Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: Paul B. Andersen on 27 Jul 2005 04:18 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:23:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:05:18 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>>>BTW, what DID you say the reason was? >>>>I must have forgotten. >>>>Was it something about gas which slows down photons >>>>to explain why light from distant galaxies are red shifted, >>>>but which OTOH adjust the speed of light from binaries to be c? >>> >>> >>>Only relativists believe that all light from stars travels at exactly c wrt >>>little planet Earth. >> >>Indeed. >>So ? > > > They are the only people stupid enough. > > One would think physicists would be able to see beyond their own egocentric > desires......but relativists are apparently still under the impression that > they define the centre of the universe. Well said, Henri. That the speed of light in vacuum is invariant does obviously imply that every physicist is the centre of the universe. But it takes a genius like you to realize that, of course. >>>.....and yes, molecules in rare space DO tend to unify the speed of all light >>>traveling in any particular direction. All light is redshifted in the process. >> >>So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular >>direction is red shifted by the same amount? :-) > > > That's the kind of ridiculous coment that makes me feel SO superior to you > Paul. > Think about it again and hide your head in shame. Dodn't you understand the consequence of your claim, Henri? I think you do. There is no way you can fail to see that the consequence of unifying "the speed of all light traveling in any particular direction" is that all light coming from any particular direction have the same speed. So I repeat. We can conclude that all the light coming from any particular direction is red shifted by the same amount. Or maybe you can explain why this does not folow from your claim? > >>Does your foot hurt? > > > Does your face turn red? Yes. As opposed to you, I laugh at what I understand. Right now I am laughing because I understand the consequence of your very entertaining claim. Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 27 Jul 2005 05:49 Sue... wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>sue jahn wrote: >> >>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc0tdg$lp3$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical >>>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. >>>> >>>>Indeed. >>>>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof. >>>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as >>>> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical >>>> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense >>>> from start to finish." >>>>That's why we all have ran for cover. >>> >>> >>>Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't >>>it plagarism. >>> >>><< The big difference between a standard clock in your home and >>>an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between >>>the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation >>>is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of >>>a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to >>>keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the >>>atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity >>>and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the >>>nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.>> >>>http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm >> >>You shouldn't believe everything you find on the net, Sue. :-) > > I am quite careful about that. Especially when writen by the > spoonbenders in this news group. :o) > >>Those who wrote that page have obviously no idea of how >>an atomic clock works. > > Then these folks must have it wrong too: > http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/5/8 > << Greater resolution and accuracy > might be more readily achieved using a different type > of transition, e.g., the weak hyperfine-induced electric dipole > transitions like those between the low-lying 1S0 > and 3P0 states of the singly ionized species of the Group > IIIA elements of the periodic table [12,24,25], particularly > in cases where first-order magnetic-field independent > transitions are available (albeit at nonzero field )>> > http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1385.pdf Why do you think 'these folks' have got it wrong? Don't you read the references you give? If you do, you will se that in none of the above references are there used expressions like these: >>Statements like: >> "The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined >> by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic >> "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and >> the electron cloud surrounding it." >>and: >> "The single electron of a Caesium atom is known to >> vibrate at a standard 9,162,613,770 times a second." >>and: >> "The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the caesium-133 atom." >>are indeed very revealing. > > Oh? Is this what they reveal? > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm Right. That is what they reveal the author's ignorance of. >>If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should >>give you a hint: >> The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of >> the radiation corresponding to the transition between >> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. >> > > > Your interpretation of the geiod computed by NIST seems a > pretty good lesson in interpreting science with hints. You didn't get the hint? I will have to spell it out, then, There is nothing in the Cs atom that is oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hz. It is a spectral line of the atom that has this frequency. When you said: "Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't it plagarism." You actually seem to think that there is a mechanical resonator in the CS atom oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hz. :-) >>But don't be too sad. >>Newton didn't have a clue about this either. > > Oh ? > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html See? Nothing that can be used to calculate the frequency of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. >>So you are in good company. :-) > > > Better his shoulders than yours > > <<The principle of local Lorentz invariance states > that the outcome of any local non-gravitational > experiment carried out in a freely falling reference > frame is independent of the velocity of that frame, > while the principle of local position invariance > holds that the outcome of any local non-gravitational > experiment is also independent of where and when in > the universe it is performed. In this context > "local" means confined to a suitably small region > of space and time, while "freely falling" means > falling freely under gravity with no other forces > acting. > > Although Einstein used it to derive general > relativity, his equivalence principle implies > only that gravitation must be described by a > "metric theory" - a theory in which matter > responds to the geometry of space-time and > nothing else. >><< > --Clifford M Will is in the McDonnell Center for the > Space Sciences and the Department of Physics, > Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, US.>> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/5/1 A fine article. Clifford M Will goes through a lot of experiments testing GR, and refers to a number of experiments which are done and have confirmed GR. Was your point that GR is well confirmed? > So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something > really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated > by GPS, will be confirmed. Of course he probably > lacks the *faith* that motivates *true believers*. > http://www.bassirat.net/newspics/ASIE%20CENTRALE/normal_200309122253madrassa.jpg I haven't got the foggiest idea of what you are babbling about. And I suppose there is no point in asking what the LPI which is violated by the GPS is. You never seem to be able to explain the meaning of your words. Paul
From: sue jahn on 27 Jul 2005 06:04 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc7lbe$9ft$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > Sue... wrote: > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > >>sue jahn wrote: > >> > >>>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc0tdg$lp3$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > >>> > >>> > >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Notice that he and his mates have run for cover over my proof that the mythical > >>>>>'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense from start to finish. > >>>> > >>>>Indeed. > >>>>There is no way we can refute your world shattering proof. > >>>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave exactly as > >>>> predicted by GR, prove that the mythical > >>>> 'GR correction' of GPS clocks if plain nonsense > >>>> from start to finish." > >>>>That's why we all have ran for cover. > >>> > >>> > >>>Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't > >>>it plagarism. > >>> > >>><< The big difference between a standard clock in your home and > >>>an atomic clock is that the oscillation in an atomic clock is between > >>>the nucleus of an atom and the surrounding electrons. This oscillation > >>>is not exactly a parallel to the balance wheel and hairspring of > >>>a clockwork watch, but the fact is that both use oscillations to > >>>keep track of passing time. The oscillation frequencies within the > >>>atom are determined by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity > >>>and electrostatic "spring" between the positive charge on the > >>>nucleus and the electron cloud surrounding it.>> > >>>http://www.atomic-clock.galleon.eu.com/atomic-clock/atomic-clock.htm > >> > >>You shouldn't believe everything you find on the net, Sue. :-) > > > > I am quite careful about that. Especially when writen by the > > spoonbenders in this news group. :o) > > > >>Those who wrote that page have obviously no idea of how > >>an atomic clock works. > > > > Then these folks must have it wrong too: > > http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html > > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html > > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/5/8 > > << Greater resolution and accuracy > > might be more readily achieved using a different type > > of transition, e.g., the weak hyperfine-induced electric dipole > > transitions like those between the low-lying 1S0 > > and 3P0 states of the singly ionized species of the Group > > IIIA elements of the periodic table [12,24,25], particularly > > in cases where first-order magnetic-field independent > > transitions are available (albeit at nonzero field )>> > > http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/1385.pdf > > Why do you think 'these folks' have got it wrong? > Don't you read the references you give? > If you do, you will se that in none of the above references > are there used expressions like these: > > >>Statements like: > >> "The oscillation frequencies within the atom are determined > >> by the mass of the nucleus and the gravity and electrostatic > >> "spring" between the positive charge on the nucleus and > >> the electron cloud surrounding it." > >>and: > >> "The single electron of a Caesium atom is known to > >> vibrate at a standard 9,162,613,770 times a second." > >>and: > >> "The second is defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the caesium-133 atom." > >>are indeed very revealing. > > > > Oh? Is this what they reveal? > > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.htm > > Right. > That is what they reveal the author's ignorance of. > > >>If you don't understand why, the SI-definition of a second should > >>give you a hint: > >> The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of > >> the radiation corresponding to the transition between > >> the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. > >> > > > > > > Your interpretation of the geiod computed by NIST seems a > > pretty good lesson in interpreting science with hints. > > You didn't get the hint? > I will have to spell it out, then, > There is nothing in the Cs atom that is oscillating > at 9,192,631,770 Hz. It is a spectral line of the atom > that has this frequency. > When you said: > "Newton would not have tho't it nonsense. He would have tho't > it plagarism." > You actually seem to think that there is a mechanical > resonator in the CS atom oscillating at 9,192,631,770 Hz. :-) > > >>But don't be too sad. > >>Newton didn't have a clue about this either. > > > > Oh ? > > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html > > See? > Nothing that can be used to calculate the frequency > of the radiation corresponding to the transition between > the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. And how is that calculated? > > >>So you are in good company. :-) > > > > > > Better his shoulders than yours > > > > <<The principle of local Lorentz invariance states > > that the outcome of any local non-gravitational > > experiment carried out in a freely falling reference > > frame is independent of the velocity of that frame, > > while the principle of local position invariance > > holds that the outcome of any local non-gravitational > > experiment is also independent of where and when in > > the universe it is performed. In this context > > "local" means confined to a suitably small region > > of space and time, while "freely falling" means > > falling freely under gravity with no other forces > > acting. > > > > Although Einstein used it to derive general > > relativity, his equivalence principle implies > > only that gravitation must be described by a > > "metric theory" - a theory in which matter > > responds to the geometry of space-time and > > nothing else. >><< > > --Clifford M Will is in the McDonnell Center for the > > Space Sciences and the Department of Physics, > > Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, US.>> > > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/5/1 > > A fine article. > Clifford M Will goes through a lot of experiments testing GR, > and refers to a number of experiments which are done and > have confirmed GR. Does he mention GR? > > Was your point that GR is well confirmed? Did I mention GR? > > > So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something > > really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated > > by GPS, will be confirmed. Of course he probably > > lacks the *faith* that motivates *true believers*. > > http://www.bassirat.net/newspics/ASIE%20CENTRALE/normal_200309122253madrassa.jpg > > I haven't got the foggiest idea of what you are babbling about. > And I suppose there is no point in asking what the LPI which > is violated by the GPS is. > You never seem to be able to explain the meaning of your words. > Visit NPL and NIST and learn how clocks work. You can google for LPI and relativty if you don't know what it is. Happy hunting, Sue... > Paul
From: bz on 27 Jul 2005 08:28 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1122443306.879902.5970(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: > > > bz wrote: >> H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >> news:b2fde1d400qt6lek0t5qp15ocvc9i2hll6(a)4ax.com: >> >> > Cesium clocks represent man's best attempt to measure time >> > accurately. However their rates DO deviate slightly when subject to >> > different physical conditions. >> > This is borne out by GPS clocks which are observed to increase rates >> > by around 1 in 10^10 when relieved of gravitational self-compression. >> >> It is pure coincidence that the amount of relief happens [for the GPS >> orbital clocks] to equal the change predictable through the use of >> SR/GR/EEP. Right? > > > Bz, > I trust you and Henri are keeping NPL and NIST apprised > of all these discoveries about atomic clocks. > http://www.npl.co.uk/quantum/qtm/freq.html > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.ht > m http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3a.html > >:-) > Sue... They check my primary standard every time they want to 'sync' their kitchen clocks. They say 'check with bz, he has everything, even the kitchen sync'. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: bz on 27 Jul 2005 08:52
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:1122447602.380751.118520 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Oh? Is this what they reveal? > http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/h/hy/hyperfine_structure.ht m from your citation: [quote] The hyperfine structure transition can be used to make a .... microwave notch filter with very high stability, repeatability and ... Q factor, which can thus be used as a basis for very precise ... atomic clocks. [emphasis mine] Typically, the hyperfine structure transition frequency of a particular isotope [end emphasis] of ... caesium or ... rubidium atoms is used as a basis for these clocks. Due to the accuracy of hyperfine structure transition-based atomic clocks, they are now used as the basis for the definition of the second. One ... second is now defined to be exactly 9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine structure transition frequency of caesium-133 atoms. [unquote] Notice that the frequency depends on the isotope. This implies that different clocks can be constructed using differnent isotopes of the same element and as well as by using different elements. This gives a wide range of possible DIFFERENT clocks that can be compared with each other to determine their 'sensitivity' to ???/SR/GR/EEP effects. We do know that at least two different types of clocks show similar effects. You keep saying things that indicate that you do NOT believe that Einstein's SR/GR/EEP explains the change in the clock rate. You also cite papers and baseballs in a way that indicates to me that you do not think that gravity is making the frequency appear to change due to doppler effect. To what do you attribute the changes that have been observed? Please tell me in your own words, don't cite the gauge again unless you tell me exactly how you apply that gauge. And show me the derived algebraic equation, the numbers you intend to substitute into the equation(s) and the results you get from said substitution. Show your work. Show me yours and I'll show you mine. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |