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 14:59 sue jahn wrote: > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96A05057C2B43WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >>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. Make that at least three type of clocks, Hydrogen, Rubidium and Cs 133. >>To what do you attribute the changes that have been observed? > > > They are easily attributable to Newton's second law. Mass of the > atomic entites is one of the factors in the timing of the hyperfinet transition. > GR, as you know can derive Newton's laws. Can you show us how? Since you say it is easy, it should not be to much to ask. Paul
From: sue jahn on 27 Jul 2005 15:08 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc8lje$ldr$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > sue jahn wrote: > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96A05057C2B43WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > > > >>Notice that the frequency depends on the isotope. This implies that > >>different clocks can be constructed using differnent isotopes of the same > >>element and as well as by using different elements. > >> > >>This gives a wide range of possible DIFFERENT clocks that can be compared > >>with each other to determine their 'sensitivity' to ???/SR/GR/EEP effects. > >> > >>We do know that at least two different types of clocks show similar > >>effects. You keep saying things that indicate that you do NOT believe that > >>Einstein's SR/GR/EEP explains the change in the clock rate. You also cite > >>papers and baseballs in a way that indicates to me that you do not think > >>that gravity is making the frequency appear to change due to doppler > >>effect. > > Make that at least three type of clocks, Hydrogen, Rubidium and Cs 133. What is the mass of the protons and electrons in each one ? http://www.answers.com/topic/hyperfine-structure Sue... > > >>To what do you attribute the changes that have been observed? > > > > > > They are easily attributable to Newton's second law. Mass of the > > atomic entites is one of the factors in the timing of the hyperfinet transition. > > GR, as you know can derive Newton's laws. > > Can you show us how? > Since you say it is easy, it should not be to much to ask. > > Paul
From: sue jahn on 27 Jul 2005 15:42 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc8k86$dng$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > sue jahn wrote: > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc7lbe$9ft$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > > > >>Sue... wrote: > >>> > >>><<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? > > Does he, indeed. :-) > > >>Was your point that GR is well confirmed? > > > > > > Did I mention GR? > > You gave a reference to an article about the testing of GR, > an article which refers to a number of experiments > confirming GR. I have a number of experiment that confirm Smith charts. But a reem of confirmed Smith charts tell you nothing about a particular network. GR can derive Newtons mechanics. I mentioned LPI not GR. Sorry but you and the popular press aren't going to find any sound bites and one stop shopping on the issue. > > So I suppose your point was to make us aware of that fact. > > >>>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. > > When your ignorance about atomic clocks is revealed, > pretend that the ignorance is mine and not yours, eh? :-) > > > You can google for LPI and relativty if you don't know what it is. > > > > Happy hunting, > > Sue... > > Why do you claim that the GPS indicates a violation of > the Local Position Invariance principle? Because the SV clocks are not invariant with position and fixed length paths can't blue shift to explain the need for launch presets. Since we can't fly fountains or free-fall SVs: << This very accurate space clock will be compared continuously to the SUMO oscillator, and these two clocks (being fundamentally different) [no mass] will provide a test of "local position invariance." Comparisons between the space and earth clocks will yield a related, but important measurement of the gravitational [*] frequency[*] shift. [not redshift] http://tf.nist.gov/timefreq/cesium/parcs.htm http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107028 > > I am not expecting an answer, because you are never No you are just hoping I won't. Sue... > able to support your claims. > I am however expecting an irrelevant reference. > > And you will live up to my expectations. > Won't you? > > Paul
From: sue jahn on 27 Jul 2005 15:55 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96A07D01DBB6FWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42e78c1d$0$18641 > $14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > > I have seen your work. A pitcher throwing 30 balls per minute and > > a catcher at 31 and clocks controlled by spoonbending. LOL > gnaw, no spoonbenders all-owed. > > > > > You still haven't said whether you think the Jovian moons or the > > Earth's rotation will slow when we connect a clock at altitude > > with one on the surface with a torque tube. :o) > > depends on what is on the other end of the torque tube. A 3 sol_mass > neutron star at 300,000 km above the earth's north pole should have some > effect on the rate of all clocks on the earths surface. :) > > Use exacty the SVs clocks you said were "measuring" time. One in Boulder Co, One in geosynch orbit without the launch preset. Equip both with dial counters. If they are both "measuring time" but the orbiting clock is faster then something has to give. Either Jupiters moon's or the torque tube that couples the counters. Sue... > > > > -- > 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: Henri Wilson on 28 Jul 2005 01:12
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:51:57 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:22:41 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>> >>>>After clicking my mouse a few times I can come up with RAW figures for a single >>>>star or a binary pair. >>>>My RAW figures for a single star, agree with yours. >>>> >>>>When I include thermal source speeds and extinction effects, my adjucted >>>>figures for the binary pair known as HD80715 show an almost constant >>>>brightness. Each contributes a small sinelike variation in brightness. The >>>>curves are 180 out of phase. >>> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>| There are thousands of known stars that exhibit this type of very regular >>>| brightness variation. Most of their brightness curves can be matched by my >>>| variable star simulation program: >>>| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe >>> >>>Did you include thermal source speeds and extinction effects >>>in these cases, Henri? :-) >>> >>>Maybe you can pick a concrete example an show us your inferred >>>parameters for your alleged binary? >> >> >> Give up Paul. You are starting to sound like a troll who is desperate to use >> any tactic to prop up his faith, >> The GR correction of GPS clocks is a myth and the BaT can produce observed >> brightness variation curves for most stars. >> >> Looks like you are running out of 'supporting evidence', eh? > >You don't like to be asked for concrete examples, do you? >The reason is obvious, of course. >You once gave one, and have regretted it ever since. HAVE YOU GONE RAVING MAD? >>>> >>>>The clocks rate change has never ben accurately measured. GPS clocks are >>>>empirically software adjusted after being placed in orbit. >>> >>>Sure, Henri. Nothing is accurately measured. >>>The GPS clocks are only proven to run as predicted by GR >>>to within the precision of the clocks, which is a thousand >>>times better than the size of the "GR-correction". >> >> >> Nonsense. You are making it up. >> No experiment has ever verified this. > >Of course not, Henri. >As we all know, the GPS does not work. That's correct. > >>>So let me rephrase your proof: >>>"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as >>> predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks, >>> prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks >>> is plain nonsense from start to finish." >>> >>>Satisfied now? >> >> >> You are dreaming again. > >Henri Wilson wrote: >| There is an observer on the ground and another in the >| proposed GPS orbit. Both observers will use the same clock to measure the time >| duration of the GPS orbit. >| >| When the clock is on the ground, both observers agree that the orbit duration >| is N ticks of the clock. >| >| When the clock is in orbit, both observers agree that the orbit duration is N+n >| ticks of the clock. > >This is exactly as predicted by GR, and it is verified by the GPS >within the precision of the clocks. No it isn't. GR says the clock doesn't physically change, Time does. GR says an observer traveling with the clock would see no change. GR make so many ridiculous claims that only a fool would even consider them. My experiment clearly shows that it is the clock which changes PHYSICALLY....due to reasons unknown but certainly not related to GR in any way. > From this, you conclude: >| GR is therefore plain nonsense.....!!!! Of course! Where did you get the impression that my 'n' has the same value as the GR prediction? > >So your proof boils down to: >"The fact that the clocks in the GPS behave as > predicted by GR within the precision of the clocks, > prove that the mythical 'GR correction' of GPS clocks > is plain nonsense from start to finish." If clocks behaved as GR predicts, both the OO and te TO would not count N+n ticks per orbit. In fact the OO would count N-n ticks before the clock was launched. ......Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you.... > >Are you now saying that this beautiful proof is but a dream? I think you will need to call your fairies to get out of this one.... > > >>>>Why don't you give up Paul. The GR correction has been proven to be a myth. >>> >>>Of course Henri. >>>That was what I said, wasn't it? >>>Nobody can refute your genial proof. >> >> >> Clocks change when placed in orbit. Time doesn't. > >Keep asserting, Henri. >Maybe Nature eventually will change one day. If TIME changed, the OO wouldn't count N+n ticks per orbit, WOULD HE PAUL? > >> The GR explanation is nonsensical anyway. > >The ultimate argument! >Henri finds GR nonsensical. >It must be wrong, then. It certainly must be. > >> Plesae tell me again how GR explains the free fall clock rate change. I feel >> like a good laugh. > >Keep laughing at what you don't understand, Henri. >It make you look so intelligent. How exactly DOES GR explain it Paul? Does the clock physically change or doesn't it? > >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |