G
Guest
TimeMaster 1a:
What question are you referring to?
What question are you referring to?
On Wellsian Time Machines
- Thread starter ProgBoy1
- Start date
TimeMaster 1a
Temporal Novice
DaViper:
"Since there is no reference to "direction" anywhere in the equation, how can it be anything other than just the relative differences in velocity as "speed"? "
This is the question. Would you like an answer?
"Since there is no reference to "direction" anywhere in the equation, how can it be anything other than just the relative differences in velocity as "speed"? "
This is the question. Would you like an answer?
G
Guest
It was a RHETORICAL question.
The answer is contained therein just like it is in the equation you posted.
There is NOTHING in it that refers to direction!
The answer is contained therein just like it is in the equation you posted.
There is NOTHING in it that refers to direction!
G
Guest
This is a rather petty argument. Usually "speed" means distance travelled per unit time, irrespective of direction, while "velocity" is distance travelled per unit time in a given direction; ie a vector. I think the reason Einstein uses "velocity" is because the clock in his example is not changing direction - if he just said "speed", it could be misunderstood as moving on some constand-speed path other than a straight line.
G
Guest
noname:
It's only a petty argument because folks continue to challenge the definitions I've already provided the links to above.
At this point you guys are really arguing with the scientific community, not me. I just provided the quotes and references, for which you can find many of above. As well as elsewhere on the net's MANY scientific web sites.
But you're still making the same error TimeMaster 1a is. Namely, confusing "vector" with "Velocity". They are NOT the same. Vector is velocity IN a given direction. Velocity is without regard to direction.
Just as Einstein used it above.
Now, if you guys want to continue to argue it because it's too tough to admit that you are mistaken, so be it.
Frankly, I've had enough of it myself and would prefer a continuation of some more productive dialogue like rgrunt has to offer.
It's only a petty argument because folks continue to challenge the definitions I've already provided the links to above.
At this point you guys are really arguing with the scientific community, not me. I just provided the quotes and references, for which you can find many of above. As well as elsewhere on the net's MANY scientific web sites.
But you're still making the same error TimeMaster 1a is. Namely, confusing "vector" with "Velocity". They are NOT the same. Vector is velocity IN a given direction. Velocity is without regard to direction.
Just as Einstein used it above.
Now, if you guys want to continue to argue it because it's too tough to admit that you are mistaken, so be it.
Frankly, I've had enough of it myself and would prefer a continuation of some more productive dialogue like rgrunt has to offer.
G
Guest
I know I shouldn't even start, because it'll probably get me flamed or something, but you seem to be completely ignorant of what you posted; let me quote:
"VECTOR - Physics: a physical quantity that has both a magnitude and a direction and that adds like displacement; velocity, acceleration, and force are prime examples."
ie, velocity is an example of a vector.
"VELOCITY - Mechanics: the time rate at which a body changes its position vector; velocity is a vector quantity whose magnitude is expressed in units of distance over time, such as miles per hour."
ie velocity is a vector quantity. this means that it has both a magnitute and a direction.
"SPEED - Mechanics: the time-rate of change of position without regard to the direction of motion; i.e., the ratio of the distance traveled to the time elapsed."
This seems to be what you think velocity is.
To sum up: a vector is any combination of a magnitude and a direction; lots of things are vectors, like electric field, magnetic field, gravitational force, and so on.
speed is the rate of change of distance per unit time, irrespective of direction.
velocity is a "vectorized" speed - the rate of change of distance per unit time _in a specified direction_.
Really, this ain't that tough. It's 1st year mechanics.
G
Guest
noname:
Sorry to dissappoint you, I don't flame people. Not my style.
But I will take up your self described "petty" argument since you seem to want to continue it.
First---Yes, I posted the following (with source stated in the original post)
""VECTOR - Physics: a physical quantity that has both a magnitude and a direction and that adds like displacement; velocity, acceleration, and force are prime examples."
to which you responded -
"ie, velocity is an example of a vector."
...and in the sense of current Quantum physics (see below) this is how it is viewed. But it is not the definition nor the usage Einstein used in the equation posted by TimeMaster 1a.
Eienstein used the following definition (which I also posted)
"VELOCITY - Mechanics: the time rate at which a body changes its position vector; velocity is a vector quantity whose magnitude is expressed in units of distance over time, such as miles per hour."
to which you responded -
"ie velocity is a vector quantity. this means that it has both a magnitute and a direction."
