I am a big fan of all these guys maxwell --franklin--whoever made the batteries for the pyramid era--all the way up to Einstein--but I have to say I don't agree with the time shift part a Albert's thinking--which you didn't say much about it either--some say light in not a wave btw--we are at a point of seeing a few things on how this thing is run-but still really have not even got--much of a clue --

electricity does wonders at splattering in vacuum tubes ,especially wit a hint of real spring reverb--the magnets get argued about in the guitar pick-up section---

I forgive you Doug.  

Im not sure I can forgive but Im trying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tractor1

I am a big fan of all these guys maxwell --franklin--whoever made the batteries for the pyramid era--all the way up to Einstein--but I have to say I don't agree with the time shift part a Albert's thinking--which you didn't say much about it either--some say light in not a wave btw--we are at a point of seeing a few things on how this thing is run-but still really have not even got--much of a clue --

electricity does wonders at splattering in vacuum tubes ,especially wit a hint of real spring reverb--the magnets get argued about in the guitar pick-up section---

---

The time dialation is true, and can actually be measured.  Usually the measurement method involves two accurate clocks, synced up before the experiment.  Clock 1 is stationed inside a building on earth and doesn't change location throughout the experiment.  Clock 2 is shuttled into some sort of aviation method, like a jet or something that can travel extremely fast.  For a given amount of time, Clock 2 travels at high speeds around the earth and is brought back down to earth eventually and in proximity to Clock 1.  They will not be in sync any more.  Clock 2 will have "aged" less than Clock 1, because of Einstein's relativity principles.  

Also, people who fly a lot notice their clocks or watches need to be resynced every now and then to earth time because their time is shortened by flying.  It's weird, but it works that way.

Does " Clock 2 will have "aged" less than Clock 1 ..."  mean that clock #2 will then be "ahead" of or "behind" clock #1? 

If clock #2 was sent at the speed of "a slow boat to China" for  "X" trips around the earth, would the clocks stay in sync?   Or would they "age"  at a different although less noticeable, and more difficult to measure, amount?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

Does " Clock 2 will have "aged" less than Clock 1 ..."  mean that clock #2 will then be "ahead" of or "behind" clock #1? 

If clock #2 was sent at the speed of "a slow boat to China" for  "X" trips around the earth, would the clocks stay in sync?   Or would they "age"  at a different although less noticeable, and more difficult to measure, amount?

---

If the clocks are timers, and let's say Clock 1 reads 48 hrs that has gone by, Clock 2, which traveled at high speeds, will be less.  Like 47 hours, 59 minutes, 59s, or something like that.  

Yes, they would be synced up much much much more accurately, enough not to even be noticed.  It's only when you travel approaching the speed of light is when relativistic time dialations occur.

everything slowing down is true--clocks slow down--the closer things get to the speed of light--the more their energy drains--however out brain waves and thought patterns -running with the same electricity --slow down in the same ratio-- we would take longer to get old but would  take longer to achieve our goals--time does not even exists --movement just slows down-the carburetor that mixes matter and energy back and forth-gets it's screen stopped up--at the speed of light --we get the old suspended animation--

Doug: "Yes, they would be synced up much much much more accurately, enough not to even be noticed."

Would a difference be detected by theoretically perfect devices [i.e. much much much more accurately and then some, and it that wasn't enough, then even more] ? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

Doug: "Yes, they would be synced up much much much more accurately, enough not to even be noticed."

Would a difference be detected by theoretically perfect devices [i.e. much much much more accurately and then some, and it that wasn't enough, then even more] ? 

---

Technically, if Clock 2 travels at all, however slow, and Clock 1 is always stationary, then even though it's hardly anything, Clock 2 is still younger than Clock 1.

So two clocks that come from the factory at the exact same time and go to the scrap heap at the exact same time can have different life spans?

I don't think so --one might have more wear on it and show a different time--but it got slowed down in it's chores by it's loss of available energy

So, two banjos that come from the factory at the exact same time and go to the scrap heap at the exact same time can have different life spans? My wife says the life span might be too long for each. Just saying??

Rich

I think I've got this.... If a batch of something that gets "aged" [whiskey/cheese/??] is divided into two and one part stays in it's home cellar while the other part gets sent on a long journey in the hold of a ship ....when it's gets to its destination, the second part will be less well-aged due to it having been moved.

And if the OP isn't far enough out of my grasp  , I'll mix in a little altermagnetism.  https://phys.org/news/2024-02-altermagnetism-magnetism-broad-implications-technology.html

So if I move a clock negative light speed can I quickly age it and sell it as an antique?

Math and theories allow for such things, eg Speed up electons.

Its called the THEORY of relativity.

It was so cold out this morning...

....even my clock was moving slower.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Knecht

But Einstein can explain away the "magnetic fields" of moving charges and show that because of relativity, there is no such thing as magnetic fields.  It's all explained by Coulomb's Law of point charges moving through a wire where the length of the conductor shrinks relative to the moving protons and stays the same relative to the stationary electrons.   This creates an unequal number of electrons relative to the number of protons, creating a net charge on the conductor!  This then, according to Coulombs Law, attracts the outside electron or repulses it. 

---

First of all, the protons are stationary and the electrons are moving. Then, why should there be any length contraction for the moving particles? Contrary to common belief, electrons don't move at the speed of light or even close to it, the speed of electrons in a copper wire is in the range of inches per hour. It's the electric field that moves at or close to the speed of light. And the field does not care about whether any particles move or remain stationary. It can permeate an insulator just as well as a conductor (we wouldn't have capacitors if the electric field couldn't permeate the insulator between the capacitor plates).

In short: I haven't watched the video but either you understood it wrong, its content is wrong or I am missing something important.

NABY: "Its called the THEORY of relativity."

...and we know why!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by phb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Knecht

But Einstein can explain away the "magnetic fields" of moving charges and show that because of relativity, there is no such thing as magnetic fields.  It's all explained by Coulomb's Law of point charges moving through a wire where the length of the conductor shrinks relative to the moving protons and stays the same relative to the stationary electrons.   This creates an unequal number of electrons relative to the number of protons, creating a net charge on the conductor!  This then, according to Coulombs Law, attracts the outside electron or repulses it. 

---

First of all, the protons are stationary and the electrons are moving. Then, why should there be any length contraction for the moving particles? Contrary to common belief, electrons don't move at the speed of light or even close to it, the speed of electrons in a copper wire is in the range of inches per hour. It's the electric field that moves at or close to the speed of light. And the field does not care about whether any particles move or remain stationary. It can permeate an insulator just as well as a conductor (we wouldn't have capacitors if the electric field couldn't permeate the insulator between the capacitor plates).

In short: I haven't watched the video but either you understood it wrong, its content is wrong or I am missing something important.

 

---

As far as protons moving, they don't.  But the convention is a net negative charge moving in the opposite direction which conventially means there is a positive charge moving in the original direction said.  The electrons don't move at the speed of light, but they move very quickly, enough to dialate the percieved length relative to the electron.  

That proton charge moving bit is complex but is just a conventional way to define current flow.  It is the electrons that move at very high speeds relative to the proton, but in circuit analysis we talk about positive charge moving through a circuit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Knecht

quote:

---

Originally posted by phb

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug Knecht

But Einstein can explain away the "magnetic fields" of moving charges and show that because of relativity, there is no such thing as magnetic fields.  It's all explained by Coulomb's Law of point charges moving through a wire where the length of the conductor shrinks relative to the moving protons and stays the same relative to the stationary electrons.   This creates an unequal number of electrons relative to the number of protons, creating a net charge on the conductor!  This then, according to Coulombs Law, attracts the outside electron or repulses it. 

---

First of all, the protons are stationary and the electrons are moving. Then, why should there be any length contraction for the moving particles? Contrary to common belief, electrons don't move at the speed of light or even close to it, the speed of electrons in a copper wire is in the range of inches per hour. It's the electric field that moves at or close to the speed of light. And the field does not care about whether any particles move or remain stationary. It can permeate an insulator just as well as a conductor (we wouldn't have capacitors if the electric field couldn't permeate the insulator between the capacitor plates).

In short: I haven't watched the video but either you understood it wrong, its content is wrong or I am missing something important.

 

---

As far as protons moving, they don't.  But the convention is a net negative charge moving in the opposite direction which conventially means there is a positive charge moving in the original direction said. 

OK, so the old "technical direction of current flow" vs. the physical (real) one.

The electrons don't move at the speed of light, but they move very quickly, enough to dialate the percieved length relative to the electron.  

Electrons can move very quickly, they do in a vacuum under the influence of an electric field used for accelerating them. That's what was used in Cathode Ray Tube TVs, oscilloscopes and tube amplifiers. There electrons can reach a speed close to the speed of light. But in a solid conductor electrons move at a speed of inches per hour. I don't see how there could be any length contraction at this speed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Owen

Doug: "Yes, they would be synced up much much much more accurately, enough not to even be noticed."

Would a difference be detected by theoretically perfect devices [i.e. much much much more accurately and then some, and it that wasn't enough, then even more] ? 

---

Yes. It's not that clocks get inaccurate at high speed. It's an actual effect, according to Einstein,  that anything moving relative to you has time moving slower - and vice versa. From their viewpoint your time is moving slower.

Good video. I wish Mahesh had been my physics teacher. I might have got better grades.

yep everything moves slower--clocks-people--thought processes--we might live longer --but all processes slow to keep the order of things constant--what gets done in a slower day is the same amount--I know I am shooting in the dark here --but I think eventually it will get figured out where the science got ''off of the rails" and the so called 4th dimension will go the way of the ether--and newtonian will get exonerated