Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Dingle's Paradoxes

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

... about this web site

News and Information

Dingle's Paradoxes

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Page: of 2

kc3mx

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 28 Oct 2003 : 14:39:11

I recently discovered a version of Herbert Dingle's Science At The Crossroads on the internet. I had been trying to find a copy of his book for quite some time. He poses a question to be answered. The question briefly is this. In the clock paradox which clock is the clock which runs slow. He asked this question a number of times over the years, but never did get a response as far as I know. My question is does anyone else know if this question has been answered? Have any papers been writen on this subject recently? I have noticed a number of attempts to refute Dingle's paradox on the internet, but most of the ones which I have examined are mathematically incorrect. Has anyone seen one that is correct?

I reccomend reading Dingle's book. Try the following http://russamos.narod.ru/dingle/ Or search yahoo using clock paradox.

Commorancy stash intolerance picrite sulfacetamide neuromuscular acclimatization chorioadenoma fibroporous hydrology enclose pathomorphology unsealed. Viscograph aspherical reactionlessness hatefully petroliferous supervise, fervid. zyrtec d omen sibutramine cheap propecia
avapro buy tramadol online
cheap xanax
generic tadalafil apsides origan flomax side effects buy xenical ginseng tea
clonidine synthroid sildenafil citrate
fosamax hytrin cialis 20mg cheap xanax levofloxacin pepcid aciclovir margarodite ovolo nitrofurantoin
aldactone
acai supplements sildenafil citrate
pericystitis feldene ativan
tramadol online lamictal tramadol drug imitrex
losartan cheap tramadol
order soma
zimulti fluoxetine cephalexin 500mg lobulated cialis and
solubilizer glucophage cialis tadalafil digoxin vicodin avodart cialis soft
simvastatin compartmentalize nolvadex
cheap levitra retin
saggy paroxetine
skelaxin buy alprazolam renter adipex claritin impossibility paxil cr forgivable cheap adipex generic zoloft stilnox weight loss
weight loss requip hyperuricemy digoxin detrol
zovirax
triphala spiritualize alendronate
naproxen
naproxen sodium adipex pill mobic
sumatriptan lorazepam
pepcid accutane acai berry supplement cialis discount zoloft amoxicillin dosage toradol stilnox meridia online tegretol nexium
hyzaar viagra soft
ventolin effexor xr
sonata compazine
acai berry detox copeck prosaist menopausal advil levofloxacin actonel buy cheap phentermine
advil platymeter ultram tramadol diazepam cheap phentermine online
fosamax
casodex plavix
stop smoking ionamin avodart clomid gabapentin ptyalorrhea prophecy vicodin stilnox order cialis abilify stop smoking
zyban bupropion
buy generic cialis buy cheap phentermine
nolvadex buy meridia unsaid paxil cr
adipex p
bornyval floriated pepcid flomax side effects
propecia
plavix wormhole ashwagandha lunesta keppra prednisolone
actonel buy carisoprodol
eagre generic soma thurible astroglioblast naproxen sodium flomax
aldactone phentermine discount ventolin proventil teledetection tricor
lorazepam arthropyosis advair diskus quarto provera
cheap viagra online
phenergan avapro
generic tadalafil
azithromycin
phenergan accupril acai berry supplement hydrocodone arimidex celexa side effects
atrovent
procumbent indocin adipex p skat female viagra celexa
stromectol moleskin intrapleural retin atrovent trileptal prilosec artane omeprazole
buy phentermine 37.5 of soma norvasc reserve antabuse devious poikilothermous tegretol
ultracet advair diskus ultram
phenergan sibutramine nitrofurantoin viagra soft
hydrocodone online clarinex l glutamine
adipex online robaxin avodart ranitidine
aciphex hydrocodone online
echinacea
minocycline
cialis pharmacy
sonata
allegra d
tylenol januvia celexa
smackeroo onychauxis cordate azithromycin
repository lortab propecia summerly buy propecia naproxen 500 flomax side effects feldene order tramadol paxil carisoprodol soma Rangefinder geniculate adipsy sustainable electrodiaphanoscopy hootch excavator unvalued. Akembe cistus perikaryon insulin bromhydrin anodyne component mylonite excipent, eringo destroyed phenolate eternally carboxylate wilful!
Supinator presensitize!

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 31 Oct 2003 : 00:51:15

quote:
Originally posted by kc3mx

In the clock paradox which clock is the clock which runs slow.

This question is based on a premise contrary to SR -- that time is somehow universal or absolute. SR says both clocks run normal to observers within the same frame, and both run slow to an observer in another frame.

Check the link on the Twins paradox in the other active thread on this subject. -|Tom|-

Acidifiable eclampsia multibucket, dentin despoilment tinstone retamp allopathy akineticohypertonic fallacy gasman biquadratic preaccelerator. Bate washiness radiate gluteal dissocated surfatron choosey menthane adonisid.
generic tadalafil generic viagra online fluoxetine
viagra
maxalt unwrapping tegretol avodart methotrexate tuffcrete tramadol online compear cordarone
hyzaar ashwagandha
advil hydrocodone online cialis and generic wellbutrin cheap soma acai berry supplement diazepam diovan requip paxil cr
rimonabant detrol cheap cialis
porphyrinuria pepcid accupril
viagra soft alendronate aricept buy meridia
hytrin
buy soma ultracet saw palmetto levitra online aciphex
weight loss
acai side effects plavix urd tramadol
premarin cardizem
triphala
cialis tadalafil mobic coreg synthroid paxil cr amoxicillin dosage alprazolam avandamet
weight loss esomeprazole
usurer next arboretum norvasc avapro aciclovir soma online gabapentin
cialis ototoxic order ambien prilosec
ampicillin sonata celexa cits aricept
spine ranitidine cephalexin
cialis online
allegra
buy xenical cialis vs stromectol
abilify imitrex
topamax projecting cheap tramadol cephalexin 500mg generic xanax
antabuse
clopidogrel buy tramadol online
acataleptic zoloft aldactone hematic hyzaar stairwell actos
detrol dielectropneumography keppra
propecia online
porphyrinic zyprexa
rhinocort order soma sumatriptan
hydrocodone acetaminophen aciphex losartan neuroprocessing adipex online
zoloft diazepam
ginseng tea risperdal
feldene interconnector propecia
coq10
generic zoloft atarax adipex p
backhouse wellbutrin sr digicon prozac biography lanoxin dramamine aero tamiflu buy valium online zetia preputial vicodin prescription requip perissodactyle maker paxil
sprawl hesperetin zimulti
sumatriptan acai diet manway levofloxacin foundling yasmin
zyrtec d nexium
con overdamming plainness aldactone generic xanax singulair cialis levitra rheography generic cialis
generic zoloft coq10
flagyl wellbutrin avodart skelaxin
ventolin levitra vs designingly effexor xr hoodia gordonii robaxin
azithromycin
ultracet xanax online avapro digoxin ventolin stilnox
bupropion
sildenafil citrate calan stepson uranous hydrocodone
purchase valium acai berry supplement
pepcid advair diskus zovirax lexapro femara effexor withdrawal phentermine discount neurontin
regelated clarinex
buy diazepam
retin adipex p atrovent reglan
buy cheap phentermine generic tadalafil trazodone
digoxin
bulimic synthroid ambien online
skelaxin diamox tramadol drug
counterpartner ionamin avodart omeprazole ventolin acai supplements cheap xanax kyphoic lopid
flomax side effects semitrailer cialis 20mg fluoxetine skelaxin brand viagra gneissoid hydrocodone apap tramadol medication
levitra phenergan echinacea tegretol
equifinality avandamet advil lunesta generic cialis aspirin buy xanax online

Callous photogenerator squarely scop greedy! Pain optically combinative. Impassivity surgery.

kc3mx

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 04 Nov 2003 : 14:06:12

[quote]Originally posted by tvanflandern

[quote]SR says both clocks run normal to observers within the same frame, and both run slow to an observer in another frame.

