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: sue jahn on 28 Jul 2005 06:30 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dccul0$dpg$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > Henri Wilson wrote: snip > The physical change is your unfounded assertion. > > The clocks do NOT physically change, both keep running > at the same intrinsic, proper rate. Paul, Then you need to address the post of jgreen <1122608884.622908.253480(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> and I believe that will clarify what you mean. Sue... snip
From: Paul B. Andersen on 29 Jul 2005 08:31 sue jahn wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dccsm4$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. The patronizing tone again? You didn't anser the question. But I suppose my interpretation below is correct. >>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. Nonsense. >>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. Because time is absolute, eh? But there is no intrinsic change of the clock rate. >>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. Because time is absolute? :-) >>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 You cannot change experimentally proven facts by a different intepretation. Do you never read the references you give? There is nothing in that paper saying that the phenomenon measured by Pound Rebca wasn't correct. Gravitational red/blue shift is an experimentally proven fact. But I have noticed that you are one of those cranks who has no problem with denying facts if they don't suite them. When your picture of the world results in experiments violating causality, maybe it is something wrong with your picture of the world? >>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. OK. So we will have to wait and see if the result is as expected by most people, but really unexpected by you. Paul
From: sue jahn on 28 Jul 2005 09:24 "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dcd7ju$p3g$1(a)dolly.uninett.no... > sue jahn wrote: > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote in message news:dccsm4$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. > > The patronizing tone again? > > You didn't anser the question. > But I suppose my interpretation below is correct. > > >>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. > > Nonsense. > > >>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. > > Because time is absolute, eh? > > But there is no intrinsic change of the clock rate. > > >>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. > > Because time is absolute? :-) > > >>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 > > You cannot change experimentally proven facts by > a different intepretation. > > Do you never read the references you give? > There is nothing in that paper saying that > the phenomenon measured by Pound Rebca wasn't > correct. > > Gravitational red/blue shift is an experimentally proven fact. > > But I have noticed that you are one of those cranks > who has no problem with denying facts if they don't suite them. > > When your picture of the world results in experiments > violating causality, maybe it is something wrong with > your picture of the world? > > > >>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. > > OK. > So we will have to wait and see if the result is as > expected by most people, but really unexpected by you. > > Paul Fair enough on SUMO. Consider all your statements ending in question marks are neither confirmed nor denied. You are of course welcome to advance an opinion about how an axel should behave if it were repeating a geosynchronous clock to the ground or if it were repeating a ground clock to a geosynchronous satellite. Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's relativity say's the shaft should do. Sue...
From: George Dishman on 29 Jul 2005 10:37 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns969BB7BCD3613WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:dbrieo$q9g$1 > @news.freedom2surf.net: > >> We are certainly on the verge of moving to >> verge of handling single photons routinely. > > Yep > >> Thanks again for the links. > > quite welcome. I looked but I didn't see anything there that would tell me > the pulse width [photon length?]. > > The spectra seem to indicate that the single photons have very narrow > bandwidth [as I would expect]. If a photon has a specific energy and that is proportional to frequency, then a single photon has a unique frequency hence zero bandwidth and infinite duration >:-( At least it does with a semi-classical view. If you include Heisenberg, then the uncertainty in the measured energy relates to the uncertainty in the frequency which depends on the time over which the frequency is measured, hence the bandwidth is related to the method of measurement, and I don't need to point out the crucial role of measurement methods in QM. As a result, I don't think a photon has a specific length or duration, but the idea of it as a single cycle with hard ends at the zero crossings can be ruled out as too simplistic. George
From: bz on 29 Jul 2005 10:36
"sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea34f2$0$18648 $14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > Neither you nor Bz seem able to interpret what Einstein's > relativity say's the shaft should do. > Einsteins relativity doesn't say anything about a shaft extending from one accelerating FoR to another accelerating FoR, as far as I can tell. If you can tell me the chapter and verse, I will look it up. The library is still trying to find a copy of "Einsteins Relativity according to Sue and Snoopy too", perhaps someone gave me the wrong title? What is the library of congress number for your book? They need that or your full name. -- 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 |