Gravitational Waves. oh really?

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

How do they ensure their clocks are synchronized and how do they adjust for acceleration

A)
They would use a signal bouncing between them
which would have identical delays between each.

B)
Another way would be to start both ships docked together
with clocks synchronized; then move apart with the same velocity;
for the same amount of time, then stop.

C) Use B, then A to verify.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

You do not state how, according to special relativity, this phenomenon is supposed to exist in your thought-experiment.

Time is expected to slow with velocity.
Because the velocity can only be measured relative to another object,
I demonstrate that with both objects moving toward (or away from) a center point by the same amount,
that the effective velocity of both will result in apparent contradictions.

If we use A as the reference, then B should be slower.
If we use B as the reference, then A should be slower.

But when we use C as the reference then A should equal B.

The only ways that this could be non-contradictory (for 3 bodies!)
is if

i) One point (C) is taken as an absolute reference -
this point would be what has been termed: ether. (Contradictory to Relativity principles)
And when doing this A relative to B yields no time dilation.

ii) there is no time dilation at all

What you don't do is claim that there should be effect E in your argument's example, but fail to specify how anything should be affected by E in this example, and then claim that we don't find the results of an effect you never described to begin with.

No.

What I show is that when applying special relativity's time dilation to 3 bodies using the midpoint C as the orignal reference point,
then we are forced to conclude that there is no dilation between A & B
because both would have the same dilation when compared to that midpoint C.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

A photon itself is not frozen in time, it's "internal clock" is what is frozen from an outside observer's perspective.

Yes, that is what should occur, according to the time dilation of special relativity.
We both agree that is what the theory suggests.

However,

If that were true we would not be able to observe:

1) photon-spin
2) the frequency of light
3) the wavelength of light

All of these require a moving 'internal clock' for the photon which MUST be observed to be ticking over from the outside observer's perspective !!!

checkmate x3, I do believe.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

your example is almost literally flawed at every point

You fail to realize that not only has nobody ever offered a 3-body solution to relativity,
but that nobody has ever offered such a solution even for the basic Newtonian paradigm.

Consider the quote from Hawking's, 'Brief History of Time'

So when you claim that relativity for 3 bodies is logical, you first must solve for 3 bodies in Newton.
And the only way to do this, is using an evolutionary algorithm in a computer program.

Seeing as though I see no evidence that you have realized that this much simpler problem
'remains unsolved', and you make no attempt to even try and solve it, you miss my points entirely.
(My bad, I probably am not explaining it clearly).

You do make every attempt to keep the debate alive, which is to your credit.

For the record, I HAVE solved the 3-body problem for Newton, a solution which does not become
more difficult 'with the number of bodies' as Hawking tells us.

The only inaccuracy in my solution, is that I would need a computer that calculated at quantum time
for the solution to be perfect. Nonetheless, the inaccuracy is one of computational power, not one of logic.

My Newtonian algorithms are all available here:
http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity-simulators.htm
(You can contact my host, www.doteasy.com to ensure that the .exe files are safe)

What you really need to appreciate is that without having solved for 3 bodies in Newton,
you most likely do not have the foundation to attempt for 3 bodies in Einstein.

I would suggest using a computer language with 3 bodies under Newton as being essential
before even attempting to claim anything about understanding Relativity.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Time is expected to slow with velocity.

No, it isn't. It is expected to differ among reference frames. What changes is the distance measured between values of "ticks" of a clock in reference frames that are in relative motion to one another.

Because the velocity can only be measured relative to another object,

Wrong. I can measure my velocity easily without reference to anything else when I am sitting still. The problem is that my measurement, with or without reference to another object, is necessarily flawed. As Galileo showed, it is impossible to detect uniform motion, so velocity cannot even be understood except in terms of reference frames. In Galilean relativity, and according to our general experience, differences in measurements of velocity in different reference frames can be corrected for by understanding one reference frame as "fixed" relative to another in uniform motion. Thus, if I am standing at a platform watching you go by on a train, and you throw a ball forward at some speed a, I observe it as traveling at speed a + v where v is the velocity I observe you to travel at.
This is all just a way of saying that velocity is additive: if a system is moving at some velocity v and emits a particle at some speed c, then the particle's speed for an observer at rest to the system is v + c. The problem is that this doesn't work for light. The speed of light is independent of the system which emits it.
Time dilation, length contraction, and most of the rest of the unintuitive nature of special relativity follows not from the principle of relativity (which existed several centuries before Einstein) but from the combination of this principle along with the constancy of the speed of light.
Time dilation is a difference in the measurement of clock ticks among observers that are in motion or at rest relative to one another, and follows from Galilean relativity combined with the constancy of light. To demonstrate that it fails means you have to show that
1) The speed of light depends upon the system which emits it
2) The laws of physics change depending upon where you are
and/or
3) That it is possible for the first two to hold and yet for observers with inertial reference frames and in relative motion to agree upon the measurement of time intervals.
You haven't even begun to approach anything like this, as you have described time dilation as some sort of universal effect that holds because of relativistic speeds, rather than what it actually is.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You fail to realize that not only has nobody ever offered a 3-body solution to relativity

This has nothing to do with special relativity, as it relates to gravity and the impossibility of finding an analytic solution to the (partial) differential equation for idealized center-of-mass point particles governed by the dynamical equation of Newtonian systems under the influence of Newtonian gravitation. I have an entire book on 3-body problems and several more on N-body and many-body problems because these are issues with our general inability to solve differential equations analytically. They are mathematical problems, and are irrelevant here. There are also 1-body problems (e.g., chaotic pendulums) that lack such solutions.

Take a few calculus courses or something, then maybe you might be in a better position to understand popular physics texts (and, perhaps, even able to read some physics texts that allow you to learn physics!)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You fail to realize that not only has nobody ever offered a 3-body solution to relativity

I've provided a scan from the first chapter of N-Body Problems and Models (chap. 1: The 1-Body Problem). You can have a look at a real non-relativistic 1-body problem that has no solution, an introduction to some simple relativistic n-body problems, and more generally what n-body problems are, and why the 3-body problem can't be solved (and why differential equations, in general, must be solved numerically).
Also note that you will find in the source I've provided another way in which you have utterly failed to understand the issues involved here:
"Incidentally, Special Relativity does not allow N-body problems for N > 1 because simultaneity is not a property of this branch of physics."
The 3-body problem is necessarily non-relativistic because differential equations in n-body problems evolve in absolute time, which is precluded in any relativistic physics/spacetime.

 

[idav]

No, it isn't. It is expected to differ among reference frames. What changes is the distance measured between values of "ticks" of a clock in reference frames that are in relative motion to one another.

Time dilation doesn't seem to be about distance since time dilation is said to occur also with increased mass. Is there some sort of distance difference when standing on the earth vs standing close to a black hole?

Time is expected to slow with velocity.
Because the velocity can only be measured relative to another object,
I demonstrate that with both objects moving toward (or away from) a center point by the same amount,
that the effective velocity of both will result in apparent contradictions.

It shouldn't matter whether objects are moving away from each other or not, it has to do with space-time dilation which happens regardless of direction or frame of reference to another object. So with a little though experiment, if two objects traveled away from each other, from earth, at the speed of light, they would be in the same time reference relative to the earth, assuming earth didn't change speed or mass, and the objects were going the same exact speed.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Time dilation doesn't seem to be about distance since time dilation is said to occur also with increased mass. Is there some sort of distance difference when standing on the earth vs standing close to a black hole?

It shouldn't matter whether objects are moving away from each other or not, it has to do with space-time dilation which happens regardless of direction or frame of reference to another object. So with a little though experiment, if two objects traveled away from each other, from earth, at the speed of light, they would be in the same time reference relative to the earth, assuming earth didn't change speed or mass, and the objects were going the same exact speed.

Fine.

Consider this:

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I have an entire book on 3-body problems and several more on N-body and many-body problems because these are issues with our general inability to solve differential equations analytically. They are mathematical problems, and are irrelevant here.

That you do NOT consider the thought experiment with 3 reference frames (A, B & C),
to have no relevance as a 3-body-problem shows that you have not actually read the question.

Once more:

Observer C will measure the internal clocks AT & BT to be equal to each other.
Yet A will calculate according to special relativity that BT will have a slower internal clock. (& vice versa).
This is because there is a difference in velocity between A & B.

The real contradiction arises when we realize that the signals sent with the measured times AT & BT,
pass through C before they reach A & B. Thus A & B can only possibly measure that AT=BT.

Thus despite a velocity difference between A & B, there can be no time measurement differences.

You will not find a solution to this by looking it up in a book.
This requires you to put aside all preconceptions, and think logically, and for yourself.

Just because you were given accolades for memorizing calculations, does not make them correct.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Take a few calculus courses or something

Oh I have done that.
My Calculus textbook is almost completely obsolescent in the light of computer algorithms,
which do all the arithmetic perfectly and virtually instantly - and produce error reports with impeccable logic.
Computers also don't have ego-problems like Calculus professors do!

The only part of the Calculus textbook (that I studied cover-to-cover) - that was superior to computation,
was Newton's proof of square-roots. A really beautiful piece of thinking, that.