tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 23 07:30:57 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {'evnagh} (was Re: KLBC: logh veQ)
chay' maja'chuqlaHtaH? pIm ngoDwIj ngoDlIj je. I guess I'll
need to reread Special Relativity, since your understanding of
it is so different from mine.
According to Alan Anderson:
>
> ja' charghwI':
> >> ghorgh qaS? nuqDaq qaS? jang "space-time" Quv.
> >
> >poH mIch Daqelbe'ba'.
>
> vIqelbejqu'. Quvvam cha' tlhaq.
qaSDI' wanI' wa'DICH choja', <Qochbe' Hoch poH Quv.> SoHvaD poH
mIch vIqawmoH 'ej <Quvvam cha' tlhaq,> chojang. tlhaqmey pIm
ghaj poH mIch pIm.
> >>...potlhbe'qu' Do.
> >
> >qarbe'. *Einsteinian Special Relativity" Dayajchu' 'e' DaHar,
> >'ach DayajHa'ba'. potlhchu' Do. ram chungtaHghach. nom vIHmeH
> >chunglu'pu' vaj potlh chungpu'ghach, 'ach Do potlh law' Do choH
> >potlh puS.
>
> QapmeH "Special Relativity", chunglu' net temnIS.
> chunglu'chugh, luj. vaj chungbe'bogh Doch neH qelnIS.
>
> 'ach chungbe'chugh bejwI', ram DoDaj. vIHbe' 'e' wuqlaH 'ej lughlaH.
> vIHlaH latlhmey. potlhbe' Dochaj. Dochaj juvqu'laH bejwI'.
QIt Qapbogh tlhaqmey ghaj nom vIHbogh Dochmey. nom Qapbogh
tlhaqmey ghaj QIt vIHbogh Dochmey. chay' ngoDna' DabuSlaH 'ej
<*Relativity* le' vIyajchu'> Damaq 'e' DangIl?
> >> "event horizon" 'oSlaw' <wanI' veH>. qechvamvaD luj mu'vam.
> >> wanI' veHqoq ghaj luSpet. "light cone" ghaj wanI'.
> >
> >choyajHa'qa'. wanI' veH ghaj luSpet. wanI' veH ghaj Hoch. pIm
> >wanI' veHmeyvam.
>
> pImchugh veHmey, pImnISlaw' pongmey.
tej mu' vIlo'. cha' qechmey DellaH mu'meyvam.
> >luSpet wanI' veH vIqel: luSpetDaq SumchoH Doch vaj luSpetvo' not
> >cheghlaH Dochvam.
>
> teH ngoDvam, 'ach wanI' veH Delbe'. yIqIm: wanI' veH juSDI' Doch,
> not veH HurDaq latlh wanI' SIghlaH Dochvam.
jIQochbe'chu'. jIDelHa'. bIDelchu'.
> >Dochmey le'be' wanI' veH vIqel: DaH wanI' Hopqu' vIleghlaHbe'.
> >wanI'wIj veH Sum law' wanI'vetlh Sum puS. lengmeH *light*
> >paSpu'DI' poH yap, wanI' vIleghlaH.
>
> teH je ngoDvam, 'ach veH Delbe'. chuq neH Del.
jIQoch. *time cone* 'oH qechvam. The point of Special
Relativity is not merely that you cannot experience the
simultaneous universe because of range limits. The point of it
is that there is no accurate simultaneous model of the universe
because time and distance will be measured differently by
different observers depending upon their relative velocity.
ngoDvam Dalajbe'chugh vaj *Relativity* le' Dayajbe'. Each of
these different perspectives is accurate, though they disagree.
In essence, each observer experiences its own different
universe which can be translated through Lorenzian
Transformational mathematics to coordinate these differences in
time and distance measurement. Since you can't measure an event
you cannot witness, events beyond your "time cone" do not exist
in your universe, hence the "event horizon" for each observer.
A supernova occurs at different times depending upon the
distance and velocity of the observer (since neither the
distance, nor the time can be accurately measured without
considering relative velocity). It is only after you have
agreed on a "standard" velocity framework that you can know
what perspective to apply the Lorenzian Transformations to in
order for two observers to agree on a common time and location
for a Supernova witnessed by both observers.
> >Do nIb ghaj Hoch 'otlh leghlu'bogh. chaq Do pIm ghaj 'otlh
> >leghbe'lu'bogh. 'otlh pIm legh bejwI' pIm.
>
> 'otlh leghlu'be'chugh, potlh'a' 'otlhvetlh? 'otlhna' 'oH'a'?
> leghlu'be'chugh, pagh SIghlaHlaw'. vaj ram. 'ach leghDI' vay',
> 'ej Do juvDI', Do nIb juv Hoch.
>
> >> The speed of light is not an "arbitrary constant". It is a *physical*
> >> constant, measured to be the same by all non-accelerating observers.
> >
> >Accelleration has nothing to do with it. Nothing in Einstein's
> >math or Lorenzo's math mentions accelleration.
>
> The assumptions underlying the math mention acceleration explicitly,
> stating that acceleration is assumed to be insignificant for the cases
> being considered. Acceleration is ZERO, that's why it doesn't appear
> in the formulae.
>
> >> It is the constancy of the velocity of light that yields all of the
> >> nonintuitive features of time and space when dealing with velocities
> >> of other objects approaching that of light.
> >
> >It does create paradoxes which Special Relativity fail to
> >untangle. Of course, my own theory lacks that problem...
>
> Actually, Special Relativity untangles the so-called "paradoxes" just fine.
> It gives clear, unambiguous, testable answers. As long as the assumptions
> under which SR is intended to apply are met, its predictions match reality.
>From opposite directions, two objects (A and B) approach a
third object (C) at 3/4 light speed. Special Relativity tells
you a lot about AC and BC, but AB has this little problem... It
is a paradox and Special Relativity does not give clear,
unambiguous, testable answers.
> >> chuq poH je tIwavHa'. cha' wanI' tIbej. "spacetime interval" rap
> >> lujuv Hoch bejwI'pu'. vIHlu' 'e' yIbuSHa'. mISmoH neH Do.
> >
> >*Special Relativity* DayajHa'chu'.
> >
> >> Combine the two. Measure the distance between two events and the
> >> time between them, and treat the values as coordinates in a four-
> >> dimensional reality. The length of the 4-vector is an "interval"
> >> which *everyone* agrees on. Ignore motion. Motion serves only to
> >> confuse the issue.
> >
> >You assume that there is a stable framework which all observers
> >can agree upon. This is directly opposed to Special Relativity.
> >You cannot "ignore motion" and agree upon an "interval".
> >Instead, all parties need to agree upon an arbitrary stable
> >framework and calculate their own velocity relative to that
> >framework and adjust their time and space measurements in order
> >to agree with the arbitrary standard.
>
> If you don't recognize the term "interval" then you should study some
> more. It's a *measured* value, derived from the temporal and spatial
> coordinates of two observed events. It turns out that the interval for
> two events is measured to be the same value by every non-accelerating
> observer. We don't need to agree in advance on any arbitrary framework.
But clock run at different speeds when velocities approach the
speed of light. If you don't agree in advance on an arbitrary
framework, you won't know how to apply the Lorenzian
Transformations in order to translate your clock's readings to
any standard "time coordinate". A high-velocity observer will
measure two events as having a smaller time interval than a
slower observer until one has gone through the Lorenzian
Transformations to agree on a common time frame.
> >Just look at Mercury's orbit...
>
> Oops, you've gone off the topic here. Mercury's orbit is *not* well-
> predicted by Special Relativity. It's not the velocity of the orbit
> that makes it act oddly, it's its proximity to the Sun and the highly
> accelerating nature of the Sun's gravity. SR breaks down when there
> is enough acceleration to worry about.
No. I'm ON topic here. Mercury's orbit was the first proof of
Special Relativity. Nothing is accellerating. Mercury and the
rest of the planets are moving in stable velocities, but the
eliptical axes of Mercury rotates relative to that of the other
planets.
In other words, except for Mercury (we won't talk about Ploto
here), the orbits of all the planets have apogees that line up
in a straight line. During every orbit, Mercury's appogee moves
(I think it is about 3 degrees) in the same direction as it
moves in its orbit.
Special Relativity successfully predicted how far this
variation would be in a way no other theory could explain.
According to Special Relativity, Mercury is moving so much
faster than the rest of the planets that its "clock" is
observably slower than ours. It experiences a year in an
INTERVAL that WE measure as slightly longer than a Mercurial
year because its clock is slower than ours. It moves slightly
farther in each orbit than it should because its yardstick is
slightly longer than ours.
So, while it's clock and its yardstick tell Mercury that it has
moved through one year (apogee to apogee), our clock and our
ruler tell us that it has moved through longer than a year and
longer than an orbit. Its apogee follows its yardstick and its
clock and ignores ours, hence the angular shift in its apogee
relative to ours.
This accurate prediction of Mercury's orbit was the ONLY
undisputable fact that made the scientific community take
Special Relativity seriously, and there really aren't many
other observable phenomina which so clearly prove the validity
of the theory. Mercury's orbit not only FITS Special
Relativity. It is IMPORTANT that it fits Special Relativity,
since it is one of the very few observable proofs that
Lorenzian Transformations (originally conceived to explain
certain consistent math errors in certain electronic
engineering conditions) can be applied to physics in general.
Einstein didn't create this math. He just applied it to a
different environment and explained it rather eloquently in a
beautiful, concise little book... which accurately predicted
the degree of angular shift in Mercury's apogee relative to the
other planets.
Apparently, all of the planets have this same drift, but the
rate of change is so infinitessimal that there is no measurable
effect, even over the lifespan of our solar system.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'