Post by Ed Lake Post by Odd Bodkin Post by Ed Lake Post by Odd Bodkin Post by Ed Lake Post by Ed Lake
When discussing Time Dilation, the use of regular clocks
just leads to arguments about "seeing" some clock that is
in a space ship that is a billion miles away. And there is the
complication of the speed of light when viewing things that
are billions of miles away.
Back in May 2015, I wrote a paper about using a PULSAR
as a clock to measure Time Dilation. To simplify things,
I used a pulsar that pulses once ever 10 seconds when
viewed from earth. And I used a space ship that is traveling
at right angles to the pulsar, so that there is no change in
the pulse rate due to moving toward or away from the pulsar.
When the space ship starts to move at high speeds away from
the earth, time slows down on the space ship. Instead of
seeing the pulsar pulse once every 10 seconds, as the ship
accelerates faster and faster, the passengers see the pulsar
pulse once every 9 seconds, then once every 8 seconds,
etc., until they are at cruising speed and they see the pulsar
plus once every second. Then, after about 6 months, they
slow down, turn around, and repeat the speeding up process
to return to earth.
When they return to earth, due to Time Dilation, the passengers
on the space ship are about 1 year older than when they left on
their one year trip. But people on earth are TEN years older.
EVERYONE counted the same number of pulses from the
pulsar: 31,553,280. No one was ever ahead or behind anyone
else in time. No one FELT any effects of Time Dilation. But,
due to Time Dilation, people on the spaceship counted
31,553,280 pulses in 1 year, while people on earth counted
31,553,280 pulses in 10 years.
Here's my paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf
Doe anyone see any fault in this thought experiment?
This seems like the PERFECT experiment to resolve all disputes
over how Time Dilation works. Is that why no one wants to discuss
it? Because you can't find any arguments against it?
No Ed, the reason no one wants to engage in discussion about it is that
everyone here knows that you know nothing about the subject, but you THINK
you do, as illustrated by your assessment that this is a “PERFECT”
experiment to do.
So, you're saying that everyone here has a closed mind, and therefore
they do not want to discuss anything? They just want to preach their
beliefs? I was hoping that wasn't true.
No, I didn’t say that. There are lots of people who decline to preach, and
who have open minds, and STILL would not care to have a discussion with
someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Surely you can see that
It's a possibility, but in reality we LEARN from talking with people who have
different ideas that we do.
I dispute that. I learn nothing from someone who believes that the Apollo
mission is a hoax, or that the coronavirus is fictional, or that the earth
Post by Ed Lake
Even if they are totally wrong, you still find that
explaining things in various different ways helps you to more fully understand
what your own argument is.
I disagree. It is a WASTE of time trying to make any argument to someone
who believes the Apollo landing was a hoax. Because in that case, the
person does not believe in facts, they believe in hidden conspiracies, and
no assemblage of facts is compelling and no argument will convince. It is a
WASTE OF TIME.
Post by Ed Lake Post by Odd Bodkin
Or is it your notion that the definition of having an open mind is being
willing to discuss a topic with someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking
Yes, it says you have already closed you mind by declaring that the other
person "doesn't know what he is talking about." If you discuss things in
HIS terms, you might learn that it is YOU who does not know what he is
I’m sorry but this is just not so. There are a few simple assessments
anyone can do to tell if someone knows what they’re talking about. If
someone wants to engage in a conversation with me about woodworking but
they can’t tell the difference between a hardwood and a softwood, or they
can’t hold a plane properly, or any of a number of simple tests, then it
will be clear that discussions are futile.
In your case, Ed, what’s clear is that you don’t understand even the basics
of freshman physics, and yet you want to be paid heed about your thoughts
Post by Ed Lake Post by Odd Bodkin Post by Ed Lake
The idea of using a pulsar as a clock that BOTH parties can see when
one is "stationary" and the other is traveling at high speeds STOPS all
arguments about "illusions" and eliminates any need to use complex
equations. It really shatters the beliefs of most people here. I can see
why they do not want to discuss it.
I think it’s says more about your lack of understanding of what beliefs you
think you’re shattering. As I said, you THINK you know what you’re talking
about, but you actually don’t.
Do you have an open mind to that possibility?
Of course. But your argument is that I have to learn to agree with
what you believe before you will listen to any argument from me.
No, that is not true. What is true is that you have to demonstrate that you
know what words mean in physics, that you understand some of the basic
principles of physics and how they have been validated in experiment. This
does not mean that you have to agree. Education does not force agreement.
Reading does not brainwash.
What you offer is your uneducated opinion that physics does not involve
mathematics, that it involves no specialized vocabulary or precise
definitions, that it only requires common sense and a logical mind. This
tells everyone, Ed, two things: 1) that you don’t know any physics at all,
2) that you are uninterested in learning any of it (learn =/= believe)
because you don’t want to work that hard.
Post by Ed Lake
I'm arguing logic and science. You argue mathematical equations.
And you REFUSE to argue anything except mathematical equations.
The argument in my paper is not about mathematical equations.
It is about how time dilation works.
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables