Prev: Definitely Demolition
Next: The weight of a singularity
From: eric gisse on 19 Jul 2010 01:41
colp wrote:


[...]

Why are you posting to sci.physics.* newsgroups?

You should know you understand little about science. So why are you spending
all this effort?


From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 02:10
On Jul 19, 3:20 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 5:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 2:40 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 19, 3:35 pm, Cosmik de Bris
>
> > > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> > > > On 19/07/10 14:55 , colp wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 19, 2:00 pm, Cosmik de Bris
> > > > > <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz>  wrote:
> > > > >> On 19/07/10 12:01 , colp wrote:
>
> > > > >>> On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever"<whoe...(a)whereever.com>    wrote:
> > > > >>>> "colp"  wrote in message
>
> > > > >>>>news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > >>>>> So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong
>
> > > > >>>> I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already.
>
> > > > >>> Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the
> > > > >>> turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right?
>
> > > > >>> The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just lied about
> > > > >>> it instead.
>
> > > > >> Have you ever posted any maths?
>
> > > > > Yes, I have.
>
> > > > 2+2 = 5 doesn't count.
>
> > > Is that the best you've got?
>
> > Its very appropriate analogy .. the 'math' you posted previously is
> > just as wrong as 2+2 = 5
>
> How could you know what maths I was referring to, liar?

I don't lie. I have seen the small amount of maths you posted
regarding the symmetric twins 'paradox'. That was just as wrong as
2+2=5

Again .. you spend your time accusing others of lying and none posting
anything of value.. you're a troll

Now .. do you want me to post a symmetric twins analysis or not ?
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 03:42
On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> colp wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Why are you posting to sci.physics.* newsgroups?

One of the reasons is to identify people such as yourself who make
false accusations while arguing for Einstein's theory of relativity.

You said: "You've already been caught once fabricating quotes about
what papers say,"

I've already asked you twice why you didn't quote what I said. It
should be obvious why you can't.

But back to the real issue. Hafele's description of the Hafele-Keating
experiment is evidence that Einstein's principle of relativity is
fundamentally flawed.

A reason for this is that Hafele doesn't address the crux of the
problem that the experiment is supposed to address:

After the abstract, Hafele starts by saying:

"One of the most enduring scientific debates of this century is the
relativistic clock "paradox" (1) or problem (2), when stemmed
originally from an alleged logical inconsistency in predicted time
differences between traveling and reference clocks after a round
trip".

The clock paradox, aka the twin paradox, is a thought experiment in
special relativity. Of two twin brothers one undertakes a long space
journey with a very high-speed rocket at almost the speed of light,
while the other remains on Earth. When the traveler finally returns to
Earth, it is observed that he is younger than the twin who stayed put.

The paradox arises if one takes the position of the traveling twin:
from his perspective, his brother on Earth is moving away quickly, and
eventually comes close again. So the traveler can regard his brother
on Earth to be a "moving clock" which should experience time dilation.
Special relativity says that there is no preferred frame of reference,
so the traveling twin, upon return to Earth, would expect to find his
brother to be younger than himself, contrary to that brother's
expectations.

In the HK experiment there are two planes, and eastbound one and a
westbound one, which can correspond to the two twins. Or
alternatively, the stay-at-home twin can correspond to one of the
clocks that remained on the ground during the course of the
experiment.

For the paradox to be tested, Hafele should have explored what
relativity predicts for each plane regarding the the time dilation of
the other plane, since this is the crux of the paradox. But Hafele
doesn't do this. Instead he bases his calculations on an absolute
frame of reference in which the Earth rotates.

However, such an approach isn't supported by Einstein's principle of
relativity. Einstein says:

"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium,"
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest."

.... and continues...

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be
called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate"

.... so Einstein's principle of relativity is not upheld by Hafele's
analysis.

An alternate way of describing the paradox is this: special relativity
only describes observed time dilation, but it must also describe
observed time compression in order for paradoxes to be avoided.
Einsteins description of observed time dilation is as follows:

"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which,
viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at
A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its
arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved
from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..."

In the context of the Hafele-Keating experiment, relativity predicts
that each plane should observe the time dilation of the other due to
the relative motion of the two planes. The is of course paradoxical,
and no real experiment could ever confirm these predictions.

The Hafele-Keating experiment did show that time dilation occurred due
to relative motion, but that time dilation only made sense from a
single frame of reference - one that remained stationary with respect
to the rotating Earth.

The upshot of all this is that Einstein's principle of relativity is
fundamentally flawed: there is a preferred frame of reference, despite
Einstein's assertion to the contrary.
From: harald on 19 Jul 2010 04:23
On Jul 19, 2:01 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 10:58 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote:
>
> > "colp"  wrote in message
>
> >news:adf76654-bc48-4c0d-83ed-cf8399415565(a)w35g2000prd.googlegroups.com....
>
> > >So in your world refusing to accept the argument that I am wrong
>
> > I totally accept that you are wrong .. it is well proven already.
>
> Just like Inertial proved that time compensation occurred during the
> turnaround, in order to resolve the symmetric twin paradox, right?

That's very misleading!
Distant "time" changes whenever you make a Lorentz transformation,
just as time flip-flops when you adjust from one country time to that
of another. You can do so whenever you like. And just as it is common
to set your watches when you enter another time zone, it may look
natural to do so when you change speed for a very long time. That's
why it's also called "local" time. It's essential to understand that
according to SRT nothing physical "occurs" to distant time when you do
something like turning around (that would really be magic!), but that
YOUR time definition changes whenever (and ONLY when) you CHOOSE to
select another one.

> The thing is, he never posted his math as proof - he just
> lied about it instead.

A. Are you NOT able to do a Lorentz transformation? Then it's useless
to discuss with you, for it is simple math that you must master in
order to really know what you are talking about.

B. Can you do a Lorentz transformation? Then you should be able to
give that proof to yourself, with a correct understanding of what it
"does".

Success!
Harald

[..]
From: paparios on 19 Jul 2010 04:30
On 19 jul, 03:42, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 5:41 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>

Snip totally wrong assertions about what SR says or does not say...

>
> The Hafele-Keating experiment did show that time dilation occurred due
> to relative motion, but that time dilation only made sense from a
> single frame of reference - one that remained stationary with respect
> to the rotating Earth.
>
> The upshot of all this is that Einstein's principle of relativity is
> fundamentally flawed: there is a preferred frame of reference, despite
> Einstein's assertion to the contrary.

Look and listen if you can. The Hafele-Keating experiment purpose was
to demonstrate that for a very accurate and synchronized group of
atomic clocks, if you take some of them in a tour around the world and
back, then the traveling clocks will be observed to retain their
synchronizity among themselves, but they will no longer synchronized
with respect to the clocks that were left at the lab. This should be
understandable even for a 4 year old child....but of course you are
not in that group since you are a troll.
If you consider the frame of reference of one of the planes, you will
see that, again, at the start of the experiment all of the clocks
(both at the lab and at the planes) are syncronized and, when the
plane return to the airport the clocks, again, are not synchronized.
From the point of view of one guy on the plane, the earth with the
clocks moved (in the opposite direction), and he can calculate the
amount of time in which the plane clocks and the left at ground clocks
should be different. The numbers so calculated and the observed
results agree and they are related to the calculated and observed
results (from the point of view of one guy left at the lab) through
coordinate transformations.
No paradox is in there, no inconsistent is in there. Bottom line is
what it was predicted, using SR and GR, was observed to occur in the
experiment.

Miguel Rios
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Definitely Demolition
Next: The weight of a singularity