No it doesn't. Not in THIS definition.
Nor an any other usage as originally posted from the Harcourt which I used as my source. Being a vector quantity does not make it synonymous with vector, merely one quantity OF it. As such in THIS definition, Vector is composed of TWO quantities. Velocity AND Direction. Velocity is one, Direction is the (separate) other.
THIS my friend is first year mechanics. The classic definition and the one in which Einstein was referring to in the Time Dilation equation. Which is really the issue of this debate in the first place. Einstein is even clear in this by iterating this in his own explanation of it. Which TimeMaster 1a posted, but seems to have missed entirely.
The physics definition above as it is used today (where velocity and vector get muddled together) describes the measurable charactistics of sub-atomic particles. It only ever applies at that level. But then Quantum Physics has it's own set of rules it seems doesn't it.
When we can acurately overcome the problem of the Heisenberg Principle we'll be able to re-separate the two terms back into their proper perspective. It's actually due TO the HP that we are forced to muddle them in Quantum Theory since we cannot at the present time acurately measure a particle's position (which would yield it's direction with a subsequent measurement), AND it's speed at the same time. Some day, we will be able to. Until then, knowing both at any instant is a crap shoot. Hence the muddle.
There is no other arena where the semantics of these two terms are interchangable. Please read ALL the definitions I provided and look even further into the links also if you wish.
If you provide verifiable CREDIBLE (links, specific published authorities, by name and quote,etc.) evidence to the contrary, then I'll stand corrected. But then we'll BOTH have to see why evidence to the contrary contradicts the Harcourt won't we. If we're interested in doing good science that is. And I'm sure we are.
Because if you find it, then somebody else is mistaken besides just you or me. Either the Harcourt Scientific Dictionary, or your source. And it really SHOULD be cleared up for the sake of others. Wouldn't you agree?
Peace.
Sorry to dissappoint you, I don't flame people. Not my style.
But I will take up your self described "petty" argument since you seem to want to continue it.
First---Yes, I posted the following (with source stated in the original post)
""VECTOR - Physics: a physical quantity that has both a magnitude and a direction and that adds like displacement; velocity, acceleration, and force are prime examples."
to which you responded -
"ie, velocity is an example of a vector."
...and in the sense of current Quantum physics (see below) this is how it is viewed. But it is not the definition nor the usage Einstein used in the equation posted by TimeMaster 1a.
Eienstein used the following definition (which I also posted)
"VELOCITY - Mechanics: the time rate at which a body changes its position vector; velocity is a vector quantity whose magnitude is expressed in units of distance over time, such as miles per hour."
to which you responded -
"ie velocity is a vector quantity. this means that it has both a magnitute and a direction."
No it doesn't. Not in THIS definition.
Nor an any other usage as originally posted from the Harcourt which I used as my source. Being a vector quantity does not make it synonymous with vector, merely one quantity OF it. As such in THIS definition, Vector is composed of TWO quantities. Velocity AND Direction. Velocity is one, Direction is the (separate) other.
THIS my friend is first year mechanics. The classic definition and the one in which Einstein was referring to in the Time Dilation equation. Which is really the issue of this debate in the first place. Einstein is even clear in this by iterating this in his own explanation of it. Which TimeMaster 1a posted, but seems to have missed entirely.
The physics definition above as it is used today (where velocity and vector get muddled together) describes the measurable charactistics of sub-atomic particles. It only ever applies at that level. But then Quantum Physics has it's own set of rules it seems doesn't it.
When we can acurately overcome the problem of the Heisenberg Principle we'll be able to re-separate the two terms back into their proper perspective. It's actually due TO the HP that we are forced to muddle them in Quantum Theory since we cannot at the present time acurately measure a particle's position (which would yield it's direction with a subsequent measurement), AND it's speed at the same time. Some day, we will be able to. Until then, knowing both at any instant is a crap shoot. Hence the muddle.
There is no other arena where the semantics of these two terms are interchangable. Please read ALL the definitions I provided and look even further into the links also if you wish.
If you provide verifiable CREDIBLE (links, specific published authorities, by name and quote,etc.) evidence to the contrary, then I'll stand corrected. But then we'll BOTH have to see why evidence to the contrary contradicts the Harcourt won't we. If we're interested in doing good science that is. And I'm sure we are.
Because if you find it, then somebody else is mistaken besides just you or me. Either the Harcourt Scientific Dictionary, or your source. And it really SHOULD be cleared up for the sake of others. Wouldn't you agree?
Peace.
TimeMaster 1a
Temporal Novice
DaViper:
"Since there is no reference to "direction" anywhere in the equation, how can it be
anything other than just the relative differences in velocity as "speed"? "
I do not mean to engage in a petty argument, however I would like to answer this question
as part of a discussion about the root cause of Time Dilation.
First I will rename reference-body K to K1 and K' to K2.
Einstein did not make direct reference to any specific direction because the motion of K2 in any direction as judged from K1 will give the same results.
The velocity in the Lorentz transformation equation used by Einstein has two componets,
direction and speed. As stated above the direction of motion is not a factor in determining time dilation. This leaves us with speed of motion.
We can see how time dilation exist as a function of distance by consider the meaning of speed. Speed is the distance an abject will travel in a given time.
Lets say that K2 is moving at 1/2 c or 149,896,229 meters per second as judged from K1. When we use this speed in Lorentz's equation we are saying that the distance between K1 and K2 is increasing by 149,896,229 meters every second. As a results of this change in distance the information about the clock at K2 must travel 149,896,229 meters more then the previous information. Since this information is propagating at a constant speed, K1 will judge one second on the clock at K2 to be longer then one second of a clock at K1.
This clearly show that the changing distance between K1 and K2, and the constant speed of information propagation between the the two reference-bodies are the root cause of Time Dilation.
<This message has been edited by TimeMaster 1a (edited 25 February 2001).>
"Since there is no reference to "direction" anywhere in the equation, how can it be
anything other than just the relative differences in velocity as "speed"? "
I do not mean to engage in a petty argument, however I would like to answer this question
as part of a discussion about the root cause of Time Dilation.
First I will rename reference-body K to K1 and K' to K2.
Einstein did not make direct reference to any specific direction because the motion of K2 in any direction as judged from K1 will give the same results.
The velocity in the Lorentz transformation equation used by Einstein has two componets,
direction and speed. As stated above the direction of motion is not a factor in determining time dilation. This leaves us with speed of motion.
We can see how time dilation exist as a function of distance by consider the meaning of speed. Speed is the distance an abject will travel in a given time.
Lets say that K2 is moving at 1/2 c or 149,896,229 meters per second as judged from K1. When we use this speed in Lorentz's equation we are saying that the distance between K1 and K2 is increasing by 149,896,229 meters every second. As a results of this change in distance the information about the clock at K2 must travel 149,896,229 meters more then the previous information. Since this information is propagating at a constant speed, K1 will judge one second on the clock at K2 to be longer then one second of a clock at K1.
This clearly show that the changing distance between K1 and K2, and the constant speed of information propagation between the the two reference-bodies are the root cause of Time Dilation.
<This message has been edited by TimeMaster 1a (edited 25 February 2001).>
WanderingSoul
Chrono Cadet
There is an assumption made that the *rules* of the macro universe ...and micro universe...are one and the same and interchangeable. Pehaps this is the quest of all science...
I believe this discussion highlights the necessity of rethinking this on a fundamental basis. Because our technology creates limits in measurement in the micro universe, there are apparent paradoxes that, for some at least, call the *accepted theories* of the macro universe into question as they simply are now known NOT to be transferrable to the micro unviverse...
Perhaps when we have an accepted micro universe theory...which is mathmatically sound, there will exist a new generaly accepted macro universe theory where all of the apparent paradoxes are explained.
*little smile* this would require rethinking an entire body of knowledge held to be Truth for many generations...hmmm what a challenge for humanity...what an exciting time to live in...
I believe we are on the cusp of great expansion in what is accepted as Truth...and look forward to the unfolding and embracing of Truth previously termed magic...
There is no harm in beginning from the beginning and there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water...one theory does not need to negate one belief to propose another...simply change the perspective on the foundation...
Kind of like looking at a puzzle sideways...trying to put pieces on the top that are missing....turning it 90 degrees and realizing the pieces belong on the side...
What a truly glorious time to be here !
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
I believe this discussion highlights the necessity of rethinking this on a fundamental basis. Because our technology creates limits in measurement in the micro universe, there are apparent paradoxes that, for some at least, call the *accepted theories* of the macro universe into question as they simply are now known NOT to be transferrable to the micro unviverse...
Perhaps when we have an accepted micro universe theory...which is mathmatically sound, there will exist a new generaly accepted macro universe theory where all of the apparent paradoxes are explained.
*little smile* this would require rethinking an entire body of knowledge held to be Truth for many generations...hmmm what a challenge for humanity...what an exciting time to live in...
I believe we are on the cusp of great expansion in what is accepted as Truth...and look forward to the unfolding and embracing of Truth previously termed magic...
There is no harm in beginning from the beginning and there is no need to throw out the baby with the bath water...one theory does not need to negate one belief to propose another...simply change the perspective on the foundation...
Kind of like looking at a puzzle sideways...trying to put pieces on the top that are missing....turning it 90 degrees and realizing the pieces belong on the side...
What a truly glorious time to be here !
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
TimeTravelActivist
Dimensional Traveler
WanderingSoul,
I mean no disrespect to you, but I’m just curious about something.
Do you talk like this in person too?
And if so, is this enlightened persona you portray here, an effort to always put on in real life?
-Javier C.
I mean no disrespect to you, but I’m just curious about something.
Do you talk like this in person too?
And if so, is this enlightened persona you portray here, an effort to always put on in real life?
-Javier C.
WanderingSoul
Chrono Cadet
*little smile*
TTA,
You have asked this question in various ways on a number of occasions... *nodding* and yes I do speak like this in person..hence there is no reply to the "persona" bit...
Well, just a side bar then...
I do admit to having a 'professional persona'... a hat I slip on in the morning and take off at the end of the day...yet even in my role at work...if the subject arises...I have and will continue to speak as you read.
*chin in hand with still a little smile*
I rather enjoy being real in all aspects of my life TTA...*just a tad wider smile*
Saves a great deal of energy wasted on less important things...
*trying desperately to look serious and failing miserably*
*genuine laugh of deep amusement*
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
TTA,
You have asked this question in various ways on a number of occasions... *nodding* and yes I do speak like this in person..hence there is no reply to the "persona" bit...
Well, just a side bar then...
I do admit to having a 'professional persona'... a hat I slip on in the morning and take off at the end of the day...yet even in my role at work...if the subject arises...I have and will continue to speak as you read.
*chin in hand with still a little smile*
I rather enjoy being real in all aspects of my life TTA...*just a tad wider smile*
Saves a great deal of energy wasted on less important things...
*trying desperately to look serious and failing miserably*
*genuine laugh of deep amusement*
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
TimeTravelActivist
Dimensional Traveler
Ohhh-kayyy.
Your male aren't you?
Your male aren't you?
WanderingSoul
Chrono Cadet
*looking down*
Nope
*still laughing*
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
Nope
*still laughing*
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
G
Guest
TimeMaster AND noname:
(With a BIG grin on my face...)
I find it interesting that TWO people have now referred to this as a "petty" argument but still want to carry it forward.
I'd say this is good because it's in the "petty" details that good science gets resolved.
So... let's go a bit further.
TimeMaster 1a:
You say -
"Einstein did not make direct reference to any specific direction because the motion of K2 in any direction as judged from K1 will give the same results."
Well,... YES!
And that is exactly the point. No SPECIFIC Direction. The Einstein equation is without consideration of Direction because Direction does not matter one Iota in this equation.
For a "Vector" to actually BE a "Vector" the direction must be specifically defined. Otherwise it is not a Vector. Merely a "Velocity" in ANY direction. (Since I'm sure we BOTH agree that for any velocity to be measured there is some, even undefined, Direction to the motion of any moving object. Perhaps even constant change in direction. Like turning a corner.)
But Vector pertains to a "GIVEN" direction. Not just any direction. Since ALL bodies in motion have SOME direction regardless of what that direction is.
The Einstein Equation on Time Dilation doesn't NEED a specific Direction since the equation is true for ALL POSSIBLE Directions.
Any Direction is therefore moot. Irrelevant. Not needed. It's a PURE Relative Velocity thing. Period. No Vectors required.
And not even a problem in Quantum Theory. Pure mechanics.
Hence the Mechanics definition. Velocity = Speed. Pure and Simple. Einstein even SAYS THIS HIMSELF. In the Equation. You Provided.
I fail to see what the difficulty is here. But I DO want us to be able to at least AGREE on what is being SAID.
If we can't do that, then how can we ever hope to DISAGREE on a level playing field.
Peace.
(With a BIG grin on my face...)
I find it interesting that TWO people have now referred to this as a "petty" argument but still want to carry it forward.
I'd say this is good because it's in the "petty" details that good science gets resolved.
So... let's go a bit further.
TimeMaster 1a:
You say -
"Einstein did not make direct reference to any specific direction because the motion of K2 in any direction as judged from K1 will give the same results."
Well,... YES!
And that is exactly the point. No SPECIFIC Direction. The Einstein equation is without consideration of Direction because Direction does not matter one Iota in this equation.
For a "Vector" to actually BE a "Vector" the direction must be specifically defined. Otherwise it is not a Vector. Merely a "Velocity" in ANY direction. (Since I'm sure we BOTH agree that for any velocity to be measured there is some, even undefined, Direction to the motion of any moving object. Perhaps even constant change in direction. Like turning a corner.)
But Vector pertains to a "GIVEN" direction. Not just any direction. Since ALL bodies in motion have SOME direction regardless of what that direction is.
The Einstein Equation on Time Dilation doesn't NEED a specific Direction since the equation is true for ALL POSSIBLE Directions.
Any Direction is therefore moot. Irrelevant. Not needed. It's a PURE Relative Velocity thing. Period. No Vectors required.
And not even a problem in Quantum Theory. Pure mechanics.
Hence the Mechanics definition. Velocity = Speed. Pure and Simple. Einstein even SAYS THIS HIMSELF. In the Equation. You Provided.
I fail to see what the difficulty is here. But I DO want us to be able to at least AGREE on what is being SAID.
If we can't do that, then how can we ever hope to DISAGREE on a level playing field.
Peace.
TimeTravelActivist
Dimensional Traveler
So your a chick
?
Yeah, I should have known.
I can usually tell. I must be losing it now adays.
-J.C.
Yeah, I should have known.
I can usually tell. I must be losing it now adays.
-J.C.
G
Guest
Visit www.tec-time.com
there are a lot of schematics of time travel devices!
Also a cool message board!
there are a lot of schematics of time travel devices!
Also a cool message board!
WanderingSoul
Chrono Cadet
*little smile*
I appreciate the feedback on my genderless communications... It comes in handy often.
Unfortunately, we still live in a world filled with stereotypical macho garbage *feigning a great fake french accent*
...and I simply do not have the energy to create teachable moments...so I just take advantage of what comes my way.
*still smiling*
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
I appreciate the feedback on my genderless communications... It comes in handy often.
Unfortunately, we still live in a world filled with stereotypical macho garbage *feigning a great fake french accent*
...and I simply do not have the energy to create teachable moments...so I just take advantage of what comes my way.
*still smiling*
Be safe and dream sweetly.
WS
Ok , if the universe is expanding and the earth is revolving and is orbiting the sun. If you did have a time machine and you went back in time isnt there a good chance that you would end up billions of miles away from the earth just floating in blank space where the earth used to be in the time you went back to?
G
Guest
acousma:
Yup.
Not just a good chance even, but a virtual certainty.
Yup.
Not just a good chance even, but a virtual certainty.
G
Guest
Okay, i've figured out what's tripping you up. You're misinterpreting the meaning of the noun phrase "vector quantity".
A vector quantity is a quantity which is a vector, not a specific part of the things which make up a vector. That, is, something we call a vector quantity is something that has a magnitude and a direction. That's the definition of a vector quantity.
So if velocity is a vector quantity, which you admit, then it has a magnitude and a direction. QED. There is no discrepancy between TimeMaster's physics text and the Harcourt dictionary, just an error of interpretation.
It's true that Einstein used velocity in his equations, where the direction did not matter. But that doesn't mean that the velocity doesn't 'contain' a direction as well, only that in this case this additional information is superfluous.
A vector quantity is a quantity which is a vector, not a specific part of the things which make up a vector. That, is, something we call a vector quantity is something that has a magnitude and a direction. That's the definition of a vector quantity.
So if velocity is a vector quantity, which you admit, then it has a magnitude and a direction. QED. There is no discrepancy between TimeMaster's physics text and the Harcourt dictionary, just an error of interpretation.
It's true that Einstein used velocity in his equations, where the direction did not matter. But that doesn't mean that the velocity doesn't 'contain' a direction as well, only that in this case this additional information is superfluous.