OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: George Dishman on 31 Jul 2005 09:55 <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1122758440.082784.271840(a)g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > George Dishman wrote: >> <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1122504552.598720.177880(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> > George Dishman wrote: >> >> <msadkins04(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1122230472.568432.280050(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > George Dishman wrote: >> >> > >> >> > <irrelevancies snipped> >> >> > >> >> >> Time dilation is directly measured in the Ives-Stilwell >> >> >> experiment without any use of simultaneity. I suggest >> >> >> you look it up. >> >> > >> >> > It isn't, because you can't "measure dilation" in SR without the use >> >> > of >> >> > synchronized clocks, ... >> >> >> >> I suggested you look up the experiment >> >> before commenting. >> >> >> >> George >> > >> > I have. I suggest you try to grasp the basic requirements of >> > measurement processes in SR. >> >> The experiment requires measurement of >> the frequency emitted only, no clock >> synchronisation is involved. >> >> > They may not always be stated explicitly >> > but they are always implied. >> >> No clocks are used in the experiment, >> implied or otherwise, and there is no >> part of the experiment in which any >> attempt is made to synchronise anything. > > Of course clocks are used in the experiment. What do you suppose "time > dilation" refers to? That a clock moving at a velocity v with respect > to a reference system S goes slow by a factor of gamma(SR) compared to > clocks at rest in S. So, first of all, the moving light source is > itself a clock. It is but only its frequency is significant. > Second, the experiment concerns itself with transverse > waves, which means that light is sent out from the source to the > observer at a right angle to the direction of motion of the source. That is not correct, the light travels in the same direction as the motion of the source in this experiment. > Effectively, this involves letting a light source at the origin in S' > pass through the origin of S at time t'=t=0. (This is an ideal > simplification, of course.) > Without the use of synchronized clocks in > each reference frame you cannot do this. You said "What do you suppose 'time dilation' refers to? That a clock moving at a velocity v with respect to a reference system S goes slow by a factor of gamma(SR) compared to clocks at rest in S." That is correct. All that is needed therefore is to compare the frequency when the source is at rest against the frequency of the same source when it is moving - no clock synchronisation needed. You still need to read up on how they did the experiment. > Note that a signal sent out > at a time t'<0 in S' while the source is approaching the observer at > the spatial original of S will be received at a time t=pt' + (-upt')/c > = (1 - u/c)pt'. > > In SR, the very *postulates* of "rest frame" and "moving frame" imply > the existence of synchronized clocks throughout both. All measurement > procedures in SR require the preparation of synchronized clocks. > Experimental abstracts aren't explicit about such matters because they > are fundamental. I don't think you really looked at how the experiment is performed. There are no clocks used other than the ions which emit a characteristic frequency. George
From: George Dishman on 31 Jul 2005 10:40 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:cap6e114ilco03tsofrr2vhup1q23dr7lb(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:34:50 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:2bf5e1tqjdklpcobmvcrck9mkv0nqj1c16(a)4ax.com... > >>>>> If what you say is correct then the OO would count N-n ticks/orbit >>>>> when >>>>> the >>>>> clock was on the ground. >>>> >>>>(I'll consider just the GR part). >>>> >>>>The clock generates N ticks per orbit when it >>>>is on the ground. The GO says that is N ticks >>>>in T seconds giving a rate of R = N/T. The OO >>>>also sees the clock generate N ticks per orbit >>>>of course but in a time of T+t seconds. >>> >>> You have already lost the plot, George. >>> The are no 'seconds' in this experiment. >> >>You keep talking about "time" and "duration" >>and those are measured in seconds (or multiples >>thereof) in physics. > > No George. > The orbit duration is the time standard unit defined as ONE. You cannot define two different values as both being "one unit". What sense would it make to say that GPS satellites and geo-stationary orbits both have a duration of "one unit"? > No 'seconds' are needed. <snip repetition> > In my experiment, the orbit duration has one and only one value, ONE. No Henri, in your experiment there is a satellite which is in orbit past some reference marker. To find out the duration, you then have to make measurements. You are making an assumption that a single