rest in the primed frame and one at rest in the unprimed frame, then you can use light aberration to show time dilation is symmetric. (Each clock will exhibit light aberration and time dilation from the other frame and the values will be equal in magnitude.)[/QUOTE]

No you cannot.

We have one light source and the clock is at rest with the light source.

it's ONLY at rest from clocks frame of reference. From the "moving observer" frame of reference the clock IS MOVING, and the observer is at rest.

 

[inflector]

Aren't you all starting to feel like Sisyphus?

I watched this go on for 100 posts in another forum, this one has gone over 300 but made no tangible progress as far as I can tell.

 

[Dale]

this one has gone over 300 but made no tangible progress as far as I can tell.

Yeah. Regardless of how often it is mentioned, he still doesn't seem to get the most basic concept about relativity which has been around since Galileo: velocities are relative. And he certainly doesn't understand the basic idea that all inertial frames are equivalent. And he doesn't understand the Minkowski metric. So it is really hard to make any progress, particularly when he thinks that he understands all of those things.

 

[JesseM]

I am not even sure what to say with you.

The clock is at rest relative to the observer. I have said this and said this and said this and said this and said this and said this.

Except when I said the clock is at rest relative to the observer, you said this was a mistake:

Where in the WIKI article is the clock at rest with the observer? You make many mistakes.

And since then you have said and said the exact opposite, that the clock is not at rest relative to the observer (click the little arrows after your name to see the full posts):

the observer is moving relative to the clock.

We are trying to calculate the clock at rest and the observer is moving

So yeah, if you can't look at these posts and acknowledge that you repeatedly contradict yourself about whether the observer & clock are in relative motion or are at rest relative to one another, you are either trolling or have a mental disorder.

 

[JesseM]

Or maybe it was chinglu's other thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread...-frame-in-SR-why-SR-make-thoughts-about-light

that reminds me of this one.

Not to mention other forums:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28676

 

[Dale]

Bottom line is that in any frame where the clock is moving it is time dilated. This is what the wikipedia article said in the formulas it derived, so it is correct.

In any frame where the clock is not moving it is not time dilated. This is also what the Wikipedia article said simply by setting v=0 in the formulas derived.

 

[inflector]

Maybe "relative" means something different in whatever language is chinglu's first language. Maybe when he says: "The clock is at rest relative to the observer." he doesn't mean what we think he means but rather that: "The clock is at rest while the observer is not."

If that's the case, I can see it being possible that all four of the quotes mean the same thing:

"The clock is not moving" and "The observer is moving"

in some sort of preferred and absolute coordinate system.

But, of course, there is that little problem that DaleSpam, and Galileo and Einstein before him, alluded to of relativity of movement. It's kind of hard for one thing to be moving relative to another and not have the reverse be true as well. This doesn't seem apparent to chinglu, however. He also doesn't seem particularly open to the idea that he might be wrong or mistaken in either his logic or use of the English language.

 

[JesseM]

Maybe "relative" means something different in whatever language is chinglu's first language. Maybe when he says: "The clock is at rest relative to the observer." he doesn't mean what we think he means but rather that: "The clock is at rest while the observer is not."

Then why would he say this: "Where in the WIKI article is the clock at rest with the observer? You make many mistakes."

The most charitable interpretation would just be that he inconsistently changes his terminology to "win" the argument without really realizing what he is doing, but if he can't acknowledge the inconsistency even when presented with side-by-side quotes, it's a lot more likely that he's just a troll intentionally playing dumb to annoy people.

 

[IsometricPion]

No you cannot.

We have one light source and the clock is at rest with the light source.

That is true in the wikipedia article, and they successfully use that setup to derive time dilation (as you showed in calculations earlier in the thread and as they show on the wiki). Why would it be unreasonable to introduce a additional light clock that is at rest in the primed frame?

 

[inflector]

Then why would he say this: "Where in the WIKI article is the clock at rest with the observer? You make many mistakes."

The most charitable interpretation would just be that he inconsistently changes his terminology to "win" the argument without really realizing what he is doing, but if he can't acknowledge the inconsistency even when presented with side-by-side quotes, it's a lot more likely that he's just a troll intentionally playing dumb to annoy people.

Even in this case: "The clock is at rest with the observer" he might think means "Clock is at rest with respect to the observer that is moving."

Still, who knows? He certainly could be playing dumb.

All I know is that trying to teach him SR in English is not fruitful.

 

[Vanadium 50]

WIKI has possible error with time dilation.

Does anyone agree?

I think this has been answered. No, nobody agrees.