problems with electromagnetism and relativity

[Allcanadian]

Hakasays

I think AllCanadian's point was that time is not a dimension that can be measured directly; it always has to be measured in reference to space.
Distance/Time.

What is time?, time is a "measure" of the cyclic nature, rate of change or oscillation of something. Time always relates to the motion of matter which relates directly to it's inertia. For example, an atomic clock measures the frequency of oscillation of the atoms. However if the inertia of the atoms changed then so would the frequency of oscillation and the clock would give a false time measurement.

In effect, what everyone measured as variable time is simply a measurement error because they didn't consider the property of inertia could change. It's a classic mistake because nobody knows what inertia is or where to even begin so they excluded it.

It's why Time dilation and Length contraction are equivalent, because at a fundamental level I don't believe we can tell (yet) if it is time or space that is changing (or a combination of both).

Time dilation can easily be explained by variable inertia effecting the frequency of oscillation of the atoms of the clock measuring the time. A supposed length contraction can also be explained by variable inertia effecting the atoms within the length. A such there is no need for variable time or space to explain anything and it only opens up more complexity and contradictions.

Do you know what the real problem is?, for some strange reason most people have a pathological fear of space being occupied by something. We know all space is seething with energy, EM wave/radiation and high energy particles. However, for some strange reason the moment anyone claims all this energy in space could have an effect on something people get triggered.

I mean we can all see the stars can't we?, we know all that energy must have traveled from that star to us yet nobody can seem to acknowledge the fact that space is full of energy. Even more bizarre is the notion that objects traveling at high velocity through a space full of energy would do so unaffected by said energy. It's the strangest thing and I have no idea what people could be thinking. It's like some kind of mental block which will not allow them to acknowledge the obvious...

AC

[F6FLT]

...
Time dilation can easily be explained by variable inertia effecting the frequency of oscillation of the atoms of the clock measuring the time.
...

Wrong. Two identical clocks, of the same technology, which move at a constant and different speed with respect to what they measure will not give the same measurement in the general case. Inertia is not involved, the speed being constant.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT made a good post on the nature of the problem...

This is the problem, a mistake. On the one hand an atomic clock does not refer to space, on the other hand it is because the speed of the photon is a limit and the same in all reference frames, that we logically deduce that time and space are linked.

I disagree because every atomic clock is dependent on space and velocity. It's only purpose is to count the oscillations, said oscillations being a function of the mass/inertia of the atom moving through a space/distance within a set time period. If the inertia changed then so would the rate of acceleration thus frequency of oscillation and a false time measurement would occur.

On the notion the speed of the photon is a limit and the same in all reference frames. Obviously we don't know all the possible reference frames thus we don't know the limit. So at best were speaking of what we think should normally occur in most instances.

I agree that time and space are linked because time is a "measure" of how fast something through a space. Time and space can only be linked by introducing velocity into the equation. Time is a measure of something and if nothing is present it has no meaning. Likewise space is also a measure of something relating to the distance between two points. The key point is that time and space are not something only a "measure of something" which many take out of context.

AC

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

Wrong. Two identical clocks, of the same technology, which move at a constant and different speed with respect to what they measure will not give the same measurement in the general case. Inertia is not involved, the speed being constant.

It depends on the context and I wasn't referring to the clocks inertia but the atoms the clocks are made of. Ergo, it doesn't matter if the clocks velocity was constant or not.

For example, two clocks moving at different but constant velocities are still moving through a space seething with EM energy. This EM energy could effect the inertia of the atoms of each clock differently giving a different frequency of oscillation thus a different indication of time. Obviously time has not changed which is absurd, the clocks time appeared to change because there was a measurement error.

When something effects the correct operation of a measurement device giving a false reading this is called a measurement error.

AC

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
It depends on the context and I wasn't referring to the clocks inertia but the atoms the clocks are made of. Ergo, it doesn't matter if the clocks velocity was constant or not.

For example,...

Digression.

1) You did not explain why these identical clocks give different results (which is moreover in accordance with relativity).

2) Relativity gives the right measurements whatever the situation (with or without speed, with or without gravity, with or without acceleration...). One universal principle and everything is evaluated without the laborious argumentation as you do by taking each time particular cases.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

1) You did not explain why these identical clocks give different results (which is moreover in accordance with relativity).

2) Relativity gives the right measurements whatever the situation (with or without speed, with or without gravity, with or without acceleration...). One universal principle and everything is evaluated without the laborious argumentation as you do by taking each time particular cases.

Deflection.

1)What is asserted without valid proof can be denied without proof.

2)Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Relativity predicts the right results because they fudged the math making constants like time and space variable. This is like me stretching my tape measure to whatever length you could imagine in your head after the fact. Ergo, it's cheating and easy to fake the correct results. Does it sound reasonable that whenever we have a problem the solution is to cheat and change the problem to suit the answer we prefer?.

The fact remains that a change in inertia of a particle/atom could produce all the same results as variable space/time. This is true because inertia acts on the most fundamental level where the measures of distance and time occur after the fact. Inertia dictates how space and time play out not vice versa. As Feynman implied, we should always strive to find the first principal or true cause of things. At which point were talking about the Primary Fields(Gravic, Electric,Magnetic) and Inertia not fudging variables and equations to suit our beliefs.

AC

[Grumpy]

This is like me stretching my tape measure to whatever length you could imagine in your head after the fact.

That's a funny analogy!  Love it!

[Hakasays]

On the one hand an atomic clock does not refer to space

I don't think this is a good argument, since even subatomic particles inside an individual atom should still be reducible to functions of motion, velocity, length, time.
The only difference measuring time with an atomic clock vs a conventional clock is that the mechanical action inside the atom is too small and fast to be measured directly.

Space can be measured independent of time, but I'm not sure time can be measured independent of space.

[F6FLT]

@Hak

After relativity, you will have to study quantum mechanics. If you see the electron as a grain of matter rotating in space around a nucleus to make an atomic clock, you have everything wrong.
And even if we think so, it doesn't explain why two identical clocks based on this method would give different results simply because they are moving at constant speed.

[F6FLT]

...
This is like me stretching my tape measure to whatever length you could imagine in your head after the fact.

The image you use is called in France "image d'Epinal" (Epinal print).
"The expression image d'Epinal has become proverbial in French and refers to an emphatically traditionalist and naïve depiction of something, showing only its good aspects."

Repeating your faith in simplistic images still does not explain what stretching there would be on two identical clocks that do not give the same measurement when moving at constant speed.

When you talk science, let me know.

...
The fact remains that a change in inertia of a particle/atom could produce all the same results as variable space/time.
...

There is no question of inertia in constant speed movements, since no one can say who would be at rest or moving.

Instead of continuing to maintain a ridiculously pretentious discourse against Einstein's theory, show us instead your calculation with your streched tape of a half-life of 1 second of an radioactive particle when it is seen at a speed of 0.99*c.

[Hakasays]

@Hak
After relativity, you will have to study quantum mechanics. If you see the electron as a grain of matter rotating in space around a nucleus to make an atomic clock, you have everything wrong.

The principle is the same whether we are using the billiard-ball or the wave model.  There can be no 'universal time' independent of reference frames any more than there can be a 'master ruler' from which to measure all other lengths.
IE: Impedance is a finite value even in the subatomic world.

And even if we think so, it doesn't explain why two identical clocks based on this method would give different results simply because they are moving at constant speed.

I never argued otherwise.  I'm stating that because length contraction and time dilation are equivalent/linked ('space-time'), that it's not possible to distinguish if it is time or space that has changing (or both).

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

Repeating your faith in simplistic images still does not explain what stretching there would be on two identical clocks that do not give the same measurement when moving at constant speed.

In essence I don't have to prove anything because I'm not claiming any of the measures or results would change as your implying. I'm claiming a supposed variation in space/time would be impossible to differentiate from a change in inertia. More so at the atomic scales and levels of precision required to detect the change in the first place. It then becomes a matter of logic and reason as to which cause is more likely...

1)variable space/time creating infinite problems with complexity, measurement and causality.

2)a small change in inertia relating to EM energy/high energy particles we know occupy all space, space is not empty.

It's not rocket science, the theory which relies on the least assumptions is probably the correct one. A change in inertia is by far the more reasonable option because it does not prostitute our whole concept of measurement to support a flawed theory and has no issues with causality.

AC

[F6FLT]

...
I'm claiming a supposed variation in space/time would be impossible to differentiate from a change in inertia.
...

And you don't understand that two identical clocks that don't give the same measurement when moving at constant speed disproves what you are claiming?
It is however straightforward !

[F6FLT]

...
Instead of continuing to maintain a ridiculously pretentious discourse against Einstein's theory, show us instead your calculation with your streched tape of a half-life of 1 second of an radioactive particle when it is seen at a speed of 0.99*c.

No answer?
You forgot that in science, we verify what we say against what we observe. When we don't talk nonsense, we can make calculations and provide quantified results.