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: jgreen on 28 Jul 2005 23:48 Paul, Please explain the following: 3 identical atomic clocks are used- One is connected to the bottom of, and counts the revolutions of, a very tall axle (vertical to earth surface); one is connected to the top and counts; one is at the top, but unconnected. Are all the clocks going to agree on the revs completed? If not, how large a torque will ensue??
From: sue jahn on 28 Jul 2005 04:14 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:9plie1tndumga3o0ph4kme8uo9sbh3k6cr(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:10:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > snip > > Paul, I'm sure you weren't quite this confused before your recent holiday. > Henri, The sad thing is that Bz and Andersen are better equipped than most posters to understand the wave impedance problems with Maxwell's equations but they would rather blindly follow the "high priests" of time travel than get to the bottom of the issue. :-( Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. --Albert Einstein Proven fact is the collection of prejudices acquired by age fourty. --Somebody smarter than Albert Einstein Sue... http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Jul 2005 05:25 sue jahn wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc8k86$dng$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > >>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. Please explain the statement: "SV clocks are not invariant with position". Do you mean that the intrinsic clock rate is dependent on position? In that case you should explain why you think GPS prove so. And please explain the statement: "fixed length paths can't blue shift" Does it mean that there was no blue (or red) shift in the Pound-Rebka experiment? Or what does it mean? > > 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 Exactly. Two different type of clocks _at the same location_ can test the LPI, which obviously say that the two clocks should stay in sync at any location. But what did you mean by this comment? Sue wrote: | So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something | really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated | by GPS, will be confirmed. The expected result is obviously that the two clocks will stay in sync and thus confirm the LPI. So why did you say that the SUMO clock has to do something really unexpected to confirm the LPI? Paul
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Jul 2005 06:08 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:10:03 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:18:04 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> > > >>>>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. >>> >>> >>>1) 'tends to unify' does not mean 'co,plete unification'.2) the volumes of >>>space that are responsible for the tendency towards unity might themselves be >>>moving wrt little planet Earth. >>>So the final speed wrt Earth EVEN WITH 100% UNIFICATION can have any value. >> >>So we can conclude that all the light coming from any particular >>direction is red shifted by the same amount, but the amount can have any value. > > > Paul, I'm sure you weren't quite this confused before your recent holiday. > > >>>>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? >>> >>> >>>Paul, according to my very plausible and obviously correct theory, light loses >>>a minute amount of momentum every time it drags an atom along. >>> >>>Do you deny that a photon loses momentum when it drags an atom along? >>> >>>If the momentum lost is, on average proportional to momentum (all wrt the >>>source frame) then the decrease would be an exponential one. As you know small >>>sections of an exponential can appear fairly linear. Hence the resultant >>>redshift (wrt source frame) is virtually proportional to distance from source. >> >>So we can conclude that molecules in rare space do NOT tend to unify >>the speed of all light travelling in any particular direction, it slows >>it down proportionally to the travelled distance. > > > As I have pointed out many times, THERE ARE TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT EFFECTS. > Can you not read properly any more? Henri Wilson wrote: | .....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. .... ARE TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT EFFECTS ? and these two effects are that all light coming from the same direction is going at the same speed, but since light is slowed down as it goes, some of the light coming from the same direction may go slower than other light from that direction. Have I got it now? Paul
From: sue jahn on 28 Jul 2005 06:09
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dccsm4$d10$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > sue jahn wrote: > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dc8k86$dng$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > > > >>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. > > Please explain the statement: > "SV clocks are not invariant with position". You may read about the launch presets in either Ashby or Will's papers. You can find them at living reviews or Will's web page. > Do you mean that the intrinsic clock rate is > dependent on position? That is what Newton's second law predicts for the proton and electron mass. That is what the launch preset includes. > In that case you should explain why you think GPS prove so. The launch preset for gravitational *frequency* shift would be unnecessary if that were not true. > > And please explain the statement: > "fixed length paths can't blue shift" A catcher cannot catch 31 balls per minute if the pitcher is only throwing 30 balls per minute. Causality violation. > Does it mean that there was no blue (or red) shift > in the Pound-Rebka experiment? Correct. The Pound-Snider paper urged caution and defered the interpretation to more accurate clocks. The GPS system IS the more accurate clocks and the launch presets show the correct interpretation of PR and GP-B. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017 > Or what does it mean? > > > > > 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 > > Exactly. > Two different type of clocks _at the same location_ > can test the LPI, which obviously say that the two clocks > should stay in sync at any location. > > But what did you mean by this comment? > Sue wrote: > | So... Cliff knows that the SUMO has to do something > | really unexpected or the violation of LPI indicated > | by GPS, will be confirmed. > > The expected result is obviously that the two clocks > will stay in sync and thus confirm the LPI. > So why did you say that the SUMO clock has to do > something really unexpected to confirm the LPI? The SUMO does not have proton and electron masses to couple to the earth's gravity. (hyperfine transition) There is no reason it should change with altitude as atomic clocks do. << In the SCSO measurements, earth tides were easily observable at the 10-14 frequency variation level, in agreement with model calculations. The sensitivity of the cavity frequency to variations in acceleration can be reduced significantly by supporting the cavity from its center, therefore compensating any change in the length of the top half with an opposite change in the bottom half. http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm A real experiment should close the circle on the LPI issue. Sue... > > Paul |