Prev: Definitely Demolition
Next: The weight of a singularity
From: Androcles on 19 Jul 2010 04:34

<paparios(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:482cf620-e314-4568-b59f-194ecf1c0b26(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
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...
====================
Mission accomplished.




From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 18:22
On Jul 19, 8:30 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...

It wasn't about what SR says, but about what Hafale said about the
paradox:

"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 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.

There is more to it than that. Relativity predicts specifically what
this loss of synchronicity will be for any local observer and
relatively moving clock. The predictions result in paradoxes, and it
was the issue of paradox that is initially addressed by Hafele:

"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".

> 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.

Sure, call me a troll when you can't address the actual issue.

> 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.

Yes. He can do this from his own frame of reference, or he can do it
from the preferred frame of reference (which Hafele uses).

> 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.

Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of
reference, but Einstein's principle of relativity does not support the
existence of such a frame:

"the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest"

> No paradox is in there, no inconsistent is in there.

No paradox is evident only when you disregard Einstein's principle of
relativity and base your coordinate transforms on the preferred frame
of reference.
From: artful on 19 Jul 2010 19:07
On Jul 20, 8:22 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 8:30 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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...
>
> It wasn't about what SR says, but about what Hafale said about the
> paradox:
>
> "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".

So .. they tested whether time dilation happened as predicted by
relativity happens .. and it does.

> > > 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.
>
> There is more to it than that. Relativity predicts specifically what
> this loss of synchronicity will be for any local observer and
> relatively moving clock.

And inertial observer .. yes.

It also gives the same result no matter what frame of reference you
use for a valid SR analysis.

> The predictions result in paradoxes,

And that is where you are wrong. You've not shown ANY paradox. You
keep making incorrect claims about what you think SR says.

> and it
> was the issue of paradox that is initially addressed by Hafele:

There is no 'paradox' .. just a non-intuitive results and a predicted
'inconsistency' in what clocks read (ie not showing the same time when
they reunite)

> "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".

And that agrees with what I just said. Note the "quotes" around
"paradox". It also says there is an inconsistency (ie different
reading) for what the clocks show when reunited.

> > 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.
>
> Sure, call me a troll when you can't address the actual issue.

You are the one making the same claim over and over and rejecting your
burden of proof.

> > 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.
>
> Yes. He can do this from his own frame of reference, or he can do it
> from the preferred frame of reference (which Hafele uses).

There is NO "preferred frame" in the physics sense. Only preferred in
the sense that they prefer to do the calculations in that frame
because it is simpler math. One usually does the math for an
experiment in the lab frame and not some arbitrary other frame .. but
that doesn't means the laboratory frame is some special 'preferred
frame'

> > 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.
>
> Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of
> reference,

Wrong

> but Einstein's principle of relativity does not support the
> existence of such a frame:

That's right.

> "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
> properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest"

That's right. No preferred frame in SR.

> > No paradox is in there, no inconsistent is in there.
>
> No paradox is evident only when you disregard Einstein's principle of
> relativity and base your coordinate transforms on the preferred frame
> of reference.

Wrong.

Why do you continue to lie?

From: eric gisse on 19 Jul 2010 13:59
colp wrote:
[...]

> Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of
> reference
[...]

How stupid can you get? Jeeze...

From: colp on 20 Jul 2010 00:09
On Jul 20, 5:59 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> colp wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Those coordinate transforms rely on using the preferred frame of
> > reference
>
> [...]
>
> How stupid can you get? Jeeze...

How stupid is someone who can't back up their accusations?

"You've already been caught once fabricating quotes about what papers
say," ~ Eric Gisse
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Definitely Demolition
Next: The weight of a singularity