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 16:12 "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96A296E50240BWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in > news:42ea7a1d$0$18641$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > > > > > "bz" <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message > > news:Xns96A27A895D8DFWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote(a)130.39.198.139... > >> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:42ea4ba2$0$18643 > >> $14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk: > >> > >> > Real physicsicists can make real predictions. > >> > What is your prediction? > >> > > >> > >> I predict an explosive situation. > > > > Thank you. I will be sure to quote you on that the next time > > you want to dismiss a clock correction as a path effect. > > If you do, you will be quoting me out of context. Magic and fairys is never out of context with your posts. :o) 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 29 Jul 2005 19:45 On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:58:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:54:50 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:51:57 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >>> >>>Your confusion never cease to amaze. :-) >>> >>> >>>>In fact the OO would count N-n ticks before the clock was launched. >>> >>>Oh, my dear, Henri. :-) >>> >>>The ground clock ticks out N ticks per orbit. >>>The orbiting clock ticks out N+n per orbit. >>>Facts. >>>No observer in the universe can disagree about that. >> >> >> That's not what you assured me last year. >> You said the clock would NOT physically change. You said it would continue at >> its proper rate but would appear to be running faster to the GO. An observer >> traveling with the clock would not detect any difference in the clock. >> >> Now you are apparently agreeing that the clock DOES physically change. >> >> Are you having dificulty making up your mind? > >You ARE confused, no? :-) > >Below you will find "what I assured your last year" and the year before. > >> >> >>>>.....Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you.... >>> >>>It IS nonsensical. >>>That you really think "that's GR" demonstrates >>>that you have no clue whatsoever. >>>How is it possible to be THIS confused, Henri? :-) >> >> >> I am only repeating what you told me Paul. >> >> >>>>>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.... >>> >>>Your tick fairies again, Henri? :-) >>> >>>See this conversation from October 2004 >>> >>>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>| Consider the following scenario. >>>| We have two identical clocks on the ground, both running >>>| at the frequency 1MHz. Let's call each cycle a "tick". >>>| One of the clocks is launched into GPS orbit. >>>| Let N be the number of ticks counted by the ground >>>| clock during one orbit of the orbiting clock, as observed >>>| from the ground. >>>| >>>| It is then experimentally verified that the orbiting clock >>>| will tick out N+19 ticks during one orbit. >>>| >>>| - The ground clock can observe that the orbiting clock >>>| ticks out N+19 ticks while itself is ticking out N ticks. >>>| - The orbiting clock can observe that the ground clock >>>| ticks out N ticks while itself is ticking out N+19 ticks. >>>| - The ground clock will measure one orbit to last N us. >>>| - The orbiting clock will measure one orbit to last N+19 us. >>>| - The ground clock will measure the average frequency >>>| of the orbiting clock to be (N+19)/N MHz. >>>| - The orbiting clock will measure the average frequency >>>| of the ground clock to be N/(N+19) MHz. >>>| >>>| Can you please point out what your 'tick fairies' are >>>| supposed to do in this scenario? >> >> >> Not there...because you are accepting that the clock physically changes. > >The physical change is your unfounded assertion. > >The clocks do NOT physically change, both keep running >at the same intrinsic, proper rate. There you go again..... What is its proper rate? Is it constant? >>> >>>The fact is that I showed this scenario in 2003. >>> >>>Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2003: >>>| Let's make a thought experiment. >>>| In a GPS satellite, and on the ground we have clocks running at >>>| 1 MHz, and emitting that frequency. >>>| Let N be the number of microseconds in one orbit, as measured >>>| on the ground. That is, every Nth microsecond, the satellite >>>| is observed to be in the same position. >>>| So the ground clock counts N us per orbit, and emits N cycles >>>| On the ground we receive N+19 periods from the satellite. >>>| >>>| The satellite clock emits 1 MHz, but it measure one orbit >>>| to last N+19 us. So it emits N+19 cycles per orbit. >>>| It receives N cycles from the ground, and will thus observe >>>| that the ground clock runs slow, the frequency is N/(N+19) MHz. >>>| >>>| Where are your missing cycles, Henry? >>>| Notice that the ground clock observe the blue shifted >>>| frequency (N+19)/N MHz from the satellite clock. >>> >>>So where ARE your tick fairies, Henri? :-) >> >> >> They went when you accepted my then proof that the clock changed PHYSICALLY >> when placed in free fall. > >Your unfounded assertion. > >> Before that, you and others assured me that the clock did not change at all > >Quite. The clocks do not change their intrinsic rate at all. >But: >- The ground clock will measure one orbit to last N us. >- The orbiting clock will measure one orbit to last N+19 us. The experiment DOES not measure the orbit duration. The orbit duration (constant) is used to count ticks from the clock in its differnet positions. You wouldn't use a roll-up tape to accurately measure the length of that iridium bar in Paris, would you? >The two clocks measure different proper times because >the two proper times are different, not because they have >changed their rate. Time is not absolute. Wot's this, "two clocks"? There is only one clock involved in this experiment. (I will assume you means the the same clock in its two positions). Are you refering to the proper time of the orbit?.... or of the clock? The orbit duration has only one value........ONE (orbit duration)....dimensions (T). >But this is beyond you, and you will never get it. I am waiting to have it explained. What exactly defines 'proper time'. >> but it appeared to run fast from the ground in line with the GR blueshift >> principle. > >Quite. > - The ground clock will measure the average frequency > of the orbiting clock to be (N+19)/N MHz. > - The orbiting clock will measure the average frequency > of the ground clock to be N/(N+19) MHz. No Paul, that is not the experiment. Don't diverge and procrastinate. There is only one clock and the number of ticks it emits between the start and finish of a standard and unchanging time duration is compared in the two situations. >> So what actually IS the GR connection with the rate change? >> >> I don't think there is any, do you? >> >> >>>BTW, Henri. >>>How did your dream go? >>>How does the scenario above - which is predicted by GR >>>and is experimentally verified - prove GR to be wrong? :-) >> >> >> When you finally tell me how GR 'causes' the clock to change rates, I will put >> the lid on GRs coffin. >> >> Come on Paul, Please provide the GR explanation of it all. > >Nobody, not I, not you, not Einstein, can explain WHY >nature behaves as it does. But my experiment can determine whether or not a clock changes PHYSICALLY. >But GR can correctly predict HOW clocks will behave >in the gravitational field around the Earth. In your dreams Paul. GR can predict how much a photon will accelerate of hence blue shift when it falls down a gravity well. So can Newton. > >The above scenario is what GR predicts. >It is experimentally proven to be correct by the GPS. >The GPS confirms GR. In your dreams Paul. > >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.
From: Henri Wilson on 30 Jul 2005 18:38 On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:08:58 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >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? No you haven't gotten it. You are not even trying to get it. You probably don't have the required intelligence to be able to get 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.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 31 Jul 2005 16:07 Henri Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:58:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: > > >>Henri Wilson wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 11:54:50 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:51:57 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>>><paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Your confusion never cease to amaze. :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In fact the OO would count N-n ticks before the clock was launched. >>>> >>>>Oh, my dear, Henri. :-) >>>> >>>>The ground clock ticks out N ticks per orbit. >>>>The orbiting clock ticks out N+n per orbit. >>>>Facts. >>>>No observer in the universe can disagree about that. >>> >>> >>>That's not what you assured me last year. >>>You said the clock would NOT physically change. You said it would continue at >>>its proper rate but would appear to be running faster to the GO. An observer >>>traveling with the clock would not detect any difference in the clock. >>> >>>Now you are apparently agreeing that the clock DOES physically change. >>> >>>Are you having dificulty making up your mind? >> >>You ARE confused, no? :-) >> >>Below you will find "what I assured your last year" and the year before. >> >> >>> >>>>>.....Yes Paul, I know it sounds nonsensical...but that's GR for you.... >>>> >>>>It IS nonsensical. >>>>That you really think "that's GR" demonstrates >>>>that you have no clue whatsoever. >>>>How is it possible to be THIS confused, Henri? :-) >>> >>> >>>I am only repeating what you told me Paul. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>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.... >>>> >>>>Your tick fairies again, Henri? :-) >>>> >>>>See this conversation from October 2004 >>>> >>>>Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>| Consider the following scenario. >>>>| We have two identical clocks on the ground, both running >>>>| at the frequency 1MHz. Let's call each cycle a "tick". >>>>| One of the clocks is launched into GPS orbit. >>>>| Let N be the number of ticks counted by the ground >>>>| clock during one orbit of the orbiting clock, as observed >>>>| from the ground. >>>>| >>>>| It is then experimentally verified that the orbiting clock >>>>| will tick out N+19 ticks during one orbit. >>>>| >>>>| - The ground clock can observe that the orbiting clock >>>>| ticks out N+19 ticks while itself is ticking out N ticks. >>>>| - The orbiting clock can observe that the ground clock >>>>| ticks out N ticks while itself is ticking out N+19 ticks. >>>>| - The ground clock will measure one orbit to last N us. >>>>| - The orbiting clock will measure one orbit to last N+19 us. >>>>| - The ground clock will measure the average frequency >>>>| of the orbiting clock to be (N+19)/N MHz. >>>>| - The orbiting clock will measure the average frequency >>>>| of the ground clock to be N/(N+19) MHz. >>>>| >>>>| Can you please point out what your 'tick fairies' are >>>>| supposed to do in this scenario? >>> >>> >>>Not there...because you are accepting that the clock physically changes. >> >>The physical change is your unfounded assertion. >> >>The clocks do NOT physically change, both keep running >>at the same intrinsic, proper rate. > > > There you go again..... > > What is its proper rate? > Is it constant? > > > >>>>The fact is that I showed this scenario in 2003. >>>> >>>>Paul B. Andersen wrote in June 2003: >>>>| Let's make a thought experiment. >>>>| In a GPS satellite, and on the ground we have clocks running at >>>>| 1 MHz, and emitting that frequency. >>>>| Let N be the number of microseconds in one orbit, as measured >>>>| on the ground. That is, every Nth microsecond, the satellite >>>>| is observed to be in the same position. >>>>| So the ground clock counts N us per orbit, and emits N cycles >>>>| On the ground we receive N+19 periods from the satellite. >>>>| >>>>| The satellite clock emits 1 MHz, but it measure one orbit >>>>| to last N+19 us. So it emits N+19 cycles per orbit. >>>>| It receives N cycles from the ground, and will thus observe >>>>| that the ground clock runs slow, the frequency is N/(N+19) MHz. >>>>| >>>>| Where are your missing cycles, Henry? >>>>| Notice that the ground clock observe the blue shifted >>>>| frequency (N+19)/N MHz from the satellite clock. >>>> >>>>So where ARE your tick fairies, Henri? :-) >>> >>> >>>They went when you accepted my then proof that the clock changed PHYSICALLY >>>when placed in free fall. >> >>Your unfounded assertion. >> >> >>>Before that, you and others assured me that the clock did not change at all >> >>Quite. The clocks do not change their intrinsic rate at all. >>But: >>- The ground clock will measure one orbit to last N us. >>- The orbiting clock will measure one orbit to last N+19 us. > > > The experiment DOES not measure the orbit duration. > > The orbit duration (constant) is used to count ticks from the clock in its > differnet positions. > > You wouldn't use a roll-up tape to accurately measure the length of that > iridium bar in Paris, would you? > > > >>The two clocks measure different proper times because >>the two proper times are different, not because they have >>changed their rate. Time is not absolute. > > > Wot's this, "two clocks"? > There is only one clock involved in this experiment. > > (I will assume you means the the same clock in its two positions). > > Are you refering to the proper time of the orbit?.... or of the clock? > > The orbit duration has only one value........ONE (orbit duration)....dimensions > (T). > > >>But this is beyond you, and you will never get it. > > > I am waiting to have it explained. > What exactly defines 'proper time'. > > >>>but it appeared to run fast from the ground in line with the GR blueshift >>>principle. >> >>Quite. >> - The ground clock will measure the average frequency >> of the orbiting clock to be (N+19)/N MHz. >> - The orbiting clock will measure the average frequency >> of the ground clock to be N/(N+19) MHz. > > > No Paul, that is not the experiment. Don't diverge and procrastinate. > > There is only one clock and the number of ticks it emits between the start and > finish of a standard and unchanging time duration is compared in the two > situations. > > > >>>So what actually IS the GR connection with the rate change? >>> >>>I don't think there is any, do you? >>> >>> >>> >>>>BTW, Henri. >>>>How did your dream go? >>>>How does the scenario above - which is predicted by GR >>>>and is experimentally verified - prove GR to be wrong? :-) >>> >>> >>>When you finally tell me how GR 'causes' the clock to change rates, I will put >>>the lid on GRs coffin. >>> >>>Come on Paul, Please provide the GR explanation of it all. >> >>Nobody, not I, not you, not Einstein, can explain WHY >>nature behaves as it does. > > > But my experiment can determine whether or not a clock changes PHYSICALLY. > > >>But GR can correctly predict HOW clocks will behave >>in the gravitational field around the Earth. > > > In your dreams Paul. > GR can predict how much a photon will accelerate of hence blue shift when it > falls down a gravity well. So can Newton. > > >>The above scenario is what GR predicts. >>It is experimentally proven to be correct by the GPS. >>The GPS confirms GR. > > > In your dreams Paul. Facts are facts, Henri. Paul
From: Jeff Root on 31 Jul 2005 22:10
George replied to Bob: >> 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. The notion that a single photon can have a bandwidth seems absurd to me. For reasons analogous to the notion that the North Pole can have a longitude. It seems obvious that the property of bandwidth only applies to statistical collections of photons, or waves. I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about the frequency of a single photon, either. Any photon has a particular, measurable energy which is associated with a particular frequency, but there is no way to measure that frequency. Only by analyzing the behavior of a collection of photons does the property of frequency become evident. The analysis shows that f = E/h, so you can *know* the frequency of a single photon within the limits of uncertainty, but you can't actually measure it. If you have enough photons to directly measure their frequency, then you have enough photons to detect their bandwidth. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis |