• Would computers accelerated to high speeds compute "faster" from our po

    From Mohammad Halai@21:1/5 to All on Tue May 3 17:55:23 2022
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Mohammad Halai on Wed May 4 10:58:41 2022
    On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B before you
    get the results from A.


    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to mohal3535@ugcloud.ca on Tue May 3 18:03:45 2022
    On Tue, 3 May 2022 17:55:23 -0700 (PDT), Mohammad Halai
    <mohal3535@ugcloud.ca> wrote:

    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    That is basically the twins paradox:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

    The one who traveled aged (and calculated) slower.


    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mohammad Halai@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Tue May 3 18:09:46 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:58:50 p.m. UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?
    If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B before you
    get the results from A.


    Sylvia.
    Hi Sylvia,

    I could argue that my accelerating computer 'loses time' thus its clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles. Thus it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower -- from my POV-- the computer on my desk will finish first?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to moha...@ugcloud.ca on Tue May 3 20:00:01 2022
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM UTC+10, moha...@ugcloud.ca wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.

    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The question is close enough to one that has been subject to experimental test - admittedly with atomic clocks rather than computers

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

    The results were to some extent confounded by the fact that both traveling clocks were higher than the clock that stayed put on the ground, which meant that it had more gravitational red shift than they had, but the experimental design made that
    relatively easy to sort out.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Mohammad Halai on Wed May 4 05:35:51 2022
    Mohammad Halai <mohal3535@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc-bc43-deffbfa8ee2dn@googlegroups.com:

    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both
    scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
    time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
    (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
    central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line,
    circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress
    time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm
    sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.


    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
    the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
    stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Wed May 4 00:18:41 2022
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 3:35:57 PM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
    time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
    (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
    central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line,
    circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress
    time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm
    sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
    the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
    stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.

    Special relativity say otherwise. This has been tested moving devices do run more slowly

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

    Of course, general relativity came into it too, bu that effect could be more or less cancelled out.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Mohammad Halai on Wed May 4 00:55:34 2022
    On 5/3/2022 5:55 PM, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a central computer automatically.

    So, that "central" computer is following A at 0.25c?
    Do you *imagine* the transport delays from each are zero?
    (i.e., you've not thought through your initial hypothesis)

    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    And where, exactly, are *you*?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    And where are *we*? At what fraction of c will A's broadcast occur?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress time" on
    a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The whole point of relativity is you can't be in two places at once -- so
    there is no real way to compare "there1" and "there2", while they are
    separated in space (and, thus, time).

    Some years ago, Hawking presented an experiment in time dilation, here,
    as part of the "Genius" TV series.

    <http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/> <http://leapsecond.com/great2016a/photos.htm>

    It's really amusing when you see such esoteric bits of science actually
    *work* as predicted!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Mohammad Halai on Wed May 4 08:59:33 2022
    On 04/05/2022 02:09, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:58:50 p.m. UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both
    scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
    time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that
    time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to
    a central computer automatically.

    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?
    If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B before
    you get the results from A.

    I could argue that my accelerating computer 'loses time' thus its
    clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles. Thus
    it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower -- from my
    POV-- the computer on my desk will finish first?

    The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger than
    the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop space
    vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to set off
    will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also return first).

    There is an interesting corollary to this in the real world for absolute cutting edge hefty computing problems like ab initio computation of the
    masses of fundamental practicals and the like.

    If your problem will take more than 2 years to execute on currently
    available bleeding edge hardware the quickest way to get your results is
    to do something else for 18 months and only then run the program!

    ISTR the original quote suggests going to the beach and surfing.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed May 4 08:53:48 2022
    Martin Brown wrote:
    On 04/05/2022 02:09, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:58:50 p.m. UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
    both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one
    year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c
    at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.

    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?
    If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B
    before you get the results from A.

    I could argue that my accelerating computer 'loses time' thus its
    clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles.
    Thus it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower --
    from my POV-- the computer on my desk will finish first?

    The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger
    than the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop
    space vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to
    set off will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also
    return first).



    There is an interesting corollary to this in the real world for
    absolute cutting edge hefty computing problems like ab initio
    computation of the masses of fundamental practicals and the like.

    If your problem will take more than 2 years to execute on currently
    available bleeding edge hardware the quickest way to get your results
    is to do something else for 18 months and only then run the program!

    ISTR the original quote suggests going to the beach and surfing.


    Somebody wrote a paper like that 30 or so years ago, based on
    algorithmic complexity and Moore's Law, that gave a formula for when one
    should begin a computation in order to finish fastest.

    Fun paper--I should try pulling it up sometime.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs



    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs
    Principal Consultant
    ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
    Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
    Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

    http://electrooptical.net
    http://hobbs-eo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Wed May 4 05:49:47 2022
    On 5/4/2022 12:59 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
    There is an interesting corollary to this in the real world for absolute cutting edge hefty computing problems like ab initio computation of the masses
    of fundamental practicals and the like.

    It needn't be "bleeding edge" but, rather, any design that is "up against the stops" imposed by it's design criteria (e.g., cost limitations).

    If your problem will take more than 2 years to execute on currently available bleeding edge hardware the quickest way to get your results is to do something
    else for 18 months and only then run the program!

    The more practical corollary (for those of us that build hardware devices)
    is not to dick around with minor optimizations unless they provide ~2X "performance" (for some definition of "performance") increase.

    In day-to-day terms, that means:
    - delay hardware finalization
    - write portable code (so you can change processors easily)
    - automate testing (so you can rerun test suites on other toolchains)
    - avoid crippling a design by limiting it to "today's" technology

    In my case, I use three different compiler families (i.e., not gcc
    with three different back ends!) on three different hardware
    platforms (SPARC, x86 and ARM) and implement the "processor choice"
    as a hierarchical block in the (SBC) design so I can replace it
    easily. This also means taking deliberate care to keep the I/O
    system very generic so it doesn't rely on any exotic parts or
    peculiarities of a specific processor/-family. (I have a whole
    suite of compilers/emulators to verify the performance of a particular
    I/O subsystem)

    Every ~18 months, I get the opportunity to decide if I want to lower
    the product cost (to capitalize on technological advances) *or*
    increase the capabilities of the hardware. It's intoxicating! :>

    ISTR the original quote suggests going to the beach and surfing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to moha...@ugcloud.ca on Wed May 4 16:33:04 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 9:09:51 PM UTC-4, moha...@ugcloud.ca wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:58:50 p.m. UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 04-May-22 10:55 am, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?
    If B stays with you, you will always get the results from B before you
    get the results from A.


