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 20 Aug 2005 03:40 George Dishman wrote: > <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message > news:1124335652.671978.5240(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > (sigh) > > A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. > > Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom by identical > > mechanisms. > > To start, let's say what would be seen if only > one was connected to the shaft and then consider > what would happen if we try to connect the other. > > > The axle rotates (is driven) at constant revs from the base. > > What do the two clocks read after an elapsed time? > > What you would see at the top would be hands on > the axle rotating slightly slower than the hands > on the local clock. > > If you then try to couple them, several things > might happen. The coupling might break, the two > sets of hands might rotate at the speed of the > higher clock while the lower motor would take > less power, the motors might burn out or the > shaft might twist, etc.. G'day George, You seem to grasp that there is a problem for GR, because the forces/energy involved to produce said breakages/twisting are due to separation by distance ONLY (which causes the gravitational difference at top and bottom. Where and why should such energy "appear", just because the top of the rotating axle is "up there"?? How would the forces "know" what to apply to a STATIONARY axle?? My speedo/odometer is a clock, OK? When I record one mile travelled (odo) while the speedo was reading constant 60mph, I KNOW that one minute has elapsed. That is the sort of clocks/counters I envisage here-- not a quartz crystal in sight! > > > What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected physically to the > > axle, read ref the other two????????? (nuclear clock being synchronised > > with the base clock before experiment begun). > > I don't know what mean by "a nuclear clock". > Assuming the mechanical clocks are properly > designed using good quality quartz crystals, > atomic clocks would give identical measurements > but with less random noise. George, but it is loudly claimed that they DON'T! This axle reaches up to the GPS satellite, and ALL DHR's claim that the atomic clocks up there do NOT read the same. > > > If there IS a discrepency, which is wrong? > > Neither, our best understanding of nature is > that time is not universal. Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted around and around just because 'time' is passing (and the axle spinning) Regards Jim c'=c+v (PS: Have you fixed that 'time dilation' graphic yet?)
From: George Dishman on 20 Aug 2005 05:23 <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1124523631.189668.274450(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > George Dishman wrote: > >> <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message >> news:1124335652.671978.5240(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > (sigh) >> > A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. >> > Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom by identical >> > mechanisms. >> >> To start, let's say what would be seen if only >> one was connected to the shaft and then consider >> what would happen if we try to connect the other. >> >> > The axle rotates (is driven) at constant revs from the base. >> > What do the two clocks read after an elapsed time? >> >> What you would see at the top would be hands on >> the axle rotating slightly slower than the hands >> on the local clock. >> >> If you then try to couple them, several things >> might happen. The coupling might break, the two >> sets of hands might rotate at the speed of the >> higher clock while the lower motor would take >> less power, the motors might burn out or the >> shaft might twist, etc.. > > G'day George, > > You seem to grasp that there is a problem for GR, There isn't the slightest problem. > because the > forces/energy involved to produce said breakages/twisting are due to > separation by distance ONLY (which causes the gravitational difference > at top and bottom. > Where and why should such energy "appear", The whole point of splitting the explanation into two stages was to try to help you grasp what is to me obvious, the forces are produced solely by the motors driving the shaft. Imagine instead the shaft was horizontal. You attach a motor at each end and drive them at different speeds and the same effect occurs. The energy 'appears' because you have to connect the motors to a source of power if they are to turn the shaft. > just because the top of the > rotating axle is "up there"?? How would the forces "know" what to apply > to a STATIONARY axle?? > My speedo/odometer is a clock, OK? When I record one mile travelled > (odo) while the speedo was reading constant 60mph, I KNOW that one > minute has elapsed. That is the sort of clocks/counters I envisage > here-- not a quartz crystal in sight! Far too inaccurate to show anything. >> > What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected physically to the >> > axle, read ref the other two????????? (nuclear clock being synchronised >> > with the base clock before experiment begun). >> >> I don't know what mean by "a nuclear clock". >> Assuming the mechanical clocks are properly >> designed using good quality quartz crystals, >> atomic clocks would give identical measurements >> but with less random noise. > > George, but it is loudly claimed that they DON'T! You are confused I think, two clocks side-by-side, one a caesium atomic clock and the other a high quality ovened crystal, will run at the same rate. Two identical atomic clocks at different altitudes appear to run at different rates. > This axle reaches up to the GPS satellite, and ALL DHR's claim that the > atomic clocks up there do NOT read the same. >> >> > If there IS a discrepency, which is wrong? >> >> Neither, our best understanding of nature is >> that time is not universal. > > Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted > around and around just because 'time' is passing > (and the axle spinning) The fact is that it would. There used to be a poster, Chris Franks, who worked for HP and was involved in the calibration of the atomic clocks they made. They had two factories where this was done and one of the problems they had to deal with was that one was somewhat higher than the other. They had to compensate for the effect to ensure accurate calibration. People who work with highly accurate clocks see this happening on a daily basis and your "belief" is known to be wrong. Sorry Jim, you just have to learn to deal with the real world, it doesn't work the way you imagine. George
From: Jeff Root on 20 Aug 2005 11:12 Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. > Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom by > identical mechanisms. What do you mean by "mechanical"? How are they connected? You previously claimed that your computer's clock and mine are connected. I can't guess what you have in mind. > The axle rotates (is driven) at constant revs from the base. Okay. > What do the two clocks read after an elapsed time? > What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected > physically to the axle, read ref the other two????????? > (nuclear clock being synchronised with the base clock > before experiment begun). You meant "atomic clock". Although specific isotopes are used in atomic clocks (in cesium clocks it is cesium 133), the nucleus is not directly involved in the electron oscillations which establish the clock frequency. > If there IS a discrepency, which is wrong? To know how the clocks would read, I need to know what you mean when you say that they are "connected". > (I mentioned light in order to head off the wild goose chase > which you were likely to introduce about the two connected > clocks appearing to show differring times due to the delay > in reading caused by information transfer not being > instantaneous due to emr velocity) It didn't look like that was what you were trying to say, but I'll take your word for it. As you pointed out to me previously, the rotating axle would *appear* to be twisted, and there would be a delay in the reading of a distant clock because of the time required for light from distant clocks to reach the observer, but I agree that these effects are not what you are interested in. We can easily take them into account, when necessary, in our descriptions of what is observed. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Jeff Root on 20 Aug 2005 11:57 George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: > The whole point of splitting the explanation into > two stages was to try to help you grasp what is > to me obvious, the forces are produced solely by > the motors driving the shaft. Imagine instead the > shaft was horizontal. You attach a motor at each > end and drive them at different speeds and the > same effect occurs. The energy 'appears' because > you have to connect the motors to a source of > power if they are to turn the shaft. Jim hasn't explained how the "clocks" are supposed to be connected to the axle. If the axle itself is meant to keep time like a clock (say, like the shaft which turns a clock's second hand), then he is definitely talking about a single clock. Yet he insisted that there were two clocks, one at the bottom and one at the top. I suspect that he only meant that there were pointers or "clock hands" at the bottom and top of the axle, and that the only motor driving it is the one at the bottom, but until he says what he has in mind, we can only speculate. >> Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted >> around and around just because 'time' is passing >> (and the axle spinning) > > The fact is that it would. If you think the axle would become twisted, then I'm quite sure that your understanding of the thought experiment setup is different from his. With only one motor connected to the axle, it would not become twisted. Although he has said there are two clocks connected to the axle, he has said only one motor is driving it. He needs to clarify that confused description. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: George Dishman on 20 Aug 2005 15:41
"Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1124553427.708928.80010(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: > >> The whole point of splitting the explanation into >> two stages was to try to help you grasp what is >> to me obvious, the forces are produced solely by >> the motors driving the shaft. Imagine instead the >> shaft was horizontal. You attach a motor at each >> end and drive them at different speeds and the >> same effect occurs. The energy 'appears' because >> you have to connect the motors to a source of >> power if they are to turn the shaft. > > Jim hasn't explained how the "clocks" are supposed to be > connected to the axle. If the axle itself is meant to keep > time like a clock (say, like the shaft which turns a clock's > second hand), then he is definitely talking about a single > clock. Yet he insisted that there were two clocks, one at > the bottom and one at the top. That is reasonable since without two clocks, there is nothing to compare. Specifically he said "Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom ..." so I don't think there is too much doubt about that part. The problem comes when he goes on to say the axle is driven "at constant revs from the base". Since the two clocks will be trying to drive at different rates, he is presupposing the outcome of the mechanical linkage. For example if the linkage was a ratchet in each case, the faster clock wins (or perhaps it runs at the sum of the two rates, a tick at either end turning the hands!). I separated the description for that reason, before coupling the behaviour is clear and if they are linked, what happens depends only on the linkage. > I suspect that he only meant > that there were pointers or "clock hands" at the bottom and > top of the axle, and that the only motor driving it is the > one at the bottom, That would not be two clocks, just one clock with two sets of hands, it certainly isn't what he said. > but until he says what he has in mind, > we can only speculate. I find that sometimes, when people don't give enough information, it is because they aren't aware of what is missing. Rather than ask, I try to work out what they had in mind and fill in the blanks. It is then easier for them to correct any misunderstanding on my part than to add the information themselves. It is a matter of individual approach. >>> Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted >>> around and around just because 'time' is passing >>> (and the axle spinning) >> >> The fact is that it would. > > If you think the axle would become twisted, then I'm quite > sure that your understanding of the thought experiment setup > is different from his. With only one motor connected to the > axle, it would not become twisted. Although he has said > there are two clocks connected to the axle, he has said only > one motor is driving it. No, he said there were two clocks, hence two motors or mainsprings or whatever, but he said the lower clock drives the shaft which logically means the linkages are such that the slower rotation takes precedence. > He needs to clarify that confused > description. It would help. George |