value will be obtained by all observers that can be used as a unit. <snip again, we have covered most of what you said repeatedly> >>> George, of course I am assuming something different from SR. >> >>Then your so-called proof only shows that >>"something different" to be incorrect, not >>SR or GR. We call that a strawman. > > A constant orbit duration is a good enough time standard for my > experiment. > I accept that is may change over many years. That is beside the point. Constant for any observer is fine, but you cannot assume it is single valued. The concepts of "constant" and "single valued" are not the same and your attempts to conflate them to hide the flaw in your argument will not succeed. > It is > much more stable than any man made clocks and it can be used by all > observers. Real orbits are nowhere as stable as the clocks, that's why the GPS system constantly transmits updates to the satellite ephemerides. However, in a gedanken we can assume it is perfectly constant. That doesn't solve your problem though, the duration is still not single valued. >>> I'm hardly likely to assume SR corect when I am proving it wrong. >> >>You need to learn some basic logic Henri. > > Like, "SR says A=B so, if A = B then all the equations and predictions of > SR can be derived..so SR must be correct". You mean as you are trying to do with variable star curves? No. Basic logic is this, if you want to test a theory (A) then you set up an experiment and use the theory to predict the outcome (B). If B contradicts the postulates of A then you have falsified the theory. Your gedanken assumes something that contradicts GR so your result is not a proof that GR is wrong, is is simply a restatement of your assumption. You can do the whole thing much more easily by saying "I assume Newton was correct about absolute time, therefore GR is wrong.". You proof has no more content than that. >>>>GR says that a perfectly working clock will >>>>produce ticks at a rate which is a fixed >>>>number per unit of proper time regardless of >>>>all other environmental factors. Proper time >>>>is measured in spacetime in a direction >>>>tangential to the clock's worldline. If the >>>>worldlines of two clocks are not parallel, >>>>it follows that they will show different >>>>readings between a pair of events. >>> >>> Big words...but meaningless drivel. >> >>You asked me to educate you so I did, If the >>big words don't mean anything to you, open a >>textboook and learn how they are defined. > > George, what is a worldline? > It is a straight 'line' in 4D. Not necessarily. > So what? You asked me to tell you what GR said about clocks so I told you, that's what. If you didn't want to be told, you shouldn't have asked. >>> It says that that if two cars take different routes to go from A to B, >>> then >>> their clocks will be different on arrival. >> >>No, it says their odometers will be different, >>but it also says the clocks will differ in >>the Twins Paradox for the same reason. > > ....which makes absolutely no sense...as any 5yo kid will tell you. True, I don't expect a 5 year old to understand non-euclidean geometry, but I had hoped I could treat you as an adult. >>> George, there are NO SECONDS in this experiment. Can you not get that >>> into you head? >>> There is a fixed orbit duration and a couple of 'tick counters'. >> >>"orbit duration" means the number of seconds >>it takes to complete an orbit. The whole of >>physics is meaningless maths until you relate >>the symbols to real-world quantities. > > Orbit duration is ONE UNIT OF TIME. > > A second can be defined as intervals of an orbit ...as is done in the case > of our Earth day. I have news for you Henri, one second hasn't been defined as an interval of an orbit for some time, and the duration of an Earth day has _never_ been defined as a part of an orbit. > You have the cart confused with the horse, George. Your horse is a donkey Henri. >>> The CORRECT 4D distance 'sqrt[ x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2]' is also >>> invariant. >> >>I'll leave you to try it for yourself. Work it >>out for say an arm in the MMX and you will find >>it isn't invariant. Negate the sign on t and you >>will find it is. > > The arm of the MMX is x. It is invariant. You have made a mistake in your calculation. Show your working if you need help. >>>>> In 4D space, the equation is: s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2 >>>> >>>>That is not invariant. >>> >>> Why not. >> >>The glib response would be because x, y and z >>are spatial while t is temporal but that doesn't >>really answer the question. >> >>If you draw two dots on a flat sheet of paper >>then lay a transparent sheet with a grid on it >>over the top, you can read off x and y. Turn >>the grid a bit and you get different values. >>If you calculate s = sqrt(x^2 + y^2) then s >>does not vary as you rotate the grid but if >>you calculate s = sqrt(x^2 - y^2) then s >>varies. The reason why is because a flat sheet >>of paper obeys Euclidean geometry but can you >>tell me what physical property of a flat sheet >>of paper causes it to obey Euclidean geometry, >>I can't? > > I can. > Direction is not absolute. > > If you are sealed in a remote space capsule, x, y and z directions can > only be defined by you. I agree, but why does that result in Euclidean geometry instead of some other variety? Note also, since t must be orthogonal to x, y and z, that means your definition of the spatial axes also defines your time axis. >>For paper sqrt(x^2 + y^2) is invariant but >>sqrt(x^2 - y^2) isn't. > > I think you are becoming quite confused George. Why, that's just Pythagoras. >>>>>>No, for example we never observe the death >>>>>>of Julius Ceasar to be vacationing in the >>>>>>nineteenth century for a few weeks. Events >>>>>>don't move. What we experience as movement >>>>>>is a locus of event in 4D. It does take a >>>>>>bit of a shift in perspective but it is >>>>>>quite sound once you get used to it. >>>>>>>>> We see a 4D representation that changes with TIME. >>>> >>>>Nope, we do not see the coordinates of the >>>>death of Julius Ceasar change with time. >>> >>> These are 'absolute' time coordinates, are they? >> >>The values vary with the coordinate scheme so >>the year of his death would have a different >>numerical value in the another calendar, but >>that number doesn't "change with TIME". > > All you have done is shift the zero and use another time duration standard > unit. > > Even you should know how to convert Joules to BTUs Right, so the coordinates vary with the origin and scale of the axes and are not 'absolute' in that sense, but they also vary with the orientation of the axes - as you said direction is not absolute in space but it is also not absolute in spacetime. However, the interval between two events doesn't vary if you calculate it using the formula I gave earlier. That can be said to be absolute. >>>>The location of Julius Ceasar varied with >>>>time throughout his life, but that is a >>>>3D point that changes with the fourth so >>>>four appears adequate (string theory aside). >>> >>> George, when Ceasar died, other events were occuring throughout the >>> universe at >>> the same instant. >>> 'NOW' here is NOW everywhere. >> >>Wrong again Henri, "now" is the set of >>events which lie on a surface passing through >>the event "now, here" and perpendicular to >>your worldline at that event. > > > George, as you read this message, event are occuring throughout the > whole universe. Of course. > Your 'present' is their 'present'. No Henri, your selection of which events occur simultaneously with your 'now' does not match the set of events which are simultaneously with my 'now'. That's another outdated philosophy that has to be discarded. > Just because you wont see them for maybe thousands of years doesn't alter > that fact. Agreed. >>Being able to >>visualise that is what tells me if someone >>really understands SR because it usually comes >>across in the way people write. I could tell >>you didn't see the world that way long before >>you said this and until you can, you won't >>really start to understand relativity. > > George, I have never really argued with a muslim fanatic but I should > imagine their attitude would be very similar to yours. > "faith is fact, fact is faith!" No Henri, that is your attitude, you still hold to your faith in the Ritzian model even though Sagnac rules it out. My ideas on physics and cosmology are derived from experiment and observation and in the latter case are really quite fluid. The new information coming from current astronomy is changing theories rapidly. > Unfortunately, like any religious fanatic, you cannot appreciate how > nonsenical your belief system appears to the non-indoctrinated. I'm sure non-Euclidean geometry would seem nonsensical to most five year olds too but that doesn't stop the universe being that way. Arthur C. Clark said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." In this case, "Any sufficiently advanced theory is indistinguishable from nonsensical." >>>>>>Henri, nothing you have said has falsified >>>>>>the explanation given by GR which does not >>>>>>involve a physical change. For anyone who >>>>>>doesn't know what I mean by that, the clock >>>>>>produces the same number of ticks per proper >>>>>>second. >>>>> >>>>> You keep saying that.. but you cannot tell me exactly what GR claims. >>>>> >>>>> Spell it out George! >>>> >>>>No Henri, you claimed to understand this so >>>>you spell it out and I'll mark your paper. >>> >>> You explanation either doesn't exist or contains circular logic. >> >>It is no more circular than a proof of >>Pythagoras theorem, only the sign of the >>time dimension is different. > > Hint: GR says the clock doeen't chaneg, TIME does. > > Now, can you enlarge on that? I can correct it, GR doesn't say time changes, you are simply exhibiting your ignorance of GR yet again. I've told you above what it actually says about clocks so I'll leave it to you to do your homework if you want to understand. If you don't want to understand (as you have stated), then there's no point in my explaining again. George
From: Henri Wilson on 31 Jul 2005 18:49 On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:55:58 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:b6rae1lksg8anak0sftqi7ck0mfbgtuf8j(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:51:10 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:mns6e19u5avng3hjrrl43kq3gtl20oqbqd(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:22:28 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> >>>>>Which part of "experimentally verified" did you >>>>>fail to understand? >>>> >>>> George, "if your faith is strong enough, you will find evidence for it >>>> everywhere". >>>> __ Pope John 111. >>> >>>Indeed, like pretending single variable stars >>>are binaries with invisible companions to fit >>>your philosophy while ignoring the unarguable >>>evidence from Sagnac that your model for the >>>propagation of light is wrong. >> >> What happens near Earth and what happens in empty space are totally >> different >> topics. > >The laws of nature are universal by definition >so the way light interacts with particles can >be determined. George do you really think the universe will behave in any way an SRian chooses to define? This is ludicrous! >How it behaves at a macroscopic >level can then be predicted by combining many >such interactions. You are rambling meaninglessly, George. > >>>The people who build radiological equipment >>>don't give a toss about photon models, all >>>they want is an equation that fits the data. >>>That is what experimental physics is about, it >>>is confirmed by reality regardless of belief. >> >> Funny how so many variable stars fit the BaT predictions, eh? > >None so far? You gave me one example but the >distance was wrong and when I corrected that >it didn't match at all. You also didn't have >any scales on the axes so I couldn't confirm >if you had matched the velocity curve before >deriving the intensity curve. > >I haven't seen the results Paul mentioned for >HD80715 but I pointed out to you many months >ago that a non-eclipsing spectroscopic binary >which was not variable was the correct test, >matching variables proves nothing. Paul's >comments suggest your result was what I >expected, the star should be variable but isn't. Andersen has become a useless troll. His brain can no longer accommodate logic or truth. > >> I suppose that isn't experimental evidence though, eh George? > >It is Henri, and what I have seen it again >falsifies your theory. No it doesn't George. > >George > 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: Jeff Root on 31 Jul 2005 22:18 On July 24, 2005, Henri Wilson wrote: > A constant orbit duration is a good enough time standard for > my experiment. I accept that is may change over many years. > That is beside the point. It is much more stable than any man > made clocks and it can be used by all observers. Orbit periods actually change fairly rapidly and unpredictably, even at the altitude of GPS satellites (20,200 km). The constantly-changing directions and distances to the Moon and Sun relative to a satellite orbiting Earth can change the period of a satellite in a roughly 12-hour orbit by more than a second from one orbit to the next. The uneven distribution of mass in the Earth can also change the period of a satellite by more than a second per orbit. Solar light pressure, which is constant while a satellite is in sunlight, and solar wind pressure, which varies greatly from one part of an orbit to another and with the changing level of solar activity, can also change the period by more than a second per orbit. In contrast, cesium and rubidium atomic clocks are accurate to better than one part in 10^15, or less than 0.0000000001 second variation in 12 hours. The period of an orbit can be a useful standard in a thought experiment, but in real experiments, atomic clocks provide a time standard which is more than ten billion times as stable. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Jonathan Silverlight on 1 Aug 2005 05:30
In message <1122862681.200322.25110(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Jeff Root <jeff5(a)freemars.org> writes >On July 24, 2005, Henri Wilson wrote: > >> A constant orbit duration is a good enough time standard for >> my experiment. I accept that is may change over many years. >> That is beside the point. It is much more stable than any man >> made clocks and it can be used by all observers. > >The period of an orbit can be a useful standard in a thought >experiment, but in real experiments, atomic clocks provide a >time standard which is more than ten billion times as stable. AFAIK, the only natural clock which comes close to an atomic clock is a millisecond pulsar <http://www.allanstime.com/Publications/DWA/IONGPS95/> -- Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |