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 7 Aug 2005 03:52 Paul B. Andersen wrote: > sue jahn skrev: > Since it was you who challenged me to show > "what Einstein's relativity says the shaft should do" > one would expect that it was you rather than Jim > that would point out the inconsistencies you claim > are there. > > You have now throughly demonstrated your inability > to do so. > > Paul Sue and I will just have to "make out" on the moon. No rotation as on earth there (or one per month?) Or we'll go to a NON rotating base to erect the axle, with a greater gravity at each end. NOW will you predict what the axle/clocks will do/read? Jim G c'=c+v (see reply to Jeff)
From: jgreen on 7 Aug 2005 04:05 Jeff Root wrote: > Jim Greenfield replied to Paul B. Andersen: > > >> > And how big a fool(or coward), does it take to rabbit on about > >> > EARTH rotation, when the issue has NOTHING to do with that? > >> > We are discussing the rotation of an axle perpendicular to the > >> > earth, and the earth rotation has nothing to do with the > >> > scenario; ONLY the difference in gravity. > >> > >> I don't know what YOU are discussing, but what I > >> was answering in the posting you responded to was > >> this particular challenge defined by Sue: > >> | 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. > >> > >> My answer is what GR "say's the shaft should do". > >> And whether you like it or not, the Earth IS rotating. > >> And the rotation of the Earth IS relevant to GR's > >> prediction of what "the shaft should do". > >> > >> However, this was not my main point with "one Earth > >> rotation" in my scenario, see below. > >> > >> The apparent paradox is this: > >> If the top of the axle (or shaft) rotates at a slower > >> rate than the bottom, the axle should be twisted, > >> and "wind up" more and more as time passes. > >> I show that this isn't so. > >> To do that we can compare the number of turns done > >> by the bottom and the top of the axle when it points > >> in two different directions relative to the distant stars. > >> If the number of turns are equal, it will not twist. > >> I have - somewhat arbitrarily - chosen to compare the number > >> of turns of ends of the axle each time the axle points > >> in the same direction, that is after "one Earth rotation". > >> > >> > I don't expect you to answer-----you cannot! > >> > >> But I did. Below is my answer again. > >> This is what GR say will happen. > >> I challenge you to find and point out an inconsistency. > >> Your opinion of GR is irrelevant. > >> The challenge is to point out an inconsitency > >> in GR, showing that there is a real paradox. > >> > >> Let there be a clock A on the ground at equator. > >> Let there be a clock B in geostationary orbit. > >> Let both clocks be on the same radius. > >> (on the same line through the center of the Erth) > >> > >> Let A measure the proper duration of one Earth rotation to be T. > >> Then, according to GR, B will measure the proper > >> duration of one Earth rotation to be longer, T + delta_T. > >> > >> Let there be an axle between the two clocks. > >> Let this axle rotate in such a way that there is no > >> mechanical stress in the axle. > >> Let the axle rotate N times during one Earth rotation. > >> > >> A will measure the rotational frequency to be f_g = N/T > >> while B will measure it to be f_s = N/(T + delta_T). > >> > >> So the ground clock will measure the axle to rotate > >> faster than the satellite clock will, but both will > >> agree that the axle rotates N times per Earth rotation. > >> > >> frequency * duration = number_of_rotations > >> f_g*T = N > >> f_s*(T + delta_T) = N > >> > >> Loosly said: > >> "The satellite clock will see the axle rotate slower, > >> but for a longer time." > >> > >> I do not expect you to point out an inconsistency, > >> because there are none. > >> I do however expect you to laugh at what you don't understands. > >> Fools do. > > > > After all your pathetic attempts to duck the question, it STILL > > remains!! > > You claim here that the axle does NOT twist under GR. Since two of the > > clocks are ATTACHED to the axle, they MUST read the SAME time. But GR > > says the high unconnected (different gravity) one runs differentlty. > > This is a CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! of the "theory" > > Jim, > > How can a prediction made by a theory contradict the theory? > > Why do you say that because the two clocks are attached to the > axle, they must read the same? > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Because of the axle in my car. A clock driven at each end mechanically will read the same for eternity (sans diff slippage). Gr is trying to tell me, that if I lay the old girl on the side, time is passing differently at each end due to gravity disparity. So how are the rotations per time at each end the same, if a clock at a higher altitude reads differently, due to gravity difference? For Paul to maintain the claim of time passing differently due to gravity, he must disconnect! The free (call it a GPS based clock) and the one connected to the (very high) axle, CANNOT read differently, WITHOUT a torque on the axle. THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and the axle proves they won't. Jim G c'=c+v
From: the softrat on 7 Aug 2005 06:51 > >Jim G >c'=c+v ??? c'=c+v?? Not very likely. Do you believe in a Flat Earth too? the softrat Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes. mailto:softrat(a)pobox.com -- I believe no problem is so large or so difficult that it can't be blamed on somebody else.
From: the softrat on 7 Aug 2005 06:55 On 7 Aug 2005 01:05:48 -0700, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > >Because of the axle in my car. A clock driven at each end mechanically >will read the same for eternity (sans diff slippage). >Gr is trying to tell me, that if I lay the old girl on the side, time >is passing differently at each end due to gravity disparity. So how are >the rotations per time at each end the same, if a clock at a higher >altitude reads differently, due to gravity difference? For Paul to >maintain the claim of time passing differently due to gravity, he must >disconnect! >The free (call it a GPS based clock) and the one connected to the (very >high) axle, CANNOT read differently, WITHOUT a torque on the axle. >THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and the axle >proves they won't. > That is so far wrong it is ludicrous. Jim doesn't understand relativity at all and he believes in infinitely rigid drive shafts! Back to Police Gazette! the softrat Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes. mailto:softrat(a)pobox.com -- Give your child mental blocks for Christmas.
From: Sue... on 7 Aug 2005 07:08
the softrat wrote: > On 7 Aug 2005 01:05:48 -0700, jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > > >Because of the axle in my car. A clock driven at each end mechanically > >will read the same for eternity (sans diff slippage). > >Gr is trying to tell me, that if I lay the old girl on the side, time > >is passing differently at each end due to gravity disparity. So how are > >the rotations per time at each end the same, if a clock at a higher > >altitude reads differently, due to gravity difference? For Paul to > >maintain the claim of time passing differently due to gravity, he must > >disconnect! > >The free (call it a GPS based clock) and the one connected to the (very > >high) axle, CANNOT read differently, WITHOUT a torque on the axle. > >THIS is the contradiction. : The "Theory" says they will, and the axle > >proves they won't. > > > That is so far wrong it is ludicrous. Jim doesn't understand > relativity at all and he believes in infinitely rigid drive shafts! > Back to Police Gazette! > > the softrat > Sometimes I get so tired of the taste of my own toes. > mailto:softrat(a)pobox.com > -- > Give your child mental blocks for Christmas. The shaft is center driven and in uniform motion. Are Jeddi knights providing a "force" that would test the axel's rigidity? I'll bet Jim doesn't understand snake oil either. Sue... |