    Sylvia.
    Hi Sylvia,

    I could argue that my accelerating computer 'loses time' thus its clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles. Thus it is fair to say that, as its clocking is ticking slower -- from my POV-- the computer on my desk will finish first?

    Yes. This is not a matter of speed, since speed is simply relative. It is a matter of acceleration which only one experiences. Unfortunately for scientists wanting their results faster, the accelerating computer is the slow one.

    I'm not going to deal with any of the issues of getting the results, since that is an even more sticky wicket and does not change the basic issue of acceleration resulting in time dilation.

    The only way to make this work to get faster computing, is for the scientist to be the one accelerating, which slows his own clock, so he returns sooner (by his clock) and the computations are complete. Meanwhile, everything else unaccelerated has also
    moved on in time without the scientist, like cities and people. But if the scientist doesn't have anything to do for a year, a tour of the solar system at 0.9 times the speed of light might be a fun thing to do while waiting and it won't be so long
    this way. A perk of being a scientist.

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Wed May 4 16:36:21 2022
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
    time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
    (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
    central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line,
    circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress
    time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm
    sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
    the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
    stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.

    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed May 4 16:34:23 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 11:00:07 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:55:28 AM UTC+10, moha...@ugcloud.ca wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.

    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.
    The question is close enough to one that has been subject to experimental test - admittedly with atomic clocks rather than computers

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

    The results were to some extent confounded by the fact that both traveling clocks were higher than the clock that stayed put on the ground, which meant that it had more gravitational red shift than they had, but the experimental design made that
    relatively easy to sort out.

    "Relatively easy"? Is that a pun?

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Wed May 4 23:12:42 2022
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
    time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
    (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
    central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress
    time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm
    sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
    the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
    stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.

    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clive Arthur@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Thu May 5 15:12:25 2022
    On 04/05/2022 08:59, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger than
    the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop space vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to set off
    will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also return first).

    The really difficult problem is how to calculate the astronaut's pay
    when they return.

    --
    Cheers
    Clive

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu May 5 07:01:00 2022
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at
    time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time
    (or anything c). Both are configured to send the results to a
    central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm
    sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at which
    the computer in your phone does its processing compared to a
    stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no
    sense to talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time elapsing.

    When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative, but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as illustrated in the twin paradox.

    From Wikipedia

    Reciprocity
    Given a certain frame of reference, and the "stationary" observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the "moving" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other's clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due
    to them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion relative to their own stationary frame of reference.

    Common sense would dictate that, if the passage of time has slowed for a moving object, said object would observe the external world's time to be correspondingly sped up. Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts the opposite. When two observers
    are in motion relative to each other, each will measure the other's clock slowing down, in concordance with them being in motion relative to the observer's frame of reference.


    So what point are you trying to make?

    --

    Rick C.

    -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu May 5 07:34:23 2022
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 12:01:05 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

    <snip>

    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity requires you to pay attention to
    the acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately.

    It's more that your explanation misses some of the detail and is inadequate that that extent.

    Since constant motion is purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It's just an effect of
    observation, with no actual change in time elapsing.

    When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative, but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as illustrated in the twin paradox.

    From Wikipedia

    Reciprocity
    Given a certain frame of reference, and the "stationary" observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the "moving" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other's clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due
    to them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion relative to their own stationary frame of reference.

    Also from Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

    Common sense would dictate that, if the passage of time has slowed for a moving object, said object would observe the external world's time to be correspondingly sped up. Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts the opposite. When two observers
    are in motion relative to each other, each will measure the other's clock slowing down, in concordance with them being in motion relative to the observer's frame of reference.

    So what point are you trying to make?

    That there is experimental evidence that if you send an atomic clock around the earth in the same direction that the earth is spinning, it runs slower than one that has been sent around the earth in the opposite direction.Of course they both run a bit
    faster than the third atomic clock that stayed at home on the ground and was thus more red-shifted by the influence of the earth's gravitational field (which is weaker when you are up in an aircraft).

    Clearly both moving clocks were subjected to much the same accelerations every time their plane took off and landed - that won't be affected by the direction in which they flew around the world.

    The effects are separable. Looking up what "reciprocity" means seems to be a less useful exercise.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Clive Arthur on Thu May 5 20:09:55 2022
    Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote in
    news:t50m0b$l5i$1@dont-email.me:

    On 04/05/2022 08:59, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns
    younger than the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever
    do develop space vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the
    first one to set off will be quickly overtaken by later models
    (who will also return first).

    The really difficult problem is how to calculate the astronaut's
    pay when they return.


    By the time they return, society will have moved to cashless system.
    Problem solved, they get nothing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu May 5 13:20:41 2022
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:34:27 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 12:01:05 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    <snip>
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity requires you to pay attention to
    the acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately.
    It's more that your explanation misses some of the detail and is inadequate that that extent.
    Since constant motion is purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It's just an effect of
    observation, with no actual change in time elapsing.

    When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative, but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as illustrated in the twin paradox.

    From Wikipedia

    Reciprocity
    Given a certain frame of reference, and the "stationary" observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the "moving" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other's clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock,
    due to them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion relative to their own stationary frame of reference.
    Also from Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
    Common sense would dictate that, if the passage of time has slowed for a moving object, said object would observe the external world's time to be correspondingly sped up. Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts the opposite. When two
    observers are in motion relative to each other, each will measure the other's clock slowing down, in concordance with them being in motion relative to the observer's frame of reference.

    So what point are you trying to make?
    That there is experimental evidence that if you send an atomic clock around the earth in the same direction that the earth is spinning, it runs slower than one that has been sent around the earth in the opposite direction.Of course they both run a bit
    faster than the third atomic clock that stayed at home on the ground and was thus more red-shifted by the influence of the earth's gravitational field (which is weaker when you are up in an aircraft).

    Clearly both moving clocks were subjected to much the same accelerations every time their plane took off and landed - that won't be affected by the direction in which they flew around the world.

    The effects are separable. Looking up what "reciprocity" means seems to be a less useful exercise.

    Ok, so you are talking about something different from the rest of us. Fine, glad we got that straight.

    --

    Rick C.

    +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu May 5 20:31:33 2022
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 6:20:45 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:34:27 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 12:01:05 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

    <snip>

    Also from Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
    Common sense would dictate that, if the passage of time has slowed for a moving object, said object would observe the external world's time to be correspondingly sped up. Counterintuitively, special relativity predicts the opposite. When two
    observers are in motion relative to each other, each will measure the other's clock slowing down, in concordance with them being in motion relative to the observer's frame of reference.

    So what point are you trying to make?

    That there is experimental evidence that if you send an atomic clock around the earth in the same direction that the earth is spinning, it runs slower than one that has been sent around the earth in the opposite direction.Of course they both run a
    bit faster than the third atomic clock that stayed at home on the ground and was thus more red-shifted by the influence of the earth's gravitational field (which is weaker when you are up in an aircraft).

    Clearly both moving clocks were subjected to much the same accelerations every time their plane took off and landed - that won't be affected by the direction in which they flew around the world.

    The effects are separable. Looking up what "reciprocity" means seems to be a less useful exercise.

    Ok, so you are talking about something different from the rest of us. Fine, glad we got that straight.

    The Hafele-Keating experiment is pretty close to what the question that started this thread, Admittedly atomic clocks are more stable than the average computer clock, but both are supposed to run at the same frequency all the time (at least from a local
    perspective).

    You seem to have decided to go off on a semantic exercise that doesn't have any practical point at all. I don't think that you can claim to be "the rest of us".

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sun May 8 21:28:52 2022
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
    both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
    one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
    0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
    send the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
    line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
    "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
    I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek
    for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
    elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
    with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
    of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even
    at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
    much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

    When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual
    acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative,
    but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as illustrated in the twin paradox.

    From Wikipedia

    Reciprocity Given a certain frame of reference, and the "stationary"
    observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the
    "moving" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other's
    clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to
    them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion
    relative to their own stationary frame of reference.

    It is possible to derive the classic SR Lorentz transformations by very
    careful consideration of the mutual events of two metre rules as
    measured in their respective rest frames passing each other at a speed v
    enough for relativistic corrections to apply by invoking reciprocity.

    So what point are you trying to make?

    I think it is more appropriate to ask you that question.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 8 14:41:03 2022
    torsdag den 5. maj 2022 kl. 16.15.09 UTC+2 skrev Clive Arthur:
    On 04/05/2022 08:59, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger than
    the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop space vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to set off
    will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also return first).
    The really difficult problem is how to calculate the astronaut's pay
    when they return.

    just depend on agreeing whether you get paid for the hours worked,
    or you get paid for the hours you couldn't do something else

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Sun May 8 17:39:22 2022
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
    both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
    one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
    0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
    send the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
    line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
    "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
    I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek
    for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
    elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
    with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
    of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even
    at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
    much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
    statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
    coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
    slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
    be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
    traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
    the other doesn't? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

    What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences
    in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

    A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Sun May 8 18:04:03 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

    <snip>

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
    elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
    with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
    of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even
    at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last >much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
    statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
    coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies.

    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
    slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
    be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
    traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
    the other doesn't? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

    What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

    Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

    A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

    Probably not. If you are silly enough to ask the question, you are probably too silly to understand the answer.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Sun May 8 20:09:35 2022
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
    both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
    one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
    0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
    send the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
    line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
    "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
    I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek
    for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time elapsing.
    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
    with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
    of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even
    at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    You can't even state the problem correctly. Our frame of reference is no more stationary than the muon. This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B
    precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.

    Please analyze the muon reaching the ground with the observer moving with the muon rather than on the ground.


    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
    When one observer experiences acceleration, by either actual
    acceleration or a gravitational field, the effects are not relative,
    but absolute. So one observer does experience time differently as illustrated in the twin paradox.

    From Wikipedia

    Reciprocity Given a certain frame of reference, and the "stationary" observer described earlier, if a second observer accompanied the
    "moving" clock, each of the observers would perceive the other's
    clock as ticking at a slower rate than their own local clock, due to
    them both perceiving the other to be the one that is in motion
    relative to their own stationary frame of reference.
    It is possible to derive the classic SR Lorentz transformations by very careful consideration of the mutual events of two metre rules as
    measured in their respective rest frames passing each other at a speed v enough for relativistic corrections to apply by invoking reciprocity.
    So what point are you trying to make?
    I think it is more appropriate to ask you that question.

    I was discussing a topic. Was there something I said that you found unclear?

    --

    Rick C.

    ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    ++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun May 8 20:17:44 2022
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    <snip>
    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
    elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree >with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are >moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life >of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even >at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last >much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
    statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.
    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy. Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe expanding away from that point, including the microwave background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe if you are referring to the
    extent of the red-shift. What do you mean exactly by "it looks essentially uniform"? Uniform in what aspect?


    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies.
    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
    slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
    be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
    the other doesn't? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

    What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?
    Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.
    A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

    That's hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy, that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as well.

    --

    Rick C.

    --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sun May 8 22:07:25 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:17:48 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    <snip>
    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at >>>>> which the computer in your phone does its processing compared >>>>> to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, >>> so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. >> It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
    elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree >with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are >moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life >of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even
    at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
    much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy.

    It isn't.

    Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe expanding away from that point, including the microwave background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe if you are referring to the extent of the red-shift. What do you
    mean exactly by "it looks essentially uniform"? Uniform in what aspect?

    As soon as you start moving with respect to the rest of the universe the segment of the microwave background you are moving towards is Doppler shifted to a shorter wavelength, and the segment you are moving away from is Doppler-shifted to a longer
    wavelength.

    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies.
    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
    slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
    be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
    the other doesn't? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

    What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

    Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

    A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

    That's hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy, that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as well.

    If you are in the business of getting and staying confused, you can find a lot of stuff to get confused about.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sun May 8 22:18:58 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:09:39 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
    both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
    one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
    0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
    send the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
    line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
    "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
    I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek
    for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time elapsing.
    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
    of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    You can't even state the problem correctly. Our frame of reference is no more stationary than the muon.

    Our rest frame is stationary with respect the visible universe (give or take our orbital velocity around out galactic centre, and the fact that our galaxy is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy, both at rather small fractions of the speed of light).

    This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.

    Except that the "fixed stars", now called the cosmic microwave background, is just such a stationary frame of reference. Hubble recession means that it isn't exactly stationary, but it does serve the purpose.

    Please analyze the muon reaching the ground with the observer moving with the muon rather than on the ground.

    The observer moving with the muon got converted to an extremely warm plasma as soon as it reached the outskirts of the atmosphere.

    They won't be interested in hearing about your analysis.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun May 8 23:07:09 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:19:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:09:39 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
    both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
    one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
    0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
    send the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
    line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
    "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; >>>>> I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek >>>>> for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time elapsing.
    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    You can't even state the problem correctly. Our frame of reference is no more stationary than the muon.
    Our rest frame is stationary with respect the visible universe (give or take our orbital velocity around out galactic centre, and the fact that our galaxy is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy, both at rather small fractions of the speed of light).

    Why? That definition is a bit circular. The part of the universe is defined by our rest frame. The muon doesn't care about any of that, does it?


    This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.
    Except that the "fixed stars", now called the cosmic microwave background, is just such a stationary frame of reference. Hubble recession means that it isn't exactly stationary, but it does serve the purpose.

    The purpose of what? What we can observe, will be defined by our rest frame. Saying our rest frame is defined by what we see is meaningless.

    What if we were accelerated to 0.99 c relative to our previous rest frame by passing by a star or black hole? Would that make our rest frame different? Would it change the view of the universe? Would it change the microwave background?


    Please analyze the muon reaching the ground with the observer moving with the muon rather than on the ground.
    The observer moving with the muon got converted to an extremely warm plasma as soon as it reached the outskirts of the atmosphere.

    Yeah, that's what I figured. This stuff is beyond you these days. Sorry about that.

    --

    Rick C.

    -+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun May 8 22:56:33 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:07:29 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:17:48 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    <snip>
    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at >>>>> which the computer in your phone does its processing compared >>>>> to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct. >>>> You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out >>> that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, >>> so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different >>> thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to >> talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time >> elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
    with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are >moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
    of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even
    at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
    much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.
    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy.
    It isn't.

    Oh, but it is.


    Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe expanding away from that point, including the microwave background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe if you are referring to the extent of the red-shift. What do you
    mean exactly by "it looks essentially uniform"? Uniform in what aspect?
    As soon as you start moving with respect to the rest of the universe the segment of the microwave background you are moving towards is Doppler shifted to a shorter wavelength, and the segment you are moving away from is Doppler-shifted to a longer
    wavelength.

    So I can measure my speed through the ether? Wow! Too bad Michelson and Morley didn't know about this. Who has measured out speed through the microwave background? What is our speed relative to the universe?

    Wow! What if the Universe is itself moving? Maybe the Universe is moving at some huge factor of the speed of light? That would be trippy!


    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies.
    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
    slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
    the other doesn't? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

    What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

    Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

    A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

    That's hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy, that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as well.
    If you are in the business of getting and staying confused, you can find a lot of stuff to get confused about.

    Yeah, let us know how it works out for you.

    --

    Rick C.

    --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon May 9 01:20:45 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:07:14 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:19:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:09:39 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:29:00 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:

    <snip>

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
    much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    You can't even state the problem correctly. Our frame of reference is no more stationary than the muon.

    Our rest frame is stationary with respect the visible universe (give or take our orbital velocity around out galactic centre, and the fact that our galaxy is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy, both at rather small fractions of the speed of light).

    Why? That definition is a bit circular. The part of the universe is defined by our rest frame. The muon doesn't care about any of that, does it?

    Clearly it does, otherwise it would decay a lot faster.

    This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.

    Except that the "fixed stars", now called the cosmic microwave background, is just such a stationary frame of reference. Hubble recession means that it isn't exactly stationary, but it does serve the purpose.

    The purpose of what? What we can observe, will be defined by our rest frame. Saying our rest frame is defined by what we see is meaningless.

    If we couldn't see it, how could we call it a rest frame?

    What if we were accelerated to 0.99 c relative to our previous rest frame by passing by a star or black hole? Would that make our rest frame different? Would it change the view of the universe? Would it change the microwave background?

    Quite obviously it would. Our view of the universe would be distorted by Lorenz contraction, for a start, and the cosmic ray background would look at lot hotter in the direction we were heading and a lot cooler in the direction we were leaving behind.

    We'd probably get mashed by tidal forces in the process

    https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/gravity/neutron-star-tides-physics-of-a-larry-niven-short-story/

    Please analyze the muon reaching the ground with the observer moving with the muon rather than on the ground.

    The observer moving with the muon got converted to an extremely warm plasma as soon as it reached the outskirts of the atmosphere.

    Yeah, that's what I figured. This stuff is beyond you these days. Sorry about that.

    It looks more as if it is beyond you.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Mon May 9 09:48:09 2022
    On 08/05/2022 22:39, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
    both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
    one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
    0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
    send the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
    line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
    "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
    I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek
    for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
    elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
    with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
    of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even
    at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last
    much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
    statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    It comes back to two fairly simple axioms.

    1. The laws of physics are identical for any observer in an inertial
    frame of reference (ie in constant linear motion - not accelerating).

    2. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant of nature.

    Everything else in special relativity follows from that.

    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
    slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    And that is clearly verified experimentally!

    So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
    be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
    traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
    the other doesn't? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

    What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences
    in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

    A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

    The thing that matters is that you can only compare times between mutual
    events that are defined at fixed coordinates in spacetime. Events where
    the twins are colocated however briefly (though preferably in the same
    frame of reference) have a well defined spacetime distance between them.

    Once they are spatially separated you can choose other reference frames
    to alter their spacetime coordinates within certain limits determined by
    the light cone of causality. The consequences of an event cannot ever
    stray outside the causally connected zone defined by the speed of light.

    The only way the twin who travels can ever get back to where he started
    is to accelerate in some fashion. Either to go around in a big circle
    like the particles in a CERN particle accelerator or for a spaceship by
    firing a huge booster rocket when they get a suitable distance away from
    the Earth. It will be a long while before we see anything macroscopic travelling at an appreciable fraction of c.

    The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and a
    stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
    moving clock spends time higher in the Earth's gravitational potential
    as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
    accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Ricky on Mon May 9 09:53:08 2022
    On 09/05/2022 06:56, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:07:29 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:17:48 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:04:08 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary
    clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately. Since
    constant motion is purely relative, each clock is
    *observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time
    frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one
    clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change
    in time elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that
    would disagree with your perverse and confused
    interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf



    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have
    a half life of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them
    to reach the ground even at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that
    they *DO* last much longer in our almost stationary
    observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about
    40x.
    I think the problem here is the conflict between two
    oft-heard statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single
    fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be
    such a thing a as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero
    velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in
    every direction.

    I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy.
    It isn't.

    Oh, but it is.

    It has been measured as the cosmic microwave background anisotropy
    pretty much ever since the first relatively low resolution COBE probe.
    There is a roughly 7% difference in intensity at the survey wavelength
    in opposing directions caused by our relative motion with respect to the original frame of reference of the Big Bang.

    It shows up as a ~2.5 sigma detection in the latest data. This isn't a
    bad introduction to current state of the art see Figure 2 COBE data.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.04288.pdf

    It represents about 3.35mK deviation on a background radiation
    temperature of about 2.7K and is about 2.5 sigma detection. The whole
    thing is complicated by local galactic plane emissions and foreground
    galaxy cluster gas interactions altering the incoming radiation.

    The Earth is moving with a very modest velocity relative to the original
    Big Bang spacetime coordinate (0,0,0,0). It is mostly dominated by the
    motion of our galactic cluster towards the great attractor with minor corrections for attraction to Andromeda galaxy (collision due in 4.5B
    years), suns orbit around our galaxy and Earth's orbit around the sun.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

    Every point in the universe sees the entire rest of the universe
    expanding away from that point, including the microwave
    background. It should appear the same everywhere in the universe
    if you are referring to the extent of the red-shift. What do you
    mean exactly by "it looks essentially uniform"? Uniform in what
    aspect?
    As soon as you start moving with respect to the rest of the
    universe the segment of the microwave background you are moving
    towards is Doppler shifted to a shorter wavelength, and the segment
    you are moving away from is Doppler-shifted to a longer
    wavelength.

    So I can measure my speed through the ether? Wow! Too bad Michelson
    and Morley didn't know about this. Who has measured out speed
    through the microwave background? What is our speed relative to the universe?

    Wow! What if the Universe is itself moving? Maybe the Universe is
    moving at some huge factor of the speed of light? That would be
    trippy!

    Go far enough in any direction and there is a good chance that some of
    it is already moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

    The so called particle horizon that is forever inaccessible to us even
    if we set off now at the speed of light. Infinity is *BIG*.


    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating
    galaxies.
    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship)
    passes slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one
    ought to be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is
    stationary, and ship 1 is traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa.
    So, how is it that one ages but the other doesn't? By
    symmetry, they cannot differ.

    What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the
    differences in the acceleration histories of the two ships?
    How?

    Integrating the acceleration gives you velocities.

    A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

    That's hard to do. When we consider the moving train analogy,
    that typically ignored the method of viewing what is happening on
    the other train. I expect this can complicate the matter as
    well.

    If you are in the business of getting and staying confused, you can
    find a lot of stuff to get confused about.

    Yeah, let us know how it works out for you.

    He is basically right although it is more of a philosophical point and
    it makes no difference whatsoever to the twin paradox. Which isn't a
    paradox at all - it just confuses people who don't understand SR.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clive Arthur@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Mon May 9 10:04:41 2022
    On 08/05/2022 22:41, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    torsdag den 5. maj 2022 kl. 16.15.09 UTC+2 skrev Clive Arthur:
    On 04/05/2022 08:59, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    The twin that travels at relativistic speed always returns younger than
    the stay at home. It is quite likely that if we ever do develop space
    vehicles capable of true relativistic speeds the first one to set off
    will be quickly overtaken by later models (who will also return first).
    The really difficult problem is how to calculate the astronaut's pay
    when they return.

    just depend on agreeing whether you get paid for the hours worked,
    or you get paid for the hours you couldn't do something else

    Trouble is, he's worked for say a few months and comes back to find his mortgage is a few years in arrears. Mind you with enough dilation, he
    could inherit plenty from his children.

    --
    Cheers
    Clive

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clive Arthur@21:1/5 to Martin Brown on Mon May 9 14:19:01 2022
    On 09/05/2022 09:48, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and a
    stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
    moving clock spends time higher in the Earth's gravitational potential
    as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
    accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.


    What happens to a clock in orbit, ie in freefall?

    --
    Cheers
    Clive

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Clive Arthur on Mon May 9 08:25:56 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:19:11 PM UTC+10, Clive Arthur wrote:
    On 09/05/2022 09:48, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and a stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
    moving clock spends time higher in the Earth's gravitational potential
    as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
    accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

    What happens to a clock in orbit, ie in freefall?

    Look up the relativistic corrections for the Global Positioning System satellites. The corrections involved are quite big enough that the system wouldn't without them.

    <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2.pdf>

    There's 56 pages of stuff there, and it's not written to be easy to read.

    This may be easier to read, but I can't access the full text.

    Physics Today 55, 5, 41 (2002); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1485583

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Mon May 9 16:13:54 2022
    On Mon, 9 May 2022 09:48:09 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 08/05/2022 22:39, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are
    both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
    one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to
    0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
    send the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight
    line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
    "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group;
    I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek
    for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at
    which the computer in your phone does its processing compared
    to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity,
    so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion.
    It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
    elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree
    with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life
    of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even >>> at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last >>> much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
    statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
    coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    It comes back to two fairly simple axioms.

    1. The laws of physics are identical for any observer in an inertial
    frame of reference (ie in constant linear motion - not accelerating).

    2. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant of nature.

    Everything else in special relativity follows from that.

    Yes.


    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
    slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    And that is clearly verified experimentally!

    Yes. Always a good thing.


    So in the twin paradox, given that velocity is relative, one ought to
    be able to arbitrarily say that ship 2 is stationary, and ship 1 is
    traveling at 0.9 C, or vice versa. So, how is it that one ages but
    the other doesn't? By symmetry, they cannot differ.

    What then breaks the symmetry? The obvious answer is the differences
    in the acceleration histories of the two ships? How?

    A clear answer might settle this debate thread.

    The thing that matters is that you can only compare times between mutual >events that are defined at fixed coordinates in spacetime. Events where
    the twins are colocated however briefly (though preferably in the same
    frame of reference) have a well defined spacetime distance between them.

    Once they are spatially separated you can choose other reference frames
    to alter their spacetime coordinates within certain limits determined by
    the light cone of causality. The consequences of an event cannot ever
    stray outside the causally connected zone defined by the speed of light.

    The only way the twin who travels can ever get back to where he started
    is to accelerate in some fashion. Either to go around in a big circle
    like the particles in a CERN particle accelerator or for a spaceship by >firing a huge booster rocket when they get a suitable distance away from
    the Earth. It will be a long while before we see anything macroscopic >travelling at an appreciable fraction of c.

    True, but all this is hard for non-physicists in the audience to
    follow or really understand.


    The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and a
    stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
    moving clock spends time higher in the Earth's gravitational potential
    as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
    accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

    Yes.

    The problem is that the above assumes too much background.

    Now, Einstein did not start with all that math, he started with a
    collection of gedanken experiments. I suspect that Einstein has a few
    relevant examples, which would be very useful if stated (or linked)
    here.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Clifford Heath@21:1/5 to Clive Arthur on Tue May 10 08:42:48 2022
    On 9/5/22 11:19 pm, Clive Arthur wrote:
    On 09/05/2022 09:48, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and
    a stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
    moving clock spends time higher in the Earth's gravitational potential
    as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
    accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.

    What happens to a clock in orbit, ie in freefall?

    The pendulum stops swinging :)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mohammad Halai@21:1/5 to Mohammad Halai on Wed May 11 06:45:46 2022
    On Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 8:55:28 p.m. UTC-4, Mohammad Halai wrote:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to send the
    results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek for the answer—I'm new to all things physics.

    Ive found an answer off a different forum here it is if your interested.

    1) No, because it's actually going slower from your perspective. In special relativity, "the fastest wristwatch is always your own".

    2) Yes, but remember that it's farther away from us now, so it will take some time to get to us (if it was travelling at 0.5c it will take 50% longer to get to us).

    3) Mostly in that as an observer the redshift effect would be different.

    4) It would be feasible to accelerate to dialate time, but that wouldn't be useful.



    Since you only mention acceleration to 0.5c, we'll assume we're dealing with special relativity alone. In this case, your accelerating computer 'loses time' -- its clock moves slower. Computers ultimately work on clock cycles. Thus it is fair to say that,
    as its clocking is ticking slower -- from your point of view -- the computer on your desk will finish first.

    As its clock is ticking slower, it'll take longer to perform the same calculation...from your point of view. The Lorentz transformation gives the ratio by which the travelling clock will slow:

    γ−1=(1−v2/c2)−−−−−−−−−√=(1−0.52−−−−−−−√)≈0.86, (or γ≈1.154)

    Second question meaningless given the above; if it landed back on your desk after a year's round trip, your desktop machine would be finished, it wouldn't (from the above, if you start 1 Jan one year, start looking for an answer midway through Feb the
    year after).

    Here it gets interesting. If it was orbiting a planet, gravitation comes into play, and with it general relativity. For example, Wikipedia says GPS satellites lose ~7ns/day due to special relativity, but gain ~45ns a day due to general relativity. So
    instead of cruising at 0.5c, you might want to fling your computer off to 'park' far away from really big planets.
    Possible? Yes. Feasible? Depends on the length of your calculation, the cost of building the equipment needed to achieve it, and the benefits of the -- possibly marginal -- decrease in calculation time. I suppose one might conceive of some futuristic '
    space station supercomputer receiving station' in orbit around a black hole.

    You're thinking about gravitational time dilation.

    Time machines do exists. If you go in a space ship and travel around the supermassive blackhole in the center of Milky Way, close enough to not fall in it, and then come back to Earth, you just traveled to the future (relative to the space further from
    you). So in that thinking line, if you want to make a computer run faster by gravitational time dilation, you must be living in an environment of extremely high gravity and put your computer outside this environment, where time runs faster relative to
    you. A computer orbiting the Earth will be faster than a computer here, but just by a few nanoseconds.

    Would we be able to recieve the broadcast from this computer? Yes, the same way we are able to receive pictures sent from Jupiter by Voyager 1 and 2, we would need to count the interference in the transmission but nothing more than stretching/shrinking
    waves.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Clive Arthur on Wed May 11 16:19:57 2022
    On 09/05/2022 14:19, Clive Arthur wrote:
    On 09/05/2022 09:48, Martin Brown wrote:

    <snip>

    The experiment has been done a few times with clocks on airplanes and
    a stay at home one. Interpretation is complicated by the fact that the
    moving clock spends time higher in the Earth's gravitational potential
    as well as travelling at ~500kph. The two clocks behaviour exactly
    accord with the predictions of special and general relativity.


    What happens to a clock in orbit, ie in freefall?

    It is further up the gravitational potential than one on the ground and
    in addition it is orbiting at a fair old clip. Both corrections have to
    be applied to the local clocks in Earth orbit or else GPS wouldn't work.

    This is NIST's chapter and verse on the design of GPS receivers and
    relevant relativistic corrections that are normally applied (and also
    the various really tiny ones that are not).

    <https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2/pdf/GOVPUB-C13-83ec647d39931e27e1a786845bb825c2.pdf>

    It goes into some detail on common engineering misconceptions (which
    ISTR led to the first few satellites going up with a defeat switch on
    their oscillator correction circuitry because enough electronics
    engineers didn't believe in relativity.

    Gravitational redshift was the last of the notable GR predictions to be experimentally verified in the lab using Mossbauer resonance in the
    Pound-Rebka experiment:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed May 11 11:38:03 2022
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:04:08 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies.

    Alas, that's LOCAL coordinate only; the 'retreating galaxies' all have their own 'uniform in every direction' situation, affirming that their motion is the zero velocity coordinate... because the background seen from each point and velocity has different horizon and redshift..

    All locations in an expanding universe are the center...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed May 11 11:43:25 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:20:49 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:07:14 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:19:02 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

    Our rest frame is stationary with respect the visible universe (give or take our orbital velocity around out galactic centre, and the fact that our galaxy is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy, both at rather small fractions of the speed of light).

    Why? That definition is a bit circular. The part of the universe is defined by our rest frame. The muon doesn't care about any of that, does it?
    Clearly it does, otherwise it would decay a lot faster.

    It's clear, from the rest frame of the muon, that the depth of atmosphere
    it traverses at its relative speed is less, therefore the time elapsed shorter, than
    the Earthbound observer calculates.

    The muon and observer agree on relative speed, but neither on distance nor time.

    This is why it is impossible to define simultaneity under some conditions. In one frame of reference A precedes B, in another frame of reference B precedes A. There is no right answer just as there is no stationary frame of reference.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 11 20:04:46 2022
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 4:38:07 AM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:04:08 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies.
    Alas, that's LOCAL coordinate only; the 'retreating galaxies' all have their own 'uniform in every direction' situation, affirming that their motion is the
    zero velocity coordinate... because the background seen from each point and velocity has different horizon and redshift.

    All locations in an expanding universe are the center...

    But that's where the observer is at, and that defines their local frame of reference. It may not be an absolute velocity for anybody else - though you would have be a long way away before you could detect a difference - but it is absolute for them.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 12 08:30:37 2022
    On 11/05/2022 19:38, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:04:08 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
    coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies.

    Alas, that's LOCAL coordinate only; the 'retreating galaxies' all have their own 'uniform in every direction' situation, affirming that their motion is the
    zero velocity coordinate... because the background seen from each point and velocity has different horizon and redshift..

    All locations in an expanding universe are the center...

    All locations are at the centre of an observable universe around them
    but that doesn't prevent the platform you happen to be on having some
    relative motion wrt that static central position that can be determined
    by observing the surface of last scattering of the microwave radiation.

    The dipole moment of the microwave background is not zero. We are headed towards the Great Attractor in Leo at quite a speed ~1000km/s.

    We really are moving in a measurable way wrt to the original baseline coordinate frame of the Big Bang. The data are noisy but there is a ~3mK
    dipole moment in addition the the uniform 3.7K afterglow.

    This is a reasonably nice introduction to the data from the COBE era
    from SciAm in 1998.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Thu May 12 17:01:56 2022
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 08:30:37 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/05/2022 19:38, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:04:08 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
    coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies.

    Alas, that's LOCAL coordinate only; the 'retreating galaxies' all have their >> own 'uniform in every direction' situation, affirming that their motion is the
    zero velocity coordinate... because the background seen from each point and >> velocity has different horizon and redshift..

    All locations in an expanding universe are the center...

    All locations are at the centre of an observable universe around them
    but that doesn't prevent the platform you happen to be on having some >relative motion wrt that static central position that can be determined
    by observing the surface of last scattering of the microwave radiation.

    The dipole moment of the microwave background is not zero. We are headed >towards the Great Attractor in Leo at quite a speed ~1000km/s.

    We really are moving in a measurable way wrt to the original baseline >coordinate frame of the Big Bang. The data are noisy but there is a ~3mK >dipole moment in addition the the uniform 3.7K afterglow.

    This is a reasonably nice introduction to the data from the COBE era
    from SciAm in 1998.

    <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/>

    Given that the microwave background was discovered in 1964, call it
    forty years after Relativity (Special and General) were developed, I'd
    hazard that Relativity does not depend in any way on that background.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Thu May 12 20:12:48 2022
    On Friday, May 13, 2022 at 7:02:09 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Thu, 12 May 2022 08:30:37 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 11/05/2022 19:38, whit3rd wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 6:04:08 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:39:36 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
    coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a >>>> as absolute velocity.

    Actually there is - the microwave background defines a a zero velocity coordinate from which it looks essentially uniform in every direction.

    It's a proxy for the "fixed stars" which is now the retreating galaxies. >>
    Alas, that's LOCAL coordinate only; the 'retreating galaxies' all have their
    own 'uniform in every direction' situation, affirming that their motion is the
    zero velocity coordinate... because the background seen from each point and
    velocity has different horizon and redshift..

    All locations in an expanding universe are the center...

    All locations are at the centre of an observable universe around them
    but that doesn't prevent the platform you happen to be on having some >relative motion wrt that static central position that can be determined
    by observing the surface of last scattering of the microwave radiation.

    The dipole moment of the microwave background is not zero. We are headed >towards the Great Attractor in Leo at quite a speed ~1000km/s.

    We really are moving in a measurable way wrt to the original baseline >coordinate frame of the Big Bang. The data are noisy but there is a ~3mK >dipole moment in addition the the uniform 3.7K afterglow.

    This is a reasonably nice introduction to the data from the COBE era
    from SciAm in 1998.

    <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/> Given that the microwave background was discovered in 1964, call it
    forty years after Relativity (Special and General) were developed, I'd
    hazard that Relativity does not depend in any way on that background.

    Of course it doesn't, but relativity is such a conceptual minefield that it useful to have a reality check.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Sun May 15 08:41:32 2022
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Mon, 9 May 2022 09:48:09 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 08/05/2022 22:39, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org
    wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical specs and are >>>>>>>> both scheduled to run an algorithm that would usually take
    one year at time T, with the A computer being accelerated to >>>>>>>> 0.5c at that time (or anything c). Both are configured to
    send the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a straight >>>>>>>> line, circling a planet, or even orbiting a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that it can
    "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for this group; >>>>>>>> I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm not sure where to seek >>>>>>>> for the answeræ‚ 'm new to all things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the speed at >>>>>>> which the computer in your phone does its processing compared >>>>>>> to a stationary phone. The bits toggle at the same rate in
    both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically correct.
    You didn't read the problem statement. "the A computer being
    accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity points out
    that a moving phone is going to be clocked more slowly than a
    stationary phone. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity, >>>>> so general relativity requires you to pay attention to the
    acceleration as well, but gravitational red-shift is a different
    thing from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary clocks. I
    suppose I did not explain adequately. Since constant motion is
    purely relative, each clock is *observed* to be slower by the
    observer in the other time frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to
    talk about one clock actually running slower due to constant motion. >>>> It's just an effect of observation, with no actual change in time
    elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would disagree >>> with your perverse and confused interpretation of special relativity. >>>
    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf

    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a half life >>> of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to reach the ground even >>> at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that they *DO* last >>> much longer in our almost stationary observers rest frame on the Earth. >>>
    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
    statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single fixed
    coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be such a thing a
    as absolute velocity.

    It comes back to two fairly simple axioms.

    1. The laws of physics are identical for any observer in an inertial
    frame of reference (ie in constant linear motion - not accelerating).

    2. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant of nature.

    Everything else in special relativity follows from that.
    Yes.
    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship) passes
    slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    And that is clearly verified experimentally!
    Yes. Always a good thing.

    Please explain to me how you determine speed. Motion without acceleration appears to be "at rest" for the observer in motion. So the time affect is only a relative one where each observer sees the other as slowing down. That was the point of the
    theory, that the passage of time is relative to the observer.

    Apply this theory to a rapidly spinning object. Does time pass differently for the different radius parts? So the center sees the outer parts "ticking" more slowly, such as radioactive decay? If you spin a radioactive object, does this reduce the
    emitted radiation?

    --

    Rick C.

    -++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Sun May 15 19:41:55 2022
    On 2022-05-15 17:41, Ricky wrote:
    On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:14:08 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Mon, 9 May 2022 09:48:09 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 08/05/2022 22:39, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Sun, 8 May 2022 21:28:52 +0100, Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

    On 05/05/2022 15:01, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:12:46 AM UTC-4,
    bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:25 AM UTC+10, Ricky
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:35:57 AM UTC-4,
    DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mohammad Halai <moha...@ugcloud.ca> wrote in
    news:20c1a94c-7c6a-40fc...@googlegroups.com:
    Yesterday, I awoke with the following thought:

    Let's imagine Computers A and B have identical
    specs and are both scheduled to run an algorithm
    that would usually take one year at time T, with
    the A computer being accelerated to 0.5c at that
    time (or anything c). Both are configured to send
    the results to a central computer automatically.



    From my perspective, would A complete processing
    first?

    Would we be able to pick up A's broadcast?

    Would it make a difference if A was traveling in a
    straight line, circling a planet, or even orbiting
    a star system?

    Is it possible to speed up a computer enough that
    it can "compress time" on a machine like the LHC?

    I apologize if this question is inappropriate for
    this group; I'm sure someone has asked it, but I'm
    not sure where to seek for the answeræ‚ 'm new to all
    things physics.

    The speed at which you are moving does not change the
    speed at which the computer in your phone does its
    processing compared to a stationary phone. The bits
    toggle at the same rate in both.
    Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer, even if it is technically
    correct. You didn't read the problem statement. "the A
    computer being accelerated to 0.5c" is the part you
    missed or ignored.
    It isn't even technically correct. Special relativity
    points out that a moving phone is going to be clocked
    more slowly than a stationary phone. Acceleration is
    indistinguishable from gravity, so general relativity
    requires you to pay attention to the acceleration as
    well, but gravitational red-shift is a different thing
    from Lorentz time-dilation.

    Not sure what you mean about the moving vs. stationary
    clocks. I suppose I did not explain adequately. Since
    constant motion is purely relative, each clock is
    *observed* to be slower by the observer in the other time
    frame. So clearly, it makes no sense to talk about one
    clock actually running slower due to constant motion. It's
    just an effect of observation, with no actual change in
    time elapsing.

    There are some cosmic ray muons hitting the ground that would
    disagree with your perverse and confused interpretation of
    special relativity.

    https://ph.qmul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Engagement/Muons%20and%20Special%20Relativity.pdf



    Moving clocks appear to tick more slowly the faster that they are
    moving. In their rest frame cosmic ray generated muons have a
    half life of about 2.2us which isn't long enough for them to
    reach the ground even at nearly the speed of light.

    It is precisely *because* they are moving so quickly that
    they *DO* last much longer in our almost stationary observers
    rest frame on the Earth.

    Their clock time is subject to a gamma factor of about 40x.

    I think the problem here is the conflict between two oft-heard
    statements:

    1. Velocity is relative - there is no such thing as a single
    fixed coordinate system for the universe, so there cannot be
    such a thing a as absolute velocity.

    It comes back to two fairly simple axioms.

    1. The laws of physics are identical for any observer in an
    inertial frame of reference (ie in constant linear motion - not
    accelerating).

    2. The speed of light in vacuum is a constant of nature.

    Everything else in special relativity follows from that.
    Yes.
    2. So local time in a moving platform (like a spaceship)
    passes slower and slower the faster the platform is moving.

    And that is clearly verified experimentally!
    Yes. Always a good thing.

    Please explain to me how you determine speed. Motion without
    acceleration appears to be "at rest" for the observer in motion. So
    the time affect is only a relative one where each observer sees the
    other as slowing down. That was the point of the theory, that the
    passage of time is relative to the observer.

    Apply this theory to a rapidly spinning object. Does time pass
    differently for the different radius parts? So the center sees the
    outer parts "ticking" more slowly, such as radioactive decay? If you
    spin a radioactive object, does this reduce the emitted radiation?


    It certainly does, or this muon collider project that people work
    on at CERN would make no sense,

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)