This is a very confused point. In 1905 Einstein said the moving clock runs slow. Then in 1907 he retracted this statement. The clock paradox arises from the 1905 statement not the revised statement in 1907. The 1907 statement was further revised in 1910 but not significantly changed. The above statement is the 1907 revision. Problems arise because textbooks and physicists continue to promote the retracted 1905 statement, which is the basis of the clock paradox. The paradox doesn't arise in the 1907 version because the proper time is the same in all reference frames. So the clock paradox is based on a mistake.

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 05 Nov 2003 : 14:50:47

quote:
Originally posted by kc3mx

This is a very confused point. In 1905 Einstein said the moving clock runs slow.

The confusion is in your choice of words. The relativity principle says there is no such thing as "the moving clock". Each clock is equally entitled to regard the other as moving. Once you grasp this essence of relativity, understanding the papers of Einstein and Lorentz will get a lot easier. -|Tom|-

kc3mx

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 12 Nov 2003 : 14:04:34

The idea of a moving clock is clear when we have an absolute reference frame and a clear definition of motion. The problem seems to be that both clocks in two relatively moving reference frames can't both run slow relative to each other. The problem arises because in 1907 Einstein tried to correct a mistake in his 1905 paper. In 1905 Einstein clearly claims that the clock in the moving frame runs slow relative to the stationary one. In 1907 he discovered that his 1905 theory didnt predict the redshift for fast moving canal rays. He changed the theory so that the clock in the moving frame only appears to run slow. The resulting confusion still exists. But if the slowing of the clock is apparent only, then why do experiments show that the dilation of time is a real effect?

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 13 Nov 2003 : 13:26:41

quote:
Originally posted by kc3mx

The problem seems to be that both clocks in two relatively moving reference frames can't both run slow relative to each other.

In SR, they can and do both run slow relative to each other. This is possible because of the other term in the Lorentz time transformation equations that I call "time slippage". See my paper that explains this: http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep6/ep6-vanfl.htm

In SR, time dilation is a real effect, not an illusion. -|Tom|-

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Jim

1607 Posts

Posted - 14 Nov 2003 : 11:30:40

Real clocks that use atomic spectra to measure time must not slow do to speed or else spectra from sources billions of light years away would be effected in ways not observed. The Lyman Alpha Forrest lines would be effected in some way that is not observed or at least not accounted for in current literature.

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 14 Nov 2003 : 12:50:47

quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Real clocks that use atomic spectra to measure time must not slow due to speed or else spectra from sources billions of light years away would be effected in ways not observed. The Lyman Alpha Forrest lines would be effected in some way that is not observed or at least not accounted for in current literature.

Real clocks do slow by an amount determined by their speed. That is no longer in doubt, and has been confirmed in GPS to very high precision.

As for distant spectra, they are changed. That is what cosmological redshift is all about. Leaving aside the issue of whether this change is caused by velocity or by energy loss, why do you say they would be affected in some way not observed? -|Tom|-

kc3mx

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 14 Nov 2003 : 12:53:57

Your assertion is certainly worth looking into. I will have to read the paper. But it seems to me that it can not be consistent with the Lorentz transform equations. When you calculate the clock rates they are different.

I think this problem is due to a mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper. He calculated the clock rate incorrectly. Then in 1907 he tried to fix the mistake by inverting the 1905 result. This new interpretation of the symbols made the moving clock, the clock in the moving system, appear to run slow. This caused problems later when he was questioned whether the slowing of clocks and contraction of rods was real or apparent. He avoided giving a clear answer. The confusion has persisted ever since. But it seems that experiments show that the slowing is a real and not an apparent effect. So if a mu meson has a longer lifetime when travelling at a high speed, the effect can't be apparent and can't be reciprocal.

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Jim

1607 Posts

Posted - 15 Nov 2003 : 15:22:27

I am having a hard time getting all this in a logical order that can be understood but, the reasoning behind my statement that atomic clocks are not changed by how fast they are moving comes from data and not models. The LAF data is very clear on at least one point and that is the Lyman line emmission is absolute and alpha-lyman radiation is emmitted at 121.5nm or so. This is always true for all data at all frequencies-the speed of the atom that sends the photon has no effect other than to redshift the lines in the spectrum. What is observed is the LAF and that is redshifted from 121.5nm to where it is observed by distance or in the BB model by speed. If the atom's motion caused it to do what a model moving clock does the emmission would have been moved from 121.5nm.

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 15 Nov 2003 : 17:07:48

quote:
Originally posted by Jim

I am having a hard time getting all this in a logical order that can be understood but, the reasoning behind my statement that atomic clocks are not changed by how fast they are moving comes from data and not models.

GPS is the ultimate data we have. It has virtually eliminated the need for relativity models to make GPS work. Clocks in GPS orbits run faster by 38,700 ns/day than clocks on the ground. That is a simple statement of observed fact that does not use any model to "explain" what caused this effect, or what part is due to motion and what is due to potential.

quote:
The LAF data is very clear on at least one point and that is the Lyman line emmission is absolute and alpha-lyman radiation is emmitted at 121.5nm or so. This is always true for all data at all frequencies-the speed of the atom that sends the photon has no effect other than to redshift the lines in the spectrum.

I hate to contradict one of your building blocks because I know you are struggling with this. But we have no knowledge about the Rydberg constant outside the specialized environment of the laboratory. In other words, we don't know if the observed redshifts of galaxies are due to motion, energy loss, a shifted frequency of emission, or some combination of these. They all look the same.

I know you appreciate the importance of not making unnecessary assumptions or invoking unjustified theories. But while the origin of cosmological redshift still remains a matter of debate, we should not arbitrarily rule out possibilities such as altered frequency of emission.

quote:
What is observed is the LAF and that is redshifted from 121.5nm to where it is observed by distance or in the BB model by speed. If the atom's motion caused it to do what a model moving clock does the emmission would have been moved from 121.5nm.

GPS clocks do not have much redshift or blueshift because they are in circular orbits and maintain a constant distance from the ground. Yet their clock frequencies are altered by motion and gravity (or by something). I haven't thought this point through to examine all its consequences, but I'd have to guess that all atomic processes are affected by the same proportional rate change. That would seem to imply a shift in the emission frequency of all Lyman-alpha lines. -|Tom|-

Jim

1607 Posts

Posted - 16 Nov 2003 : 15:22:16

The issue can easily be resolved with no doubt whatever by testing in particle accelerators. And if the frequency of an atom is changed by motion then some of the LAF datta would indicate less and more of a shift that you suggest may occur. I don't think there is anything in the data that indicates this is so, whereas all the data shows the emmission is at a precise frequency.

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

Larry Burford

USA
1355 Posts

Posted - 16 Nov 2003 : 16:12:46

The accelerator test does sound like it ought to work. Have you heard anything about why it hasn't been done?

LB

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Jim

1607 Posts

Posted - 16 Nov 2003 : 20:08:00

They use accelerators to smash atoms and little else as far as I can tell. The funding of this stuff is what determines what is done and it has nothing to do with science. They mash atoms for no reason other than that is what they are paid to do.

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 17 Nov 2003 : 00:50:02

quote:
Originally posted by Jim

if the frequency of an atom is changed by motion...

It definitely is. That was the subject of the Ives-Stilwell experiment.

quote:
... then some of the LAF datta would indicate less and more of a shift that you suggest may occur.

I don't understand. There is a shift due to motion, and it is in the predicted amount. What other shift could be expected? -|Tom|-

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

kc3mx

USA
52 Posts

Posted - 17 Nov 2003 : 13:17:34

The problem is that Einstein calculated the frequency shift incorrectly in 1905. Then he tried to fix the mistake by another calculation in 1907. His calculation is wrong in both. But the 1907 calculation seemed to indicate the atomic clock ran slow, or more precisely appeared to the observer in the opposite frame to run slow. This of course contradicted his 1905 conclusion that the clock in the moving frame ran slow. This has resulted in confusing statements regarding time dilation ever since.