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: George Dishman on 25 Aug 2005 18:49 "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote in message news:1125002090.610746.260230(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman: .... >> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time >> counting the revs (frequency); .... >> another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain >> that for the two results to be the same under GR: >> 1) The clocks do NOT tick together > > That is what GR predicts and measurements show. Careful Jeff, the previous line said "for the two [frequencies] to be the same. If that is the case and they are both measuring the same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks must be ticking at the same (coordinate) rate. In other words the clocks have been built differently to compensate for the GR effect like GPS and ground clocks. This is another of Jim's self-contradictory questions. George
From: Jeff Root on 25 Aug 2005 21:10 George replied to Jeff: >> Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman: >... >>> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time >>> counting the revs (frequency); >... >>> another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain >>> that for the two results to be the same under GR: >>> 1) The clocks do NOT tick together > >> That is what GR predicts and measurements show. > > Careful Jeff, the previous line said "for the > two [frequencies] to be the same. Arrrgggh. I deleted several lines after I had already clicked "Preview", because I changed my mind at the last moment about what he probably meant by "the two results". I didn't give it enough thought to see that I needed to replace the lines with more info, not just delete them. Here is my updated description: The axle is rotating at constant rate. Identical clocks are at the top and bottom. Counters at top and bottom show the number of rotations. All observers see both ends of the axle turning together as a solid body, not becoming twisted. (After accounting for light travel time lag.) All observers see the clock at the top gain on the clock at the bottom, due to the difference in gravitational potential. The bottom makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. The top makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. The bottom makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. The top makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. > If that is the case and they are both measuring the > same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks > must be ticking at the same (coordinate) rate. > In other words the clocks have been built > differently to compensate for the GR effect > like GPS and ground clocks. I took his specification to mean that the clocks are identical, not adjusted in any way. That is the only way the thought experiment can make sense. I'm ignoring his phrase "for the two results to be the same" since: 1) It doesn't make any sense to prescribe beforehand what the results of an experiment will be, and 2) He hasn't provided any mechanism to cause the measurements by the two clocks to be the same. > This is another of Jim's self-contradictory questions. Yup. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: jgreen on 26 Aug 2005 07:04 Jeff Root wrote: > George replied to Jeff: > > >> Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman: > >... > >>> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time > >>> counting the revs (frequency); > >... > >>> another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain > >>> that for the two results to be the same under GR: > >>> 1) The clocks do NOT tick together > > > >> That is what GR predicts and measurements show. > > > > Careful Jeff, the previous line said "for the > > two [frequencies] to be the same. > > Arrrgggh. I deleted several lines after I had already > clicked "Preview", because I changed my mind at the last > moment about what he probably meant by "the two results". > I didn't give it enough thought to see that I needed to > replace the lines with more info, not just delete them. This is bordering on the pathetic! You have accused me of being ambiguous and unclear on a situation which is perfectly clear, and then be this nonchalant. > Here is my updated description: > > The axle is rotating at constant rate. Identical clocks are > at the top and bottom. Counters at top and bottom show the > number of rotations. Here comes your problem!-- you have admitted/claimed previously that any clock (position) attached to the axle reads the same (no twisting) > > All observers see both ends of the axle turning together > as a solid body, not becoming twisted. (After accounting > for light travel time lag.) > > All observers see the clock at the top gain on the clock > at the bottom, due to the difference in gravitational > potential. > > The bottom makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. > The top makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. > The bottom makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. > The top makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. REMEMBER!!! N=N+n because the two clocks are the SAME ONE > > > If that is the case and they are both measuring the > > same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks > > must be ticking at the same (coordinate) rate. > > In other words the clocks have been built > > differently to compensate for the GR effect > > like GPS and ground clocks. EXACTLY!! GpS clocks are DELIBERATELY constructed (tweaked) to run differently than ground clocks of identical otherwise construction. Blind Benny can see that this is to compensate for the error in c=c+v caused by the motion of the satellites, and the altered transmission intervals of their signals. > > I took his specification to mean that the clocks are > identical, not adjusted in any way. That is the only > way the thought experiment can make sense. > > I'm ignoring his phrase "for the two results to be the same" > since: > > 1) It doesn't make any sense to prescribe beforehand what > the results of an experiment will be, and > > 2) He hasn't provided any mechanism to cause the > measurements by the two clocks to be the same. > > > This is another of Jim's self-contradictory questions. Nope! The contradiction is in the difference between the attached top clock to the axle, and the (GPS) one which is at the same altitude. > > Yup. c'=c+v Jim G > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Jeff Root on 26 Aug 2005 11:33 Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: >> George replied to Jeff: >> >> >> Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman: >> >... >> >>> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time >> >>> counting the revs (frequency); >> >... >> >>> another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain >> >>> that for the two results to be the same under GR: >> >>> 1) The clocks do NOT tick together >> > >> >> That is what GR predicts and measurements show. >> > >> > Careful Jeff, the previous line said "for the >> > two [frequencies] to be the same. >> >> Arrrgggh. I deleted several lines after I had already >> clicked "Preview", because I changed my mind at the last >> moment about what he probably meant by "the two results". >> I didn't give it enough thought to see that I needed to >> replace the lines with more info, not just delete them. > > This is bordering on the pathetic! > You have accused me of being ambiguous and unclear on a > situation which is perfectly clear, and then be this nonchalant. I don't know about "nonchalant". I mucked up because your expression "the two results" is ambiguous and unclear. What two results do you mean? Results of what? You still haven't said! Your descriptions of the thought experiment have been anything but clear. They are *always* incomplete, and usually have conflicting assumptions. You have changed the experimental setup back and forth several times without acknowledging that you are changing anything. It is impossible to know whether I should reply to what you are saying or what you think you are saying. Even in the post I'm replying to, you introduce yet another change in the experimental setup without explaining what you are doing, and use terms without explaining what they refer to. (Just below.) Notice, also, that the correction of my error of omission did not change my description of the thought experiment, but merely added to it, to remove an ambiguity. The thing I had to do to remove the ambiguity was to explain that I was ignoring part of your description of the experiment because it makes no sense. >> Here is my updated description: >> >> The axle is rotating at constant rate. Identical clocks are >> at the top and bottom. Counters at top and bottom show the >> number of rotations. > > Here comes your problem!-- you have admitted/claimed previously > that any clock (position) attached to the axle reads the same > (no twisting) What do you mean "reads the same"? Reads the same as WHAT? It sounds like all you're saying is what I said in the very next sentence: >> All observers see both ends of the axle turning together >> as a solid body, not becoming twisted. (After accounting >> for light travel time lag.) >> >> All observers see the clock at the top gain on the clock >> at the bottom, due to the difference in gravitational >> potential. >> >> The bottom makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. >> The top makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. >> The bottom makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. >> The top makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. > > REMEMBER!!! N=N+n because the two clocks are the SAME ONE First, saying "two clocks are the SAME ONE" is completely meaningless. There may be one clock, or two, or more, but two clocks are *never* the same clock. Second, in your previous post you specified a rotating axle and two separate clocks. Here, you appear to have reverted to thinking that the top and bottom of the axle *are* the clock or clocks. That is not the thought experiment you described in your previous post, and it is not the thought experiment I described in my reply. So you appear to be talking about a different situation now. Third, you meant "N-n", not "N+n". You specified counters at the top and bottom, counting rotations of the axle, so I used that and derived rotations per clock tick. Since "N" is how I arbitrarily labled the value measured by the bottom clock, and "n" is how I arbitrarily labeled the difference between the measured values, the value measured by the top clock is N-n rotations per tick. Fourth, saying "N=N+n" works fine in some computer languages, when assigning a new value to an existing variable, but it doesn't work at all in physics or mathematics unless at least one of the values is zero. It is meaningless. >> > If that is the case and they are both measuring the >> > same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks >> > must be ticking at the same (coordinate) rate. >> > In other words the clocks have been built >> > differently to compensate for the GR effect >> > like GPS and ground clocks. > > EXACTLY!! GpS clocks are DELIBERATELY constructed (tweaked) > to run differently than ground clocks of identical otherwise > construction. Yes. As you quoted me saying just above, clocks high in a gravitational field gain on clocks deeper in the field, due to the difference in gravitational potential. So in order to make the time signal received from GPS clocks in orbit match the time of clocks on the ground, the GPS clocks in orbit are tweaked to run more slowly than they otherwise would. Since you said nothing about that in setting up the thought experiment in your previous post, I assumed that the two clocks were identical: not different and not adjusted. George made a different assumption, throwing out your earlier requirement that the clocks be identical in order to retain your most recent requirement that the rotational frequency of the axle be the same when measured by the two clocks. > Blind Benny can see that this is to compensate for the error > in c=c+v caused by the motion of the satellites, and the > altered transmission intervals of their signals. Oh? Tell me how you think that works. Exactly what is the error, and exactly how is that error compensated for? >> I took his specification to mean that the clocks are >> identical, not adjusted in any way. That is the only >> way the thought experiment can make sense. >> >> I'm ignoring his phrase "for the two results to be the same" >> since: >> >> 1) It doesn't make any sense to prescribe beforehand what >> the results of an experiment will be, and >> >> 2) He hasn't provided any mechanism to cause the >> measurements by the two clocks to be the same. >> >> > This is another of Jim's self-contradictory questions. > > Nope! The contradiction is in the difference between the > attached top clock to the axle, and the (GPS) one which is > at the same altitude. The thought experiment did not have a clock attached to the top of the axle. You specified that the axle was driven at its bottom. that means that the clock is at the bottom. It may have hands at the top, also, so it can easily be read at that remote location, but the clock which drives those hands is at the bottom, because *you* said so. You set up the thought experiment, but you don't understand it. The thought experiment boils down to this: Two identical, accurate clocks: One at ground level, and one high up. The clock high up gains on the one at ground level. That is essentially all there is to it. What contradiction do you see? The fact that the higher clock gains on the lower one? What do you think that contradicts? Common sense? Of course it contradicts common sense! If general relativity were obvious, it would have been discovered centuries ago. If it had been simple, it wouldn't have required the insight and genius of someone like Einstein to figure it out. Once someone smart figured it out, lots of other smart people quickly learned about it, and more smart people eventually put it to use. You don't like relativity. Since you have the emotional maturity of a four-year-old, you attack it rather than trying to understand it. There is an enormous difference between someone who acts like a four-year-old and someone who acts like an adult. You still haven't answered my question: Which do you think is more likely? 1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to people smarter than you, they still don't see them. or 2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Aug 2005 17:57
On 26 Aug 2005 08:33:00 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Jim Greenfield replied to Jeff Root: > >>> George replied to Jeff: >>> >>> >> Jim Greenfield replied to George Dishman: >>> >... >>> >>> A clock at ground is ticking away, and at the same time >>> >>> counting the revs (frequency); >>> >... >>> >>> another at the top is doing the same, and I maintain >>> >>> that for the two results to be the same under GR: >>> >>> 1) The clocks do NOT tick together >>> > >>> >> That is what GR predicts and measurements show. >>> > >>> > Careful Jeff, the previous line said "for the >>> > two [frequencies] to be the same. >>> >>> Arrrgggh. I deleted several lines after I had already >>> clicked "Preview", because I changed my mind at the last >>> moment about what he probably meant by "the two results". >>> I didn't give it enough thought to see that I needed to >>> replace the lines with more info, not just delete them. >> >> This is bordering on the pathetic! >> You have accused me of being ambiguous and unclear on a >> situation which is perfectly clear, and then be this nonchalant. > >I don't know about "nonchalant". I mucked up because your >expression "the two results" is ambiguous and unclear. What >two results do you mean? Results of what? You still haven't >said! > >Your descriptions of the thought experiment have been anything >but clear. They are *always* incomplete, and usually have >conflicting assumptions. You have changed the experimental >setup back and forth several times without acknowledging that >you are changing anything. It is impossible to know whether >I should reply to what you are saying or what you think you >are saying. > >Even in the post I'm replying to, you introduce yet another >change in the experimental setup without explaining what >you are doing, and use terms without explaining what they >refer to. (Just below.) > >Notice, also, that the correction of my error of omission >did not change my description of the thought experiment, >but merely added to it, to remove an ambiguity. > >The thing I had to do to remove the ambiguity was to explain >that I was ignoring part of your description of the experiment >because it makes no sense. > >>> Here is my updated description: >>> >>> The axle is rotating at constant rate. Identical clocks are >>> at the top and bottom. Counters at top and bottom show the >>> number of rotations. >> >> Here comes your problem!-- you have admitted/claimed previously >> that any clock (position) attached to the axle reads the same >> (no twisting) > >What do you mean "reads the same"? Reads the same as WHAT? >It sounds like all you're saying is what I said in the very >next sentence: > >>> All observers see both ends of the axle turning together >>> as a solid body, not becoming twisted. (After accounting >>> for light travel time lag.) >>> >>> All observers see the clock at the top gain on the clock >>> at the bottom, due to the difference in gravitational >>> potential. >>> >>> The bottom makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. >>> The top makes N rotations per tick of the bottom clock. >>> The bottom makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. >>> The top makes N-n rotations per tick of the top clock. >> >> REMEMBER!!! N=N+n because the two clocks are the SAME ONE > >First, saying "two clocks are the SAME ONE" is completely >meaningless. There may be one clock, or two, or more, but >two clocks are *never* the same clock. > >Second, in your previous post you specified a rotating axle >and two separate clocks. Here, you appear to have reverted >to thinking that the top and bottom of the axle *are* the >clock or clocks. That is not the thought experiment you >described in your previous post, and it is not the thought >experiment I described in my reply. So you appear to be >talking about a different situation now. > >Third, you meant "N-n", not "N+n". You specified counters >at the top and bottom, counting rotations of the axle, so I >used that and derived rotations per clock tick. Since "N" >is how I arbitrarily labled the value measured by the bottom >clock, and "n" is how I arbitrarily labeled the difference >between the measured values, the value measured by the top >clock is N-n rotations per tick. > >Fourth, saying "N=N+n" works fine in some computer languages, >when assigning a new value to an existing variable, but it >doesn't work at all in physics or mathematics unless at least >one of the values is zero. It is meaningless. > >>> > If that is the case and they are both measuring the >>> > same shaft and there is no twist then the clocks >>> > must be ticking at the same (coordinate) rate. >>> > In other words the clocks have been built >>> > differently to compensate for the GR effect >>> > like GPS and ground clocks. >> >> EXACTLY!! GpS clocks are DELIBERATELY constructed (tweaked) >> to run differently than ground clocks of identical otherwise >> construction. > >Yes. As you quoted me saying just above, clocks high in a >gravitational field gain on clocks deeper in the field, due >to the difference in gravitational potential. So in order to >make the time signal received from GPS clocks in orbit match >the time of clocks on the ground, the GPS clocks in orbit are >tweaked to run more slowly than they otherwise would. > >Since you said nothing about that in setting up the thought >experiment in your previous post, I assumed that the two >clocks were identical: not different and not adjusted. >George made a different assumption, throwing out your earlier >requirement that the clocks be identical in order to retain >your most recent requirement that the rotational frequency >of the axle be the same when measured by the two clocks. > >> Blind Benny can see that this is to compensate for the error >> in c=c+v caused by the motion of the satellites, and the >> altered transmission intervals of their signals. > >Oh? Tell me how you think that works. Exactly what is the >error, and exactly how is that error compensated for? > >>> I took his specification to mean that the clocks are >>> identical, not adjusted in any way. That is the only >>> way the thought experiment can make sense. >>> >>> I'm ignoring his phrase "for the two results to be the same" >>> since: >>> >>> 1) It doesn't make any sense to prescribe beforehand what >>> the results of an experiment will be, and >>> >>> 2) He hasn't provided any mechanism to cause the >>> measurements by the two clocks to be the same. >>> >>> > This is another of Jim's self-contradictory questions. >> >> Nope! The contradiction is in the difference between the >> attached top clock to the axle, and the (GPS) one which is >> at the same altitude. > >The thought experiment did not have a clock attached to the >top of the axle. You specified that the axle was driven at >its bottom. that means that the clock is at the bottom. >It may have hands at the top, also, so it can easily be read >at that remote location, but the clock which drives those >hands is at the bottom, because *you* said so. > >You set up the thought experiment, but you don't understand >it. > >The thought experiment boils down to this: > >Two identical, accurate clocks: One at ground level, and one >high up. The clock high up gains on the one at ground level. > >That is essentially all there is to it. What contradiction >do you see? The fact that the higher clock gains on the lower >one? What do you think that contradicts? Common sense? Of >course it contradicts common sense! If general relativity >were obvious, it would have been discovered centuries ago. >If it had been simple, it wouldn't have required the insight >and genius of someone like Einstein to figure it out. Once >someone smart figured it out, lots of other smart people >quickly learned about it, and more smart people eventually >put it to use. > >You don't like relativity. > >Since you have the emotional maturity of a four-year-old, >you attack it rather than trying to understand it. > >There is an enormous difference between someone who acts >like a four-year-old and someone who acts like an adult. > >You still haven't answered my question: > >Which do you think is more likely? > >1) Millions of physicists, engineers, technicians, students, >and interested laymen have failed to notice glaringly obvious >contradictions in relativity over the last 80-some years. >You see the contradictions, but even when you explain them to >people smarter than you, they still don't see them. They will be ridiculed ostracised and lose their jobs if they agree. ......such is the power of indoctrination. > >or > >2) You don't like relativity because it seems wrong. So you >don't want to understand it and don't try to understand it. It is obviously wrong. The whole idea of distorting space to make light speed constant is clearly as stupid as using Earth centricism to describe the universe....yet the latter theory prevailed for many centuries purely through similar religious indoctrination.. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis 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. |