tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 26 06:15:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {'evnagh} (was Re: KLBC: logh veQ)
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: {'evnagh} (was Re: KLBC: logh veQ)
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 98 09:08:58 EST
ja' charghwI':
>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.
ngervetlh yIlaDchu'. "time" Quv Dayajbe'law'taH. "Interval"
Dayajbe'bejtaH.
>> >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.
not qaja'pu' <rap Hoch "time" Quv>. qaja'pu' <cha' wanI' tu'DI' cha'
bejwI', reH rap wanI'mey "Interval" lujuvbogh.>
INTERVAL = sqrt((ct)^2 - x^2) = sqrt((ct')^2 - x'^2)
poH qel. chuq qel. chuq poH je 'oS "interval". chuqpoH juv.
pImlaH tlhaqmey. qay'be'. vIHbe'taHbogh cha' tlhaqmey nIbmoHlaH
vay'. tlhaq pup vIqel; reH poHchu' tlhaqvam.
>> '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?
bejwI' SIghbe' latlh Do. Hoch juvlaH bejwI'. SIgh'eghqu' Doch Do.
'ach chungbe'chugh Dochvam, vIHbe'taH 'e' wuqlaH Dochvam tlheghbogh
bejwI'. vaj ramchu' bejwI' Do.
[luSpet wanI' veH wIqelta' 'e' vIpe']
>> >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.
qechvamvaD "light cone" ponglu'.
>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.
That's not "the point" of SR, but it's certainly a valid result of
applying its assumptions and its math. "The point" is that there is
no special "privileged" time/space coordinate reference system, and
the different times and distances measured by observers in relative
motion are all equally valid for describing the relationship between
events.
>ngoDvam Dalajbe'chugh vaj *Relativity* le' Dayajbe'. Each of
>these different perspectives is accurate, though they disagree.
maj, maQochbe'.
>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.
They do exist in your universe, but they cannot affect you right now.
You *will* witness them later; they can affect you then. The phrase
"event horizon" is a poor one to use for this concept, because it has
a well-defined and completely different meaning for black holes.
>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.
You don't need a "standard" in order to synchronize at a single event.
You can just apply an offset in both time and space to put that event
at the origin. But another event at a different time or location
won't occur at the same spacetime coordinates for both observers. The
best you can do is derive the transformation between coordinate
systems based on the observers' relative velocity. You do *not* have
to know their respective velocities in some "standard" framework.
>> 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.
Special Relativity *does* give a clear and unambiguous answer: A sees
C approaching at .75c, and sees B approaching at about .96c. B sees C
coming at .75c and sees A coming at about .96c. If you believe this
situation to be a paradox, you are probably making extra assumptions
that are not part of the situation as you described it.
>> 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".
There is no "standard time coordinate" required. The coordinate
system of *any* arbitrary observer is perfectly valid. If you make
your time readings and your distance readings in the same frame of
reference, that's good enough. Your clocks and rulers will "conspire"
to make everything come out right no matter what velocity someone else
thinks you're moving at.
>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.
When SR says "interval" it does not mean "time interval". It means a
"space-time interval" which includes both distance and elapsed time.
>> >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.
bImISbej, jupwI'. De'vam DaqawHa'. QIt DIng bavbogh He Hoch yuQmey.
wanI'vam qaSmoH tlham le'be'. pIm "Mercury", 'ach meq 'oHbe' Do'e'.
"Mercury" pImmoH chungmoHbogh Hov Sum tlham'e'.
>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.
The precession of Mercury's orbit is 43 arcseconds per century greater
than can be accounted for by nonrelativistic effects (like solar tidal
forces and the gravitational influence of other planets). Not even a
relativistic treatment of Mercury's velocity can explain it. Special
Relativity fails to predict this extra precession. It takes *General*
Relativity's consideration of the gravitational fields involved to get
the correct answers. Mercury's elliptical orbit results in its moving
from near the sun to farther away and back again each orbit. Because
it's visiting areas of differing "space-time curvature" there is an
effect on its orbit. The effect is not related to its moving so much
faster than other planets. It is because it is so much closer to the
sun and thus is in a region where the gravity changes more markedly.
Mercury's yardstick is not appreciably different from ours. But its
clocks run a little slower -- and change their rate throughout the
"year" -- because of the gravitational acceleration due to the sun.
bIqawHa'taH pagh bIghojHa'pu'. chaq mujpu' ghojmoHwI'lI', 'ach mujbej
De'qoq DaSovlaw'bogh.
Either you are misremembering this, or you were taught it wrong in the
first place by someone who didn't know what he was talking about.
-- ghunchu'wI'